Supplementary Materials for - Science

www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/302/suppl/DC1

Supplementary Materials for CO2 capture from humid flue gases and humid atmosphere using a microporous coppersilicate Shuvo Jit Datta, Chutharat Khumnoon, Zhen Hao Lee, Won Kyung Moon, Son Docao, Thanh Huu Nguyen, In Chul Hwang, Dohyun Moon, Peter Oleynikov, Osamu Terasaki, Kyung Byung Yoon* *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Published 16 October 2015, Science 350, 302 (2015) DOI: 10.1126/science.aab1680

This PDF file includes: Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S19 Tables S1 to S5 References

Materials and Methods Materials Sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3, 10.6 % Na2O, and ~26.5% SiO2, Sigma-Aldrich), sodium silicate solution (Na2SiO3, 17-19% Na2O, and 35-38%, SiO2, Kanto), copper sulfate pentahydrate (CuSO4. 5H2O, 99%, Alfa-Aesar), titanium isopropoxide [TIP, 98%, Junsei], vanadium oxide (V2O5, 99%, Aldrich), sulfuric acid (H2SO4, 95%, Duksan), hydrofluoric acid (HF, 48-51%, Baker), sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 93%, Duksan), sodium chloride (99.5%, Samchun), potassium fluoride (KF, 95%, Samchun), potassium hydroxide (KOH, 95%, Samchun), potassium chloride (KCl, 99%, Oriental), magnesium nitrate hexahydrate (Mg(NO3)2·6H2O, 99%, Sigma-Aldrich), nickel (II) acetate tetrahydrate (Ni(OCOCH3)2· 4H2O, 98%, Aldrich), cobalt (II) acetate tetrahydrate (Co(OCOCH3)2· 4H2O, 98.5%, Junsei), zinc carbonate basic ([ZnCO3]2· Zn(OH)2]3, 58% Zn basis, Sigma-Aldrich), zinc nitrate tetrahydrate (Zn(NO3)2· 4H2O, 98%, Samchun), copper nitrate trihydrate (Cu(NO3)2· 3H2O, 99-104%, Sigma-Aldrich), chromium nitrate nonahydrate (Cr(NO3)3· 9H2O, 99%, Sigma-Aldrich), zinc hexafluorosilicate hydrate (ZnSiF6· xH2O, 99%, Aldrich), copper hexafluorosilicate hydrate (CuSiF6· xH2O, Fluorochem), vanadium (III) chloride (VCl3, 97%, Aldrich), 2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid (H4DOBDC, 98%, Aldrich), pyrazine (C4H4N2, 98% TCI), citric acid monohydrate (C6H8O7·H2O, 99.5%, SigmaAldrich), 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole (C2H4N4, 95%, Sigma), 3,3´,5,5´-biphenyltetracarboxylic acid (C16H10O8, Aldrich), 1,3,5-Tris(4-carboxyphenyl)benzene (H3BTB, 98%, Aldrich), Benzene1,3,5-tricarboxylic acid (Aldrich), terephthalic acid (C8H6O4, 98%, Aldrich), 2-Methylimidazole (C4H6N2, 98%, Fluka), N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, 99%, Samchun), N,N-diethylformamide (DEF, 99%, Samchun), tetrahydrofuran (THF, 99.8%, SK), methanol (CH3OH, 99.9%, SigmaAldrich), ethanol (C2H5OH, 99.9%, Samchun), were purchased and used without further purification. CO2 (99.999%), N2 (99.999%), O2 (99.999%) and mixed gases consisting of CO2:N2 = 10:90 and CO2:O2 = 10:90, simulated flue gases consisting of CO2, O2, and N2 with the volume ratio of 10:19:71, 11:19:70, and 12.5:18.5:69 and simulated air (400 ppm CO2, in O2 and N2) were purchased from RIGAS, Sam Jung, and Air Products Korea. Methods Synthesis of ETS-10 (Titanosilicate, Na1.11K0.83TiSi5O13· xH2O) A Si source solution was first prepared by dissolving Na2SiO3 (18.4 g, 17-19% Na2O, and 35-38%, SiO2, Kanto) in H2O (60 g). Into this, a NaOH solution (2.4 g of NaOH and 20 g of H2O) was added with vigorous stirring, and the mixture was stirred for 2 h. For the preparation of Ti source solution, titanium isopropoxide (5.7 g), H2SO4 (4.5 g), and H2O (35 g) were mixed together and boiled at 100˚C for 90 min, 10 ml H2O was finally added into the mixture and allowed to cool at room temperature. The Ti source solution was added drop wise into the Si source solution, and the mixture was stirred for 1 h. A dilute KF solution (1.2 g of KF and 15 g of H2O) was added into the above mixture. The mixture was aged for 16 h at room temperature and transferred into a Teflon-lined autoclave, and heated at 200°C for 22 h under a static condition. After cooling the autoclave to room temperature, the crystals were collected by centrifugation, and washed with copious amounts of distilled deionized water. The scanning 1

electron microscopy (SEM) shows the typical crystal size 200-300 nm, and those crystal could be used as the seed for AM-6 and SGU-29 synthesis. Synthesis of AM-6 (Vanadosilicate, Na1.12K0.85VSi5O13· xH2O) Preparation of Si source solution: A NaOH solution (3 g NaOH and 20 g of H2O) was added into the sodium silicate solution composed of 12.2 g of Na2SiO3 (17-19% Na2O, and 35-38%, SiO2, Kanto) and 40 g of H2O. A dilute KCl solution (3 g of KCl and 10 g of H2O) was added into the above mixture and the mixture was vigorously stirred. Preparation of vanadium source solution: A required amount of H2SO4 (4.9 g) was added into a 100-mL round bottom flask containing H2O (10 g). Subsequently, V2O5 (1.7 g) and EtOH (4 g) were sequentially added into the flask. The mixture was refluxed for 40 min, during the heterogeneous mixture was turned into blue solution. The blue V source solution was added into the Si source solution in a dropwise manner. The mixture was aged for 15 h at room temperature; seed ETS-10 (50 mg) was added into the gel and the gel was transferred into a 50 ml Teflonlined autoclave, and placed in a preheated oven at 230 °C for 48 h, under a static condition. The precipitated pale yellow crystals were collected, washed, dried at 100 °C for 1 h. Synthesis of SGU-29 (Coppersilicate, Na1.15K0.84CuSi5O12· xH2O) The silicon source solution was prepared by mixing of sodium silicate (40 g, 10.6 % Na2O, and ~26.5% SiO2, Sigma-Aldrich), 1.3 g of NaOH, 12 g of KCl, 18.5 g of NaCl, and 60 g of DDW. The mixture was vigorously stirred (800 rpm) at room temperature for 3 h. The copper source solution was prepared by dissolving CuSO4 (9 g) in 30 g of DDW containing 1.2 g of H2SO4. The copper source solution was then added into the sodium silicate solution in a dropwise manner. The mixture was aged for 15 h at room temperature, and the pH was adjusted to 10.66 (if required) by adding diluted H2SO4 in water. The seed ETS-10 (100 mg) was added into the gel and the gel was transferred into the 50 ml Teflon-lined autoclaves, and placed in a preheated oven at 215 °C for 24 h under a static condition. The precipitated light purple crystals were collected by centrifugation at 8000 rpm, and washed with copious amounts of water. The sample was dried at 100 °C for 1 h, and analyzed by X-ray powder diffraction. Preparation of Na+-exchanged SGU-29, AM-6 and ETS-10 The ion exchange was conducted at 70 C for 120 min and repeated for three times. First, 1 g of pristine (SGU-29, AM-6 or ETS-10) powder was introduced into a glass vial containing 45 mL of 1 M NaCl solution and subsequently the heterogeneous mixture was magnetically stirred and washed with copious amount of water. The ion exchange proceeded up to 85%. The chemical composition was determined by ICP-MS and X-ray fluorescence. The compositions were found to be Na1.69K0.3CuSi5O12•xH2O, Na1.65K0.33VSi5O13•xH2O, and Na1.61K0.35TiSi5O13•xH2O for SGU-29, AM-6 and ETS-10, respectively. Synthesis of Mg-DODBC (Mg2(dhtp)(H2O)2·8H2O) Mg-DOBDC was synthesized according to reported procedure (11). Briefly, H4DOBDC (2,5dihydroxyterephthalic acid, 0.11g, 0.555 mmol, 1 equiv) was dissolved in 25 mL of 15:1:1 (v/v/v) mixture of DMF-ethanol-water. Separately, Mg(NO3)2·6H2O (0.47 g, 1.83 mmol, 3.3 equivalent) was dissolved in 25 ml of 15:1:1 (v/v/v) mixture of DMF-ethanol-water. These two solutions were mixed together and stirred for 15 min at RT. The solution was then transferred into a 65 mL Teflon lined autoclave and the autoclave was placed in a preheated oven at 125 C for 20 h. 2

