The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CNT@Cu3(BTC)2 and Metal–Organic Frameworks for Separation of CO2/CH4 Mixture
Abstract
Effectively separating CO 2 from the natural gas, which is one of alternative “friendly” fuels, is a very important issue. A hybrid material CNT@Cu 3 (BTC) 2 has been prepared to separate CO 2 from the CO 2 /CH 4 mixture. For comparison of separation efficiency, a series of representative metal–organic frameworks (MOF-177, UMCM-1, ZIF-8, MIL-53 (Al), and Cu 3 (BTC) 2 ) have also been synthesized by the solvothermal method. Adsorption isotherms of CO 2 and CH 4 pure gases are measured by Hiden Isochema Intelligent Gravimetric Analyzer (IGA-003). The dual-site Langmuir–Freundlich (DSLF)-based ideal adsorption solution theory (IAST) is used to predict adsorption of each component in the CO 2 /CH 4 mixture. The IAST-predicted results show that the hybrid material CNT@Cu 3 (BTC) 2 exhibits the greatest selectivity among the six materials, and its selectivity keeps in the range of 5.5 to 7.0 for equimolar CO 2 /CH 4 mixture at 1 < p < 20 bar, which is higher than activated carbons. Moreover, the selectivity of CNT@Cu 3 (BTC) 2 for the CO 2 /CH 4 mixture keeps almost no change with the composition of CH 4, which is one of the excellent properties as a promising separation material. In short, this hybrid material CNT@Cu 3 (BTC) 2 shows great potential in separation and purification of CO 2 from various CO 2 /CH 4 mixtures by adsorptive processes in important industrial systems.
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
Millward, A. R., & Yaghi, O. M. (2005) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja0570032 · Cited by 2,876
Metal-organic frameworks with high capacity and selectivity for harmful gases
Britt, D., Tranchemontagne, D., & Yaghi, O. M. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0804900105 · Cited by 958
Cited by
Porous covalent–organic materials: synthesis, clean energy application and design
Xiang, Z., & Cao, D. (2013) · J. Mater. Chem. A · doi:10.1039/c2ta00063f · Cited by 351
Self-citationYuan, B., Wu, X., Chen, Y., Huang, J., Luo, H., & Deng, S. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es4000643 · Cited by 305
Maghsoudi, H., Soltanieh, M., Bozorgzadeh, H., & Mohamadalizadeh, A. (2013) · Adsorption · doi:10.1007/s10450-013-9528-1 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Xiang, Z., Peng, X., Cheng, X., Li, X., & Cao, D.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-09-16
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 40
- Pages
- 19864-19871
- ISSN
- 1932-7447 (ISSN-L)
- 1932-7455
- OpenAlex
- W2335061220
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.91
- 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.
