Magnetic Framework Composites for Low Concentration Methane

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF NEW ENGLAND ARMIDALE

Applied Chemistry

Magnetic Framework Composites for low Concentration Methane Capture Muhammad Munir Sadiq, Marta Rubio-Martínez, Farnaz Zadehahmadi, Kiyonori Suzuki, and Matthew R Hill Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b00810 • Publication Date (Web): 16 Apr 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 16, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Magnetic Framework Composites for low Concentration Methane Capture Muhammad Munir Sadiq, ‡† Marta Rubio-Martinez, † Farnaz Zadehahmadi, ‡ Kiyonori Suzuki #* and Matthew R. Hill‡†* ‡

Department of Chemical Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia

†

CSIRO Division of Material Science and Engineering, Private Bag 33, Clayton South MDC,

VIC 3169, Australia #

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3168,

Australia

ABSTRACT. This study proposes a simple and energy efficient technique for methane (CH4) capture from low concentration emission sources. An extrusion-based process was used to fabricate magnetic framework composites (MFCs) from a metal organic framework (MOF), aluminium fumarate and MgFe2O4 magnetic nanoparticles (MNP). Methane uptake for MFCs with different MNP loading at 1 Bar and 300 K revealed a high methane uptake of up to 18.2 cm3g-1. To regenerate the MFCs, a magnetic induction swing adsorption (MISA) process was applied. A working capacity of 100 % was achieved for the MFC over 10 adsorption-desorption cycles with an average of 6 minutes per cycle for the regeneration step. The ability to access 100% of the adsorbed CH4 in the MFC with rapid and localised heating achieved with the MISA

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 23

process potentially provides an energy efficient technique for CH4 capture and reuse from low concentration sources.

INTRODUCTION

An increase in global population from 7.3 billion people on Earth in 2015 to 8.5 billion by 2030 has been projected by the United Nations.1 Rural to urban migration has led to over half (53 %) of the world population to reside in cities and urban centers. 2 Thus, the rise in urban population has seen a steady growth in energy demand and waste generation globally.3 The expansion of urban centers and growth in population created a need for an effective means of collecting and disposing of waste generated from cities known as municipal solid waste (MSW). The use of landfills for the disposal of MSW is common practice in several cities around the world. However, landfills produce biogas as a result of microbial anaerobic digestion of the organic content of the disposed MSW.4 The biodegradable content of MSW mostly includes food waste, garden waste, animal and vegetable matter and paper which results in landfill gas (LFG) with over 50 % CH4 content.5 Methane, a colorless, odorless and non-toxic greenhouse gas (GHG) is responsible for about 20 % of long term induced global warming dating back to the pre-industrial time.6 The effect of different GHGs on Earth’s warming can be compared by how long (lifetime) they stay in the atmosphere, often referred to as the global warming potential. For a 100-year lifetime, the global warming potential of CH4 is said to be 25 time greater than that of CO2.7 To minimize the effect of CH4 emissions on global warming, there is a need to develop strategies and or technologies that will contribute in significantly mitigating and reducing emissions from currently identified emission sources. CH4 gas emissions are associated with a range of natural and anthropogenic activities. These includes emissions from native forests, agricultural activities,


2

Page 3 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


wetlands and the production and usage of fossil fuels, biofuels, termites, oceans, landfills and waste.8-11 In an attempt to mitigate anthropogenic CH4 emissions globally, capture and reuse of CH4 for use in electricity/heat generation and direct use from landfills has been proposed, the process involves the use of a series of wells and blower/vacuum systems to extract LFG, which is then processed and treated to obtain a higher purity of CH4.12 The variability of the concentration of CH4 from one landfill to another and the high cost required to implement the capture system has not deterred the capture and utilization of LFG in developed economies.12 However, the scenario is completely different in cities across the developing world where infrastructural development, healthcare, education and improvement in the quality of life takes precedence over investment in technologies for waste management. The use of biofiltration for CH4 capture from landfills and animal husbandry operations with low and variable CH4 concentration has been previously reported.13-16 Methane biofiltration is an easy yet complex process that is yet to be completely understood especially in relation to optimization of process parameters for long-term operations.17 Hence its application is better suited for small and old landfills.18, 19 The preferential capture of one gas species from a mixture of gases with the aid of porous solid adsorbents has been reported for a wide range of gas separation operations.20-23 This includes the use of adsorbents like zeolites and carbon based adsorbents for CH4 capture,

24-29

with their

efficiency in CH4 capture from low and variable concentration sources like LFG is mainly dependent on uptake capacity and the capture process deployed for the CH4 recovery.30 Metalorganic frameworks (MOFs) are crystalline nano-adsorbents characterized with large surface areas,

31-33

and tunable pore surfaces

34

which allow them to be engineered to suit a wide range


3


Page 4 of 23

of applications ranging from gas storage/separation,34-42 to catalysis.43-45 Despite these unique characteristics of MOFs, there is limited information on their application for CH4 capture from low concentration emission sources like LFG; however, high pressure storage of CH4 in MOFs for application in adsorbed natural gas (ANG) systems has been widely reported.35, 36, 46-48 One of the most important factors used in evaluating the feasibility of porous adsorbents in industrial gas separation and purification is the amount of energy and duration required for regeneration.49 Current techniques reported for adsorbent regeneration include temperature swing adsorption (TSA), vacuum swing adsorption (VSA), and pressure swing adsorption (PSA).20, 50-55 These processes tend to be slow or require huge amounts of energy to effect desorption coupled with long regeneration times, having led to their limited application in large scale processes.56 Thus, there is a need for a technique that could potentially minimize the cost of adsorbent regeneration making CH4 capture from low concentration emission sources viable. Herein, we report a straightforward method, feasible at industrial scale, to fabricate magnetic MOFs composites from MOFs and magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs). The method is based on an extrusion process where synthesized MOFs are combined with magnetic MNPs with the aid of a polymeric binder to form pellets. The combination of the high gas volumetric uptake of MOFs with the rapid and localized heating capability afforded by ferro/ferri-magnetic NPs via their hysteresis loss

