**2. Classical density functional theory**

#### **2.1. Thermodynamic framework**

The central idea of CDFT is to obtain the fluid's microscopic conformation (density profile) by minimizing the grand potential or free energy and obtain the macroscopic information (such as uptake, heat of adsorption, selectivity, etc.) from the density profile. The main task of this procedure is to represent the grand potential as a functional of density profile. According to the definition, grand potential can be written by:

$$
\Omega[\rho(\mathbf{r})] = F[\rho(\mathbf{r})] - \mu \int \rho(\mathbf{r}) \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r} \tag{1}
$$

where Ω is the grand potential, *F* is the free energy, *ρ*(**r**) is the density profile and *μ* is the chemical potential, which can be obtained from the equilibrium condition

$$
\mu = \mu\_{\text{b}} \tag{2}
$$

where *μb* is the chemical potential of the bulk system which is in equilibrium with the inho‐ mogeneous system. In statistical mechanics, the free energy, *F*, can be obtained from the Hamiltonian of the system. Generally, the Hamiltonian is given by:

CDFT is a thermodynamic-statistical mechanics theory for inhomogeneous fluids. The concept of CDFT originates from quantum density functional theory and was formed in the1970s [4, 5]. During the past 40 years, CDFT has been developed from simple fluids to polymers, from equilibrium to dynamic, from high symmetry modeling systems to real systems, and has revealed itself as an efficient and robust tool in various fields including adsorption, wetting,

The application of CDFT to MOF adsorption was first proposed by Siderius et al. [27] in 2009 and has been advanced by Liu et al. [26] subsequently. Siderius and Liu et al. have demon‐ strated that CDFT can be used to predict gas adsorption in MOFs. However, the numerical algorithm of these pioneered applications is too simple, which makes the computational cost of CDFT even higher than molecular simulations. Such disadvantage has been solved by Liu and Wu recently by applying the fast Fourier transform (FFT) and conjugate gradient (CG) descent method [31, 33, 35]. Now, the advanced CDFT is faster than conventional simulations by two orders of magnitude and has been successfully applied to high-throughput screening

In the rest of this chapter, we will introduce the classical density functional theory and show how to implement the theory to MOF adsorptions. The remainder of this chapter is organ‐ ized as follows: Section 2 will introduce the theoretical framework of CDFT; Section 3 will show how to apply CDFT to MOF adsorption and review recent reports in this field; and finally, Section 4 will summarize and prospect the current and future applications of CDFT

The central idea of CDFT is to obtain the fluid's microscopic conformation (density profile) by minimizing the grand potential or free energy and obtain the macroscopic information (such as uptake, heat of adsorption, selectivity, etc.) from the density profile. The main task of this procedure is to represent the grand potential as a functional of density profile. According to

> mr

where Ω is the grand potential, *F* is the free energy, *ρ*(**r**) is the density profile and *μ* is the

b

*<sup>F</sup>* ò **r r rr** (1)

= (2)

W= - [ ( )] [ ( )] ( )d

 r

m m

chemical potential, which can be obtained from the equilibrium condition

freezing, solvation, and so on [6–35].

862 Metal-Organic Frameworks

for material design [33–36].

on MOF adsorption.

**2. Classical density functional theory**

the definition, grand potential can be written by:

r

**2.1. Thermodynamic framework**

$$H = \sum\_{i=1}^{N} \frac{p\_i^2}{2m} + V\left(\{\mathbf{r}\_i\}\right) \tag{3}$$

where *p<sup>i</sup>* is the momenta of molecule *i, m* is the mass of the molecule, *N* is the number of molecules, and *V* is the potential, which can be expanded mathematically:

$$V\left(\left\{\mathbf{r}\_{i}\right\}\right) = \mu^{(0)} + \sum\_{l=1}^{N} \mu\_{l}^{(1)}(\mathbf{r}\_{i}) + \sum\_{1 \le l < j \le N} \mu\_{ij}^{(2)}(\mathbf{r}\_{ij}) + \dots \tag{4}$$

For fluid (guest) adsorption in a rigid MOF (host), the 0th order term *u* (0) represents the hosthost interactions, which is a constant and can be eliminated by defining the zero potential point. The first order term *u* (1) is the one-body potential representing the host-guest interac‐ tions. The second order term represents the guest-guest interactions. By ignoring the high order terms in classical systems, there are three contributions in the Hamiltonian: the kinetic contribution, the host-guest interaction and the guest-guest interaction, corresponding to the three terms in the free energy, the ideal gas free energy *F*id, the external free energy *F*ext, and the excess free energy *F*ex:

$$F[\rho(\mathbf{r})] = F^{\text{id}}[\rho(\mathbf{r})] + F^{\text{out}}[\rho(\mathbf{r})] + F^{\text{ex}}[\rho(\mathbf{r})] \tag{5}$$

For simple fluids, the ideal term and the external term can be exactly derived from the statistical mechanics by:

$$F^{\rm id}\left[\rho(\mathbf{r})\right] = k\_{\rm B}T\left[\rho(\mathbf{r})\right]\ln\rho(\mathbf{r})\Lambda^3 - 1\right]\mathbf{dr} \tag{6}$$

$$F^{\rm ext}[\rho(\mathbf{r})] = \int \rho(\mathbf{r}) V^{\rm ext}(\mathbf{r}) d\mathbf{r} \tag{7}$$

where *k*<sup>B</sup> is the Boltzmann constant, *T* is the temperature, Λ is the de Broglie wave length and *V*ext(**r**) is the external potential, which can be calculated from the direct interaction between host-guest interacting sites:

$$V^{\text{out}}(\mathbf{r}) = \sum\_{i \text{chost}} \mu\_{i, \text{guest}} (\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}\_i) \tag{8}$$

where **r***<sup>i</sup>* is the coordinate of the host (MOF) atoms and the host-guest interacting potential *ui*,guest(**r**) can be formed by standard force field such as the universal force field (UFF) [37] and Dreiding force field [38].

