4.6 Article

Limitations and high pressure behavior of MOF-5 for CO2 capture

Journal

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 15, Issue 34, Pages 14319-14327

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3cp51768c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [4.0007357, 2011-0014939, 2012K2A1A2033178]
  2. Korean government (MEST)
  3. NPRP from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation) [5-499-1-088]
  4. Korea CCS RD Center
  5. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of Korean government
  6. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  7. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2013R1A1A1012998]
  8. IWT [NRF-2012-C1AAA001-M1A2A2026588]
  9. KAIST EEWS Initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Porous network structures (e. g. metal-organic frameworks, MOFs) show considerable potential in dethroning monoethanol amine (MEA) from being the dominant scrubber for CO2 at the fossil-fuel-burning power generators. In contrast to their promise, structural stability and high-pressure behavior of MOFs are not well documented. We herein report moisture stability, mechanical properties and high-pressure compression on a model MOF structure, MOF-5. Our results show that MOF-5 can endure all tested pressures (0-225 bar) without losing its structural integrity, however, its moist air stability points at a 3.5 hour safety window (at 21.6 degrees C and 49% humidity) for an efficient CO2 capture. Isosteric heats of CO2 adsorption at high pressures show moderate interaction energy between CO2 molecules and the MOF-5 sorbent, which combined with the large sorption ability of MOF-5 in the studied pressure-temperature ranges show the viability of this sorbent for CO2 capturing purposes. The combination of the physicochemical methods we used suggests a generalized analytical standard for measuring viability in CO2 capture operations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available