57-59

in alternating current magnetic field provides a platform to evaluate the

performance of the pellets in mitigating CH4 emissions from fugitive sources like LFG. Aluminium fumarate, a low-cost MOF that has been shown to have good water stability 60-62 and MgFe2O4 with high heating capability when exposed to an alternating current (A.C) magnetic field

63

are combined with a polymeric binder to make pellets used in investigating CH4 uptake

and cycling performance. The recently developed magnetic induction swing adsorption (MISA)


4

Page 5 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


process

63, 64

is used to conduct dynamic triggered release experiments at low partial pressures

similar to those of fugitive CH4 emissions sources like LFG where cost and operating conditions are crucial in determining the feasibility of the capture process.26 Experimental Section Aluminium Fumarate@MgFe2O4 MFC Pellets fabrication. The pellets were formulated by a slightly modified version of the protocol described by Grande et al.,65 using poly-vinyl alcohol (PVA) as binder material and a water-alcohol mixture as plasticizer. A number of formulations with different weight fraction (0 wt.%, 3 wt.%, 5 wt.%, 8 wt.% and 10 wt.%) of PVA in the mixture was made. The formulation with the least effect on surface area and CH4 uptake capacity of the Al-fumarate MOF was then selected and used to make MFC pellets with different weight fraction of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles and is denoted as Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4. The fabrication process involves preparing Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 paste containing 1 wt.%, 3 wt.%, 5 wt.%, 7 wt.% and 10 wt.% of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles which was then extruded with the aid of a 10 mL syringe assembly. The extrudates were cut into ~ 10 mm lengths while still moist and then allowed to dry under ambient temperature. The dried extrudates (Figure 1) were activated at 140 o

C for 24 hours to remove remnants of the water-alcohol mixture that could be trapped in the

pores of the MOF. The activated MFC pellets were used directly for surface area, CH4 uptake and MISA triggered release experiments. Aluminium fumarate MOF and MgFe2O4 MNPs were synthesized according to earlier reported methods described in section S1 of the supporting information.


5


Page 6 of 23

Figure 1. (a) Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with different MgFe2O4 nanoparticle content (b) Pellets response to a magnet. Magnetic Induction Swing Adsorption (MISA) Dynamic CH4 adsorption and triggered release experiments were conducted by exposing the pellets to magnetic field at specific absolute pressures. This was achieved by using a set up described in our previous work on MISA for post combustion carbon capture (Figure S1).63 Dynamic CH4 adsorption for the 7 wt.% MgFe2O4 pellets were collected at magnetic field strengths (µoH) of 21 mT, 27 mT and 32 mT. The maximum temperature rise for the different values of µoH was recorded using the Opsens Pico M optic fiber temperature sensor. The cycling test for the pellet was carried out at a pressure of 0.45 Bar and a magnetic field of 32 mT corresponding to a temperature of 116oC.

Results and Discussions Aluminium Fumarate@MgFe2O4 MFC Pellets fabrication. There currently exist thousands of MOFs that have been synthesized and reported by researchers globally,40, 66-68 however, only a very few have been produced and deployed at a commercial scale.69 For MOFs to be properly benchmarked against the performance of existing materials like zeolites and activated carbons in industrial applications, there is a need to develop and deploy MOF based products in geometries


6

Page 7 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


similar to those currently available commercially.65 Aluminium fumarate@MgFe2O4 MFC pellets used in this work to demonstrate CH4 capture from low concentration sources were synthesized via an extrusion based process. The extrusion process is an established technique used in the formulation of porous materials by combining with binder materials for linkage and a plasticizer to prevent agglomeration.70, 71 A major problem of extruding MOFs is the ability to select a suitable binder and plasticizer, commonly water that will result in final extrudates retaining the properties of the as synthesized MOF powder.65 In addition to an environmentally friendly synthesis route and low cost associated with its synthesis,72 Al-fumarate MOF has demonstrated good water stability

60-62

and has been produced in large scale with a space time

yield of 3,600 and 97 159 kg m−3 day−1 respectively and production rates of 5.6 kg h-1.73, 74 This makes it an ideal candidate for CH4 capture from low concentration emission sources. The morphology of the Al-fumarate MOF synthesized via flow chemistry was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Figure S2). A sphere like morphology for the dried MOF powder and a size distribution of 1- 15 µm was observed. Figure 2 reveals Powder X ray diffraction (PXRD) analysis of Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets. Peaks indicating the presence of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles were observed at loadings of 3, 5, 7 and 10 wt. % while no peak was observed for the 1 wt. % loading. Comparing diffraction peaks of the Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 with that of the as synthesized Al-fumarate MOF, it can be concluded that the PVA used as binder did not affect the crystallinity of the MOF.


