金属-有机骨架吸附CO2的一般力场系统评价

IF 4.7 3区 材料科学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, APPLIED
Connaire McCready , Khadija Asif , Rhys Blaney , José R.B. Gomes , Ashleigh Fletcher , Miguel Jorge
{"title":"金属-有机骨架吸附CO2的一般力场系统评价","authors":"Connaire McCready ,&nbsp;Khadija Asif ,&nbsp;Rhys Blaney ,&nbsp;José R.B. Gomes ,&nbsp;Ashleigh Fletcher ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Systematic assessment of generic force fields for CO2 adsorption in metal-organic frameworks\",\"authors\":\"Connaire McCready ,&nbsp;Khadija Asif ,&nbsp;Rhys Blaney ,&nbsp;José R.B. Gomes ,&nbsp;Ashleigh Fletcher ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

为了确保多孔材料(如mof)的碳捕获计算筛选产生准确的预测,必须仔细、彻底地验证和测试潜在的分子模型。然而,这样的验证研究在文献中是极其稀少的,并且绝大多数模拟和实验吸附等温线之间的比较并没有真正考虑到其中一种或两种方法固有的不确定性。在本文中,我们通过将模拟力场与从二氧化碳吸附测量数据集得出的“共识”实验等温线进行比较,对模拟力场进行了系统评估。我们对实验吸附等温线的平均不确定度的估计为~ 15%,而由框架力场选择引起的平均不确定度为~ 10%;这些不确定性是相当重要的,在比较模拟和实验时应明确考虑。值得注意的是,我们观察到,“现成的”通用力场仅对本文研究的五种mof中的一种(IRMOF-1)产生了良好的实验数据预测。Cu-BTC和Co-MOF-74的差异可以解释为标准力场无法准确描述CO2与开放金属位点的具体相互作用。相比之下,UiO-66的差异可以通过MOF结构中广泛缺陷的存在来合理化。然而,对MIL-47观察到的分歧并没有得到明确的解释,因此需要对这种材料进行更广泛的实验和模拟研究。基于这些结果,我们对未来mof中吸附的计算模型研究提出了具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Systematic assessment of generic force fields for CO2 adsorption in metal-organic frameworks

Systematic assessment of generic force fields for CO2 adsorption in metal-organic frameworks
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 化学-材料科学:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
649
审稿时长
26 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信