The role of metal–organic frameworks in a carbon-neutral energy cycle

Nature Energy

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2016, Pages

  Schoedel, Alexander ^a,b,c   Ji, Zhe ^a,b,c   Yaghi, Omar M ^a,b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d KING ABDULAZIZ CITY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; CLIMATE CHANGE; FOSSIL FUELS; METALS; MOLECULES; ORGANIC CARBON;

A-CARBON; CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE; CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION; CARBON NEUTRALS; ENERGY; ENERGY CYCLE; ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES; METALORGANIC FRAMEWORKS (MOFS); PRESSUNG; SIMPLE++;

METHANE;

EID: 85121515041     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20587546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/NENERGY.2016.34     Document Type: Review

References (101)

1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015 (BP, 2015); http://go.nature.com/YgrZI1
2. CO2 Emissions (World Bank, 2015); http://go.nature.com/yLaqyF
3. America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation: Summary Edition (National Academies Press, 2009); http://go.nature.com/YLvTAe This report provides information on potentials, barriers, costs and impacof energy supply and technologies.
4. Zhou, N. et al. China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050 (China Energy Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2011); http://go.nature.com/toqvwR
5. Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future (InterAcademy Council, 2007); http://go.nature.com/LfJR9g
6. Basic Research Needs for Carbon Capture: Beyond 2020 (US Department of Energy, 2010); http://go.nature.com/1bM9qj
7. The Impact of Increased Use of Hydrogen on Petroleum Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Energy Information Administration, 2008); http://go.nature.com/4Bk1jV
8. Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy (US Department of Energy, 2004); http://go.nature.com/GZYzy6
9. Lipman, T. An Overview of Hydrogen Production and Storage Systems with Renewable Hydrogen Case Studies (Clean Energy States Alliance, 2011); http://go.nature.com/p2ZuT4
10. Schlapbach, L. & Zuttel, A. Hydrogen-storage materials for mobile applications. Nature 414, 353–358 (2001).
11. Hydrogen Storage (US Department of Energy, 2015); http://go.nature.com/ispE6Q
12. Target Explanation Document: Onboard Hydrogen Storage for Light-Duty Fuel Cell Vehicles (USDRIVE, 2015); http://go.nature.com/EHHdZ5
13. Zoellter, J. Mercedes-Benz F125 concept: Mercedes’ dream of a 2025 S-class takes flight. Car and Driver (21 October 2015); http://go.nature.com/kFaC3e
14. Sudik, A. et al. Ford/BASF-SE/UM Activities in Support of the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence (HSECoE, 2015); http://go.nature. com/SrJePp
15. 2 uptake by “close-packing” alignment of open copper sites in metal–organic frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 47, 7263–7266 (2008).
16. Suh, M. P., Park, H. J., Prasad, T. K. & Lim, D.-W. Hydrogen storage in metal– organic frameworks. Chem. Rev. 112, 782–835 (2012).
17. Rowsell, J. L. C. & Yaghi, O. M. Effects of functionalization, catenation, and variation of the metal oxide and organic linking units on the low-pressure hydrogen adsorption properties of metal−organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 1304–1315 (2006).
18. Rowsell, J. L. C. & Yaghi, O. M. Strategies for hydrogen storage in metal– organic frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 4670–4679 (2005). This paper highlights different strategies for hydrogen storage in MOFs being used today and has led to room temperature uptake of 2–3 wt% and 6 wt% at 77 K.
19. Mulfort, K. L., Farha, O. K., Stern, C. L., Sarjeant, A. A. & Hupp, J. T. Post-synthesis alkoxide formation within metal−organic framework materials: a strategy for incorporating highly coordinatively unsaturated metal ions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 3866–3868 (2009).
20. Li, Y. & Yang, R. T. Significantly enhanced hydrogen storage in metal−organic frameworks via spillover. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 726–727 (2006).
