4.7 Review

Methodologies for screening and selection of crystalline microporous materials in mixture separations

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 281-300

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.056

关键词

Screening metrics; Adsorption selectivity; Uptake capacity; Diffusion selectivity; Membranes; PSA units

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ordered crystalline microporous materials such as zeolites, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), and zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs) offer considerable potential for separating a wide variety of mixtures. There are basically two different separation technologies that can be employed: (1) pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit with a fixed bed of adsorbent particles, and (2) membrane device, wherein the mixture is allowed to permeate through thin micro-porous crystalline layers. The fundamental physico-chemical principles underlying the separations in these two devices are fundamentally different. In fixed bed adsorbers, diffusional effects are usually undesirable because these tend to produce distended breakthroughs and diminished productivities. For membrane separations, both intra-crystalline diffusion and mixture adsorption equilibrium determine permeation selectivities, and diffusion selectivities are often the primary drivers for separations. Using Configurational-Bias Monte Carlo (CBMC) simulations of mixture adsorption equilibrium, and Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations of guest diffusivities in a wide number of guest/host combinations, we demonstrate that adsorption and diffusion do not, in general, proceed hand-in-hand. Strong adsorption often implies lowered mobility. Consequently, the best material for use in fixed bed adsorbers does not always coincide with the ideal choice for use as thin layers in membrane devices. Methodologies for screening micro porous materials for use in fixed-bed units and membrane devices are discussed using a large number of examples of industrially important separations.

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