After reaction the autoclave was removed from the oven and allowed to cool to RT. The yellow microcrystalline product was collected by centrifugation and placed in methanol (10 mL). The methanol was decanted and the yellow product was placed in fresh methanol. This procedure was repeated for four times in two days. A dark yellow crystalline material was obtained. Synthesis of SIFSIX-3-Cu, [Cu(SiF6)(pyz)]·2H2O]n SIFSIX-3-Cu was synthesized according to the reported procedure (14). Pyrazine (1.20 g, 15 mmol) was dissolved in 20 ml of methanol. Separately, CuSiF6·H2O (1.3 g, 6.32 mmol) dissolved in 20 mL of methanol. The pyrazine solution was carefully layered onto CuSiF6·H2O solution and the solution was kept at 40 ºC for 1 days. The turquoise color microcrystalline sample was collected by methanol decantation and placed in 40 ml methanol. The methanol was decanted and refill three times over three days and dried at RT. Synthesis of SIFSIX-3-Zn, [Zn(SiF6)(pyz)]·2H2O]n SIFSIX-3-Zn was synthesized according to the reported procedure (13) with a slight modification. Pyrazine (1.04 g, 13 mmol) was dissolved in 20 ml of methanol. Separately, ZnSiF6·H2O (1.3 g, 6.26 mmol) was dissolved in 20 ml of methanol. The pyrazine solution was carefully layered onto ZnSiF6·H2O solution and the solution was kept at 40 C for 3 days. The rest of the procedure is the same with that for the synthesis of SIFSIX-3-Cu. Synthesis of Ni-DOBDC, (Ni2(dhtp)(H2O)2·8H2O) Ni-DOBDC was synthesized according to the reported procedure (31). Briefly, H4DOBDC (2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, 0.298 g, 1.5 mmol) was dissolved in 20 ml THF by sonication. Separately, nickel acetate tetrahydrate (Ni(OCOCH3)2·4H2O, 0.746 g, 3 mmol) was dissolved in 20 ml of water by sonication. These two solutions were mixed together and stirred for 15 min at RT. The solution was then transferred in 65 ml Teflon lined autoclave and placed in preheated oven at 110 C for 72 h. After the reaction the autoclave was removed and allowed to cool to RT. The deep-yellow microcrystalline product was collected and washed with methanol (10 ml) by placing it in methanol for 15 h and decanting the supernatant solution. This procedure was repeated for two times and the product was dried at 50 C. NaX, [Na88(Al88Si104O384)·xH2O] Commercially available zeolite X (Lot no 943196110142 from UOP) was ion exchanged with Na+ by placing 1 g of zeolite X powder in a glass vial containing 90 mL of 1 M NaCl solution and subsequently stirred at 70ºC for 120 min. This procedure was repeated twice. After ion-exchange the sample was washed with copious amount of water until the chloride test with AgNO3 solution was negative. Synthesis of UTSA-16, {[KCo3(C6H4O7)(C6H5O7)(H2O)2]•8H2O}n) UTSA-16 was synthesized according to the reported procedure (15). Citric acid (C6H8O7·H2O, 0.63 g, 3.28 mmol) was dissolved in 7.5 ml of 1:1 (v/v) mixture H2O-ethanol. Subsequently, KOH (0.504 g, 9 mmol) was added into the above solution and the solution was sonicated for 3 min. Separately, cobalt acetate tetrahydrate (Co(OCOCH3)2·4H2O, 0.75 g, 3 mmol) was dissolved in 7.5 ml of 1:1 (v/v) mixture H2O-ethanol. Upon mixing these two solutions a violet sticky gel was formed. The hydrothermal reaction was carried out at 120 C for 3

48 h. The violet prismatic crystals were collected by filtration, washed with diethyl ether, and dried at RT. Synthesis of Zn2(Atz)2(ox) Zn2(Atz)2(ox) was synthesized according to the reported procedure (27). Zinc carbonate basic [ZnCO3]2·[Zn(OH)2]3 (0.5 g) was dispersed in 25 ml of 1:1 (v/v) mixture of methanol-water by sonication. Subsequently, oxalic acid (0.5 g) was added into the solution and sonicated for 5 minutes. Separately, 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole (2 g) was dissolved in 25 ml of 1:1 (v/v) mixture of methanol-water. These two solutions were mixed together and stirred for 15 min at RT. The mixture was transferred into a 65 ml Teflon lined autoclave and the autoclave was placed in a preheated oven at 180 ºC for 72 h. The white aggregated cubic crystals were collected by filtration and soaked in dry acetone for 3 days. The sample was heated under vacuum at 60 C for 2 h and at 100 C for 12 h before use. Synthesis of Co-DOBDC, Zn-DOBDC, HKUST-1, MOF-505, MOF-14, MIL-47, MIL-101 (Cr), ZIF-8, IRMOF-1, and MOF-177 The above materials were synthesized according to the reported procedures: Co-DOBDC (32), Zn-DOBDC (33), HKUST-1 (35), MOF-505 (36), MOF-14 (37), MIL-47 (39), MIL-101 (41), IRMOF-1 (44), MOF-177 (45). ZIF-8 (46), X-ray powder diffraction analysis Powder X-Ray diffraction patterns were collected on a Rigaku D/MAX-2500/pc diffractometer (Cu K =1.54056 Ǻ) with an operating power of 50kV/200mA and automatic divergence slit (irradiated length = 10 mm), a progressive receiving slit (slit height = 0.3 mm), and a flat plate sample holder. The data were collected by the step-counting method (step = 0.02º, time = 4 s) in the range 2 = 3-50º. In-situ powder X-ray diffraction patterns were collected on a Rigaku Ultima IV X-ray diffractometer (Cu K =1.54056 Ǻ, dual position graphite diffracted beam monochromator) with an operated power 40kV/50mA. The temperature was varied between 25 and 600 ºC under air. The heating rate was 5 ºC/min and the holding time at each temperature was 30 min so that the temperature of the sample can reach the equilibrium. Single crystal X-ray diffraction structure analysis Data collection The single crystal diffraction data of SGU-29 was recorded at room temperature on an ADSC Quantum 210 CCD diffractometer using synchrotron radiation (λ = 0.7000 Å), a scan width of 1.00 in , a measuring time of 10~30 sec per frame, and detector distance of 63.00 mm in Macromolecular Crystallography Wiggler Beamline 2D, Pohang Accelerator Laboratory (PAL). The diffraction patterns were processed and scaled using the HKL3000 program. The structure was solved by the direct methods. The collected data was refined in the tetragonal (polymorph type-A, SGU-29 T) and the monoclinic (polymorph type-B, SGU-29 M) crystal systems derived from the original triclinic system. The refinement was carried out with full-matrix least-squares on F2 in the SHELXTL program package. For the measurement of a single crystal synchrotron X-ray diffraction, a suitable piece was obtained by cutting a large single crystal along three directions (fig. S4). The reason for dissecting the crystal was in the polycrystalline nature of the single crystal diffraction data that 4

