4.8 Article

Large-Scale Screening of Zeolite Structures for CO2 Membrane Separations

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 135, 期 20, 页码 7545-7552

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ja400267g

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SPP 1570]
  4. Center for Gas Separations Relevant to Clean Energy Technologies, an Energy Frontier Research Center
  5. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have conducted large-scale screening of zeolite materials for CO2/CH4 and CO2/N-2 membrane separation applications using the free energy landscape of the guest molecules inside these porous materials. We show how advanced molecular simulations can be integrated with the design of a simple separation process to arrive at a metric to rank performance of over 87 000 different zeolite structures, including the known IZA zeolite structures. Our novel, efficient algorithm using graphics processing units can accurately characterize both the adsorption and diffusion properties of a given structure in just a few seconds and accordingly find a set of optimal structures for different desired purity of separated gases from a large database of porous materials in reasonable wall time. Our analysis reveals that the optimal structures for separations usually consist of channels with adsorption sites spread relatively uniformly across the entire channel such that they feature well-balanced CO2 adsorption and diffusion properties. Our screening also shows that the top structures in the predicted zeolite database outperform the best known zeolite by a factor of 4-7. Finally, we have identified a completely different optimal set of zeolite structures that are suitable for an inverse process, in which the CO2 is retained while CH4 or N-2 is passed through a membrane.

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