In contrast, the exact form of the excess free energy functional *F* ex *ρ*(**r**) is unknown for most systems, and approximations are needed. The detailed expression and discussions of these approximations will be introduced in Section 2.2. Here, we just assume the expression of *F* ext *ρ*(**r**) has already been given, in this case, we can establish the grand potential functional from Eqs. (1), (5)–(7). According to the second law of thermodynamics, the grand potential of an open system should reach its minimum when in equilibrium, which can be mathematically written by:

$$\frac{\delta \Omega[\rho(\mathbf{r})]}{\delta \rho(\mathbf{r})} = 0 \tag{9}$$

Substituting Eqs. (1), (5)–(7) in (9), we have:

$$\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{\Lambda^3} \exp\left[\beta\mu - \beta V^{\text{ext}}(\mathbf{r}) - \frac{\delta\beta F^{\text{ox}}}{\delta\rho(\mathbf{r})}\right] \tag{10}$$

where *β* = 1 / (*kBT* ) . In principle, the density profile *ρ*(**r**) can be solved from Eq. (10), and the macroscopic properties can be calculated from *ρ*(**r**). For example, the uptake *N* is given by:

$$N = \int \rho(\mathbf{r})d\mathbf{r}$$

The simplest application of Eq. (10) is the ideal gas system, representing fluids at low density limit. For ideal gas, *F* ex =0, Eq. (10) can be simplified as:

$$\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{\Lambda^3} \exp\left[\beta\mu - \beta V^{\rm out}(\mathbf{r})\right] \tag{12}$$

Applying Eq. (12) to bulk system, where *V* ext(**r**)=0, we have:

$$
\rho\_{\rm b} = \frac{1}{\Lambda^3} \exp(\beta \mu\_{\rm b}) \tag{13}
$$

where *ρ*b is the corresponding bulk density. Substituting Eq. (2) and (13) in (12), we have:

Classical Density Functional Theory for Fluids Adsorption in MOFs 589 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/64632

$$\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \rho\_\mathbf{b} \exp\left[-\beta V^{\rm ext}(\mathbf{r})\right] \tag{14}$$

Then, the adsorption isotherm is given by:

where **r***<sup>i</sup>*

884 Metal-Organic Frameworks

written by:

Dreiding force field [38].

is the coordinate of the host (MOF) atoms and the host-guest interacting potential

*ui*,guest(**r**) can be formed by standard force field such as the universal force field (UFF) [37] and

In contrast, the exact form of the excess free energy functional *F* ex *ρ*(**r**) is unknown for most systems, and approximations are needed. The detailed expression and discussions of these approximations will be introduced in Section 2.2. Here, we just assume the expression of *F* ext *ρ*(**r**) has already been given, in this case, we can establish the grand potential functional from Eqs. (1), (5)–(7). According to the second law of thermodynamics, the grand potential of an open system should reach its minimum when in equilibrium, which can be mathematically

> [ ( )] <sup>0</sup> ( )

> > ext

*<sup>F</sup> <sup>V</sup>* db

**<sup>r</sup>** (9)

( )d ò **r r** (11)

**r r** (12)

<sup>=</sup> exp( ) <sup>L</sup> (13)

**<sup>r</sup>** (10)

ex

dr

<sup>W</sup> <sup>=</sup> **<sup>r</sup>**

<sup>1</sup> ( ) exp ( ) ( )

é ù = -- ê ú <sup>L</sup> ë û

where *β* = 1 / (*kBT* ) . In principle, the density profile *ρ*(**r**) can be solved from Eq. (10), and the macroscopic properties can be calculated from *ρ*(**r**). For example, the uptake *N* is given by:

The simplest application of Eq. (10) is the ideal gas system, representing fluids at low density

( ) exp ( ) = é ù bm b- *<sup>V</sup>* ë û <sup>L</sup>

> b b 3 1

where *ρ*b is the corresponding bulk density. Substituting Eq. (2) and (13) in (12), we have:

 bm ext

bm b

**r r**

*N* = r

3 1

r

d r

3

Substituting Eqs. (1), (5)–(7) in (9), we have:

r

limit. For ideal gas, *F* ex =0, Eq. (10) can be simplified as:

r

Applying Eq. (12) to bulk system, where *V* ext(**r**)=0, we have:

dr

$$N = \rho\_\mathbf{b} \int \exp\left[-\beta V^{\rm ext}(\mathbf{r})\right] d\mathbf{r} \tag{15}$$

As *V* ext(**r**) only depends on the host-guest interaction instead of the loading of the guest molecule, Eq. (15) leads to a linear adsorption isotherm, which is true at low density limit. Moreover, the slope of the isotherm is determined by *V* ext(**r**), which means the adsorption at low loadings is correlated with the host-guest interaction. This conclusion is also consistent with Snurr et al.'s findings in their high-throughput screening [1, 2].

#### **2.2. Excess free energy functional**

Ideal gas system is valid only for low loading systems. For more complicated systems, we need to consider the excess free energy functional. The excess free energy originates from the guestguest correlations, which is much more complicated than the ideal free energy and external free energy. How to approximate the excess free energy is the center of concern in most CDFT. Up to now, various approximations have been proposed and applied, such as fundamental measure theory (FMT), weighted density approximation (WDA), and functional expansion theory.

#### *2.2.1. Local density approximation (LDA)*

LDA is the simplest approximation for excess free energy, which is given by an integration of homogeneous fluids:

$$F\_{\rm LDA}^{\rm ex} = \int f\_{\rm V}^{\rm ex}(\rho(\mathbf{r})) \, \mathbf{d} \, \mathbf{r} \tag{16}$$

where *f* <sup>V</sup> ex(*ρ*) is the excess free energy density (per volume) as a function of fluid density for homogeneous systems. The methodology of Eq. (16) comes from the thinking of calculus: the system is first separated into small units, d**r**; the fluid in each d**r** is assumed to be homogeneous; the total excess free energy is represented as the summation of each local excess free energy. Due to its simplicity, LDA has been widely used for both classical and quantum systems when the scheme of DFT has been proposed [39–41]. However, there is an obvious disadvantage of LDA: the correlations between different d**r** are abandoned. The extensiveness of free energy is invalid for systems at molecular level. Representing the total excess free energy as the summation of each part is an approximation, which is valid only when the fluctuation of *ρ*(**r**) is weak, such as vapor-liquid interface. However, for MOF adsorption, the fluctuation of *ρ*(**r**) is very strong, as the guest molecules are usually highly localized at the favorable adsorption sites, where *ρ*(**r**) approaches the Dirac delta function *δ*(**r**−**r***<sup>i</sup>* ). In this case, LDA is not a proper approximation.

