4.6 Article

A Combined Experimental-Computational Investigation of Methane Adsorption and Selectivity in a Series of Isoreticular Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 117, 期 20, 页码 10326-10335

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp3096192

关键词

-

资金

  1. Molecularly Engineered Energy Materials, an Energy Frontier Research Center
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001342]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF) materials have received considerable attention recently due to their potential as materials for gas separation applications. In this work, we study, both experimentally and with molecular modeling, methane adsorption in a series of five ZIFs (ZIF-25, -71, -93, -96, and -97) that share a common structural topology (RHO), but differ in imidazolate functionalization. Such a series allows for the direct assessment of the role that functionalization plays in determining methane adsorption. Experimental measurements of methane adsorption up to 1 bar at various temperatures are well reproduced by molecular simulations, which are further used to examine adsorption up to higher pressures of 80 bar, and to analyze the preferred binding sites within the structure. We find that CH4 uptake in these ZIFs is roughly proportional to the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area, in contrast to our earlier work on the adsorption of CO2 for this series [J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 11006], which showed a significant enhancement of CO2 adsorption, due to electrostatic effects, in asymmetrically functionalized ZIFs (ZIF-93, -96, -97) over those with symmetric functionalization (ZIF-25, -71). Furthermore, the ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST) is used to predict selectivity of CO2 over CH4 in these RHO ZIFs by fitting CH4 adsorption measurements in this work and the CO2 experimental isotherms from our earlier work [J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 11006].

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据