21. Chae, H. K. et al. A route to high surface area, porosity and inclusion of large molecules in crystals. Nature 427, 523–527 (2004). This contribution details a strategy and interpretation for using exposed six-membered rings to make ultrahigh-porosity MOFs.
22. Furukawa, H., Miller, M. A. & Yaghi, O. M. Independent verification of the saturation hydrogen uptake in MOF-177 and establishment of a benchmark for hydrogen adsorption in metal–organic frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. 17, 3197–3204 (2007).
23. Carlucci, L., Ciani, G. & Proserpio, D. M. Polycatenation, polythreading and polyknotting in coordination network chemistry. Coord. Chem. Rev. 246, 247–289 (2003).
24. Furukawa, H. et al. Ultrahigh porosity in metal–organic frameworks. Science 329, 424–428 (2010).
25. Grunker, R. et al. A new metal–organic framework with ultra-high surface area. Chem. Commun. 50, 3450–3452 (2014).
26. 4 paddle-wheel building blocks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 4368–4369 (2001).
27. Moulton, B., Lu, J., Mondal, A. & Zaworotko, M. J. Nanoballs: nanoscale faceted polyhedra with large windows and cavities. Chem. Commun. 9, 863–864 (2001).
28. 2 adsorption.
29. 2 adsorption capacities and neutron powder diffraction studies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 4092–4094 (2010).
30. Yuan, D., Zhao, D., Sun, D. & Zhou, H.-C. An isoreticular series of metal– organic frameworks with dendritic hexacarboxylate ligands and exceptionally high gas-uptake capacity. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49, 5357–5361 (2010).
31. Farha, O. K. et al. De novo synthesis of a metal–organic framework material featuring ultrahigh surface area and gas storage capacities. Nature Chem. 2, 944–948 (2010).
32. Farha, O. K. et al. Designing higher surface area metal–organic frameworks: are triple bonds better than phenyls? J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 9860–9863 (2012).
33. Farha, O. K. et al. Metal–organic framework materials with ultrahigh surface areas: is the sky the limit? J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 15016–15021 (2012). This paper reports a MOF that currently holds the world record with respect to BET surface area.
34. Liu, L., Konstas, K., Hill, M. R. & Telfer, S. G. Programmed pore architectures in modular quaternary metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 17731–17734 (2013).
35. Schoedel, A., Boyette, W., Wojtas, L., Eddaoudi, M. & Zaworotko, M. J. A family of porous lonsdaleite-e networks obtained through pillaring of decorated kagomé lattice sheets. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 14016–14019 (2013).
36. Schoedel, A. et al. The asc trinodal platform: two-step assembly of triangular, tetrahedral, and trigonal-prismatic molecular building blocks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52, 2902–2905 (2013).
37. Frost, H., Düren, T. & Snurr, R. Q. Effects of surface area, free volume, and heat of adsorption on hydrogen uptake in metal−organic frameworks. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 9565–9570 (2006).
38. Yang, Q. & Zhong, C. Understanding hydrogen adsorption in metal−organic frameworks with open metal sites: a computational study. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 655–658 (2006).
39. Cheon, Y. E., Park, J. & Suh, M. P. Selective gas adsorption in a magnesium-based metal–organic framework. Chem. Commun. 36, 5436–5438 (2009).
40. Bae, Y.-S. & Snurr, R. Q. Optimal isosteric heat of adsorption for hydrogen storage and delivery using metal–organic frameworks. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 132, 300–303 (2010).
41. Ren, J., Langmi, H. W., North, B. C. & Mathe, M. Review on processing of metal–organic framework (MOF) materials towards system integration for hydrogen storage. Int. J. Energy Res. 39, 607–620 (2015).
42. MOVE Program Overview (ARPA-E, 2012); http://go.nature.com/Vuqhoi
43. Peng, Y. et al. Methane storage in metal–organic frameworks: current records, surprise findings, and challenges. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 11887–11894 (2013).
