4.8 Article

Thermodynamic analysis of Xe/Kr selectivity in over 137 000 hypothetical metal-organic frameworks

期刊

CHEMICAL SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 7, 页码 2217-2223

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2sc01097f

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DEFG02-08ER15967]
  2. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-09-1-0007]
  3. Initiative for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern
  4. Northwestern University International Institute for Nanotechnology
  5. Walter P. Murphy Fellowship
  6. Royal E. Cabell Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are porous crystals with the potential to improve many industrial gas separation processes. Because there is a practically unlimited number of different MOFs, which vary in their pore geometry and chemical composition, it is challenging to find the best MOF for a given application. Here, we applied high-throughput computational methods to rapidly explore thousands of possible MOFs, given a library of starting materials, in the context of Xe/Kr separation. We generated over 137 000 structurally diverse hypothetical MOFs from a library of chemical building blocks and screened them for Xe/Kr separation. For each MOF, we calculated geometric properties via Delaunay tessellation and predicted thermodynamic Xe/Kr adsorption behavior via multicomponent grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations. Specifically, we calculated the pore limiting diameter, largest cavity diameter, accessible void volume, as well as xenon and krypton adsorption at 1.0, 5.0 and 10 bar at 273 K. From these data we show that MOFs with pores just large enough to fit a single xenon atom, and having morphologies resembling tubes of uniform width, are ideal for Xe/Kr separation. Finally, we compare our generated MOFs to several known structures (IRMOF-1, HKUST-1, ZIF-8, Pd-MOF, & MOF-505) and conclude that significantly improved materials remain to be synthesized. All crystal structure files are freely available for download and browsing in an online database.

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