Adam J Rieth1, Sungwoo Yang2, Evelyn N Wang2, Mircea Dincă1. 1. Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States.
Abstract
The capture of water vapor at low relative humidity is desirable for producing potable water in desert regions and for heat transfer and storage. Here, we report a mesoporous metal-organic framework that captures 82% water by weight below 30% relative humidity. Under simulated desert conditions, the sorbent would deliver 0.82 gH2O gMOF-1, nearly double the quantity of fresh water compared to the previous best material. The material further demonstrates a cooling capacity of 400 kWh m-3 per cycle, also a record value for a sorbent capable of creating a 20 °C difference between ambient and output temperature. The water uptake in this sorbent is optimized: the pore diameter of our material is above the critical diameter for water capillary action, enabling water uptake at the limit of reversibility.
The capture of water vapor at low relative humidity is desirable for producing potable water in desert regions and for heat transfer and storage. Here, we report a mesoporous metal-organic framework that captures 82% water by weight below 30% relative humidity. Under simulated desert conditions, the sorbent would deliver 0.82 gH2OgMOF-1, nearly double the quantity of fresh watercompared to the previous best material. The material further demonstrates a cooling capacity of 400 kWh m-3 per cycle, also a record value for a sorbent capable of creating a 20 °C difference between ambient and output temperature. The water uptake in this sorbent is optimized: the pore diameter of our material is above the critical diameter for watercapillary action, enabling water uptake at the limit of reversibility.
Fresh water necessities are
projected to increase at an even faster pace than demands for energy,
itself facing a severe shortfall in the next decades.[1,2] The projected water shortfall for 2030 is almost 2000 billion m3, more than 20% of the projected global needs.[3] Our planet does not lack water, it is just either too salty
or locked in ice. Whereas desalination produces relatively cheap fresh
water, it requires a distribution infrastructure and large upfront
capital cost.[4,5] An important challenge for water
production is the distributed capture of water from the atmosphere,
generating water locally where it is currently scarce or contaminated.[6] Current atmosphericwater generators (AWGs) function
either by chilling air below its dew point or by distilling water
absorbed in concentrated brine, both of which require large energy
input.[7] Solid sorbents that use natural
variations between daytime and nighttime temperature and relative
humidity (RH) to capture and release water are an alternative that
requires no additional energy input.[8]Sorbents with large capacity for water uptake can also address
energy and environmental challenges related to heat transfer[9] by implementation in adsorption heat pumps (AHPs).[10−14] These create temperature gradients for heating or cooling by using
waste heat resources, such as engine exhaust, and a working fluid
with a high enthalpy of evaporation, such as water (40.7 kJ mol–1).[10] In light of the recent
agreement to phase out hydrofluorocarbons,[15] AHPs are an attractive alternative, but their miniaturization and
wide deployment are limited by the low watercapacity of the active
sorbents currently employed.[10] Here, we
report that a mesoporous metal–organic framework (MOF) exhibits
water absorption behavior and total uptake that address critical challenges
in both fresh watercapture and heat pump applications.In choosing
the optimal water sorbent, stability, hydrophilicity,
and pore diameter are of critical importance. MOFs offer the flexibility
required to optimize all these parameters at once, an otherwise difficult
task for a single material. Because water stability can be a challenge
for such materials, early transition metal carboxylates[16,17] and metal azolates[18,19] that are extremely stable to
water represent logical choices for water sorption. The pore hydrophilicity
must be sufficient to allow for water nucleation and pore filling
below approximately 30% RH for most applications.[10,13] Finally, to avoid undesirable hysteresis upon water desorption,
the pore size must be below the critical diameter (Dc) of the working fluid, defined as the pore size at which
the mechanism for adsorption changes from continuous pore filling
to hystereticcapillary condensation.[20] For vapor phase liquids, Dc is given
by the equation Dc = 4σTC/(TC – T), where σ and TC are the van der
Waals diameter and critical temperature of the adsorbate, respectively,
and T is the adsorption temperature.[12,21] For water, Dc is 20.76 Å at 25
°C, implying that an adsorbent with a pore diameter of approximately
20 Å will maximize the internal volume available for filling
with water while avoiding irreversible capillary condensation.One set of materials that satisfy all these parameters are the
series M2Cl2(BTDD) (M = Mn (1),
Co (2), Ni (3); BTDD = bis(1H-1,2,3-triazolo[4,5-b],[4′,5′-i])dibenzo[1,4]dioxin) (Figure , Scheme S1).[22,23] These materials feature large mesoporous channels with a diameter
of 22 Å, close to the Dc of water.
