J. Mater. Sci. Technol. ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 2132-2143.DOI: 10.1016/j.jmst.2019.05.049
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Zhewen Maa, Jianxin Zouabc*(), Darvaish Khana, Wen Zhua, Chuanzhu Hua, Xiaoqin Zengab, Wenjiang Dingabc
Received:
2019-02-12
Revised:
2019-04-05
Accepted:
2019-05-15
Online:
2019-10-05
Published:
2019-08-28
Contact:
Zou Jianxin
Zhewen Ma, Jianxin Zou, Darvaish Khan, Wen Zhu, Chuanzhu Hu, Xiaoqin Zeng, Wenjiang Ding. Preparation and hydrogen storage properties of MgH2-trimesic acid-TM MOF (TM=Co, Fe) composites[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2019, 35(10): 2132-2143.
Samples | BET surface area (m2/g) | BJH pore size (nm) | Pore volume (cm3/g) |
---|---|---|---|
TMA-Co MOF | 507.97 | 5.90 | 0.2339 |
TMA-Fe MOF | 1015.49 | 3.02 | 0.5317 |
Table 1 Pore structural parameters of TMA-TM MOFs (TM = Co, Fe) using N2 adsorption isotherms.
Samples | BET surface area (m2/g) | BJH pore size (nm) | Pore volume (cm3/g) |
---|---|---|---|
TMA-Co MOF | 507.97 | 5.90 | 0.2339 |
TMA-Fe MOF | 1015.49 | 3.02 | 0.5317 |
Fig. 5. XRD patterns of TMA-Co MOF (a), TMA-Fe MOF (b), pure MgH2 and MgH2-TM MOF (TM = Co, Fe) composites at various states: as milled (c, d, e), re-hydrogenated at 623 K for 2 h (f, g, h), and dehydrogenated at 673 K for 2 h (i, j), respectively.
Fig. 6. SEM micrographs of the as milled (A), hydrogenated (H) and dehydrogenated (O) pure MgH2 powders, the as milled (B), (E), hydrogenated (C), (F) and dehydrogenated (D), (G) MgH2-TM MOF (TM = Co, Fe) composites, respectively. The corresponding EDS mappings showing distributions of Co (I-K), Fe (L-N) and O (P-U) (As milled: after ball-milling; Ab: absorption; De: desorption).
Fig. 7. Typical bright field TEM micrographs of the hydrogenated MgH2-Co MOF (a) and MgH2-Fe MOF (e) samples, the corresponding SAED patterns (b), (f), the dark field micrographs (c), (g) contributed by Mg2Co (442) and α-Fe (211) diffraction rings and the HRTEM images (d), (h), respectively.
Fig. 8. PC isotherms and the van’t Hoff plots of pure MgH2 (a, b), the MgH2-Co MOF (c, d) and the MgH2-Fe MOF (e, f) composites tested at 589, 623 and 648 K.
Samples | Temperature (K) | Maximum H-absorption (wt%) | Reversible H2 sorption capacity (wt%) | Absorption plateaus (MPa) | Desorption plateaus (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pure Mg | 598 | 6.51 | 3.63 | 0.46 | 0.26 |
623 | 6.66 | 5.44 | 0.84 | 0.53 | |
648 | 6.91 | 6.05 | 1.29 | 0.97 | |
MgH2-Co MOF composite | 598 | 5.08 | 4.62 | 0.39 | 0.28 |
623 | 5.14 | 4.89 | 0.72 | 0.55 | |
648 | 5.19 | 5.04 | 1.36 | 1.02 | |
MgH2-Fe MOF composite | 598 | 5.19 | 4.31 | 0.40 | 0.26 |
623 | 5.30 | 4.64 | 0.73 | 0.49 | |
648 | 5.37 | 5.04 | 1.23 | 0.94 |
Table 2 PCT parameters of pure MgH2 and the MgH2-TM MOF (TM = Co and Fe) composite samples obtained at different temperatures.
Samples | Temperature (K) | Maximum H-absorption (wt%) | Reversible H2 sorption capacity (wt%) | Absorption plateaus (MPa) | Desorption plateaus (MPa) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pure Mg | 598 | 6.51 | 3.63 | 0.46 | 0.26 |
623 | 6.66 | 5.44 | 0.84 | 0.53 | |
648 | 6.91 | 6.05 | 1.29 | 0.97 | |
MgH2-Co MOF composite | 598 | 5.08 | 4.62 | 0.39 | 0.28 |
623 | 5.14 | 4.89 | 0.72 | 0.55 | |
648 | 5.19 | 5.04 | 1.36 | 1.02 | |
MgH2-Fe MOF composite | 598 | 5.19 | 4.31 | 0.40 | 0.26 |
623 | 5.30 | 4.64 | 0.73 | 0.49 | |
648 | 5.37 | 5.04 | 1.23 | 0.94 |
Fig. 9. Hydrogen absorption profiles and the corresponding lnk-1000/T plots of pure MgH2 (a, b), the MgH2-Co MOF (c, d) and the MgH2-Fe MOF (e, f) composites measured at 448, 473, 498, 523, 548 and 573 K under 3 MPa H2 pressure for 3 h.
Fig. 10. DSC profiles and the corresponding ln(β/Tp2)–1000/Tp plots for pure MgH2 (a, b), the MgH2-Co MOF (c, d) and the MgH2-Fe MOF (e, f) composites at different heating rates.
|
[1] | X.Yao, C.Z.Wu, H.Wang, H.M.Cheng, G.Q.Max Lu. Hydrogen Storage of Magnesium-Based Nanocomposites System [J]. J Mater Sci Technol, 2005, 21(01): 57-60. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||