4.7 Article

Applicability of using CO2 adsorption isotherms to determine BET surface areas of microporous materials

Journal

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
Volume 224, Issue -, Pages 294-301

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2016.01.003

Keywords

BET surface area; Microporous material; Metal-organic framework (MOF); Zeolite

Funding

  1. In-house Research and Development Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) [B5-2444, B5-2603]
  2. Technology Innovation Program - Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MI, Korea) [10048649]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While nitrogen and argon isotherms at their respective boiling points are commonly used for the BET analysis of porous materials, CO2 isotherms at 273 K have been suggested as an alternative option for materials containing very small pores in which nitrogen and argon molecules cannot access at cryogenic temperatures. However, it has been known that the BET surface areas obtained from CO2 isotherms are not really meaningful in an absolute sense due to the strong CO2-CO2 interaction. In this study, CO2 isotherms in metal organic frameworks (MOFs) and zeolites were predicted by grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations and used to evaluate the BET analysis for these materials. For all the micro porous materials with varied pore sizes, the BET surface areas calculated from the simulated CO2 isotherms agreed roughly with their geometric surface areas from the crystal structures. Moreover, a clear selection of a proper BET linear region was possible for the material possessing only ultra-micropores. These results indicate that the BET surface areas determined from CO2 isotherms at 273 K may be considered reasonable for adsorbents containing only ultra-micropores where the BET surface areas based on N-2 or Ar isotherms at cryogenic temperatures are not available. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available