#### *2.2.2. Gradient approximation*

Gradient approximation considers the inhomogeneity beyond LDA. One of the widely used forms of gradient approximation is the so-called square-gradient approximation (SGA), which is derived from Ginzburg-Landau theory or Landau expansion [4, 5]:

$$\left[F\_{\rm SCA}^{\rm ex}\left[\rho(\mathbf{r})\right] = \right] \text{d}\mathbf{r} \left\{ f^{\rm ex}\left(\rho(\mathbf{r})\right) + \frac{k\_{\rm g}T}{12} |\nabla \rho(\mathbf{r})|^{2} \int r^{2} c\_{0}^{(2)}(r) \text{d}\mathbf{r} \right\} \tag{17}$$

where

$$\left. \mathbf{c}\_{0}^{(2)}(\|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'\|) - \frac{\delta^{2} \beta F^{\alpha}}{\delta \rho(\mathbf{r}) \delta \rho(\mathbf{r}')} \right|\_{\rho(\mathbf{r}) = \rho\_{\mathbf{b}}} \tag{18}$$

is the direct correlation function. Gradient approximation has been developed into the famous generalized gradient approximation (GGA) in quantum DFT but it is not so successful in CDFT. Although gradient approximation is more advanced than LDA, it is still invalid once the fluctuation of *ρ*(**r**)is strong. Besides, Eq. (17) is mathematically more complicated than Eq. (16), which makes the usage of gradient approximation even less than LDA.

#### *2.2.3. Weighted density approximation (WDA)*

WDA considers the guest-guest correlations by replacing the local density *ρ*(**r**) in Eq. (16) with a weighted density [42, 43]:

$$
\overline{\rho}(\mathbf{r}) = \int \rho(\mathbf{r}') w(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}') \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}' \tag{19}
$$

where *w*(**r**) is the so-called weighting function. By applying the weighted density, the excess free energy is written by:

$$F\_{\text{WDA-V}}^{\text{ox}} = \int\_{V} f\_{\text{V}}^{\text{ox}}(\overline{\rho}(\mathbf{r})) \, \text{d}\mathbf{r} \tag{20}$$

or

$$F\_{\text{MDA-N}}^{\text{ox}} = \int \rho(\mathbf{r}) f\_{\text{N}}^{\text{ox}}(\overline{\rho}(\mathbf{r})) \, \text{d}\mathbf{r} \tag{21}$$

where *f* <sup>N</sup> ex(*ρ*) is the excess free energy density (per molecule) as a function of fluid density for homogeneous systems, which can be obtained (along with *f* <sup>V</sup> ex(*ρ*)) by the corresponding equation of state (EOS). Compared to LDA and gradient approximation, WDA seems much more reliable according to its wide applications for both classical and quantum systems. The introduction of weighted density avoids the singular point of *f* ex(*ρ*(**r**)) when *ρ*(**r**)→*∞* and can be used for systems with strong inhomogeneity, such as in MOF adsorption.

In WDA, there are different choices of the weighting function, which correspond to different versions of WDA. The simplest version of *w*(**r**) is the Heaviside step function [42]:

$$w(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{3}{4\pi\sigma^3} \Theta(r-\sigma) \tag{22}$$

where

sites, where *ρ*(**r**) approaches the Dirac delta function *δ*(**r**−**r***<sup>i</sup>*

is derived from Ginzburg-Landau theory or Landau expansion [4, 5]:

*<sup>B</sup> k T <sup>F</sup>*

(2) 0

*c*

r

*2.2.3. Weighted density approximation (WDA)*

a weighted density [42, 43]:

free energy is written by:

or

( ) ex ex 2 2 (2) SGA <sup>0</sup> ( ) d ( ) | ( )| ( )d <sup>12</sup>

(| '|) ( ) ( ')


**r r**

which makes the usage of gradient approximation even less than LDA.

r

 r

ex ex WDA-V V *F f* = ( ( ))d r

ex ex WDA-N <sup>N</sup> *F f* = r

Gradient approximation considers the inhomogeneity beyond LDA. One of the widely used forms of gradient approximation is the so-called square-gradient approximation (SGA), which

> rr *f rc r* ì ü é ù ë û = +Ñ í ý

> > 2 ex

d b

is the direct correlation function. Gradient approximation has been developed into the famous generalized gradient approximation (GGA) in quantum DFT but it is not so successful in CDFT. Although gradient approximation is more advanced than LDA, it is still invalid once the fluctuation of *ρ*(**r**)is strong. Besides, Eq. (17) is mathematically more complicated than Eq. (16),

WDA considers the guest-guest correlations by replacing the local density *ρ*(**r**) in Eq. (16) with

where *w*(**r**) is the so-called weighting function. By applying the weighted density, the excess

 r

dr dr=

*F*

î þ ò ò **rr r r r** (17)

b

( ) ( ') ( ')d ' = - *<sup>w</sup>* ò **r r rr r** (19)

ò **r r** (20)

( ) ( ( ))d ò **r rr** (21)

**r r** (18)

( )

**r**

r r

approximation.

906 Metal-Organic Frameworks

where

*2.2.2. Gradient approximation*

). In this case, LDA is not a proper

$$\Theta(\mathbf{x}) = \begin{cases} 0 & \mathbf{x} > \mathbf{0} \\ 1 & \mathbf{x} < \mathbf{0} \end{cases} \tag{23}$$

and *σ* is the molecular diameter. The advanced version is regarding the *w* as a function of density profile, *w*(**r**−**r**';*ρ*(**r**)), and solve *w*(**r**−**r**';*ρ*(**r**)) from relevant closures. Typical examples are Curtin-Ashcroft's WDA [44]:

$$-\tilde{c}\_{0}^{(2)}(k,\rho) = 2\frac{\mathbf{d}\beta f\_{N}^{\mathrm{ox}}(\rho)}{\mathbf{d}\rho}\tilde{w}(k,\rho) + \rho\frac{\partial}{\partial\rho}\left[\frac{\mathbf{d}\beta f\_{N}^{\mathrm{ox}}(\rho)}{\mathbf{d}\rho}\tilde{w}^{2}(k,\rho)\right] \tag{24}$$

where subscript "~" stands for the Fourier transform, Tarazona's WDA [45]:

$$w(r,\rho) = w\_0(r) + w\_1(r)\rho + w\_1(r)\rho^2 + \cdots \tag{25}$$

modified WDA (MWDA) [46]

$$w(r,\rho) = -\frac{\mathbf{d}\rho}{2\mathbf{d}f\_N^{\rm ex}(\rho)} \left[ k\_\text{\rm B} T c\_0^{(2)}(r,\rho) + \frac{\rho}{V} \cdot \frac{\mathbf{d}^2 f\_N^{\rm ex}(\rho)}{\mathbf{d}\rho^2} \right] \tag{26}$$