Figure 1
Structure
of 2 projected along the c axis: Co,
purple; C, gray; N, blue; O, red; Cl, green. Hydrogen
atoms are omitted for clarity. At low RH, water is absorbed at the
open coordination sites of the Co atoms, decreasing the pore diameter
from slightly above to slightly below the Dc of water, enabling water uptake by reversible continuous pore filling.
Structure
of 2 projected along the c axis: Co,
purple; C, gray; N, blue; O, red; Cl, green. Hydrogen
atoms are omitted for clarity. At low RH, water is absorbed at the
open coordination sites of the Co atoms, decreasing the pore diameter
from slightly above to slightly below the Dc of water, enabling water uptake by reversible continuous pore filling.The pores are defined by one-dimensional
chains of five-coordinate
metal atoms with hydrophilic open coordination sites supported by
strong metal–azolate linkages. Because of all these attributes,
the materials exhibit exceptional stability toward polar analytes
such as ammonia,[22] and we anticipated that
they would also have optimal water sorption properties. Water vapor
adsorption isotherms were measured at 298 K for 1, 2, and 3 (Figure A). All materials show type IV isotherms featuring
a step in the uptake at approximately 0.28 P/Po (equivalent to RH = 28%), which is attributed
to the onset of pore filling. Before this step, the water adsorbed
is likely due to cluster adsorption around the open metal sites.[20] For 1, the onset of pore filling
is concurrent with pore collapse and structural rearrangement, as
evidenced by the much lower total uptake of 0.389 gH2O gMOF–1, a powder X-ray diffraction pattern
consistent with largely amorphous material (Figure S1), and a greatly reduced apparent surface area (Figure S2). In contrast, 2 and 3 exhibit large and steep uptake steps as their pores are
filled with water. These materials remain crystalline after water
sorption and retain their high BET surface areas of 1912 m2 g–1 and 1762 m2 g–1, respectively (Figures S3–S6).
At 94% RH, the total water uptakes for 2 and 3 are 0.968 g g–1 and 0.766 g g–1, respectively (Figure A). The lack of hysteresis between adsorption and desorption indicates
continuous reversible pore filling rather than irreversible capillary
condensation.[12] The uptake of waterbetween
10% and 30% RH is referred to as the deliverable capacity because
uptake in this region is due to a process with a high enough driving
force to be useful in AWG and AHP applications, while allowing low-temperature
regeneration.[24]Figure B illustrates the superiority of 2, on a material basis in this humidity range, as compared to other
MOFs and zeolites that have been investigated for their water uptake
properties.[16,24−26]
Figure 2
(A) Water vapor adsorption
(closed symbols) and desorption (open
symbols) at 298 K for 1 (red squares), 2 (blue triangles), and 3 (green pentagons). (B) Comparison
of MOF and zeolites investigated for water sorption.[16,24,26] Materials that take up water
between 10% and 30% RH are desirable for their strong affinity for
water and their relative ease of regeneration. *This work.
(A) Water vapor adsorption
(closed symbols) and desorption (open
symbols) at 298 K for 1 (red squares), 2 (blue triangles), and 3 (green pentagons). (B) Comparison
of MOF and zeolites investigated for water sorption.[16,24,26] Materials that take up waterbetween 10% and 30% RH are desirable for their strong affinity for
water and their relative ease of regeneration. *This work.Owing to its superior water adsorption behavior,
Co2Cl2BTDD (2) was investigated
in greater detail
with respect to its potential utility in AWGs and AHPs. The heat of
adsorption for water in 2, determined by variable temperature
water sorption isotherms fitted to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation,
is approximately 55 kJ mol–1 at zero coverage and
falls to 45.8 kJ mol–1 during pore filling (Figure S7). The latter is closer to the heat
of vaporization for water, 40.7 kJ mol–1, and indicates
that water–water interactions are dominant during pore filling.
