Publication:
MOF adsorbents for flue gas separation: Comparison of material ranking approaches

dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentGraduate School of Sciences and Engineering
dc.contributor.kuauthorAltıntaş, Çiğdem
dc.contributor.kuauthorKeskin, Seda
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteCollege of Engineering
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteGRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T11:43:21Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractAdsorbent performance evaluation metrics such as selectivity and regenerability that can be computed from the results of molecular simulations are widely used to identify the most promising metal organic frameworks (MOF) for separation of CO2/N2 mixture. Para- sitic energy is recently offered to rank the MOFs for comparing the cost-effectiveness of an adsorption-based CO2/N2 separation process. In this work, we performed Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations for 1661 MOFs to compute CO2/N2 mixture adsorption data and then calculated selectivity, working capacity, adsorbent performance score (APS), regen- erability (R%) of MOFs and parasitic energy. MOFs were ranked following two different approaches, one based on a combination of APS and R%, the other based on parasitic energy. Results showed that many MOFs are common in the top 100 adsorbents list of the two approaches, but the rankings of MOFs significantly differ since materials offering a low parasitic energy do not necessarily have a high R%. These results will provide important insights into the ranking of large number of MOFs based on different performance metrics for efficient identification of the most promising adsorbents for flue gas separation.
dc.description.fulltextYES
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.openaccessYES
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuEU
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Council (ERC)
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Union (EU)
dc.description.sponsorshipHorizon 2020
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch and Innovation Programme
dc.description.sponsorshipERC-2017-Starting Grant
dc.description.sponsorshipCOSMOS
dc.description.versionPublisher version
dc.description.volume179
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.cherd.2022.01.030
dc.identifier.eissn1744-3563
dc.identifier.embargoNO
dc.identifier.filenameinventorynoIR03910
dc.identifier.issn0263-8762
dc.identifier.quartileQ2
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85123860025
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/323
dc.identifier.wos784295100012
dc.keywordsMOF
dc.keywordsAdsorbent performance score
dc.keywordsRegenerability
dc.keywordsSelectivity
dc.keywordsParasitic energy
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.grantno756489-COSMOS
dc.relation.ispartofChemical Engineering Research and Design
dc.relation.urihttp://cdm21054.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/IR/id/10780
dc.subjectEngineering
dc.titleMOF adsorbents for flue gas separation: Comparison of material ranking approaches
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorKeskin, Seda
local.contributor.kuauthorAltıntaş, Çiğdem
local.publication.orgunit1College of Engineering
local.publication.orgunit1GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
local.publication.orgunit2Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
local.publication.orgunit2Graduate School of Sciences and Engineering
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationc747a256-6e0c-4969-b1bf-3b9f2f674289
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication3fc31c89-e803-4eb1-af6b-6258bc42c3d8
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryc747a256-6e0c-4969-b1bf-3b9f2f674289
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication8e756b23-2d4a-4ce8-b1b3-62c794a8c164
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication434c9663-2b11-4e66-9399-c863e2ebae43
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8e756b23-2d4a-4ce8-b1b3-62c794a8c164

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
10780.pdf
Size:
3.26 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format