4.8 Article

Hydrogen Storage in High Surface Area Carbons: Experimental Demonstration of the Effects of Nitrogen Doping

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 131, 期 45, 页码 16493-16499

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja9054838

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/F01001X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F01001X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of nitrogen doping on the hydrogen uptake and storage capacity of high surface area carbon materials is presented in this report. To generate suitable study materials, we have exploited the relationship between synthesis conditions and textural properties of zeolite-templated carbons to generate a range of high surface area carbons with similar pore size distribution but which are either N-doped or N-free. For N-doped carbons, the nitrogen content was kept within a narrow range of between 4.7 and 7.7 wt %. The carbon materials, irrespective of whether they were doped or not, exhibited high surface area (1900-3700 m(2)/g) and pore volume (0.99 and 1.88 cm(3)/g), a micropore surface area of 1500-2800 m(2)/g, and a micropore volume of 0.65-1.24 cm(3)/g. The hydrogen uptake varied between 4.1 and 6.9 wt %. We present experimental data that indicates that the effect of N-doping on hydrogen uptake is only apparent when related to the surface area and pore volume associated with micropores rather than total porosity. Furthermore, by considering the isosteric heat of hydrogen adsorption and excess hydrogen uptake on N-free or N-doped carbons, it is shown that N-doping can be beneficial at lower coverage (low hydrogen uptake) but is detrimental at higher coverage (higher hydrogen uptake). The findings are consistent with previous theoretical predictions on the effect of N-doping of carbon on hydrogen uptake. The findings, therefore, add new insights that are useful for the development of carbon materials with enhanced hydrogen storage capacity.

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

4.8
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