Connaire McCready , Khadija Asif , Rhys Blaney , José R.B. Gomes , Ashleigh Fletcher , Miguel Jorge
{"title":"Systematic assessment of generic force fields for CO2 adsorption in metal-organic frameworks","authors":"Connaire McCready , Khadija Asif , Rhys Blaney , José R.B. Gomes , Ashleigh Fletcher , Miguel Jorge","doi":"10.1016/j.micromeso.2025.113788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To ensure that computational screening of porous materials, such as MOFs, for carbon capture yields accurate predictions, it is essential to carefully, and thoroughly, validate and test the underlying molecular models. Yet, such validation studies are extremely scarce in the literature, and the vast majority of comparisons between simulated and experimental adsorption isotherms do not realistically consider the inherent uncertainty in either or both methods. In this paper, we conduct a systematic assessment of simulation force fields by comparing them against ‘consensus’ experimental isotherms derived from a curated dataset of carbon dioxide adsorption measurements. Our estimate for the average uncertainty in experimental adsorption isotherms is ∼15 %, while the average uncertainty arising from the choice of framework force field is ∼10 %; these uncertainties are quite significant and should be considered explicitly when comparing simulations to experiments. Remarkably, we observed that generic force fields taken ‘off the shelf’ only yielded good predictions of experimental data for one out of five MOFs studied here – IRMOF-1. The observed discrepancies for Cu-BTC and Co-MOF-74 can be explained by the inability of standard force fields to accurately describe the specific interactions of CO<sub>2</sub> with open metal sites. In contrast, the differences for UiO-66 can be rationalised by the presence of extensive defects in the MOF structure. However, the disagreement observed for MIL-47 has not been unequivocally explained, raising the need for more extensive experimental and simulation studies of this material. Based on these results, we provide concrete recommendations for future computational modelling studies of adsorption in MOFs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":392,"journal":{"name":"Microporous and Mesoporous Materials","volume":"397 ","pages":"Article 113788"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microporous and Mesoporous Materials","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1387181125003038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To ensure that computational screening of porous materials, such as MOFs, for carbon capture yields accurate predictions, it is essential to carefully, and thoroughly, validate and test the underlying molecular models. Yet, such validation studies are extremely scarce in the literature, and the vast majority of comparisons between simulated and experimental adsorption isotherms do not realistically consider the inherent uncertainty in either or both methods. In this paper, we conduct a systematic assessment of simulation force fields by comparing them against ‘consensus’ experimental isotherms derived from a curated dataset of carbon dioxide adsorption measurements. Our estimate for the average uncertainty in experimental adsorption isotherms is ∼15 %, while the average uncertainty arising from the choice of framework force field is ∼10 %; these uncertainties are quite significant and should be considered explicitly when comparing simulations to experiments. Remarkably, we observed that generic force fields taken ‘off the shelf’ only yielded good predictions of experimental data for one out of five MOFs studied here – IRMOF-1. The observed discrepancies for Cu-BTC and Co-MOF-74 can be explained by the inability of standard force fields to accurately describe the specific interactions of CO2 with open metal sites. In contrast, the differences for UiO-66 can be rationalised by the presence of extensive defects in the MOF structure. However, the disagreement observed for MIL-47 has not been unequivocally explained, raising the need for more extensive experimental and simulation studies of this material. Based on these results, we provide concrete recommendations for future computational modelling studies of adsorption in MOFs.
期刊介绍:
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials covers novel and significant aspects of porous solids classified as either microporous (pore size up to 2 nm) or mesoporous (pore size 2 to 50 nm). The porosity should have a specific impact on the material properties or application. Typical examples are zeolites and zeolite-like materials, pillared materials, clathrasils and clathrates, carbon molecular sieves, ordered mesoporous materials, organic/inorganic porous hybrid materials, or porous metal oxides. Both natural and synthetic porous materials are within the scope of the journal.
Topics which are particularly of interest include:
All aspects of natural microporous and mesoporous solids
The synthesis of crystalline or amorphous porous materials
The physico-chemical characterization of microporous and mesoporous solids, especially spectroscopic and microscopic
The modification of microporous and mesoporous solids, for example by ion exchange or solid-state reactions
All topics related to diffusion of mobile species in the pores of microporous and mesoporous materials
Adsorption (and other separation techniques) using microporous or mesoporous adsorbents
Catalysis by microporous and mesoporous materials
Host/guest interactions
Theoretical chemistry and modelling of host/guest interactions
All topics related to the application of microporous and mesoporous materials in industrial catalysis, separation technology, environmental protection, electrochemistry, membranes, sensors, optical devices, etc.