was initially collected from the whole piece. The data collection was performed in the primitive triclinic crystal system setting (Table S1). Crystal structure solution and refinement The crystal structure of SGU-29 was solved using the direct methods in 3 different space groups: (i) C-centered monoclinic (C2/c) for monoclinic SGU-29 (M) which corresponds to the polymorph type-B of ETS-10 proposed by Anderson et al. (22); (ii) primitive tetragonal (P41/P43) for tetragonal SGU-29 (T) which resembles the polymorph type-A of ETS-10 proposed by Anderson et al. (22); and (iii) I-centered tetragonal (I41/amd) that counterfeit the T1 type derived by Wang and Jacobson (23). The structure solution converged to low R-factors for the SGU-29 T1 and M types. The single crystal structural data of SGU-29 (M) and (T1) are summarized in the Table S1. The comparison of SGU-29 structure data with that of ETS-10 can be found in Table S2. SGU-29 (monoclinic type M, s.g. C2/c) The centrosymmetric monoclinic space group C2/c (no. 15) was used for the structure solution of the monoclinic SGU-29 (M). The unit cell parameters and the volume were determined as a = 20.820(4), b = 20.819(4), c = 14.697(3) Å, β = 110.73(3)o and V = 5958(2) Å3. The initial refinement of the structure model revealed high anisotropy of several atoms in the unit cell (all Cu atoms, eight Si atoms and twelve O atoms). In order to resolve the presence of severe disorder a new average structure (fig. S5A) was introduced into the refinement procedure by combining two independent parts, namely part-1 and part 2 (fig. S5B and fig S5C respectively) with the refined content of 72.75% for part-1. The final coppersilicate framework structure (M) is consistent with the titanosilicate ETS-10 polymorph type-B structure (22). The information for the basic building units, the average bond lengths and angles of SGU-29(M) is show in (fig. S6). The unit cell of SGU-29 (M) contains five crystallographically independent sodium atoms (Na+). Their positions are shown in fig. S7, together with the data for interatomic distances and ionic coordination numbers (fig. S8). SGU-29 (tetragonal type T1, s.g. I41/amd) Besides the monoclinic structural model, the single crystal data of SGU-29 can be described and refined using higher symmetry, e.g. in the I-centered tetragonal Bravais lattice system following Wang and Jacobson (23) with the unit cell parameters a = b = 7.361(1) and c = 27.492(6) Å. The initial refinement resulted in high anisotropy of some atoms (one Cu atom, two Si atoms, five O atoms and two Na atoms) in the unit cell. The final structure of T1 coppersilicate framework has average bond lengths and angles of the monoclinic SGU-29(M). Analysis of electron microscopy data Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were obtained using a field-emission scanning electron microscopes (FE-SEM, JEOL JEM 7600 and Hitachi S-4300) operated at 15 kV. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images were collected on a JEOL JEM 4010 microscope operated at 400 kV. High resolution transition electron microscopy (HRTEM) image of SGU-29 is shown in fig. S9A and is similar to that of ETS-10 reported previously by Anderson et al. (22). The single crystal precession electron diffraction (PED) patterns were acquired and processed with the EDTCOLLECT and EDT-PROCESS software packages (47). The selected area PED pattern taken along [1-10] zone axis from the edge of an individual SGU-29 crystal (fig. S9B) reveals presence 5

of diffuse lines along c* direction. These lines are due to severe stacking disorder in the structure. The 2mm plane symmetry of the PED pattern (fig. S9B) can be explained by both monoclinic (M) and tetragonal (T) structure models as follows. A diffraction pattern from a tetragonal crystal taken along [010]T will be similar to that shown in fig. S9C. Simultaneously, a crystal with two monoclinic parts (50% each) of monoclinic M and mirrored monoclinic Mm will produce an average ED pattern along [110]M (fig. S9D) with 2mm plane symmetry that is the sum of 2 individual ED patterns from both monoclinic parts (fig. S9D to E) having only 2-fold symmetry. The significant similarity between fig. S9C and fig. S9F suggests that the structure of SGU-29 can be described by either M + Mm or T models. Magnetic susceptibility and ESR spectra measurement Zero-field cooled (ZFC) susceptibility was measured on a SQUID magnetometer (MPMS5) at Pusan National University at 1000 Oe between 2 to 300 K. Electron spin resonance (ESR) spectra were measured at room temperature on a Bruker A200 electron spin resonance spectrometer. Chemical composition determination Elemental analyses of SGU-29 for the ratio of Na+, K+, Si, and Cu were carried out using ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies, 7700 series ICP-MS) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Gas sorption measurements The low-pressure gas sorption isotherms were collected on a BELSORP-max surface area and pore size distribution analyzer. SGU-29 was evacuated under vacuum at 250 C for 12 h. Other CO2 sorbents employed in this work for comparison were dehydrated under the conditions described in the original references. The exchanging solvents, durations, evacuation temperatures and times are listed in the table S3. The surface area of SGU-29 was determined from the N2 adsorption isotherm at 77 K, by applying Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method. The isosteric heats of adsorption (Qst) for CO2, N2, and O2 in Fig. 2H were calculated from the corresponding sorption isotherms measured at the temperatures between 298 and 338 K using the Clausius-Clapeyron expression. The bath temperature was accurately controlled with the temperature accuracy of ±0.2 ºC using a temperature control system (CWB-13G, Hanyang Scientific Equipment) containing a mixture of ethylene glycol and water as the heat transfer fluid. Adsorption selectivity The ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST) was used to calculate the selectivity (48). Using the pure component isotherms, the adsorption selectivity is given as Selectivity =

/ /

(1)

where qi and pi are the uptake and the partial pressure of component i, respectively. Dynamic column CO2 breakthrough experiments The gas separation capabilities of SGU-29 and other sorbents were tested using a standard dynamic CO2 breakthrough set up (fig. S10). Through one port pure CO2 or a premixed gas with a known composition was introduced into the set up and the flow rate was controlled by mass 6

flow controllers (MFC). The introduced gas was passed through a water bath to include water vapor into the mixed gas. The amount of moisture into a gas mixture was controlled by controlling water bath temperature. Using a high precision humidity sensor the humidity of a gas mixture was monitored. Into a stainless steel sample bed 0.5 mL of a CO2 sorbent (typically, 0.51 g) was packed. The dimension of the stainless steel sample bed was, inner diameter = 4 mm, outer diameter = 6.5 mm, and length = 14 cm. Argon was initially purged into the sample column. The experiments were performed under isothermal conditions with the temperature ranging between 298 and 378 K and the pressure of 1013 mbar (negligible pressure drop or increase) and the mixed gas flow rate was 3 mL/min. The sample bed, humidity sensor, and the pressure transducer were placed within an oven to control the temperature of the sorbent and system. The flow rate of the gas was further confirmed using a bubble flow meter.

