4.8 Article

Prediction of MOF Performance in Vacuum Swing Adsorption Systems for Postcombustion CO2 Capture Based on Integrated Molecular Simulations, Process Optimizations, and Machine Learning Models

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 7, Pages 4536-4544

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07407

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canada First Excellence Research Fund through the University of Alberta Future Energy Systems

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Postcombustion CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is a key technological approach to reducing greenhouse gas emission while we transition to carbon-free energy production. However, current solvent-based CO2 capture processes are considered too energetically expensive for widespread deployment. Vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) is a low-energy CCS that has the potential for industrial implementation if the right sorbents can be found. Metal-organic framework (MOF) materials are often promoted as sorbents for low-energy CCS by highlighting select adsorption properties without a clear understanding of how they perform in real-world VSA processes. In this work, atomistic simulations have been fully integrated with a detailed VSA simulator, validated at the pilot scale, to screen 1632 experimentally characterized MOFs. A total of 482 materials were found to meet the 95% CO2 purity and 90% CO2 recovery targets (95/90-PRTs)-365 of which have parasitic energies below that of solvent-based capture (similar to 290 kWh(e)/MT CO2) with a low value of 217 kWh(e)/MT CO2. Machine learning models were developed using common adsorption metrics to predict a material's ability to meet the 95/90-PRT with an overall prediction accuracy of 91%. It was found that accurate parasitic energy and productivity estimates of a VSA process require full process simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available