The variable temperature water sorption isotherms also allow the calculation
of a characteristiccurve, which converts the independent pressure
and temperature variables governing uptake into a single parameter
related to the Gibbs free energy of adsorption (see the Supporting Information). In turn, the characteristiccurve allows for the extrapolation of an isotherm at a given temperature
to temperature and pressure values relevant for various devices.[10,27,28] The characteristiccurve for 2 (Figure S8) was validated by
measuring water vapor isotherms at 283, 293, and 298 K (Figure S9). We then used this characteristiccurve to generate adsorption and desorption isotherms at temperatures
relevant for AHP and AWG applications (Figures S10 and S11).The potential of 2 to generate
potable water in desert
regions was evaluated by simulating realistic day/night temperature
and RHconditions applicable in the Atacama,[29] the Sonoran,[30] and the Arabian[8] deserts, among others: daytime values of 45 °C
and 5% RHchanging to nighttime values of 25 °C and 35% RH.[8] Based on characteristiccurve-derived isotherms
under these conditions, 2 is predicted to capture 82%
water by weight (wt %) at night and release it during the day (Figure A). This is nearly
double the previous best material reported for this application, MOF-841,
which captures and releases only 42 wt % water.[8] Cycling 2 under simulated desert daytime and
nighttime conditions revealed an initial deliverable capacity of 84.7
wt %, in remarkable agreement with the characteristiccurve predictions,
a value that declined by only 5.1 wt % over 6 cycles (Figure B). Highlighting the exciting
prospects of 2 for watercapture is an elegant recent
proof of principle study showing a device that delivers 0.30 LH2O kg–1MOF per cycle using MOF-801
as the active adsorbent.[25] In a similar
device, 2 is projected to capture and release 0.87 LH2O kg–1MOF per cycle.
Figure 3
Performance
of 2 in AWGs. (A) Estimation of the deliverable
capacity of water from 2 under simulated desert conditions:
daytime 45 °C and 5% RH and nighttime 25 °C and 35% RH.
(B) Percent change in weight while cycling 2 between
45 °C and 5% RH (day), and 25 °C and 35% RH (night).
Performance
of 2 in AWGs. (A) Estimation of the deliverable
capacity of water from 2 under simulated desert conditions:
daytime 45 °C and 5% RH and nighttime 25 °C and 35% RH.
(B) Percent change in weight while cycling 2 between
45 °C and 5% RH (day), and 25 °C and 35% RH (night).The thermodynamic parameters of
water sorption in 2 highlight its exceptional performance
at transferring heat. The
water–2 fluid–adsorbent working pair achieves
a 20 °C temperature lift, the range required for an air conditioner,
for instance.[10] This temperature difference
can be achieved with a cooling capacity per cycle of ∼400 kWh
m–3 (Figure A), at least 50 kWh m–3 higher than that
of any known adsorbent, regardless of regeneration temperature.[10] In a hypothetical AHP using low-grade heat sources,
compound 2 can be regenerated using waste heat of only
55 °C (Figure S12).[8,10] Such
a device would have a material-based coefficient of performance (COP),
defined as the ratio of useful cold energy output divided by input
heat energy, of 0.885 (Figure B). A measure of efficiency, COPs for AHP cooling applications
vary from 0 to 1. Notably, the water–2 working
pair has the highest COP for any fluid–adsorbent combination
across a wide range of desorption temperatures.[10] The high COP for this material is a direct result of its
unusually high gravimetricwatercapacity: very little energy is expended
on heating the adsorbent because less solid is required for a given
watercapacity relative to other adsorbents. Compound 2 is stable to cycling under AHP conditions as well (Figure C). Cycling 2 between
25 and 120 °C at constant water vapor pressure of 13 mmHg revealed
an initial gravimetriccapacity greater than 1 g g–1, with a decline of only 6.3 wt % and no loss in crystallinity after
30 cycles (Figure S5).