44. Simon, C. M. et al. The materials genome in action: identifying the performance limits for methane storage. Energy Environ. Sci. 8, 1190–1199 (2015).
45. Eddaoudi, M. et al. Systematic design of pore size and functionality in isoreticular MOFs and their application in methane storage. Science 295, 469–472 (2002). This publication describes use of the isoreticular principle in making MOFs and designing their interior for methane storage.
46. Li, H., Eddaoudi, M., O’Keeffe, M. & Yaghi, O. M. Design and synthesis of an exceptionally stable and highly porous metal–organic framework. Nature 402, 276–279 (1999). This contribution revealed the first MOF with porosity and surface area exceeding previous records, and featuring a robust architecture.
47. n]. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39, 2081–2084 (2000).
48. n. Science 283, 1148–1150 (1999).
49. Gándara, F., Furukawa, H., Lee, S. & Yaghi, O. M. High methane storage capacity in aluminum metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 5271–5274 (2014). This paper shows that the availability of polyphenylene units as terminal ligands in MOFs provides for ultrahigh methane delivery.
50. 2 storage. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 13308–13318 (2015).
51. Wilmer, C. E. et al. Gram-scale, high-yield synthesis of a robust metal– organic framework for storing methane and other gases. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 1158–1163 (2013).
52. 2(dhtp): the important role of open metal sites. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 4995–5000 (2009).
53. Wilmer, C. E. et al. Large-scale screening of hypothetical metal–organic frameworks. Nature Chem. 4, 83–89 (2012).
54. Luthi, D. et al. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000– 800,000 years before present. Nature 453, 379–382 (2008).
55. 2 Data (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2015); http://go.nature.com/z3Cgf5
56. Socolow, R. Stabilization Wedges and the Polygame (2013); http://go.nature.com/7j8mBi
57. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 968–972 (2004).
58. 2 capture and storage: are we ready? Energy Environ. Sci. 2, 449–458 (2009).
59. Sumida, K. et al. Carbon dioxide capture in metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Rev. 112, 724–781 (2012).
60. Caskey, S. R., Wong-Foy, A. G. & Matzger, A. J. Dramatic tuning of carbon dioxide uptake via metal substitution in a coordination polymer with cylindrical pores. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 10870–10871 (2008).
61. Rosi, N. L. et al. Rod packings and metal−organic frameworks constructed from rod-shaped secondary building units. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 1504–1518 (2005).
62. 2 by dual functionalization of a rht-type metal–organic framework. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 1412–1415 (2012).
63. 2 separation in the presence of water.
64. 2 uptake: a zeolite-like zinc–tetrazole framework with 24-nuclear zinc cages. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 18892–18895 (2012).
65. Granite, E. J. & Pennline, H. W. Photochemical removal of mercury from flue gas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41, 5470–5476 (2002).
66. Britt, D., Furukawa, H., Wang, B., Glover, T. G. & Yaghi, O. M. From the cover: highly efficient separation of carbon dioxide by a metal–organic framework replete with open metal sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20637–20640 (2009).
67. 2 capture by metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 2308–2322 (2012).
68. 2 in the presence of water.
69. 2O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 4787–4803 (2015).
70. Nguyen, N. T. et al. Selective capture of carbon dioxide under humid conditions by hydrophobic chabazite-type zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 10645–10648 (2014).
71. 2 binding within an amine-functionalized nanoporous solid. Science 330, 650–653 (2010).
72. McDonald, T. M. et al. Capture of carbon dioxide from air and flue gas in the alkylamine-appended metal–organic framework mmen-Mg2(dobpdc). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 7056–7065 (2012).
73. 2 in diamine-appended metal–organic frameworks. Nature 519, 303–308 (2015).