Denton-Ashcroft's version [47]:

$$\text{Cov}(r,\rho) = c\_0^{(2)}(r,\rho)\frac{\text{d}\rho}{\text{d}c\_0^{(1)}(\rho)}\tag{27}$$

and hybrid WDA (HWDA) [48].

$$-\tilde{c}\_{0}^{(2)}(k,\rho) = 2\frac{\mathbf{d}\beta f\_{N}^{\infty}(\rho)}{\mathbf{d}\rho}\tilde{w}(k,\rho) + \rho \frac{\mathbf{d}\beta f\_{N}^{\infty}(\rho)}{\mathbf{d}\rho}\tilde{w}^{2}(k,\rho) \tag{28}$$

The sophisticated WDA gives more accurate predictions on one hand but increases the computational cost on the other hand. It seems there is a trade-off between accuracy and computational cost. For MOF adsorption, the computational cost is an important factor and a simple weighting function like Eq. (22) may be more preferred.

#### *2.2.4. Mean field approximation (MFA)*

According to statistical mechanics, the excess free energy can be exactly written by:

$$F^{\rm ex} = \frac{1}{2} \iint \rho(\mathbf{r})\rho(\mathbf{r}')\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}')\mu(|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|) \mathbf{d} \,\mathbf{r} \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}' \tag{29}$$

where *g*(**r**, **r**') is the radial distribution function (RDF) for inhomogeneous fluids, and *u*(**r**, **r**') is the two-body interacting potential. Different from that of homogeneous system, the RDF for inhomogeneous fluids is a 6-dimensional function, which is difficult to obtain. The simplest approximation is to let

$$g(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}') = 1 \tag{30}$$

which leads to the so-called MFA:

$$F\_{\rm MFA}^{\rm ex} = \frac{1}{2} \iint \rho(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r}') \mu(\|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'\|) \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r} \,\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}' \tag{31}$$

Although Eq. (30) seems to be a coarse approximation, MFA is still successful in various real applications. Due to its efficiency, MFA seems to be a potential method for MOF adsorption [49–51].

#### *2.2.5. Functional expansion*

Functional expansion theory expands the excess free energy functional with respect to the bulk system as a Taylor series:

$$F^{\rm ex} = F\_{\rm b}^{\rm ex} + \mu\_{\rm b}^{\rm ex} \left[ \Lambda \rho(\mathbf{r}) \text{d}\mathbf{r} - \frac{k\_{\rm b} T}{2} \iint c\_{0}^{(2)}(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}') \Lambda \rho(\mathbf{r}) \Lambda \rho(\mathbf{r}') \text{d}\mathbf{r} d\mathbf{r}' + \cdots \tag{32}$$

where *F*<sup>b</sup> exand *μ*<sup>b</sup> ex are the excess free energy and excess chemical potential for the bulk system, respectively; *Δρ*(**r**)=*ρ*(**r**)−*ρ*b is the deviation of density with respect to its bulk value. A common treatment of Eq. (32) is to truncate the series at the second order, which is the so-called square functional expansion (SFE). An intuitive understanding of SFE is that *Δρ*(**r**)should be small, otherwise the high-order terms should be considered. However, in real application, it seems the second-order truncation is valid even though *Δρ*(**r**)is so large [32, 52].

#### *2.2.6. Fundamental measure theory (FMT)*

Different from the universal theories introduced above, FMT is specific for hard sphere fluids, where the interacting potential is given by:

$$\mu\_{\rm hs}(r) = \begin{cases} \infty & r < \sigma \\ 0 & r > \sigma \end{cases} \tag{33}$$

where *σ* is the hard sphere diameter. According to the decomposing of Heaviside function, FMT represents the excess free energy by [9, 13]:

$$
\beta F^{\alpha \ast} = \int \Phi[n\_a(\mathbf{r})] \, \mathbf{d} \, \mathbf{r} \tag{34}
$$

and

and hybrid WDA (HWDA) [48].

928 Metal-Organic Frameworks

0

*2.2.4. Mean field approximation (MFA)*

approximation is to let

[49–51].

*2.2.5. Functional expansion*

system as a Taylor series:

which leads to the so-called MFA:

r

*F* =

ex MFA

ex ex ex B (2)

*c*

 r

m

*F u* = r r

ex ex

 br

> r


r

*g u* - òò **r r rr r r r r** (29)

*g*( , ') 1 **r r** = (30)


d () d () (, ) 2 (, ) (, ) d d *f f c k w k w k*

r r

The sophisticated WDA gives more accurate predictions on one hand but increases the computational cost on the other hand. It seems there is a trade-off between accuracy and computational cost. For MOF adsorption, the computational cost is an important factor and a

(2) N N 2

According to statistical mechanics, the excess free energy can be exactly written by:

ex <sup>1</sup> ( ) ( ') ( , ') (| '|)d d ' <sup>2</sup>

where *g*(**r**, **r**') is the radial distribution function (RDF) for inhomogeneous fluids, and *u*(**r**, **r**') is the two-body interacting potential. Different from that of homogeneous system, the RDF for inhomogeneous fluids is a 6-dimensional function, which is difficult to obtain. The simplest

<sup>1</sup> ( ) ( ') (| '|)d d ' <sup>2</sup>

Although Eq. (30) seems to be a coarse approximation, MFA is still successful in various real applications. Due to its efficiency, MFA seems to be a potential method for MOF adsorption

Functional expansion theory expands the excess free energy functional with respect to the bulk

r

 rò òò **r r r r r r rr** <sup>L</sup> (32)

b b <sup>0</sup> ( )d ( ') ( ) ( ')d d ' <sup>2</sup> *k T F F* = + D - -D D +

br

r

simple weighting function like Eq. (22) may be more preferred.