7


Page 8 of 23

Figure 2. X-ray diffraction patterns of Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4, bare Al-fumarate MOF and bare MgFe2O4. Inset: TEM micrograph of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles. Scale bar: 500 nm Magnetic Composition. SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) mapping microanalysis and saturation magnetization measurements was used to investigate the distribution and composition of the MgFe2O4 nanoparticles in the Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs (inset of Figure 2) shows MgFe2O4 nanoparticles with spherical shape orientation and size of about 100 nm. Figure 3 revealed a homogeneous distribution of the MgFe2O4 nanoparticles in Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 with 7 wt. % MgFe2O4 content which is highlighted by the distribution of iron and magnesium atoms across the section of the pellet. The magnetic content of Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 with different loadings of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles was estimated by measuring the saturation magnetization relative to that of the as synthesized MgFe2O4 nanoparticles.


8

Page 9 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Figure 3. SEM micrograph of (a) Cross section of Al-fumarate @MgFe2O4 (7 wt.%) and Elemental EDX mapping of Al-fumarate @MgFe2O4 (b) Fe (c) Al (d) Mg The 3 wt. % PVA formulation due to its lower drop in surface area and CH4 uptake (Figure S4) was then used to fabricate Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4. This composite was then used to demonstrate the potential of CH4 capture and release from fugitive CH4 emission sources via the MISA process. Surface area and CH4 uptake measurements (Figure S5) for Alfumarate@MgFe2O4 showed a trend similar to that of the PVA formulated pellets. Increase in the amount of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles in the matrix resulted in a decrease in both the surface area and CH4 uptake. Methane Working Capacity. Working capacity is an important parameter used in evaluating the performance of adsorbents in CH4 storage. It is defined as the difference between the amount of CH4 at the operational desorption pressure and the uptake at the maximum adsorption operational pressure,35 also referred to as the amount of useable methane.


9


Page 10 of 23

Figure 4. Static magnetic CH4 adsorption isotherms for Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt.% MgFe2O4 @ µ0H of (a) 21 mT (b) 27 mT (c) 32 mT and (d) temperature rise profile of Alfumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt.% MgFe2O4 at different values of µ0H. In order to evaluate the performance of MFC pellets in mitigating CH4 emissions from low CH4 concentration emission sources, Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt.% MgFe2O4 nanoparticles was selected and used to collect static magnetic CH4 isotherms from 0 - 1 Bar at µ0H of 21 mT, 27 mT and 32 mT. Figure 4 (a-c) presents CH4 uptake for Alfumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets containing 7 wt. % MgFe2O4 nanoparticles when exposed to µ0H of 21, 27 and 32 mT. Figure 4 (d) presents the maximum temperature rise of the pellets when exposed to A.C magnetic field at µ0H of 21, 27 and 32 mT corresponding to 88 oC, 107 oC and


10

Page 11 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


116 oC. For practical and economic CH4 enrichment of LFG streams, operating desorption pressures should be close to or at atmospheric pressure, hence working capacity calculations will be obtained by comparing CH4 uptake isotherms at 27 oC and pressures below 1 Bar with isotherms at 1 Bar and temperatures corresponding to µ0H of 21, 27 and 32 mT.26 As shown in Figure 4 (c), Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets containing 7 wt. % MgFe2O4 nanoparticles can achieve a 100 % working capacity for any uptake pressure below 1 Bar at MISA induced desorption temperature of 116 oC (32 mT). This implies that at 32 mT and 116 oC, the pellets have no CH4 uptake from 0 – 1 Bar. Comparing the 27 oC and 107 oC isotherms (Figure 4 (b)), the pellets can achieve 100 % working capacity between 0 – 0.46 Bar and only a fraction of the CH4 adsorbed remain in the adsorbent above this pressure at 107 oC. For desorption at 21 mT (88 o

C), the pellets did not achieve a 100 % working capacity however at 0.46 Bar, resulted in about

5.6 % of the adsorbed methane left in the adsorbent. Effect of cycling on Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets. The stability of Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt. % MgFe2O4 nanoparticles to repeated exposure to remote and localized heating via A.C magnetic field was investigated using dynamic triggered release experiments. The triggered release of the adsorbed CH4 from the pellets was estimated at 0.45 Bar and 32 mT (116 o

C). Figure 5 presents triggered release experiments performed over 10 cycles for Al-

fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt. % MgFe2O4 nanoparticles at 32 mT and 0.45 Bar. The pellets showed no loss in uptake capacity over 10 cycles, with an average of 6 minutes per cycle as regeneration time. In addition to the fast regeneration time achieved, the system achieved maximum capacity after about 5 cycles. This we attribute to a “cleaning effect” induced by the MISA process during regeneration. The capacity of the pellets increased from 8.5 cm3g-1 in the first cycle to 11.8 cm3g-1 at the 4th cycle. This is because of any remaining solvent that is bound


11


Page 12 of 23

to the MOF and not removed during the activation of the MOF been gradually removed by the remote and localized heating of the MISA process. The remote and localized nature of magnetic heating in the MISA process resulted in 100 % desorption of adsorbed CH4 in this timeframe. Magnetic induction heating systems has been shown to achieve up to 90% efficiency with very low power input. 75, 76 This is further highlighted in our recent work, 63 where magnetic heating via MNPs achieved over 60 % efficiency with respect to input energy conversion to heat. For CH4 capture and release from LFG streams, deployment of MOF based composites like Alfumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets through the MISA process will ensure small and modular units can be developed as the requirement for large adsorbent inventories and beds is removed due to the fast regeneration time that can be achieved.