7

Table S1 to S5 Table S1. Crystal data and structural refinement of SGU-29. Chemical formula Formula weight Temperature Wavelength Crystal system Space group Unit cell dimensions

Volume Z Density (calculated) Absorption coefficient F(000) Crystal size θ range for data collection Index ranges Reflections collected Independent reflections Completeness to θ = 29.54° Absorption correction Max. and min. transmission Refinement method Data / restraints / parameters Goodness-of-fit on F2 Final R indices [I>2sigma(I)] R indices (all data) Extinction coefficient Largest diff. peak and hole

SGU-29(T1) (polymorph A) Na2[CuSi5O12] 441.97 297(2) K 0.70000 Å Tetragonal I4(1)/amd a = 7.3608(10) Å b = 7.3608(10) Å c = 27.492(6) Å 1489.6(4) Å3 4 1.971 Mg/m3 1.897 mm-1 868 0.010 x 0.010 x 0.005 mm3 2.82 to 29.54°. -10 ≤ h ≤ 10, -10 ≤ k ≤ 10, -38 ≤ l ≤ 38 7369 622 [R(int) = 0.0353] 98.1 %

SGU-29(M) (polymorph B) Na2[CuSi5O12] 441.97 297(2) K 0.70000 Å Monoclinic C2/c a = 20.820(4) Å, b = 20.819(4) Å, c = 14.697(3) Å, β = 110.73(3)°. 5958(2) Å3 16 1.971 Mg/m3 1.897 mm-1 3472 0.010 x 0.010 x 0.005 mm3 1.75 to 29.54°. -29 ≤ h ≤ 29, -29 ≤ k ≤ 29, -20 ≤ l ≤ 20 31334 8716 [R(int) = 0.0760] 99.5 %

Empirical 0.9986 and 0.9813 Full-matrix least-squares on F2 622 / 0 / 51 1.051 R1 = 0.0448, wR2 = 0.1562 R1 = 0.0449, wR2 = 0.1564 0.638 and -0.608 e.Å-3

Empirical 0.9906 and 0.9813 Full-matrix least-squares on F2 8716 / 0 / 481 1.041 R1 = 0.0837, wR2 = 0.2698 R1 = 0.0964, wR2 = 0.2861 0.0048(5) 1.434 and -2.450 e. Å-3

8

Table S2. Comparison of structural parameters of SGU-29 and ETS-10. Name

SGU-29

References Analysis technique

ETS-10

This work

Ref (22)

Ref (23)

Single crystal X-ray diffraction and HRTEM

Powder XRD, NMR and HRTEM

Single crystal X-ray diffraction

Chemical formula Crystal system

Monoclinic

Tetragonal

Monoclinic

Tetragonal

Tetragonal

Space group

C2/c (no. 15)

I41/amd (141)

C2/c (15)

P41(76) or P43 (78)

I41/amd (141)

Unit cell

a = 20.820(4) Å

a = 7.361(1) Å

a = 21.00 Å

a = 14.58 Å

a = 7.487(1) Å

b = 20.819(4) Å

b = 7.361(1) Å

b = 21.00 Å

b = 14.58 Å

c = 14.697(3) Å

c = 27.492(6) Å

c = 14.51 Å

c = 27.08 Å

b= 7.487(1) Å c = 27.407(5) Å

Na2[CuSi5O12]

β = 110.73(3)° 3

Na2[TiSi5O13]

β= 111.12(3)°

Volume[Å ]

5958(2)

1489.6(4) 

5969.08

5756.57 

1536.2(4)

Z

16

4

16

16

4

R1 [I>2Σ(I)]

0.0848

0.0448

-

-

0.119

R1 (all data)

0.0975 Part I = 72.6 %,

0.0449

Occupancies for disorder atoms Na+ coordination

Part II = 27.4 % Yes

0.1578

Half occupancies of independent atoms

-

-

Half occupancies of independent atoms

Yes

No

No

Yes

9

Table S3. Exchanging solvent, activation temperature and time, and comparisons of obtain and reference BET surface areas (m2/g). Exchanging Solvent

Activation

Surface Area (m2/g) ref solvent time (h) temp (ºC) time (h) obtained ref --250 12 457 -SGU-29 this work --250 12 430 -AM-6 this work --250 12 440 -ETS-10 8 methanol 72 RT/50 12/12 318 300 SIFSIX-3-Cu 14 methanol 72 RT 25 239 250 SIFSIX-3-Zn 13 methanol 48 250 5 1522 1495 Mg-DOBDC 11 methanol 48 250 5 1189 1070 Ni-DOBDC 31 methanol 24 250 5 1045 1080 Co-DOBDC 32 methanol 72 250 5 856 816 Zn-DOBDC 33 --90 24 636 628 UTSA-16 15 --250 12 635 -NaX 9 --250 12 --Cs-CHA 10 acetone 72 100 12 764 782 Zn-Atz 27 --250 12 1558 1663 HKUST-1 35 acetone 72 120 12 1608 1830 MOF-505 36 --100 12 1539 1502 MOF-14 37 --100 12 1007 930 MIL-47 39 --250 12 3688 3870 MIL-101(Cr) 41 chloroform 5 100 5 3869 3800 IRMOF-1 44 chloroform 72 100 5 3280 4500 MOF-177 45 methanol 48 100 5 1709 1630 ZIF-8 46 The surface areas for SIFSIX-3-Cu, SIFSIX-3-Zn, and Zn-Atz were obtained from CO2 adsorption isotherms at 298 K and others from N2 sorption isotherms at 77 K. Sorbents

