Using Low-Pressure Methane Adsorption Isotherms for Higher-Throughput Screening of Methane Storage Materials

• Published in: ACS applied materials & interfaces 2020-09, Vol.12 (36), p.40318-40327
• Main Authors: Korman, Kyle J, Decker, Gerald E, Dworzak, Michael R, Deegan, Meaghan M, Antonio, Alexandra M, Taggart, Garrett A, Bloch, Eric D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Energy, Environmental, and Catalysis Applications; Materials Science; Science & Technology - Other Topics
• ISSN: 1944-8244; 1944-8252
• DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c11200

A useful correlation between the low-pressure (up to 1.2 bar), low-temperature (195 K) and high-pressure (up to 65 bar), room temperature (298 K) methane storage properties of a range of porous materials is reported. Methane isotherms under these two sets of conditions show a remarkable agreement in both equilibrium adsorption and deliverable capacities for materials with pore volumes that are less than approximately 0.80 cm3/g. This trend holds well for the suite of metal-organic frameworks and porous coordination cages we studied, in addition to a zeolite and porous organic cage. Although it is well known that gravimetric gas storage capacity trends with gravimetric surface area, the 1.2 bar, 195 K excess adsorption capacity of a given framework is a better indicator of its room temperature, 65 bar capacity. Given the significantly smaller sample quantities needed for low-pressure measurements, greater accessibility to researchers around the world, accuracy of the measurement, and higher throughput, we envision this method as a rapid screening tool for the identification of methane storage materials. As excess/total adsorption and gravimetric/volumetric adsorption can be interconverted by simple utilization of the scalar quantities of pore volume or density, respectively, this method can be easily adapted to obtain both gravimetric and volumetric total adsorption capacities for a given adsorbent. In terms of volumetric methane adsorption, we further investigate the relationship between crystallographic and bulk density for the adsorbents studied here. With this analysis, it becomes apparent that in the absence of novel synthetic approaches, reported volumetric storage capacities should be viewed as an optimistic upper limit for a given material and not necessarily a true reflection of its actual adsorption properties as most MOFs have bulk densities that are less than half of their crystallographic values.