Figure 5. Dynamic uptake and release of CH4 from Al-fumarate@MgFe2O4 pellets with 7 wt.% MgFe2O4 nanoparticles at 32 mT (116 oC) and 0.45 Bar


12

Page 13 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


It is important to note that despite a rich CH4 content in comparison to other fugitive emission sources, the influence of other gases present in LFG need must be taken into account prior to designing of CH4 capture and enriching processes from landfills. The focus of future work from our group involves developing a pilot MISA process that will aid the investigation of a wide range of variables in CH4 capture not only from LFG but also from other low and variable fugitive emission sources. Heat generation by MgFe2O4 nanoparticles. The mass density of heat generation rate, commonly referred to as the specific absorption rate (SAR) is estimated from the gradient of the temperature rise profile of a solution of MNPs as a function of specific heat capacity, mass of nanoparticles and mass of the solvent used.58 This method of estimating SAR assumes negligible heat exchange between the fluid and the surrounding environment (adiabatic condition), 57, 77 and this method could underestimate the overall heat generated by the MNP. The power generated by any given MNP by applying AC magnetic field is dependent upon its physical and magnetic properties. It is known that the imaginary part of the complex magnetic permeability (µ’’) is responsible for the dynamic loss that leads to heat generation in the material.77,

78

For pilot scale design and fabrication of the MISA process, there is a need to

accurately predict the energy generated by the MNP component of an MFC. To accomplish this task, dynamic hysteresis loops (Figure S6) were measured in a radio-frequency range for MgFe2O4 nanoparticles with the aid of an A.C B-H loop analyzer (IWATSU SY-8219). The dynamic hysteresis loops and core losses were measured at frequencies between 100 – 300 kHz and applied field of 200 – 4000 A/m (0.25 mT – 5 mT). The SAR value was calculated for each frequency and applied field based on the measured core loss (PCV) (Table S2) and density of the MgFe2O4 nanoparticles.


13


Page 14 of 23

Effect of frequency and applied field on SAR. The amount of heat generated per unit volume for MgFe2O4 can be estimated as the product of the frequency and the area inside the hysteresis loop at a particular applied field.79 Figure 6 presents SAR calculations as a function of applied field (Hm) for a range of frequencies. For all frequency values investigated, an increase in the SAR (heat generated by MgFe2O4) was observed with increase in applied fields. Comparing the SAR at 100 kHz and 270 kHz and applied field of 4 kA/m, a 70 % increase in SAR values can be observed for the same material.

Figure 6. SAR as a function of applied field at different frequencies Thus, depending on the magnetic material to be used in fabricating MFCs for gas separation operations, understanding its response to a time varying magnetic field at different frequencies will ensure an optimum and efficient design of the magnetic field generator to be deployed for a scaled up MISA process. We further compared the SAR estimated from temperature rise (SART.R) profile measurements (Figure S8) and that calculated core loss measurements (SARC.L). Figure 7 shows a comparison between SAR calculated from MgFe2O4 hysteresis loops


14

Page 15 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


(SARC.L) obtained at different Hm values and SAR estimated from temperature rise profiles of 10 mg of MgFe2O4 dispersed in 1 mL of water (SART.R). The applied frequency used in estimating both SARC.L and SART.R was 270 kHz. As highlighted earlier, SART.R measurements assumed adiabatic conditions where heat loss to the surrounding environment is negligible and therefore not accounted for in the calculations. However, SARC.L calculations suggest that this assumption does not allow for the accurate estimation of the total amount of energy released by the nanoparticles during the hysteretic behaviour.

Figure 7. Comparison between MgFe2O4 nanoparticles SAR calculated from core loss and temperature rise profile measurements A comparison of the two SAR values at Hm = 3.4 and 4.2 kA/m reveal about 88 and 90% difference in the amount of heat generated by MgFe2O4 at the same frequency. Hence, in estimating heat generation capabilities of MNPs, neglecting the heat loss to the surrounding environment definitely underestimates the SAR of these interesting materials. This argument is further supported by the recent work of Coisson et al.57 where they reported an experimental set up that operates in a non-adiabatic condition and takes into account the heat loss to the


15


Page 16 of 23

surrounding environment. They used a thermodynamic model to predict the SAR for a number of MNPs and compared it with SAR obtained from core loss measurements of the same particles using an A.C B-H loop analyzer. Thus, for materials selection and process design considerations in the MISA process, accurate prediction of the heat generation capability of the magnetic component of the adsorbent is vital to ensure optimum utilization of the heat generated during adsorbent regeneration. In summary, we have extended the MISA concept to evaluate the performance of a MOF for methane capture from low concentration CH4 emission sources like landfill gas (LFG). This was achieved by incorporating magnetic nanoparticles into MOFs using a polymeric binder to synthesize MFC pellets. Due to the characteristic of LFG, a water stable MOF, Al- fumarate and a MNP with high heating rate, MgFe2O4 were fabricated into pellets with the aid of polyvinyl alcohol as a binder. The performance of the pellets was evaluated through CH4 uptake measurements and dynamic release experiments of the MISA process resulting in an average of 6 minutes per cycle over 10 cycles during regeneration with no loss in capacity. Thus, the established energy efficiency of magnetic induction heating

75, 76

could fast track the

development of modular units of MISA based adsorption systems at landfills and other low concentration emitting sources for CH4 emission mitigation. Future work in this area includes investigating the kinetics of adsorption and desorption with the MISA process and also evaluating the performance of a variety of pellets with different geometries under different feed conditions in a pilot scale process. Supporting Information. Includes synthesis procedures for MOF, magnetic nanoparticles and characterization results. Magnetic Induction Swing Adsorption set up, Figure S1 – S8, Table S1


