Assessment of density functional approximations for N2 and CO2 physisorption on benzene and graphene
Open accessAbstract
Experimental isotherms of N 2 and CO 2 on carbon‐based porous materials and models of the physisorption of gases on surfaces are used to obtain the pore size distribution (PSD). An accurate modelization of the physisorption of N 2 and CO 2 on the surface of carbon‐based porous materials is important to obtain accurate N 2 and CO 2 storage capacities and reliable PSDs. Physisorption depends on the dispersion interactions. High precision ab initio methods, such as CCSD(T), consider accurately the dispersion interactions, but they are computationally expensive. Double hybrid, hybrid and DFT‐based methods are much less expensive. In the case of graphene, there are experimental data of the adsorption of N 2 and CO 2 on graphite that can be used to build the Steele interaction potential of these gases on graphene. The goal is to find out hybrid and/or DFT methods that are as accurate as the CCSD(T) on benzene and as accurate as the experimental results on graphene. Calculations of the interaction energy curves of N 2 and CO 2 on benzene and graphene have been carried out using the CCSD(T) method and several double hybrid, hybrid, and DFT methods that consider the dispersion interactions. The energy curves on benzene have been compared to the CCSD(T) and the energy curves on graphene have been compared with the Steele energy curves. The comparisons indicate that double hybrids with dispersion corrections and ω B97 based DFT methods are accurate enough for benzene. For graphene, only the PBE‐XDM functional has a good agreement with the Steele energy curves.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- [1]N. A. Seaton, J. P. R. B. Walton, N. Quirke, Carbon 1989, 27, 853.
- [2]J. P. Olivier, W. B. Conklin, M. V. Szombathely, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal. 1994, 87, 81.
- [3]C. Lastoskie, K. E. Gubbins, N. Quirke, J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 4786.
- [4]U. M. B. M. P. Tarazona, R. Evans, Mol. Phys. 1987, 60, 573.
- [6]A. V. Neimark, Y. Lin, P. I. Ravikovitch, M. Thommes, Carbon 2009, 47, 1617.
- [7]J. Jagiello, J. P. Olivier, Carbon 2013, 55, 70.
- [8]J. Jagiello, J. P. Olivier, J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 19382.
- [9]M. Konstantakou, S. Samios, T. A. Steriotis, M. Kainourgiakis, G. Papadopoulos, E. Kikkinides, A. Stubos, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal. 2007, 160, 543.
- [10]P. I. Ravikovitch, A. Vishnyakov, R. Russo, A. V. Neimark, Langmuir 2000, 16, 2311.
- [11]M. V. López‐Ramón, J. Jagiello, T. J. Bandosz, N. A. Seaton, Langmuir 1997, 13, 4435.
- [12]J. E. Lennard‐Jones, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 1924, 106, 463.
- [13]W. A. Steele, Surf. Sci. 1973, 36, 317.
- [14]S. Samios, A. K. Stubos, N. K. Kanellopoulos, R. F. Cracknell, G. K. Papadopoulos, D. Nicholson, Langmuir 1997, 13, 2795.
- [17]S. F. Boys, F. Bernardi, Mol. Phys. 1970, 19, 553.
- [18]T. H. Dunning Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90, 1007.
- [19]R. A. Kendall, T. H. Dunning Jr, R. J. Harrison, J. Chem. Phys. 1992, 96, 6796.
- [20]D. E. Woon, T. H. Dunning Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 1993, 98, 1358.
- [21]K. A. Peterson, D. E. Woon, T. H. Dunning Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 7410.
- [22]E. R. Davidson, Chem. Phys. Lett. 1996, 260, 514.
- [23]G. Vidali, G. Ihm, Y.‐J. Kim, M. W. Cole, Surf. Sci. Rep. 1991, 12, 133.
- [25]L. S. Tee, S. Gotoh, W. E. Stewart, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1966, 5, 356.
- [26]L. Prasetyo, S. Tan, Y. Zeng, D. D. Do, D. Nicholson, J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 146, 184702.
- [27]J. Zhou, W. Wang, Langmuir 2000, 16, 8063.
- [30]H. M. Jaeger, H. Schaefer, C. E. Dykstra, J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2009, 895, 168.
- [31]D. G. A. Smith, K. Patkowski, J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 4934.
- Authors
- Rayón, V. M., & Cabria, I.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Cabria, Iván
- Venue
- Journal of Computational Chemistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-06-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1403-1419
- ISSN
- 0192-8651 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-987X
- PMC
- PMC9328377
- OpenAlex
- W4281721045
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Computational Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Junta de Castilla y León (VA124G18)
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PGC2018‐093745‐B‐I00, PID2020‐117742GB‐I00)
- Universidad de Valladolid
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Adsorption, diffusion, and thermodynamic properties of materials
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Hydrogen Storage and Materials
- Keywords
- density functional approximations, CO2 physisorption, benzene, graphene, pore size distribution, dispersion interactions, double-hybrid functionals, hybrid functionals, CCSD(T) comparison, gas adsorption isotherms, gas storage
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review