4.4 Article

High-throughput computational screening of nanoporous adsorbents for CO2 capture from natural gas

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS DESIGN & ENGINEERING
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 175-188

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6me00043f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Gas Separations Relevant to Clean Energy Technologies
  2. Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001015]
  3. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) through the thematic network ACalNet
  4. Research Council of Norway through a PostDoctoral Fellowship [230534]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the growth of natural gas as an energy source, upgrading CO2-contaminated supplies has become increasingly important. Here we develop a single metric that captures how well an adsorbent performs the separation of CH4 and CO2, and we then use this metric to computationally screen tens of thousands of allsilica zeolites. We show that the most important predictors of separation performance are the CO2 heat of adsorption (Q(st,CO2)) and the CO2 saturation loading capacity. We find that a higher-performing material results when the absolute value of the CH4 heat of adsorption (Q(st,CH4)) is decreased independently of Q(st,CO2), but a correlation that exists between Q(st,CH4) and Q(st,CO2) in all-silica zeolites leads to incongruity between the objectives of optimizing Q(st,CO2) and minimizing Q(st,CH4), rendering Q(st,CH4) nonpredictive of separation performance. We also conduct a large-scale analysis of ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST) by comparing results obtained using directly-generated mixture isotherms to those obtained using IAST; IAST appears adequate for the purposes of establishing performance trends and structure-property relationships in a high-throughput manner, but it must be tested for validity when analyzing individual adsorbents in detail since it can produce significant errors for materials in which there is site segregation of the adsorbate species.

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

4.4
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