16

Page 17 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


and S2 are included. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author * Email: [email protected] * Email: [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors acknowledge use of facilities within the Monash Centre for Electron Microscopy and the Monash X-Ray Platform. The authors also thank Jacinta White for conducting TEM of MgFe2O4 nanoparticles. MMS also acknowledges support from the Monash University Postgraduate Publications Award. M.R.H acknowledges the ARC for support (FT130100345). REFERENCES 1. UnitedNations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). Population 2030: Demographic challenges and opportunities for sustainable development planning (ST/ESA/SER.A/389). 2. UnitedNations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). 3. Ouda, O. K. M.; Raza, S. A.; Nizami, A. S.; Rehan, M.; Al-Waked, R.; Korres, N. E., Waste to energy potential: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 61, 328-340. 4. Du, M.; Peng, C.; Wang, X.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Zhu, Q., Quantification of methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills in China during the past decade. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017, 78, 272-279. 5. Scheutz, C.; Kjeldsen, P.; Bogner, J. E.; Visscher, A. D.; Gebert, J.; Hilger, H. A.; HuberHumer, M.; Spokas, K., Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste Management & Research 2009, 27, (5), 409-455. 6. Kirschke, S.; Bousquet, P.; Ciais, P.; Saunois, M.; Canadell, J. G.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Bergamaschi, P.; Bergmann, D.; Blake, D. R.; Bruhwiler, L.; Cameron-Smith, P.; Castaldi, S.; Chevallier, F.; Feng, L.; Fraser, A.; Heimann, M.; Hodson, E. L.; Houweling, S.; Josse, B.; Fraser, P. J.; Krummel, P. B.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Langenfelds, R. L.; Le Quere, C.; Naik, V.;


17


Page 18 of 23

O'Doherty, S.; Palmer, P. I.; Pison, I.; Plummer, D.; Poulter, B.; Prinn, R. G.; Rigby, M.; Ringeval, B.; Santini, M.; Schmidt, M.; Shindell, D. T.; Simpson, I. J.; Spahni, R.; Steele, L. P.; Strode, S. A.; Sudo, K.; Szopa, S.; van der Werf, G. R.; Voulgarakis, A.; van Weele, M.; Weiss, R. F.; Williams, J. E.; Zeng, G., Three decades of global methane sources and sinks. Nature Geosci 2013, 6, (10), 813-823. 7. Saunois, M.; Bousquet, P.; Poulter, B.; Peregon, A.; Ciais, P.; Canadell, J. G.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Etiope, G.; Bastviken, D.; Houweling, S.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Tubiello, F. N.; Castaldi, S.; Jackson, R. B.; Alexe, M.; Arora, V. K.; Beerling, D. J.; Bergamaschi, P.; Blake, D. R.; Brailsford, G.; Brovkin, V.; Bruhwiler, L.; Crevoisier, C.; Crill, P.; Covey, K.; Curry, C.; Frankenberg, C.; Gedney, N.; Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Ishizawa, M.; Ito, A.; Joos, F.; Kim, H. S.; Kleinen, T.; Krummel, P.; Lamarque, J. F.; Langenfelds, R.; Locatelli, R.; Machida, T.; Maksyutov, S.; McDonald, K. C.; Marshall, J.; Melton, J. R.; Morino, I.; Naik, V.; O'Doherty, S.; Parmentier, F. J. W.; Patra, P. K.; Peng, C.; Peng, S.; Peters, G. P.; Pison, I.; Prigent, C.; Prinn, R.; Ramonet, M.; Riley, W. J.; Saito, M.; Santini, M.; Schroeder, R.; Simpson, I. J.; Spahni, R.; Steele, P.; Takizawa, A.; Thornton, B. F.; Tian, H.; Tohjima, Y.; Viovy, N.; Voulgarakis, A.; van Weele, M.; van der Werf, G. R.; Weiss, R.; Wiedinmyer, C.; Wilton, D. J.; Wiltshire, A.; Worthy, D.; Wunch, D.; Xu, X.; Yoshida, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Q., The global methane budget 2000–2012. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2016, 8, (2), 697-751. 8. Smartt, A. D.; Brye, K. R.; Norman, R. J., Methane Emissions from Rice Production in the United States — A Review of Controlling Factors and Summary of Research. In Greenhouse Gases, Moya, B. L.; Pous, J., Eds. InTech: Rijeka, 2016; p Ch. 08. 9. Schwietzke, S.; Griffin, W. M.; Matthews, H. S.; Bruhwiler, L. M. P., Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions Rates Constrained by Global Atmospheric Methane and Ethane. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48, (14), 7714-7722. 10. Christian, T. J.; Yokelson, R. J.; Cárdenas, B.; Molina, L. T.; Engling, G.; Hsu, S. C., Trace gas and particle emissions from domestic and industrial biofuel use and garbage burning in central Mexico. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2010, 10, (2), 565-584. 11. Bousquet, P.; Ciais, P.; Miller, J. B.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Hauglustaine, D. A.; Prigent, C.; Van der Werf, G. R.; Peylin, P.; Brunke, E. G.; Carouge, C.; Langenfelds, R. L.; Lathière, J.; Papa, F.; Ramonet, M.; Schmidt, M.; Steele, L. P.; Tyler, S. C.; White, J., Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability. Nature 2006, 443, 439. 12. Bolan, N. S.; Thangarajan, R.; Seshadri, B.; Jena, U.; Das, K. C.; Wang, H.; Naidu, R., Landfills as a biorefinery to produce biomass and capture biogas. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 135, 578-587. 13. Melse, R. W.; van der Werf, A. W., Biofiltration for Mitigation of Methane Emission from Animal Husbandry. Environmental Science & Technology 2005, 39, (14), 5460-5468. 14. Girard, M.; Ramirez, A. A.; Buelna, G.; Heitz, M., Biofiltration of methane at low concentrations representative of the piggery industry—Influence of the methane and nitrogen concentrations. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 168, (1), 151-158. 15. Dever, S. A.; Swarbrick, G. E.; Stuetz, R. M., Passive drainage and biofiltration of landfill gas: Australian field trial. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 2007, 27, (2), 277-286. 16. Gebert, J.; Gröngröft, A., Performance of a passively vented field-scale biofilter for the microbial oxidation of landfill methane. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 2006, 26, (4), 399-407. 17. Nikiema, J.; Brzezinski, R.; Heitz, M., Elimination of methane generated from landfills by biofiltration: a review. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2007, 6, (4), 261-284.