r r

$$\Phi = f\_0(\mathbf{n}\_3)\mathbf{n}\_0 + f\_{12}(\mathbf{n}\_3)\mathbf{n}\_1\mathbf{n}\_2 + f\_{222}(\mathbf{n}\_3)\mathbf{n}\_2^3 + f\_{12}^\vee(\mathbf{n}\_3)\mathbf{n}\_{\forall 1} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\forall 2} + f\_{222}^\vee(\mathbf{n}\_3)\mathbf{n}\_2(\mathbf{n}\_{\forall 2} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\forall 2}) \tag{35}$$

where *nα* are weighted density:

$$m\_a(\mathbf{r}) = \int \rho(\mathbf{r}) \phi^{(a)}(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}') d\mathbf{r}' \tag{36}$$

where

$$\begin{cases} \begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(3)} &= \theta(\lfloor \mathbf{r} \rfloor - \sigma / 2) \\ \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(2)}(\mathbf{r}) &= \delta(r - \sigma / 2) \\ \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(1)}(\mathbf{r}) &= \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma} \delta(r - \sigma / 2) \\ \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(V2)}(\mathbf{r}) &= \frac{\mathbf{r}}{r} \delta(\lfloor \mathbf{r} \rfloor - \sigma / 2) \\ \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(V1)}(\mathbf{r}) &= \frac{\mathbf{r}}{2\pi\sigma r} \delta(\lfloor \mathbf{r} \rfloor - \sigma / 2) \end{aligned} \tag{37}$$

*fi* is undetermined coefficient, which can be determined by the bulk limit of Eq. (35). Applying the Carnahan-Starling (CS) equation of state, one can obtain Rosenfeld's original FMT:

$$\Phi = \Phi\_{\rm S} + \Phi\_{\rm V}$$

$$\Phi\_{\rm S} = -n\_0 \ln(1 - n\_{\rm s}) + \frac{n\_1 n\_2}{1 - n\_{\rm s}} + \frac{n\_2^3}{24 \pi (1 - n\_{\rm s})^2} \tag{38}$$

$$\Phi\_{\rm V} = -\frac{\mathbf{n}\_{\rm V1} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2}}{1 - n\_{\rm s}} - \frac{n\_2 (\mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2})}{8 \pi (1 - n\_{\rm s})^2}$$

Applying the Boublik-Mansoori-Carnahan-Starling-Leland (BMCSL) equation of state, one can obtain Yu et al.'s modified FMT (MFMT) [17].

$$\Phi = \Phi\_{\rm s} + \Phi\_{\rm V}$$

$$\begin{aligned} \Phi\_{\rm s} &= -n\_0 \ln(1 - n\_3) + \frac{n\_1 n\_2}{1 - n\_3} + \left[ \frac{\ln(1 - n\_3)}{36 \pi n\_3^2} + \frac{1}{36 \pi n\_3 (1 - n\_3)^2} \right] n\_2^3 \\\ \Phi\_{\rm V} &= -\frac{\mathbf{n}\_{\rm V1} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2}}{1 - n\_3} - \left[ \frac{\ln(1 - n\_3)}{12 \pi n\_3^2} + \frac{1}{12 \pi n\_3 (1 - n\_3)^2} \right] n\_2 (\mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2} \cdot \mathbf{n}\_{\rm V2}) \end{aligned} \tag{39}$$

FMT excellently captures the properties for hard sphere system with low computational costs and is the most favorable theory for hard sphere fluids in CDFT [19, 28, 35, 53].

#### *2.2.7. Hybrid method*

In real application, it is more common to apply two or more approximations for one system. Generally, molecule-molecule interactions can be decoupled into different contributions such as repulsive interactions, attractive interactions, and electrostatic interactions, which have different effects on fluids' properties. In this case, to separate the excess free energy into different terms corresponding to the different interactions and applying different approxima‐ tions for each term seems more efficient than a single approximation.

For spherical molecules such as CH4, H2, and N2, the excess free energy is usually separated into the hard sphere contribution *F*hs, representing the repulsive interaction and the attractive contribution *F*attr:

$$F^{\rm ex} = F^{\rm hs} + F^{\rm attr} \tag{40}$$

By applying different approximations to *F*hs and *F*attr, respectively, one can formulate the complete expression of excess free energy. For example, see [25, 54], Yu et al. have employed MFMT and WDA to approximate *F*hs and *F*attr, respectively, and predicted the gas adsorption and phase transition in MCM-41; Ritter et al. [55] have employed FMT and MFA to study the binary gas adsorption in heterogeneous BPL-activated carbon; Siderius et al. [27] have applied WDA and MFA to predict H2 adsorption in MOF-5, which has then been improved by two versions of WDA in Liu et al.'s work [26]. Recently, Yu et al. [28] have introduced a correlation term *F*cor to Eq. (40):

$$F^{\rm ev} = F^{\rm hs} + F^{\rm attr} + F^{\rm cor} \tag{41}$$

which has soon been applied to MOF adsorptions by Liu and Wu et al. [31, 33–35].

### **3. Applying CDFT to MOF adsorption**

*fi*

9410 Metal-Organic Frameworks

is undetermined coefficient, which can be determined by the bulk limit of Eq. (35). Applying

S V

V1 V2 2 V2 V2 V 2

*n n n*

**nn nn**

1 8 (1 )

Applying the Boublik-Mansoori-Carnahan-Starling-Leland (BMCSL) equation of state, one

S V

S0 3 2 2 2

*n n n n n n*

ln(1 ) <sup>1</sup> ln(1 ) <sup>1</sup> 36 36 (1 )

ln(1 ) <sup>1</sup> ( ) <sup>1</sup> 12 12 (1 )

 p

FMT excellently captures the properties for hard sphere system with low computational costs

In real application, it is more common to apply two or more approximations for one system. Generally, molecule-molecule interactions can be decoupled into different contributions such as repulsive interactions, attractive interactions, and electrostatic interactions, which have different effects on fluids' properties. In this case, to separate the excess free energy into different terms corresponding to the different interactions and applying different approxima‐

For spherical molecules such as CH4, H2, and N2, the excess free energy is usually separated into the hard sphere contribution *F*hs, representing the repulsive interaction and the attractive

By applying different approximations to *F*hs and *F*attr, respectively, one can formulate the complete expression of excess free energy. For example, see [25, 54], Yu et al. have employed

p

V 2 2 2 V2 V2 3 3 33

*n*

p

and is the most favorable theory for hard sphere fluids in CDFT [19, 28, 35, 53].

*n n nn*

<sup>ï</sup> é ù - íF =- - + + + ê ú - - <sup>ï</sup> ë û <sup>ï</sup> × - é ù ïF =- - + ê ú <sup>×</sup> <sup>ï</sup> - - <sup>î</sup> ë û

ln(1 ) <sup>1</sup> 24 (1 )

3 3

p

S0 3 2

íF =- - + + - - <sup>ï</sup>

<sup>ï</sup> × × <sup>ï</sup> F =- - <sup>ï</sup> - - <sup>î</sup>

*n n*

V1 V2 3

tions for each term seems more efficient than a single approximation.

