The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Molecular Simulation Study of CO2/N2 and CH4/N2 Separation in Zeolites and Metal−Organic Frameworks
Open accessAbstract
In this work, a systematic molecular simulation study was performed to compare the separation of CO2/N2 and CH4/N2 mixtures in two different classes of nanoporous materials, zeolites, and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). For this purpose, three zeolites (MFI, LTA, and DDR) and seven MOFs (Cu-BTC, MIL-47 (V), IRMOF-1, IRMOF-12, IRMOF-14, IRMOF-11, and IRMOF-13) were chosen as the representatives to compare. On the basis of the validated force fields, both adsorption selectivity and pure CO2 and CH4 adsorption isotherms were simulated. The results show that although MOFs perform much better for gas storage, their separation performance is comparable to zeolites; for the systems with the preferable component having a larger quadrupolar moment, both zeolites and MOFs can enhance the separation selectivity, and in contrast they both reduce the selectivity. In addition, we show that ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST) gives a very reasonable prediction of the mixture adsorption isotherms both in zeolites and in MOFs if the pure component isotherms are known. We demonstrate that the difference in quadrupolar moment of the components is an important property that has to be considered in the selection of a membrane material.
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
Vlugt, T. J. H., & Schenk, M. (2002) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp0263931 · Cited by 207
Cited by
Carbon Dioxide Capture: Prospects for New Materials
D'Alessandro, D. M., Smit, B., & Long, J. R. (2010) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201000431 · Cited by 4,046
Self-citationCO2 Capture and Separations Using MOFs: Computational and Experimental Studies
Yu, J., Xie, L.-H., Li, J.-R., Ma, Y., Seminario, J. M., & Balbuena, P. B. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00626 · Cited by 1,047
Robust Ultramicroporous Metal–Organic Frameworks with Benchmark Affinity for Acetylene
Peng, Y., Pham, T., Li, P., Wang, T., Chen, Y., Chen, K., Forrest, K. A., Space, B., Cheng, P., Zaworotko, M. J., et al. (2018) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201806732 · Cited by 490
Yuan, B., Wu, X., Chen, Y., Huang, J., Luo, H., & Deng, S. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es4000643 · Cited by 305
Sorbents for CO2 capture from flue gas—aspects from materials and theoretical chemistry
Hedin, N., Chen, L., & Laaksonen, A. (2010) · Nanoscale · doi:10.1039/c0nr00042f · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, B., & Smit, B.
- Venue
- Langmuir
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-04-21
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 5918-5926
- ISSN
- 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5827
- OpenAlex
- W2005044960
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.