18

Page 19 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


18. Berger, J.; Fornés, L. V.; Ott, C.; Jager, J.; Wawra, B.; Zanke, U., Methane oxidation in a landfill cover with capillary barrier. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 2005, 25, (4), 369-373. 19. Plessis, C. A. d.; Strauss, J. M.; Sebapalo, E. M. T.; Riedel, K.-H. J., Empirical model for methane oxidation using a composted pine bark biofilter☆. Fuel 2003, 82, (11), 1359-1365. 20. Chaffee, A. L.; Knowles, G. P.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, P.; Webley, P. A., CO2 capture by adsorption: Materials and process development. Int. J. Greenh Gas Con 2007, 1, (1), 11-18. 21. McDonald, T. M.; Lee, W. R.; Mason, J. A.; Wiers, B. M.; Hong, C. S.; Long, J. R., Capture of Carbon Dioxide from Air and Flue Gas in the Alkylamine-Appended Metal–Organic Framework mmen-Mg2(dobpdc). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, (16), 7056-7065. 22. Moon, S.-H.; Shim, J.-W., A novel process for CO2/CH4 gas separation on activated carbon fibers—electric swing adsorption. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2006, 298, (2), 523-528. 23. Plaza, M. G.; García, S.; Rubiera, F.; Pis, J. J.; Pevida, C., Post-combustion CO2 capture with a commercial activated carbon: Comparison of different regeneration strategies. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 163, (1–2), 41-47. 24. Kim, J.; Maiti, A.; Lin, L.-C.; Stolaroff, J. K.; Smit, B.; Aines, R. D., New materials for methane capture from dilute and medium-concentration sources. 2013, 4, 1694. 25. Antoniou, M. K.; Diamanti, E. K.; Enotiadis, A.; Policicchio, A.; Dimos, K.; Ciuchi, F.; Maccallini, E.; Gournis, D.; Agostino, R. G., Methane storage in zeolite-like carbon materials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2014, 188, 16-22. 26. Bae, J.-S.; Su, S.; Yu, X. X., Enrichment of Ventilation Air Methane (VAM) with Carbon Fiber Composites. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48, (10), 6043-6049. 27. Beckner, M.; Dailly, A., A pilot study of activated carbon and metal–organic frameworks for methane storage. Applied Energy 2016, 162, 506-514. 28. Sreńscek-Nazzal, J.; Kamińska, W.; Michalkiewicz, B.; Koren, Z. C., Production, characterization and methane storage potential of KOH-activated carbon from sugarcane molasses. Industrial Crops and Products 2013, 47, 153-159. 29. Loh, W. S.; Rahman, K. A.; Chakraborty, A.; Saha, B. B.; Choo, Y. S.; Khoo, B. C.; Ng, K. C., Improved Isotherm Data for Adsorption of Methane on Activated Carbons. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 2010, 55, (8), 2840-2847. 30. Pil-Seon Choi; Ji-Moon Jeong; Yong-Ki Choi; Myung-Seok Kim; Gi-Joo Shin; Park, a. S.-J., A review: methane capture by nanoporous carbon materials for automobiles. Carbon letters 2016, 17, (1), pp.18-28. 31. Yaghi, O. M.; O'Keeffe, M.; Ockwig, N. W.; Chae, H. K.; Eddaoudi, M.; Kim, J., Reticular synthesis and the design of new materials. Nature 2003, 423, (6941), 705-14. 32. Devic, T.; Serre, C., Porous Metal Organic Frameworks: From Synthesis to Applications. In Ordered Porous Solids, Valtchev, V.; Mintova, S.; Tsapatsis, M., Eds. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2009; pp 77-99. 33. Zhang, J.-P.; Chen, X.-M., Metal–Organic Frameworks: From Design to Materials. In Metal-Organic Frameworks for Photonics Applications, Chen, B.; Qian, G., Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 2014; Vol. 157, pp 1-26. 34. Mason, J. A.; Veenstra, M.; Long, J. R., Evaluating metal-organic frameworks for natural gas storage. Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, (1), 32-51. 35. Gándara, F.; Furukawa, H.; Lee, S.; Yaghi, O. M., High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal–Organic Frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, (14), 5271-5274.