74. Deng, H. et al. Large-pore apertures in a series of metal–organic frameworks. Science 336, 1018–1023 (2012).
75. Xiang, S. et al. Microporous metal–organic framework with potential for carbon dioxide capture at ambient conditions. Nature Commun. 3, 954 (2012).
76. 2 selective adsorption. Nature Commun. 4, 1538 (2013).
77. Mason, J. A., Sumida, K., Herm, Z. R., Krishna, R. & Long, J. R. Evaluating metal–organic frameworks for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture via temperature swing adsorption. Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 3030–3040 (2011).
78. 2 Separation in zeolites and metal−organic frameworks. Langmuir 25, 5918–5926 (2009).
79. Yazaydın, A. O. et al. Screening of metal−organic frameworks for carbon dioxide capture from flue gas using a combined experimental and modeling approach. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 18198–18199 (2009).
80. Wilmer, C. E. & Snurr, R. Q. Towards rapid computational screening of metal– organic frameworks for carbon dioxide capture: calculation of framework charges via charge equilibration. Chem. Eng. J. 171, 775–781 (2011).
81. Greathouse, J. A. & Allendorf, M. D. The interaction of water with MOF-5 simulated by molecular dynamics. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 10678–10679 (2006).
82. Deng, H. et al. Multiple functional groups of varying ratios in metal–organic frameworks. Science 327, 846–850 (2010).
83. Furukawa, H., Müller, U. & Yaghi, O. M. “Heterogeneity within order” in metal–organic frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 54, 3417–3430 (2015).
84. Somorjai, G. A., Frei, H. & Park, J. Y. Advancing the frontiers in nanocatalysis, biointerfaces, and renewable energy conversion by innovations of surface techniques. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 16589–16605 (2009).
85. Côté, A. P. et al. Porous, crystalline, covalent organic frameworks. Science 310, 1166–1170 (2005).
86. Furukawa, H. & Yaghi, O. M. Storage of hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide in highly porous covalent organic frameworks for clean energy applications. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 8875–8883 (2009).
87. Zhang, T. & Lin, W. Metal–organic frameworks for artificial photosynthesis and photocatalysis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5982–5993 (2014).
88. 2 reduction in metal–organic frameworks: a mini review. J. Mol. Struct. 1083, 127–136 (2015).
89. 2 reduction. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 3364–3367 (2012).
90. Wang, C., Xie, Z., deKrafft, K. E. & Lin, W. Doping metal–organic frameworks for water oxidation, carbon dioxide reduction, and organic photocatalysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 13445–13454 (2011).
91. Feng, D. et al. Construction of ultrastable porphyrin Zr metal– organic frameworks through linker elimination. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 17105–17110 (2013).
92. 2 under ambient conditions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 2615–2619 (2014).
93. 2 reduction in water. Science 349, 1208–1213 (2015).
94. Park, H. J., Lim, D.-W., Yang, W. S., Oh, T.-R. & Suh, M. P. A highly porous metal–organic framework: structural transformations of a guest-free MOF depending on activation method and temperature. Chem. Eur. J. 17, 7251–7260 (2011).
95. Yaghi, O. M. et al. Reticular synthesis and the design of new materials. Nature 423, 705–714 (2003).
96. Eddaoudi, M. et al. Modular chemistry: secondary building units as a basis for the design of highly porous and robust metal−organic carboxylate frameworks. Acc. Chem. Res. 34, 319–330 (2001).
97. Furukawa, H., Cordova, K. E., O’Keeffe, M. & Yaghi, O. M. The chemistry and applications of metal–organic frameworks. Science 341, 1230444 (2013).
98. Yaghi, O. M., Li, G. & Li, H. Selective binding and removal of guests in a microporous metal–organic framework. Nature 378, 703–706 (1995).
99. 2 capture. Science 325, 1652–1654 (2009).
100. Haszeldine, R. S. Carbon capture and storage: how green can black be? Science 325, 1647–1652 (2009).
101. 2 on molecular sieves and activated carbon. Energy Fuels 15, 279–284 (2001).