The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methane Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Current Records, Surprise Findings, and Challenges
Abstract
We have examined the methane uptake properties of six of the most promising metal organic framework (MOF) materials: PCN-14, UTSA-20, HKUST-1, Ni-MOF-74 (Ni-CPO-27), NU-111, and NU-125. We discovered that HKUST-1, a material that is commercially available in gram scale, exhibits a room-temperature volumetric methane uptake that exceeds any value reported to date. The total uptake is about 230 cc(STP)/cc at 35 bar and 270 cc(STP)/cc at 65 bar, which meets the new volumetric target recently set by the Department of Energy (DOE) if the packing efficiency loss is ignored. We emphasize that MOFs with high surface areas and pore volumes perform better overall. NU-111, for example, reaches ~75% of both the gravimetric and the volumetric targets. We find that values for gravimetric uptake, pore volume, and inverse density of the MOFs we studied scale essentially linearly with surface area. From this linear dependence, we estimate that a MOF with surface area 7500 m(2)/g and pore volume 3.2 cc/g could reach the current DOE gravimetric target of 0.5 g/g while simultaneously exhibiting around ~200 cc/cc volumetric uptake. We note that while values for volumetric uptake are based on ideal single crystal densities, in reality the packing densities of MOFs are much lower. Finally, we show that compacting HKUST-1 into wafer shapes partially collapses the framework, decreasing both volumetric and gravimetric uptake significantly. Hence, one of the important challenges going forward is to find ways to pack MOFs efficiently without serious damage or to synthesize MOFs that can withstand substantial mechanical pressure.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Horike, S., Shimomura, S., & Kitagawa, S. (2009) · Nature Chemistry · doi:10.1038/nchem.444 · Cited by 2,486
Cited by
Kökçam-Demir, Ü., Goldman, A., Esrafili, L., Gharib, M., Morsali, A., Weingart, O., & Janiak, C. (2020) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c9cs00609e · Cited by 895
Metal–organic frameworks based on flexible ligands (FL-MOFs): structures and applications
Lin, Z.-J., Lü, J., Hong, M., & Cao, R. (2014) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c3cs60483g · Cited by 874
Metal–organic framework gels and monoliths
Hou, J., Sapnik, A. F., & Bennett, T. D. (2020) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/c9sc04961d · Cited by 331
Saha, D., Grappe, H. A., Chakraborty, A., & Orkoulas, G. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00745 · Cited by 316
Energy-based descriptors to rapidly predict hydrogen storage in metal–organic frameworks
Bucior, B. J., Bobbitt, N. S., Islamoglu, T., Goswami, S., Gopalan, A., Yildirim, T., Farha, O. K., Bagheri, N., & Snurr, R. Q. (2019) · Molecular Systems Design & Engineering · doi:10.1039/c8me00050f · Cited by 308
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Peng, Y., Krungleviciute, V., Eryazici, I., Hupp, J. T., Farha, O. K., & Yildirim, T.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Chemical Society
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2013-07-26
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 32
- Pages
- 11887-11894
- ISSN
- 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5126
- OpenAlex
- W2027788760
- Cited by
- 1,018
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.