19


Page 20 of 23

36. Konstas, K.; Osl, T.; Yang, Y. X.; Batten, M.; Burke, N.; Hill, A. J.; Hill, M. R., Methane storage in metal organic frameworks. J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, (33), 16698-16708. 37. Simmons, J. M.; Wu, H.; Zhou, W.; Yildirim, T., Carbon capture in metal-organic frameworks-a comparative study. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, (6), 2177-2185. 38. Lin, X.; Jia, J.; Champness, N. R.; Hubberstey, P.; Schröder, M., Metal-organic framework materials for hydrogen storage. In Solid-State Hydrogen Storage, Walker, G., Ed. Woodhead Publishing: 2008; pp 288-312. 39. Liu, J.; Tian, J.; Thallapally, P. K.; McGrail, B. P., Selective CO2 Capture from Flue Gas Using Metal–Organic Frameworks―A Fixed Bed Study. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, (17), 9575-9581. 40. Furukawa, H.; Cordova, K. E.; O'Keeffe, M.; Yaghi, O. M., The chemistry and applications of metal-organic frameworks. Science 2013, 341, (6149), 1230444. 41. Duan, X.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, J. F.; Cui, Y. J.; Wu, C. D.; Yang, Y.; Qian, G. D., A new microporous metal-organic framework with potential for highly selective separation methane from acetylene, ethylene and ethane at room temperature. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2014, 190, (0), 32-37. 42. Herm, Z. R.; Bloch, E. D.; Long, J. R., Hydrocarbon Separations in Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem. Mater. 2014, 26, (1), 323-338. 43. Ranocchiari, M.; van Bokhoven, J. A., Catalysis by metal-organic frameworks: fundamentals and opportunities. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2011, 13, (14), 6388-6396. 44. Bromberg, L.; Su, X.; Hatton, T. A., Aldehyde Self-Condensation Catalysis by Aluminum Aminoterephthalate Metal–Organic Frameworks Modified with Aluminum Isopropoxide. Chem. Mater. 2013, 25, (9), 1636-1642. 45. You, B.; Jiang, N.; Sheng, M.; Gul, S.; Yano, J.; Sun, Y., High-Performance Overall Water Splitting Electrocatalysts Derived from Cobalt-Based Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, (22), 7636-7642. 46. Mason, J. A.; Oktawiec, J.; Taylor, M. K.; Hudson, M. R.; Rodriguez, J.; Bachman, J. E.; Gonzalez, M. I.; Cervellino, A.; Guagliardi, A.; Brown, C. M.; Llewellyn, P. L.; Masciocchi, N.; Long, J. R., Methane storage in flexible metal–organic frameworks with intrinsic thermal management. Nature 2015, 527, (7578), 357-361. 47. Peng, Y.; Krungleviciute, V.; Eryazici, I.; Hupp, J. T.; Farha, O. K.; Yildirim, T., Methane Storage in Metal–Organic Frameworks: Current Records, Surprise Findings, and Challenges. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, (32), 11887-11894. 48. Guo, Z.; Wu, H.; Srinivas, G.; Zhou, Y.; Xiang, S.; Chen, Z.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, W.; O'Keeffe, M.; Chen, B., A Metal–Organic Framework with Optimized Open Metal Sites and Pore Spaces for High Methane Storage at Room Temperature. Angew. Chem. 2011, 123, (14), 3236-3239. 49. Menard, D.; Py, X.; Mazet, N., Activated carbon monolith of high thermal conductivity for adsorption processes improvement. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 2007, 46, (6), 565-572. 50. Joss, L.; Gazzani, M.; Mazzotti, M., Rational design of temperature swing adsorption cycles for post-combustion CO2 capture. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017, 158, 381-394. 51. Mason, J. A.; Sumida, K.; Herm, Z. R.; Krishna, R.; Long, J. R., Evaluating metalorganic frameworks for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture via temperature swing adsorption. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, (8), 3030-3040.