10

Table S4. CO2 uptake (cm3/cm3) from CO2 sorption isotherms at various pressure and calculated crystal density (g/cm3) for various CO2 sorbents used in this study. Framework density Reference 0.4 mbar 50 mbar 100 mbar 1000 mbar g/cm3 26.0 114.6 125.5 156.0 1.97 SGU-29 this work 12.2 98.3 110.2 143.7 2.01 AM-6 this work 1.8 74.8 101.2 161.9 0.91 Mg-DOBDC 11 3.7 89.8 100.1 127.9 2.20 ETS-4 8 8.4 80.8 94.4 134.9 1.93 ETS-10 8 43.1 84.1 85.0 88.2 1.58 SIFSIX-3-Cu 14 5.2 75.9 81.2 89.7 1.57 SIFSIX-3-Zn 13 0.9 51.5 80.2 160.7 1.19 Ni-DOBDC 31 6.2 51.7 75.1 144.9 1.42 NaX 9 -64.6 71.1 99.7 1.04 Na-Rho 7 -28.2 64.9 152.9 1.66 UTSA-16 15 -33.4 54.9 136.0 1.71 Zn-Atz 27 -26.3 50.9 154.6 1.18 Co-DOBDC 32 -34.2 50.1 104.9 1.51 Na-A 6 -30.7 46.0 75.4 2.25 Cs-CHA 10 -22.3 42.0 67.2 1.42 UiO-66(Zr)-COOH 16 -13.1 26.2 141.7 1.22 Zn-DOBDC 33 -14.0 24.1 89.5 1.27 ZIF-20 34 -10.4 19.1 83.0 1.30 ZIF-69 17 -5.0 10.5 95.4 0.88 HKUST-1 35 -4.7 10.3 81.1 0.99 MOF-505 36 -4.1 8.4 58.1 0.89 MOF-14 37 -3.6 8.4 40.0 1.45 ZIF-300 18 -4.6 7.9 61.9 0.66 PCN-88 38 -3.1 6.4 45.0 1.00 MIL-47 39 -2.3 2.9 19.1 0.86 ZIF-100 40 -1.1 2.6 21.3 0.44 MIL-101 41 -1.1 2.5 18.1 0.63 NOTT-202a 42 -1.1 1.8 18.3 0.30 NU-100 43 -0.8 1.7 11.8 0.59 IRMOF-1 44 -0.8 1.5 8.6 0.43 MOF-177 45 -0.5 1.2 26.2 1.14 ZIF-8 46 CO2 uptake of ZIF-20 and ZIF-69 at 273 K, PCN-88 at 296 K, NOTT-202a at 293 K and remained data at 298 K. Sorbents

CO2 uptake (cm3/cm3)

11

Table S5. Comparison of the performance of SGU-29 and AM-6 with eight of the best currently available CO2 adsorbing materials. (Qst)CO2 at low loading (kJ mol-1)

Sorbents

H2O uptake at 31.6 mbar [*]

Selectivity at 1 bar (10/90) CO2/N2 CO2/O2 3515 4569

Static CO2 uptake at 100 mbar [*] 125.5

Dynamic CO2 uptake from breakthrough exp [*] F0 F29 117 115

SGU-29

51.30

393

AM-6

NM

419

1579

2217

110.2

101

99

Mg-DOBDC

47

875

235

350

101.2

86

30

ETS-4

NA

507

NA

NA

100.1

91

87

ETS-10

NA

420

879

988

94.4

87

84

SIFSIX-3-Cu

54

368

6897

9780

85.0

77

72

SIFSIX-3-Zn

45

411

1680

2015

81.2

56

54

Ni-DOBDC

41

870

44

81

80.2

68

53

NaX

48.2

681

541

957

75.1

63

51

34.6

607

58

93

64.5

42

38

UTSA-16 3

3

[*] cm /cm , Water sorption isotherms performed at 298 K, selectivity calculated using IAST from pure (CO2, N2 and O2) component sorption isotherms measured at 298 K, static and dynamic CO2 uptake obtained from pure CO2 sorption isotherms and column breakthrough experiment using a simulate dry (F0) and 90% RH flue gas (F29), respectively at 298 K. Not measured (NM), Not available (NA).

12

Figs. S1 to S19

Fig. S1. X-ray powder diffraction patterns of ETS-10, AM-6, SGU-29, and the simulated diffraction pattern for the monoclinic lattice system of SGU-29 single crystal with Cu Kα1 as the X-ray source. The vertical pink dot lines represent the family of 110, 220, and 440 planes that include the centers of the open channels and quantum wires (ETS-10, AM-6) or open channels and columns of [CuO4]-units (SGU-29) packed perpendicular to c-axis.

13

Intensity (a.u.)

600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 oC 100 50 25

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2 Theta degree

Fig. S2. In situ X-Ray powder diffraction patterns of SGU-29 at mentioned temperature under air.

14

0.08

800

0.06

600

0.04

400

0.02

C= 0.3656 eff=1.71 BM

Intensity

B

 (emu/mol)

 (emu/mol)

A

g = 2.15 Hpp=202

200

0

0.00 0

50

100 150 200 250 Temperature (K)

300

2100

2900 3700 Magnetic field (G)

4500

Fig. S3. (A) Plots of magnetic susceptibility () and inverse magnetic susceptibility (1/) of SGU-29 with respect to temperature (T) from 2 to 300 K. The calculated effective magnetic moment (eff) is 1.71 BM. The linear relationship established between 1/ and T demonstrates that the Cu ions in SGU-29 are Curie-like purely paramagnetic. (B) The X-band ESR spectrum of SGU-29 at room temperature.

15

Fig. S4. A single crystal of SGU-29. (A) SEM image with three cutting directions (red, green and blue dashed lines). (B) Optical (confocal) microscopy image with the corner that was cut for a single crystal X-ray diffraction experiment (yellow dashed lines).

16

Fig. S5. (A) The average crystal structure of monoclinic SGU-29 shown along the [110] zone axis representing the overlap of 2 independent parts (shown as polyhedral and ball-and-stick models). (B) part 1 ( polyhedra), and (C) part 2 ( ball-and-stick). See supplementary methods for details.

17

A. [-1-10] axis

O

α

O

a

Si Cu

a

β O

b

O Si

B. [1-10] axis Si O

O

Si

a

O O c a/b

Si

b

O

d

b

a

a

b

1.580(4) Å 1.934(4) Å o 129.26(2)

a

2. Si  O  Si : a b d(Si  O ) a b a (Si  O  Si )

a

1.619(4) Å o 145.10(3)

c

Si O

b

b

d

O

a

a

1. Cu  O  Si : a a d(Si  O ) a d(Cu  O ) a (Cu  O  Sia)

c

a

a

a

b

b

O Si

c

O

d

a a

O

d

c

a

3. Si  O  Si : a c d(Si  O ) a c a (Si  O  Si )

b

1.657(3) Å o 123.7(2)

C. (001) plane a

b

O Cu

a

a

Si b O

Sid Oc Od O b Si

d

b

4. Si  O  Si : a d d(Si  O ) b d d(Si  O ) a d b (Si  O  Si )

b

1.623(3) Å 1.603(3) Å o 142.1(2)

a c

Fig. S6. (A to C) The basic building units, the average bond lengths and angles in monoclinic SGU-29. 18

Fig. S7. Views of the [CuO4]-units and Na+ ions along various axes.

19

A. Na1: CN = 12 Na(1)  O(18A) Na(1)  O(15A) Na(1)  O(23A) Na(1)  O(22A) Na(1)  O(24A) Na(1)  O(19A) Na(1)  Na(1b) Na(1b)  O(18A) Na(1b)  O(15A) Na(1b)  O(23A) Na(1b)  O(22A) Na(1b)  O(24A) Na(1b)  O(19A) Na(1b)  Na(1b)

= 3.1110(6) = 3.1110(5) = 3.0960(6) = 3.0931(11) = 3.3976(5) = 3.3966(8) = 0.5507(2) = 2.7836(6) = 2.7917(4) = 2.7719(5) = 2.7764(9) = 3.1689(5) = 3.1840(6) = 1.1014(3)

B. Na2: CN = 6

Na(2)O(8) = 4.4389(9) Na(2)O(9) = 4.3941(8) Na(2)  O(5) = 4.4001(8) Na(2)  O(2) = 4.3852(9) Na(2)O(14A) = 4.3248(8) Na(1)O(16A) = 4.3258 (7) Na(2)Na(2) = 1.1239(3)

Fig. S8. (A to D) The positions, coordination and bond distances for Na+ ions, (A) Na1, (B) Na2, (C) Na3, and (D) Na4 and Na5.

