4.7 Article

Comparative Evaluation of Different MOF and Non-MOF Porous Materials for SO2 Adsorption and Separation Showing the Importance of Small Pore Diameters for Low-Pressure Uptake

期刊

ADVANCED SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adsu.202000285

关键词

active carbon; adsorption; metal-organic frameworks; MOFs; porous materials; sulfur dioxide; zeolites

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The search for adsorbents for flue gas desulfurization processes is a current interest. The experimental study found that microporous materials with pore sizes in the range of 4-8 angstrom or with nitrogen heterocycles are optimal for SO2 uptake in the low-pressure range. Zeolite Y and SAPO-34 were found to be stable toward humid SO2, and Zeolite Y and CTF-1(600) showed the most promising SO2/CO2 selectivity results.
The search for adsorbents for flue gas desulfurization processes is a current interest. For the first time, a comparative experimental study of SO2 adsorption by porous materials including the prototypical metal-organic frameworks NH2-MIL-101(Cr), Basolite F300 (Fe-1,3,5-BTC), HKUST-1 (Cu-BTC), the zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIF)-8, ZIF-67, the alumosilicate Zeolite Y, the silicoaluminumphosphate (SAPO)-34, Silica gel 60, the covalent triazine framework (CTF)-1, and the active carbon Ketjenblack is carried out. Microporous materials with pore sizes in the range of 4-8 angstrom or with nitrogen heterocycles are found to be optimal for SO2 uptake in the low-pressure range. The SO2 uptake capacity at 1 bar correlates with the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller-surface area and pore volume rather independently of the surface microstructure. Zeolite Y and SAPO-34 are stable toward humid SO2. The materials Zeolite Y and CTF-1(600) show the most promising SO2/CO2 selectivity results with an ideal adsorbed solution theory selectivity in the range of 265-149 and 63-43 with a mole fraction of 0.01-0.5 SO2, respectively, at 293 K and 1 bar.

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