↓ Skip to main content

Materials Genome in Action: Identifying the Performance Limits of Physical Hydrogen Storage

Overview of attention for article published in Chemistry of Materials, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Materials Genome in Action: Identifying the Performance Limits of Physical Hydrogen Storage
Published in
Chemistry of Materials, March 2017
DOI 10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b04933
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Materials Genome is in action: the molecular codes for millions of materials have been sequenced, predictive models have been developed, and now the challenge of hydrogen storage is targeted. Renewably generated hydrogen is an attractive transportation fuel with zero carbon emissions, but its storage remains a significant challenge. Nanoporous adsorbents have shown promising physical adsorption of hydrogen approaching targeted capacities, but the scope of studies has remained limited. Here the Nanoporous Materials Genome, containing over 850 000 materials, is analyzed with a variety of computational tools to explore the limits of hydrogen storage. Optimal features that maximize net capacity at room temperature include pore sizes of around 6 Å and void fractions of 0.1, while at cryogenic temperatures pore sizes of 10 Å and void fractions of 0.5 are optimal. Our top candidates are found to be commercially attractive as "cryo-adsorbents", with promising storage capacities at 77 K and 100 bar with 30% enhancement to 40 g/L, a promising alternative to liquefaction at 20 K and compression at 700 bar.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 20%
Researcher 35 15%
Student > Master 19 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 80 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 40 17%
Chemical Engineering 27 11%
Materials Science 22 9%
Engineering 21 9%
Physics and Astronomy 10 4%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 93 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#10,633,996
of 34,202,641 outputs
Outputs from Chemistry of Materials
#6,396
of 15,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,658
of 348,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemistry of Materials
#92
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,202,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.