20

C. Na3: CN = 6

Na(3)  O(13A) Na(3)  O(17A) Na(3)  O(20A) Na(3)  O(21A) Na(3)  O(14A) Na(3)  O(16A)

D. Na4 and Na5: CN = 7(11)

= 2.6225(8) = 2.6208(5) = 2.5881(6) = 2.5953(4) = 3.2173(5) = 3.2654(6)

Na(4A)  O(13A) Na(4A)  O(17A) Na(4A)  O(18A) Na(4A)  O(15A) Na(4A)  O(19A) Na(4A)  O(7) Na(4A)  O(3) Na(4A)  O(9) Na(4A)  O(3A) Na(4A)  O(6) Na(4A)  O(8) Na(5)  O(20A) Na(5)  O(22A) Na(5)  O(6) Na(5)  O(4a) Na(5)  O(21A) Na(5)  O(24A) Na(5)  O(2) Na(5)  O(7) Na(5)  O(23A) Na(5)  O(4) Na(5)  O(5)

= 2.4365(4) = 2.4451(5) = 2.4818(4) = 2.4821(8) = 2.5718(5) = 2.8975(8) = 2.9105(5) = 3.8790(6) = 3.9658(7) = 3.9578(7) = 3.8738(6) = 2.4493(4) = 2.4950(4) = 2.8955(5) = 3.9646(7) = 2.4498(8) = 2.5470(8) = 3.8775(6) = 3.9699(7) = 2.4925(6) = 2.8746(8) = 3.8707(6)

Fig. S8. (A to D) The positions, coordination and bond distances for Na+ ions, (A) Na1, (B) Na2, (C) Na3, and (D) Na4 and Na5. 21

Fig. S9. (A) HRTEM image of SGU-29. (B) The electron diffraction (ED) pattern of SGU-29 with the axes of the monoclinic and tetragonal lattices. (C) Simulated electron diffraction pattern along the [010] (T). (D, E) Simulated electron diffraction patterns of [110]M (D) and [-1-10]Mm (E). (F) Overlap of the simulated electron diffraction patterns of M and Mm.

22

Fig. S10. Schematic illustration of a set-up for the dynamic column CO2 separation.

23

Fig. S11. Three different types of tilted elliptical 12-mebered rings running along [110] direction. The tilted angles are as indicated.

24

SG U2 Mg AM 9 -D OB 6 DC ET SSIF ETS 4 -1 S SIF IX-3- 0 SIX Cu Ni -3-Z -D OB n DC Na Na X -R ho UT SA -16 Co Zn-A -D OB tz DC Na Cs -A Ui -CH OA Zn 66(Z -D r OB ) D ZIF C -20 Z HK IF-69 US MO T-1 FMO 505 F ZIF -14 -3 PC 00 NMI 88 L ZIF -47 MI 100 L NO 10 TT 1 NU 202 -10 0

3

100

3

CO2 uptake (cm /cm ) Mg -D Ni- OBD DO C B S DC Co GU2 -D O 9 UT BDC SA -16 Na X Zn AM -D OB -6 D Zn C -A ET tz SET 10 SNa 4 Na -A H Rho SIF KUS SIX T-1 -3Z SIF ZIF n 2 SIX 0 -3C ZIF u MO -69 FCs 505 Ui -CH O66 A PC (Zr) N MO -88 FMI 14 L-4 ZIF 7 -30 0 ZIF MI -8 LZIF 101 NU 100 -10 0

3

3

CO2 uptake (cm /cm )

A

B 180

140

80

1000 mbar

150

120

90

60

30

0

100 mbar

120

60

40

20

0

Fig. S12. (A, B) Bar graphs comparison of CO2 uptake from CO2 sorption isotherms of the indicated sorbents at (A) 1000 and (B) 100 mbar. The CO2 uptake of Na-A (6), Na-Rho (7), ZIF-20 (34), ZIF-69 (17), UiO-66(Zr)-COOH (16), PCN-88 (38), ZIF-300 (18), ZIF-100 (40), and NU-100 (43) were taken from the literature with the reference shown in the corresponding parenthesis.

25

50

0.4 mbar

3

3

CO2 uptake (cm /cm )

40

30

20

10

SIF SIX -3SG Cu U29 AM ET -6 S-1 SIF N 0 SIX aX -3Zn E TS Mg -4 -D Ni OBD -D OB C DC

0

Fig. S13. The CO2 uptake from CO2 adsorption isotherms at PCO2 = 0.4 mbar.

26

A

B

500 NaX

NaX

600

400

NaA

H2O uptake (cm3/g)

H2O uptake (cm3/cm3)

700

500 ETS-4 ETS-10 AM-6 SGU-29

400 300 200

NaA

300 ETS-10 ETS-4

200

AM-6 SGU-29

100 100 0

0 0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative pressure (P/P0)

1.0

0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative pressure (P/P0)

1.0

Fig. S14. (A, B) A comparison of water adsorption isotherms on SGU-29, AM-6, ETS-10, ETS-4, NaX and NaA at 298 K in two different units (A) cm3/cm3 and (B) cm3/g. Note that P/P0 is the relative pressure of water with P0 of 3.16 kPa is the saturated vapor pressure of water at 298 K.

27

A 1000

B 1000

Mg-DOBDC

Ni-DOBDC

800

Mg-DOBDC NaX

600 UTSA-16

400 SIFSIX-3-Zn SGU-29 SIFSIX-3-Cu

200

0

H2O uptake (cm3/g)

H2O uptake (cm3/cm3)

800

Ni-DOBDC

600 NaX

400 UTSA-16

200 SGU-29

0 0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative pressure (P/P0)

1.0

0.0

SIFSIX-3-Zn SIFSIX-3-Cu

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative pressure (P/P0)

1.0

Fig. S15. (A, B) A comparison of water adsorption isotherms of Mg-DOBDC, Ni-DOBDC, NaX, UTSA16, SIFSIX-3-Cu, SIFSIX-3-Zn, and SGU-29 measured at 298K in two different units (A) cm3/cm3, and (B) cm3/g. P/P0 is the relative pressure of water with P0 = 3.16 kPa, which corresponds to the saturated vapor pressure of water at 298 K.

28

A

B

3.0

F29

2.5

2.5

2.0

1.0

180 sec 120 60 30 0

180 sec 120 60 30 0

1.5 1.0 0.5

0.5 0.0 3800

Absorbance

Absorbance

2.0 1.5

3.0

3600 3400 3200 3000 Wavenumber (cm-1)

2800

0.0 2450

2400 2350 2300 Wavenumber (cm-1)

2250

Fig. S16. (A, B) In situ FTIR spectra of SGU-29 in the region of (A) adsorbed water and (B) adsorbed CO2 taken at various times (0-180 sec) under the flow of a humid flue gas (F29) at 298 K. The F29 gas was passed through water whose temperature was maintained 40 ºC. The flow rate was 50 ml/min.

29

Fig. S17. (A, B) Schematic illustrations showing the presence of only H2O-specific and CO2-specific sites but not H2O/CO2 sharing sites in SGU-29 (A) and H2O-specific, CO2-specific, and H2O/CO2 sharing sites in NaX (B).

