4.7 Article

Metal-organic frameworks with high working capacities and cyclic hydrothermal stabilities for fresh water production

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 286, 期 -, 页码 467-475

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.10.098

关键词

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs); Water adsorption; Working capacity; Cyclic adsorption; Hydrothermal stability

资金

  1. Technology Innovation Program - Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MI, Korea) [10048649]
  2. Pioneer Research Center Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [NRF-2010-0019531]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we evaluated the working capacities of eight hydrothermally stable metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for water adsorption under typical humidity conditions in three representative dry regions. Remarkably, three MIL-100(M) materials (M = Cr, Al, and Fe) and MIL-101(Cr) exhibited very high working capacities for medium and high humidity conditions due to their large surface areas. All of the MOFs consisting of only M-III sites (MIL-101(Cr), MIL-100(Cr), and MIL-100(Al)) showed good cyclic water adsorption/desorption performances and good hydrothermal stabilities. Due to the presence of Fe-II sites formed during activation at 250 degrees C, MIL-100(Fe) showed a considerable decrease in its water adsorption isotherm during the 2nd cycle although almost unchanged water uptakes were observed in the following cycles. When MIL-100(Fe) was activated at 150 degrees C (MIL-100(Fe)_150) to prevent formation of Fen sites, the sample showed good cyclic adsorption/desorption performance and good hydrothermal stability. Considering the high working capacities, cyclic adsorption/desorption behaviors, and good hydrothermal stabilities, MIL-101(Cr), MIL-100(Cr), MIL-100(AI) and MIL-100(Fe)_150 are promising adsorbents for producing drinking water in dry regions with medium or high humidity conditions during the night. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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