Understanding Volumetric and Gravimetric Hydrogen Adsorption Trade-off in Metal-Organic Frameworks.

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are porous crystalline materials that are promising for adsorption-based, on-board storage of hydrogen in fuel-cell vehicles. Volumetric and gravimetric hydrogen capacities are the key factors that determine the size and weight of the MOF-filled tank required to store a certain amount of hydrogen for reasonable driving range. Therefore, they must be optimized so the tank is neither too large nor too heavy. Because the goals of maximizing MOF volumetric and gravimetric hydrogen adsorption loadings individually are incompatible, an in-depth understanding of the trade-off between MOF volumetric and gravimetric loadings is necessary to achieve the best compromise between these properties. Here we study, both experimentally and computationally, the trade-off between volumetric and gravimetric cryo-adsorbed hydrogen deliverable capacity by taking an isoreticular series of highly stable zirconium MOFs, NU-1101, NU-1102, and NU-1103 as a case study. These MOFs were studied under recently proposed operating conditions: 77 K/100 bar →160 K/5 bar. We found the difference between highest and lowest measured deliverable capacity in the MOF series to be ca. 40% gravimetrically, but only ca. 10% volumetrically. From our molecular simulation results, we found hydrogen "monolayer" adsorption to be proportional to the surface area, whereas hydrogen "pore filling" adsorption is proportional to the pore volume. Thus, we found that the higher variability in gravimetric deliverable capacity in contrast to the volumetric capacity, occurs due to the proportional relation between gravimetric surface area and pore volume in the NU-110x series in contrast to the inverse relation between volumetric surface area and void fraction. Additionally, we find better correlations with geometric surface areas than with BET areas. NU-1101 presents the highest measured volumetric performance with 46.6 g/L (9.1 wt %), whereas NU-1103 presents the highest gravimetric one with 12.6 wt % (43.2 g/L).

[1]  Duilio Cascio,et al.  Synthesis, structure, and metalation of two new highly porous zirconium metal-organic frameworks. , 2012, Inorganic chemistry.

[2]  Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón,et al.  Computational Design of Metal–Organic Frameworks Based on Stable Zirconium Building Units for Storage and Delivery of Methane , 2014 .

[3]  Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón,et al.  Application of Consistency Criteria To Calculate BET Areas of Micro- And Mesoporous Metal-Organic Frameworks. , 2016, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[4]  Dawei Feng,et al.  Zirconium-metalloporphyrin PCN-222: mesoporous metal-organic frameworks with ultrahigh stability as biomimetic catalysts. , 2012, Angewandte Chemie.

[5]  Omar K Farha,et al.  Metal-organic framework materials with ultrahigh surface areas: is the sky the limit? , 2012, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[6]  Michael O'Keeffe,et al.  The Chemistry and Applications of Metal‐Organic Frameworks , 2013 .

[7]  T. Yildirim,et al.  Hydrogen and Methane Adsorption in Metal−Organic Frameworks: A High-Pressure Volumetric Study , 2007 .

[8]  Rachel B. Getman,et al.  Metal Alkoxide Functionalization in Metal—Organic Frameworks for Enhanced Ambient-Temperature Hydrogen Storage , 2011 .

[9]  David Fairen-Jimenez,et al.  Vapor-phase metalation by atomic layer deposition in a metal-organic framework. , 2013, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[10]  D. Lévesque,et al.  Monte Carlo simulations of hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes , 2002 .

[11]  C. E. Thomas.  Fuel options for the fuel cell vehicle: hydrogen, methanol or gasoline? , 2000 .

[12]  A. Züttel,et al.  Hydrogen-storage materials for mobile applications , 2001, Nature.

[13]  J. Hupp,et al.  Methane storage in metal-organic frameworks: current records, surprise findings, and challenges. , 2013, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[14]  Siegmar Roth,et al.  Hydrogen adsorption in different carbon nanostructures , 2005 .

[15]  C. Breneman,et al.  Determining atom‐centered monopoles from molecular electrostatic potentials. The need for high sampling density in formamide conformational analysis , 1990 .

[16]  Michael J. Cafarella,et al.  Theoretical Limits of Hydrogen Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Opportunities and Trade-Offs , 2013 .

[17]  Seda Keskin,et al.  Simulation and modelling of MOFs for hydrogen storage , 2015 .

[18]  Carlo Lamberti,et al.  A new zirconium inorganic building brick forming metal organic frameworks with exceptional stability. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[19]  Omar M Yaghi,et al.  Exceptional H2 saturation uptake in microporous metal-organic frameworks. , 2006, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[20]  Randall Q. Snurr,et al.  Gram-scale, high-yield synthesis of a robust metal–organic framework for storing methane and other gases , 2013 .

[21]  P. Feng,et al.  New heterometallic zirconium metalloporphyrin frameworks and their heteroatom-activated high-surface-area carbon derivatives. , 2015, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[22]  Xiang Lin,et al.  Exceptionally high H2 storage by a metal-organic polyhedral framework. , 2009, Chemical communications.

[23]  J. Simmons,et al.  Porous metal-organic frameworks based on an anthracene derivative: syntheses, structure analysis, and hydrogen sorption studies. , 2009, Inorganic chemistry.

[24]  Ulrich Eberle,et al.  Hydrogen storage: the remaining scientific and technological challenges. , 2007, Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics - PCCP.

[25]  Randall Q. Snurr,et al.  High-Throughput Screening of Porous Crystalline Materials for Hydrogen Storage Capacity near Room Temperature , 2014 .

[26]  Randall Q. Snurr,et al.  Design Requirements for Metal-Organic Frameworks as Hydrogen Storage Materials , 2007 .

[27]  Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón,et al.  Ultrahigh surface area zirconium MOFs and insights into the applicability of the BET theory. , 2015, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[28]  C. Serre,et al.  A Chromium Terephthalate-Based Solid with Unusually Large Pore Volumes and Surface Area , 2005, Science.

[29]  R. Snurr,et al.  RASPA: molecular simulation software for adsorption and diffusion in flexible nanoporous materials , 2016 .

[30]  J. Ilja Siepmann,et al.  Vapor–liquid equilibria of mixtures containing alkanes, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen , 2001 .

[31]  Daqiang Yuan,et al.  The current status of hydrogen storage in metal–organic frameworks—updated , 2011 .

[32]  Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón,et al.  Evaluating topologically diverse metal–organic frameworks for cryo-adsorbed hydrogen storage , 2016 .

[33]  Dawei Feng,et al.  Construction of ultrastable porphyrin Zr metal-organic frameworks through linker elimination. , 2013, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[34]  Maciej Haranczyk,et al.  Computation-Ready, Experimental Metal–Organic Frameworks: A Tool To Enable High-Throughput Screening of Nanoporous Crystals , 2014 .

[35]  Dan Zhao,et al.  The current status of hydrogen storage in metal–organic frameworks , 2008 .

[36]  Lev D. Gelb,et al.  Pore size distributions in porous glasses : A computer simulation study , 1999 .

[37]  W. Goddard,et al.  UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations , 1992 .

[38]  Omar K Farha,et al.  Supercritical processing as a route to high internal surface areas and permanent microporosity in metal-organic framework materials. , 2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society.