ï F=F +F

ï F=F +F

ì ï

ï ï

can obtain Yu et al.'s modified FMT (MFMT) [17].

**n n**

ì ï

ï

*2.2.7. Hybrid method*

contribution *F*attr:

1 2 2

*nn n*

3 3

1 2 3 3

 p

*n*

**n n**

ex hs attr *FFF* = + (40)

3 3 33

*n n nn*

p

( )

*n n*

3

(38)

(39)

the Carnahan-Starling (CS) equation of state, one can obtain Rosenfeld's original FMT:

Although the framework of CDFT has been established for a long time, its application to MOF adsorption had not been reported until 2009. **Table 1** lists current reports of applying CDFT on MOF adsorption. There is an obvious transition of these reports from 2010 to 2013, where the time cost decreases from 10 days to less than 1 minute. As will be introduced later, this is the benefit of acceleration method. Later in this section, we will introduce the typical studies listed in this table.


**Table 1.** Applications of CDFT on MOF adsorption.

#### **3.1. Initial application**

The first report of the application is done by Siderius et al. [27]. Siderius et al. have employed Tarazona's WDA and MFA to construct the hard sphere and attractive free energy functional, and applied the theory to H2 adsorption in MOF-5 (**Figure 1(a)**). Siderius et al.'s CDFT predictions accord with simulations and experiments very well at room temperature, but lower the estimated uptake in low temperature region (**Figure 1**).

**Figure 1.** CDFT prediction of H2 adsorption in MOF-5, (a) uptake, (b) isosteric heat. Solid line: Liu et al.'s CDFT; dash‐ ed line: Siderius et al.'s CDFT; triangle: MC simulation; sphere: experiments. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [26]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

Such shortcomings were soon solved by Liu et al. [26]. Liu et al. have employed two versions of WDA to approximate the hard sphere and attractive free energy, respectively. Liu et al.'s CDFT well predicted the adsorption isotherm and the isosteric heat for both high and low temperatures. Siderius et al. and Liu et al.'s CDFT have also revealed the microscopic confor‐ mation of the adsorbed gases. As shown in **Figure 2**, at low pressure, H2 is mainly distributed at the favorable adsorption site, while at high pressure, H2 is distributed at both the favorable adsorption sites and the surface of framework. These are consistent with other simulation findings.

**Figure 2.** Molecular structure of MOF-5 (IRMOF-1) and density isosurface of H2 in MOF-5 at 298 K. Color of the isosur‐ face: gray, 1.33 mol/L; green, 19.9 mol/L. Color of the atoms: dark blue, Zn; light blue, C; red, O; white, H [27]. Reprint‐ ed with permission from Ref. [27]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

The theory has then been extended to mixtures by Liu et al. in 2010 [29]. Similar to that for pure component, two versions of WDA have been employed to construct the excess free energy functional, where the BMCSL and the modified Benedicit-Webb-Rubin (MBWR) equation of state have been used to formulate the free energy density which is required in WDA. Liu et al. considered CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation in two types of MOFs, respectively, where CDFT accords with simulations very well (**Table 2**).

\* Line: CDFT prediction; dot: MC simulation.

Adapted with permission from Ref. [29]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

**Table 2.** Adsorption isotherm for CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 in two MOFs\* .

#### **3.2. Acceleration method**

**3.1. Initial application**

9612 Metal-Organic Frameworks

Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

findings.

The first report of the application is done by Siderius et al. [27]. Siderius et al. have employed Tarazona's WDA and MFA to construct the hard sphere and attractive free energy functional, and applied the theory to H2 adsorption in MOF-5 (**Figure 1(a)**). Siderius et al.'s CDFT predictions accord with simulations and experiments very well at room temperature, but lower

**Figure 1.** CDFT prediction of H2 adsorption in MOF-5, (a) uptake, (b) isosteric heat. Solid line: Liu et al.'s CDFT; dash‐ ed line: Siderius et al.'s CDFT; triangle: MC simulation; sphere: experiments. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [26].

Such shortcomings were soon solved by Liu et al. [26]. Liu et al. have employed two versions of WDA to approximate the hard sphere and attractive free energy, respectively. Liu et al.'s CDFT well predicted the adsorption isotherm and the isosteric heat for both high and low temperatures. Siderius et al. and Liu et al.'s CDFT have also revealed the microscopic confor‐ mation of the adsorbed gases. As shown in **Figure 2**, at low pressure, H2 is mainly distributed at the favorable adsorption site, while at high pressure, H2 is distributed at both the favorable adsorption sites and the surface of framework. These are consistent with other simulation

**Figure 2.** Molecular structure of MOF-5 (IRMOF-1) and density isosurface of H2 in MOF-5 at 298 K. Color of the isosur‐ face: gray, 1.33 mol/L; green, 19.9 mol/L. Color of the atoms: dark blue, Zn; light blue, C; red, O; white, H [27]. Reprint‐

ed with permission from Ref. [27]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

the estimated uptake in low temperature region (**Figure 1**).

Siderius et al. and Liu et al.'s work have demonstrated that CDFT can be used to predict gas adsorption in MOFs, however, there is a fatal flaw in these initial studies: the computational cost is too high. Before the application to MOF adsorption, CDFT mainly focuses on simple geometric systems such as slit pores and cylindrical pores, where the computation is very efficient. However, when applying to 3-dimensional structured systems such as MOFs, the computational cost is unacceptable if an ordinary numerical treatment is employed. In principle, the accuracy of CDFT cannot exceed simulations; once the computational cost of CDFT is higher than simulation, CDFT will be useless in an application view.

Fortunately, CDFT can be accelerated. The most time consuming part of CDFT is the 3 dimensional integration such as Eqs. (19) and (36). These integrations can be simplified into 1 dimensional integration for slit and cylindrical pores but not for MOFs. However, as most of these integration are convolutions, which takes the form of:

$$A(\mathbf{r}) = \int B(\mathbf{r'})C(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r'})d\mathbf{r'}\tag{42}$$

By using the Fourier transform on both sides of Eq. (42), the convolution can be transformed into:

$$A = \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[\mathcal{F}\left(\mathcal{B}\right) \cdot \mathcal{F}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)\right] \tag{43}$$

where ℱ and ℱ−<sup>1</sup> stand for the forward and backward Fourier transform, respectively. By applying the fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm, the complexity of Eq. (43) is in order of *n*log2*n*, where *n* is the number of the discrete sites of the system. In contrast, the complexity of Eq. (42) is in order of *n*<sup>2</sup> . For MOF adsorption, a typical value of *n* is 503 = 125,000, which means applying Eq. (43) will accelerate the computation by more than 5 orders of magnitude. By applying FFT, the typical time cost for MOF adsorption is about 10–20 seconds, which is faster than state-of-the-art simulations by orders of magnitudes.