20

Page 21 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


52. Cavenati, S.; Grande, C. A.; Rodrigues, A. E., Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Natural Gas by Vacuum Pressure Swing Adsorption. Energy & Fuels 2006, 20, (6), 2648-2659. 53. Agarwal, A.; Biegler, L. T.; Zitney, S. E., A superstructure-based optimal synthesis of PSA cycles for post-combustion CO2 capture. AlChE J. 2010, 56, (7), 1813-1828. 54. Shao, P.; Dal-Cin, M.; Kumar, A.; Li, H.; Singh, D. P., Design and economics of a hybrid membrane–temperature swing adsorption process for upgrading biogas. Journal of Membrane Science 2012, 413, 17-28. 55. Dowson, G. R. M.; Reed, D. G.; Bellas, J. M.; Charalambous, C.; Styring, P., Fast and selective separation of carbon dioxide from dilute streams by pressure swing adsorption using solid ionic liquids. Faraday Discuss. 2016, 192, (0), 511-527. 56. Pahinkar, D. G.; Garimella, S.; Robbins, T. R., Feasibility of Using Adsorbent-Coated Microchannels for Pressure Swing Adsorption: Parametric Studies on Depressurization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, (41), 10103-10114. 57. Coïsson, M.; Barrera, G.; Celegato, F.; Martino, L.; Kane, S. N.; Raghuvanshi, S.; Vinai, F.; Tiberto, P., Hysteresis losses and specific absorption rate measurements in magnetic nanoparticles for hyperthermia applications. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects 2017, 1861, (6), 1545-1558. 58. Barati, M. R.; Selomulya, C.; Sandeman, K. G.; Suzuki, K., Extraordinary induction heating effect near the first order Curie transition. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, (16), 162412. 59. Khot, V. M.; Salunkhe, A. B.; Thorat, N. D.; Ningthoujam, R. S.; Pawar, S. H., Induction heating studies of dextran coated MgFe2O4 nanoparticles for magnetic hyperthermia. Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, (4), 1249-1258. 60. Jeremias, F.; Frohlich, D.; Janiak, C.; Henninger, S. K., Advancement of sorption-based heat transformation by a metal coating of highly-stable, hydrophilic aluminium fumarate MOF. RSC Advances 2014, 4, (46), 24073-24082. 61. Elsayed, E.; Al-Dadah, R.; Mahmoud, S.; Anderson, P. A.; Elsayed, A.; Youssef, P. G., CPO-27(Ni), aluminium fumarate and MIL-101(Cr) MOF materials for adsorption water desalination. Desalination 2017, 406, 25-36. 62. Elsayed, E.; Al-Dadah, R.; Mahmoud, S.; Elsayed, A.; Anderson, P. A., Aluminium fumarate and CPO-27(Ni) MOFs: Characterization and thermodynamic analysis for adsorption heat pump applications. Applied Thermal Engineering 2016, 99, 802-812. 63. Sadiq, M. M.; Li, H.; Hill, A. J.; Falcaro, P.; Hill, M. R.; Suzuki, K., Magnetic Induction Swing Adsorption: An Energy Efficient Route to Porous Adsorbent Regeneration. Chem. Mater. 2016, 28, (17), 6219-6226. 64. Li, H.; Sadiq, M. M.; Suzuki, K.; Ricco, R.; Doblin, C.; Hill, A. J.; Lim, S.; Falcaro, P.; Hill, M. R., Magnetic Metal-Organic Frameworks for Efficient Carbon Dioxide Capture and Remote Trigger Release. Adv Mater 2016, 28, (9), 1839-44. 65. A. Grande, C.; I. Águeda, V.; Spjelkavik, A.; Blom, R., An efficient recipe for formulation of metal-organic Frameworks. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 124, 154-158. 66. Islamoglu, T.; Goswami, S.; Li, Z.; Howarth, A. J.; Farha, O. K.; Hupp, J. T., Postsynthetic Tuning of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Targeted Applications. Accounts of Chemical Research 2017, 50, (4), 805-813. 67. Wilmer, C. E.; Leaf, M.; Lee, C. Y.; Farha, O. K.; Hauser, B. G.; Hupp, J. T.; Snurr, R. Q., Large-scale screening of hypothetical metal–organic frameworks. Nat Chem 2012, 4, (2), 8389.


21


Page 22 of 23

68. Ata ur, R.; Tirmizi, S. A.; Badshah, A.; Ammad, H. M.; Jawad, M.; Abbas, S. M.; Rana, U. A.; Khan, S. U.-D., Synthesis of highly stable MOF-5@MWCNTs nanocomposite with improved hydrophobic properties. Arabian Journal of Chemistry 2018, 11, (1), 26-33. 69. Batten, M. P.; Rubio-Martinez, M.; Hadley, T.; Carey, K.-C.; Lim, K.-S.; Polyzos, A.; Hill, M. R., Continuous flow production of metal-organic frameworks. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2015, 8, 55-59. 70. Freiding, J.; Patcas, F.-C.; Kraushaar-Czarnetzki, B., Extrusion of zeolites: Properties of catalysts with a novel aluminium phosphate sintermatrix. Applied Catalysis A: General 2007, 328, (2), 210-218. 71. Mitchell, S.; Michels, N.-L.; Perez-Ramirez, J., From powder to technical body: the undervalued science of catalyst scale up. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, (14), 6094-6112. 72. Bozbiyik, B.; Van Assche, T.; Lannoeye, J.; De Vos, D. E.; Baron, G. V.; Denayer, J. F. M., Stepped water isotherm and breakthrough curves on aluminium fumarate metal–organic framework: experimental and modelling study. Adsorption 2017, 23, (1), 185-192. 73. Alvarez, E.; Guillou, N.; Martineau, C.; Bueken, B.; Van de Voorde, B.; Le Guillouzer, C.; Fabry, P.; Nouar, F.; Taulelle, F.; de Vos, D.; Chang, J.-S.; Cho, K. H.; Ramsahye, N.; Devic, T.; Daturi, M.; Maurin, G.; Serre, C., The Structure of the Aluminum Fumarate Metal–Organic Framework A520. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2015, 54, (12), 3664-3668. 74. Rubio-Martinez, M.; Hadley, T. D.; Batten, M. P.; Constanti-Carey, K.; Barton, T.; Marley, D.; Mönch, A.; Lim, K.-S.; Hill, M. R., Scalability of Continuous Flow Production of Metal–Organic Frameworks. ChemSusChem 2016, 9, (9), 938-941. 75. Lucia, O.; Acero, J.; Carretero, C.; Burdio, J. M., Induction Heating Appliances: Toward More Flexible Cooking Surfaces. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2013, 7, (3), 35-47. 76. Kenneth, F.; Mats, A.; Tord, C.; Leif, S.; Peter, J.; Jan-Eric, S., Industrial heating using energy efficient induction technology in: Proceedings of the 44th CIRP International Conference on Manufacturing Systems. In 44th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems Madison, 2011. 77. Wildeboer, R. R.; Southern, P.; Pankhurst, Q. A., On the reliable measurement of specific absorption rates and intrinsic loss parameters in magnetic hyperthermia materials. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2014, 47, (49), 495003. 78. Rosensweig, R. E., Heating magnetic fluid with alternating magnetic field. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2002, 252, 370-374. 79. Pankhurst, Q. A.; Connolly, J.; Jones, S. K.; Dobson, J., Applications of magnetic nanoparticles in biomedicine. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2003, 36, (13), R167.

Graphical Abstract


22

Page 23 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60



23

Magnetic Framework Composites for Low Concentration Methane

Recommend Documents