Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Theoretical Limits of Hydrogen Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Opportunities and Trade-Offs

Open access
Goldsmith, Jacob, Wong-Foy, Antek G., Cafarella, Michael J., Siegel, Donald J.·2013·Chemistry of Materials

Abstract

Abstract Because of their high surface areas, crystallinity, and tunable properties, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have attracted intense interest as next-generation materials for gas capture and storage. While much effort has been devoted to the discovery of new MOFs, a vast catalog of existing MOFs resides within the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD), many of whose gas uptake properties have not been assessed. Here we employ data mining and automated structure analysis to identify, “cleanup,” and rapidly predict the hydrogen storage properties of these compounds. Approximately 20 000 candidate compounds were generated from the CSD using an algorithm that removes solvent/guest molecules. These compounds were then characterized with respect to their surface area and porosity. Employing the empirical relationship between excess H2 uptake and surface area, we predict the theoretical total hydrogen storage capacity for the subset of ∼4000 compounds exhibiting nontrivial internal porosity. Our screening identifies several overlooked compounds having high theoretical capacities; these compounds are suggested as targets of opportunity for additional experimental characterization. More importantly, screening reveals that the relationship between gravimetric and volumetric H2 density is concave downward, with maximal volumetric performance occurring for surface areas of 3100–4800 m2/g. We conclude that H2 storage in MOFs will not benefit from further improvements in surface area alone. Rather, discovery efforts should aim to achieve moderate mass densities and surface areas simultaneously, while ensuring framework stability upon solvent removal.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/cm401978e

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Goldsmith, J., Wong-Foy, A. G., Cafarella, M. J., & Siegel, D. J.
Venue
Chemistry of Materials
Published
2013-08-13
Volume
25
Issue
16
Pages
3373-3382
ISSN
  • 0897-4756 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5002
OpenAlex
W2326957997
Cited by
277
References
3
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theoretical Limits of Hydrogen Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Opportunities and Trade-Offs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/cm401978e
The paper
Goldsmith, J., Wong-Foy, A. G., Cafarella, M. J., & Siegel, D. J. (2013). Theoretical Limits of Hydrogen Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Opportunities and Trade-Offs. Chemistry of Materials. https://doi.org/10.1021/cm401978e

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.