The introduction of FFT is a revolutionary advance in 3D-CDFT and makes 3D-CDFT much faster than simulations. With FFT, CDFT becomes a competitive method in predicting MOF adsorptions.

#### **3.3. High-throughput calculation**

One of the significant applications of the accelerated CDFT is material screening. Due to the various metal clusters, organic linkers, and 3-dimensional structures, there are billions of MOFs in principle. How to identify the best MOF in such a large database is an essential issue in material design. The traditional method to do this is the molecular simulation. Snurr et al. [1] have performed MC simulation of methane adsorption in 137,953 hypothetical MOFs and have screened out 300 MOFs which have higher methane capacity than any real MOFs. Based on the screening, Snurr et al. have synthesized a high-performance methane storage material, NOTT-107. Snurr et al.'s work has demonstrated the feasibility of high-throughput screening. However, Snurr et al.'s MC simulation is computationally expensive, which may not be the best method for high-throughput calculation. As mentioned above, as the accelerated CDFT is faster than MC simulation by two orders of magnitudes, CDFT seems to be a better choice.

efficient. However, when applying to 3-dimensional structured systems such as MOFs, the computational cost is unacceptable if an ordinary numerical treatment is employed. In principle, the accuracy of CDFT cannot exceed simulations; once the computational cost of

Fortunately, CDFT can be accelerated. The most time consuming part of CDFT is the 3 dimensional integration such as Eqs. (19) and (36). These integrations can be simplified into 1 dimensional integration for slit and cylindrical pores but not for MOFs. However, as most of

By using the Fourier transform on both sides of Eq. (42), the convolution can be transformed

applying the fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm, the complexity of Eq. (43) is in order of *n*log2*n*, where *n* is the number of the discrete sites of the system. In contrast, the complexity of

applying Eq. (43) will accelerate the computation by more than 5 orders of magnitude. By applying FFT, the typical time cost for MOF adsorption is about 10–20 seconds, which is faster

The introduction of FFT is a revolutionary advance in 3D-CDFT and makes 3D-CDFT much faster than simulations. With FFT, CDFT becomes a competitive method in predicting MOF

One of the significant applications of the accelerated CDFT is material screening. Due to the various metal clusters, organic linkers, and 3-dimensional structures, there are billions of MOFs in principle. How to identify the best MOF in such a large database is an essential issue in material design. The traditional method to do this is the molecular simulation. Snurr et al. [1] have performed MC simulation of methane adsorption in 137,953 hypothetical MOFs and have screened out 300 MOFs which have higher methane capacity than any real MOFs. Based on the screening, Snurr et al. have synthesized a high-performance methane storage material, NOTT-107. Snurr et al.'s work has demonstrated the feasibility of high-throughput screening. However, Snurr et al.'s MC simulation is computationally expensive, which may not be the best method for high-throughput calculation. As mentioned above, as the accelerated CDFT is faster than MC simulation by two orders of magnitudes, CDFT seems to be a better choice.

( ) ( ) <sup>1</sup> *A BC* - = × é ù

*A BC* ( ) ( ') ( ')d ' = - ò **r r rr r** (42)

ë û FF F (43)

stand for the forward and backward Fourier transform, respectively. By

. For MOF adsorption, a typical value of *n* is 503 = 125,000, which means

CDFT is higher than simulation, CDFT will be useless in an application view.

these integration are convolutions, which takes the form of:

than state-of-the-art simulations by orders of magnitudes.

into:

where ℱ and ℱ−<sup>1</sup>

9814 Metal-Organic Frameworks

adsorptions.

Eq. (42) is in order of *n*<sup>2</sup>

**3.3. High-throughput calculation**

**Figure 3.** Uptake of H2 in 1200 MOF at 243 K, 100 bar, comparison between five versions of CDFT and MC simulation. The versions for CDFT are (a) MFMT + WDA-V(MBWR) + MFA; (b) MFMT + WDA-N(MBWR) + MFA; (c) MFMT + SFE; (d) MFMT + MFA; (e) MFMT + WDA-V(FMSA) + MFA [33]. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [33]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

Applying CDFT to high-throughput screening has been reported very recently by Liu and Wu et al. [33–36]. First, Liu and Wu et al. [33] have predicted H2 adsorption in 1200 MOFs by CDFT. As shown in **Figure 3**, five versions of CDFT have been tested. In **Figure 3(a),(b)**, and **(e)**, the excess free energy is given by Eq. (41), where *F* hs, *F* attr, and *F* cor are approximated by MFMT, MFA, and WDA, respectively; the "MBWR" and "FMSA" in the brackets mean the correlation free energy density used in WDA that is calculated by MBWR EOS and FMSA (first-order mean sphere approximation) EOS [56], respectively. In **Figure 3(c)** and **(d)**, the excess free energy is represented by Eq. (40), where *F* hs is approximated by MFMT for both, while *F* attr is approximated by SFE and MFA, respectively. It seems the first four versions of CDFT accord

with simulations very well in contrast to the last one, where the correlation free energy density is approximated by FMSA. This reveals that the accuracy of EOS plays an important role in the accuracy of WDA, and the MBWR seems a good choice for MOF adsorption. To give a more comprehensive judgment of the other four versions of CDFT, Liu and Wu et al. have compared CDFT and simulation on different conditions. **Table 3** shows the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of the four CDFTs with respect to MC simulations. It seems MFMT + WDA-V + MFA and MFMT + WDA-N + MFA are the two most stable versions, while MFMT + SFE and MFMT + MFA are not so accurate at low temperatures. Besides, Liu and Wu et al.'s CDFT is processed in a single core (Intel E1230) with time cost around 10–20 seconds for each calculation, which is much faster than simulations (**Figure 4**).