30

3.0 2.5 2.0

A

F0

40 min 25 10 5 3 0

40 min

1.5 1.0

0

0.5 3.0 0.0 2.5 2.0

B

40 min 25 10 5 3 0

F29

40 min

1.5 1.0

0

0.5 0.0 4000

3600

3200

2800

2400

2000 2450 2400 2350 2300 2250

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Fig. S18. (A, B) Progressive change of the FTIR spectra of dried AM-6 with time (as indicated) under the flow of (A) dry flue gas F0 and (B)humid flue gas F29 at 298 K. Flow rate = 5 ml/min.

31

A

140

B 140

F29

120

2

80 60

Ni-DOBDC NaX

40

0 1

2

3

4 5 6 7 No. of cycles

100

373 K 353 K

80 60

298 K

40

UTSA-16 Mg-DOBDC SIFSIX-3-Cu SIFSIX-3-Zn

20

403 K

2

UCO (cm3/cm3)

UCO (cm3/cm3)

SGU-29

100

F29

120

20 0 8

9 50

1

2

3

4 5 6 7 No. of cycles

8

9 50

Fig. S19. (A) Comparison of CO2 adsorption capacities of SGU-29 and other reported CO2 sorbents from humid F29 flue gas at 298 K, the sorbents are regenerated using a vacuum swing regeneration mode at 403 K for 30 min. (B) CO2 adsorption of SGU-29 from F29 flue gas, the samples regenerated at mentioned temperature under vacuum for 30 min.

32

References and Notes 1. K. Sumida, D. L. Rogow, J. A. Mason, T. M. McDonald, E. D. Bloch, Z. R. Herm, T. H. Bae, J. R. Long, Carbon dioxide capture in metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Rev. 112, 724– 781 (2012). Medline doi:10.1021/cr2003272 2. Z. Zhang, Z.-Z. Yao, S. Xiang, B. Chen, Perspective of microporous metal-organic frameworks for CO2 capture and separation. Energy Eviron. Sci. 7, 2868–2899 (2014). 3. Y.-S. Bae, R. Q. Snurr, Development and evaluation of porous materials for carbon dioxide separation and capture. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50, 11586–11596 (2011). doi:10.1002/anie.201101891 4. L. Wang, Y. Yang, W. Shen, X. Kong, P. Li, J. Yu, A. E. Rodrigues, CO2 capture from flue gas in an existing coal-fired power plant by two successive pilot-scale VPSA units. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 7947–7955 (2013). doi:10.1021/ie4009716 5. Z. Liu, L. Wang, X. Kong, P. Li, J. Yu, A. E. Rodrigues, Onsite CO2 capture from flue gas by an adsorption process in a coal-fired power plant. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51, 7355–7363 (2012). doi:10.1021/ie3005308 6. T.-H. Bae et al., Evaluation of cation-exchanged zeolite adsorbents for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture. Energy Eviron. Sci. 6, 128–138 (2013). 7. M. M. Lozinska, E. Mangano, J. P. Mowat, A. M. Shepherd, R. F. Howe, S. P. Thompson, J. E. Parker, S. Brandani, P. A. Wright, Understanding carbon dioxide adsorption on univalent cation forms of the flexible zeolite Rho at conditions relevant to carbon capture from flue gases. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 17628–17642 (2012). Medline doi:10.1021/ja3070864 8. A. Anson, C. C. H. Lin, S. M. Kuznicki, J. A. Sawada, Adsorption of carbon dioxide, ethane, and methane on titanosilicate type molecular sieves. Chem. Eng. Sci. 64, 3683–3687 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.ces.2009.05.024 9. F. Su, C. Lu, CO2 capture from gas stream by zeolite 13X using a dual-column temperature/vacuum swing adsorption. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 9021–9027 (2012).

10. J. Shang, G. Li, R. Singh, Q. Gu, K. M. Nairn, T. J. Bastow, N. Medhekar, C. M. Doherty, A. J. Hill, J. Z. Liu, P. A. Webley, Discriminative separation of gases by a “molecular trapdoor” mechanism in chabazite zeolites. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 19246–19253 (2012). Medline doi:10.1021/ja309274y 11. S. R. Caskey, A. G. Wong-Foy, A. J. Matzger, Dramatic tuning of carbon dioxide uptake via metal substitution in a coordination polymer with cylindrical pores. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 10870–10871 (2008). Medline doi:10.1021/ja8036096 12. D. Britt, H. Furukawa, B. Wang, T. G. Glover, O. M. Yaghi, Highly efficient separation of carbon dioxide by a metal-organic framework replete with open metal sites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 20637–20640 (2009). Medline doi:10.1073/pnas.0909718106 13. P. Nugent, Y. Belmabkhout, S. D. Burd, A. J. Cairns, R. Luebke, K. Forrest, T. Pham, S. Ma, B. Space, L. Wojtas, M. Eddaoudi, M. J. Zaworotko, Porous materials with optimal adsorption thermodynamics and kinetics for CO2 separation. Nature 495, 80–84 (2013). Medline doi:10.1038/nature11893 14. O. Shekhah, Y. Belmabkhout, Z. Chen, V. Guillerm, A. Cairns, K. Adil, M. Eddaoudi, Madeto-order metal-organic frameworks for trace carbon dioxide removal and air capture. Nat. Commun. 5, 4228 (2014). Medline doi:10.1038/ncomms5228 15. S. Xiang, Y. He, Z. Zhang, H. Wu, W. Zhou, R. Krishna, B. Chen, Microporous metalorganic framework with potential for carbon dioxide capture at ambient conditions. Nat. Commun. 3, 954 (2012). Medline doi:10.1038/ncomms1956 16. Q. Yang, S. Vaesen, F. Ragon, A. D. Wiersum, D. Wu, A. Lago, T. Devic, C. Martineau, F. Taulelle, P. L. Llewellyn, H. Jobic, C. Zhong, C. Serre, G. De Weireld, G. Maurin, A water stable metal-organic framework with optimal features for CO2 capture. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 125, 10506–10510 (2013). doi:10.1002/ange.201302682 17. R. Banerjee, A. Phan, B. Wang, C. Knobler, H. Furukawa, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Highthroughput synthesis of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks and application to CO2 capture. Science 319, 939–943 (2008). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1152516 18. N. T. T. Nguyen, H. Furukawa, F. Gándara, H. T. Nguyen, K. E. Cordova, O. M. Yaghi, Selective capture of carbon dioxide under humid conditions by hydrophobic chabazite-

type zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 10645–10648 (2014). doi:10.1002/anie.201403980 19. A. C. Kizzie, A. G. Wong-Foy, A. J. Matzger, Effect of humidity on the performance of microporous coordination polymers as adsorbents for CO2 capture. Langmuir 27, 6368– 6373 (2011). Medline doi:10.1021/la200547k 20. J. Liu, J. Tian, P. K. Thallapally, B. P. McGrail, Selective CO2 capture from flue gas using metal-organic frameworks―a fixed bed study. J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 9575–9581 (2012). doi:10.1021/jp300961j 21. L. Wang et al., Experimental evaluation of adsorption technology for CO2 capture from flue gas in an existing coal-fired power plant. Chem. Eng. Sci. 101, 615–619 (2013). 22. M. W. Anderson, O. Terasaki, T. Ohsuna, A. Philippou, S. P. MacKay, A. Ferreira, J. Rocha, S. Lidin, Structure of the microporous titanosilicate ETS-10. Nature 367, 347–351 (1994). doi:10.1038/367347a0 23. X. Wang, A. J. Jacobson, Crystal structure of the microporous titanosilicate ETS-10 refined from single crystal X-ray diffraction data. Chem. Commun. 11, 973–974 (1999). doi:10.1039/a901280j 24. J. Rocha, P. Brandão, Z. Lin, M. W. Anderson, V. Alfredsson, O. Terasaki, The first largepore vanadosilicate framework containing hexacoordinated vanadium. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 36, 100–102 (1997). doi:10.1002/anie.199701001 25. S. J. Datta, K. B. Yoon, Synthesis of ideal AM-6 and elucidation of V4+-to-O charge transfer in vanadate quantum wires. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49, 4971–4975 (2010). doi:10.1002/anie.200907088 26. J. C. Hicks, J. H. Drese, D. J. Fauth, M. L. Gray, G. Qi, C. W. Jones, Designing adsorbents for CO2 capture from flue gas-hyperbranched aminosilicas capable of capturing CO2 reversibly. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 2902–2903 (2008). Medline doi:10.1021/ja077795v 27. R. Vaidhyanathan, S. S. Iremonger, G. K. Shimizu, P. G. Boyd, S. Alavi, T. K. Woo, Direct observation and quantification of CO₂ binding within an amine-functionalized nanoporous solid. Science 330, 650–653 (2010). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1194237

28. T. M. McDonald, J. A. Mason, X. Kong, E. D. Bloch, D. Gygi, A. Dani, V. Crocellà, F. Giordanino, S. O. Odoh, W. S. Drisdell, B. Vlaisavljevich, A. L. Dzubak, R. Poloni, S. K. Schnell, N. Planas, K. Lee, T. Pascal, L. F. Wan, D. Prendergast, J. B. Neaton, B. Smit, J. B. Kortright, L. Gagliardi, S. Bordiga, J. A. Reimer, J. R. Long, Cooperative insertion of CO2 in diamine-appended metal-organic frameworks. Nature 519, 303–308 (2015). Medline doi:10.1038/nature14327 29. J. A. Mason, T. M. McDonald, T. H. Bae, J. E. Bachman, K. Sumida, J. J. Dutton, S. S. Kaye, J. R. Long, Application of a high-throughput analyzer in evaluating solid adsorbents for post-combustion carbon capture via multicomponent adsorption of CO2, N2, and H2O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 4787–4803 (2015). Medline doi:10.1021/jacs.5b00838 30. J. P. Sculley, H.-C. Zhou, Enhancing amine-supported materials for ambient air capture. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 12660–12661 (2012). doi:10.1002/anie.201207495 31. P. D. C. Dietzel, B. Panella, M. Hirscher, R. Blom, H. Fjellvåg, Hydrogen adsorption in a nickel based coordination polymer with open metal sites in the cylindrical cavities of the desolvated framework. Chem. Commun. 9, 959–961 (2006). Medline doi:10.1039/b515434k 32. P. D. C. Dietzel, Y. Morita, R. Blom, H. Fjellvåg, An in situ high-temperature single-crystal investigation of a dehydrated metal-organic framework compound and field-induced magnetization of one-dimensional metal-oxygen chains. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 6354– 6358 (2005). doi:10.1002/anie.200501508 33. J. L. C. Rowsell, O. M. Yaghi, Effects of functionalization, catenation, and variation of the metal oxide and organic linking units on the low-pressure hydrogen adsorption properties of metal-organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 1304–1315 (2006). Medline doi:10.1021/ja056639q 34. H. Hayashi, A. P. Côté, H. Furukawa, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Zeolite A imidazolate frameworks. Nat. Mater. 6, 501–506 (2007). Medline doi:10.1038/nmat1927

35. S. S.-Y. Chui, S. M.-F. Lo, J. P. H. Charmant, A. G. Orpen, I. D. Williams, A chemically functionalizable nanoporous material. Science 283, 1148–1150 (1999). Medline doi:10.1126/science.283.5405.1148 36. B. Chen, N. W. Ockwig, A. R. Millward, D. S. Contreras, O. M. Yaghi, High H2 adsorption in a microporous metal-organic framework with open metal sites. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 4745–4749 (2005). doi:10.1002/anie.200462787 37. B. Chen, M. Eddaoudi, S. T. Hyde, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Interwoven metal-organic framework on a periodic minimal surface with extra-large pores. Science 291, 1021–1023 (2001). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1056598 38. J.-R. Li, J. Yu, W. Lu, L. B. Sun, J. Sculley, P. B. Balbuena, H. C. Zhou, Porous materials with pre-designed single-molecule traps for CO₂ selective adsorption. Nat. Commun. 4, 1538 (2013). Medline doi:10.1038/ncomms2552 39. K. Barthelet, J. Marrot, D. Riou, G. Férey, A breathing hybrid organic-inorganic solid with very large pores and high magnetic characteristics. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41, 281 (2002). doi:10.1002/1521-3773(20020118)41:23.0.CO;2-Y 40. B. Wang, A. P. Côté, H. Furukawa, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Colossal cages in zeolitic imidazolate frameworks as selective carbon dioxide reservoirs. Nature 453, 207–211 (2008). Medline doi:10.1038/nature06900 41. G. Férey, C. Mellot-Draznieks, C. Serre, F. Millange, J. Dutour, S. Surblé, I. Margiolaki, A chromium terephthalate-based solid with unusually large pore volumes and surface area. Science 309, 2040–2042 (2005). Medline doi:10.1126/science.1116275 42. S. Yang, X. Lin, W. Lewis, M. Suyetin, E. Bichoutskaia, J. E. Parker, C. C. Tang, D. R. Allan, P. J. Rizkallah, P. Hubberstey, N. R. Champness, K. M. Thomas, A. J. Blake, M. Schröder, A partially interpenetrated metal-organic framework for selective hysteretic sorption of carbon dioxide. Nat. Mater. 11, 710–716 (2012). Medline doi:10.1038/nmat3343 43. O. K. Farha, A. Ö. Yazaydın, I. Eryazici, C. D. Malliakas, B. G. Hauser, M. G. Kanatzidis, S. T. Nguyen, R. Q. Snurr, J. T. Hupp, De novo synthesis of a metal-organic framework

material featuring ultrahigh surface area and gas storage capacities. Nat. Chem. 2, 944– 948 (2010). Medline doi:10.1038/nchem.834 44. H. Li, M. Eddaoudi, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Nature 402, 276 (1999). doi:10.1038/46248 45. H. K. Chae, D. Y. Siberio-Pérez, J. Kim, Y. Go, M. Eddaoudi, A. J. Matzger, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, A route to high surface area, porosity and inclusion of large molecules in crystals. Nature 427, 523–527 (2004). Medline doi:10.1038/nature02311 46. K. S. Park, Z. Ni, A. P. Côté, J. Y. Choi, R. Huang, F. J. Uribe-Romo, H. K. Chae, M. O’Keeffe, O. M. Yaghi, Exceptional chemical and thermal stability of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 10186–10191 (2006). Medline doi:10.1073/pnas.0602439103 47. 3D EDT software package (www.edt3d.com). 48. A. L. Myers, J. M. Prausnitz, Thermodynamics of mixed-gas adsorption. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 11, 121–127 (1965). doi:10.1002/aic.690110125