Figure 4
Performance of 2 in AHPs. (A) Volumetric (left axis)
and gravimetric (right axis) heat energy transferred from ambient
per cycle as a function of the temperature lift. (B) Material-based
coefficient of performance for AHP cooling applications with a 20
°C temperature lift for the water–2 working
pair as a function of desorption temperature. (C) Temperature-swing
water cycling of 2 at a constant water vapor pressure
of 13 mmHg.
Performance of 2 in AHPs. (A) Volumetric (left axis)
and gravimetric (right axis) heat energy transferred from ambient
per cycle as a function of the temperature lift. (B) Material-based
coefficient of performance for AHP cooling applications with a 20
°C temperature lift for the water–2 working
pair as a function of desorption temperature. (C) Temperature-swing
watercycling of 2 at a constant water vapor pressure
of 13 mmHg.The data above position 2 as the best-known adsorbent
for both AWGs and AHPs. With AHPs, reduction to practice is particularly
attractive in vehicles, where combustion engines present a ready source
of waste heat.[31] Practically, for an external
temperature of 32 °C, the air conditioner output could be 12
°C using a regeneration temperature of only 55 °C. With
AWGs, deployment of 2 in areas where temperature and
RH swings between night and day straddle the adsorption step at 28%
RH will allow distributed fresh water production, thus eliminating
infrastructure needs. Although these particular sorbents have not
been scaled up, recent work on the cost analysis of MOF production
demonstrated that these materials can be produced economically at
scale in a similar manner to other commodity chemicals.[32]Fundamentally, these results demonstrate
that adsorbents with pore
sizes that match the critical diameter of a relevant working fluid
should exhibit maximum uptake with limited hysteresis. The importance
of the critical diameter is illustrated particularly well with Co2Cl2BTDD (2) here, whose open metal
sites bind water prior to pore filling. This effectively reduces the
pore diameter and makes it essentially equal to the critical diameter.
Thereafter, water uptake accordingly proceeds by reversible continuous
pore filling. Incorporation of uniformly distributed strongly adsorbing
sites into materials with pore sizes larger than the critical diameter
of the desired adsorbate should result in preadsorption prior to pore
filling and should therefore serve as a general strategy for designing
superior sorbents for both watercapture and heat transfer applications.
Authors: Mark A Shannon; Paul W Bohn; Menachem Elimelech; John G Georgiadis; Benito J Mariñas; Anne M Mayes Journal: Nature Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Amandine Cadiau; Ji Sun Lee; Daiane Damasceno Borges; Paul Fabry; Thomas Devic; Michael T Wharmby; Charlotte Martineau; Damien Foucher; Francis Taulelle; Chul-Ho Jun; Young Kyu Hwang; Norbert Stock; Martijn F De Lange; Freek Kapteijn; Jorge Gascon; Guillaume Maurin; Jong-San Chang; Christian Serre Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 30.849
Authors: Yuri Tulchinsky; Christopher H Hendon; Kirill A Lomachenko; Elisa Borfecchia; Brent C Melot; Matthew R Hudson; Jacob D Tarver; Maciej D Korzyński; Amanda W Stubbs; Jacob J Kagan; Carlo Lamberti; Craig M Brown; Mircea Dincă Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Hiroyasu Furukawa; Felipe Gándara; Yue-Biao Zhang; Juncong Jiang; Wendy L Queen; Matthew R Hudson; Omar M Yaghi Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Hyunho Kim; Sameer R Rao; Eugene A Kapustin; Lin Zhao; Sungwoo Yang; Omar M Yaghi; Evelyn N Wang Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Adam J Rieth; Ashley M Wright; Grigorii Skorupskii; Jenna L Mancuso; Christopher H Hendon; Mircea Dincă Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 15.419