The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Doping of Alkali, Alkaline-Earth, and Transition Metals in Covalent-Organic Frameworks for Enhancing CO2 Capture by First-Principles Calculations and Molecular Simulations
Open accessAbstract
We use the multiscale simulation approach, which combines the first-principles calculations and grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations, to comprehensively study the doping of a series of alkali (Li, Na, and K), alkaline-earth (Be, Mg, and Ca), and transition (Sc and Ti) metals in nanoporous covalent organic frameworks (COFs), and the effects of the doped metals on CO2 capture. The results indicate that, among all the metals studied, Li, Sc, and Ti can bind with COFs stably, while Be, Mg, and Ca cannot, because the binding of Be, Mg, and Ca with COFs is very weak. Furthermore, Li, Sc, and Ti can improve the uptakes of CO2 in COFs significantly. However, the binding energy of a CO2 molecule with Sc and Ti exceeds the lower limit of chemisorptions and, thus, suffers from the difficulty of desorption. By the comparative studies above, it is found that Li is the best surface modifier of COFs for CO2 capture among all the metals studied. Therefore, we further investigate the uptakes of CO2 in the Li-doped COFs. Our simulation results show that at 298 K and 1 bar, the excess CO2 uptakes of the Li-doped COF-102 and COF-105 reach 409 and 344 mg/g, which are about eight and four times those in the nondoped ones, respectively. As the pressure increases to 40 bar, the CO2 uptakes of the Li-doped COF-102 and COF-105 reach 1349 and 2266 mg/g at 298 K, respectively, which are among the reported highest scores to date. In summary, doping of metals in porous COFs provides an efficient approach for enhancing CO2 capture.
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
Cited by
Feng, X., Ding, X., & Jiang, D. (2012) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c2cs35157a · Cited by 3,098
CO2 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
Sharma, R. K., Yadav, P., Yadav, M., Gupta, R., Rana, P., Srivastava, A., Zbořil, R., Varma, R. S., Antonietti, M., & Gawande, M. B. (2020) · Materials Horizons · doi:10.1039/c9mh00856j · Cited by 455
Metal–organic frameworks for upgrading biogas via CO2 adsorption to biogas green energy
Chaemchuen, S., Kabir, N. A., Zhou, K., & Verpoort, F. (2013) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c3cs60244c · Cited by 416
Trends in Solid Adsorbent Materials Development for CO 2 Capture
Pardakhti, M., Jafari, T., Tobin, Z., Dutta, B., Moharreri, E., Shemshaki, N. S., Suib, S., & Srivastava, R. (2019) · ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · doi:10.1021/acsami.9b08487 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Lan, J., Cao, D., Wang, W., & Smit, B.
- Venue
- ACS Nano
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-06-22
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 4225-4237
- ISSN
- 1936-0851 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-086X
- OpenAlex
- W2105947666
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.19
- 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.