**Table 3.** The RMSD of CDFT in different conditions (unit: cm3 (STP) /cm3 ).

**Figure 4.** Time cost of the CDFT calculation for H2 adsorption in 1200 MOFs (unit: second). Reprinted with permission from Ref. [33]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

CDFT has then been applied to screen out hydrogen storage materials for different conditions. By using CDFT, Liu et al. [35] have predicted H2 adsorption in 712 MOFs under 441 different conditions. The whole computation (712 × 441 = 313,992 cases in total) only takes approximately 1500 CPU hours.

As shown in **Figure 5**, Liu et al. have predicted the highest uptake of the 712 MOFs at tem‐ perature 77–373 K, pressure 0.01–100 atm. On one hand, the uptake of the MOFs at low temperature is striking: At 77 K 100 atm, the highest uptake is approximately 37 mol/L, exceeding the density of liquid hydrogen; even at low pressure, 77 K 0.01 atm, the highest uptake approaches 13 mol/L, which is higher than many real MOFs at high pressures. On the

with simulations very well in contrast to the last one, where the correlation free energy density is approximated by FMSA. This reveals that the accuracy of EOS plays an important role in the accuracy of WDA, and the MBWR seems a good choice for MOF adsorption. To give a more comprehensive judgment of the other four versions of CDFT, Liu and Wu et al. have compared CDFT and simulation on different conditions. **Table 3** shows the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of the four CDFTs with respect to MC simulations. It seems MFMT + WDA-V + MFA and MFMT + WDA-N + MFA are the two most stable versions, while MFMT + SFE and MFMT + MFA are not so accurate at low temperatures. Besides, Liu and Wu et al.'s CDFT is processed in a single core (Intel E1230) with time cost around 10–20 seconds for each

**243 K 100 bar 77 K 1 bar 77 K 50 bar**

(STP) /cm3

**Figure 4.** Time cost of the CDFT calculation for H2 adsorption in 1200 MOFs (unit: second). Reprinted with permission

CDFT has then been applied to screen out hydrogen storage materials for different conditions. By using CDFT, Liu et al. [35] have predicted H2 adsorption in 712 MOFs under 441 different conditions. The whole computation (712 × 441 = 313,992 cases in total) only takes approximately

As shown in **Figure 5**, Liu et al. have predicted the highest uptake of the 712 MOFs at tem‐ perature 77–373 K, pressure 0.01–100 atm. On one hand, the uptake of the MOFs at low temperature is striking: At 77 K 100 atm, the highest uptake is approximately 37 mol/L, exceeding the density of liquid hydrogen; even at low pressure, 77 K 0.01 atm, the highest uptake approaches 13 mol/L, which is higher than many real MOFs at high pressures. On the

).

calculation, which is much faster than simulations (**Figure 4**).

**Table 3.** The RMSD of CDFT in different conditions (unit: cm3

from Ref. [33]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

1500 CPU hours.

10016 Metal-Organic Frameworks

**MFMT + WDA-V + MFA** 6.02 6.87 17.2 **MFMT + WDA-N + MFA** 3.16 8.38 16.9 **MFMT + SFE** 2.35 27 40.3 **MFMT + MFA** 2.54 11.3 39.3

**Figure 5.** The highest uptakes of 712 types of MOF materials at different temperature and pressure [35]. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [35]. Copyright (2016) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

other hand, the uptake at high temperature is not so satisfactory; most uptakes are lower than 5 mol/L. It appears that hydrogen storage at high temperature is still a big problem which is difficult to be solved by MOFs.

Based on Liu et al.'s screening, a set of promising MOFs have been identified. **Figure 6** shows the three promising MOFs and their adsorption isotherm for hydrogen storage at high, medium and low loadings, respectively. It seems narrower pore is more preferred for high temperatures in contrast to low temperatures.

**Figure 6.** Adsorption isotherms for three MOF structures at (a) 298 K; (b) 77 K. (c) Structure of the three MOFs, color codes: C, purple; H, white; O, red; N, light blue; Zn: pink; Cu: orange; Br: wine; V: yellow [35]. Reprinted with permis‐ sion from Ref. [35]. Copyright (2016) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Besides hydrogen storage, CDFT has also been extended to other screenings such as methane storage [36] and desulfurization [34]. Again, CDFT has revealed itself as a more efficient method than simulations in these high-throughput calculations.

#### **3.4. Entropy scaling**

Besides the density profile and uptake, CDFT could also predict other important properties of MOF adsorption, such as entropy and even self-diffusivity.

To generate entropy from CDFT is straightforward as the free energy functional is given explicitly in CDFT. Entropy can be obtained by a simple derivative:

$$S = -\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial T}\right)\_{\rho(\mathbf{r})}\tag{44}$$

One of the most important usage of entropy is the entropy scaling rule, which was proposed by Rosenfeld in 1977 [57] and explained by Dzugutov in 1996 [58]. The entropy scaling rule correlates excess entropy and self-diffusivity by a universal equation:

$$\mathbf{D}^\* = A \exp(B\mathbf{s}^{\alpha^\*}) \tag{45}$$

where *D*\* is the dimensionless self-diffusivity, *s*ex\* is the dimensionless excess entropy, *A* and *B* are universal constants that are independent of external conditions and molecular models. Eq. (45) had been first introduced for homogeneous fluids; however, Truskett et al. [59–61] have shown that the correlations between entropy and diffusivity also exist in inhomogeneous fluids. Recently, Liu et al. [31] have applied entropy scaling rule together with CDFT, MD simulation, and mean free volume theory to predict the self-diffusivity of MOFs:

$$\ln D\_s = \left(1 - \frac{aN\sigma^3}{V\_{\text{free}}}\right) \ln D\_\text{\tiny{}^\circ C} + \frac{aN\sigma^3}{V\_{\text{free}}} \ln D\_\text{\tiny{}^\circ C} \tag{46}$$

where *D*<sup>s</sup> is the self-diffusivity of fluids in MOFs, *D*<sup>K</sup> is the Knudsen diffusivity, which can be calculated by one MD simulation, *D*E is the diffusivity calculated from entropy scaling rule and CDFT, i.e., Eq. (45), *V*free is the free volume and *α* is the mixing parameter, which can be determined from face center cubic (FCC) approximation or empirical method. Liu et al. have applied Eq. (46) to predict the self-diffusivity of fluids in MOFs. **Figure 7** shows the comparison between Eq. (46) and pure MD simulations. It seems combining CDFT and entropy scaling rule could capture the essentials of the diffusion curve, and Eq. (46) may accelerate the prediction of self-diffusivities.

Classical Density Functional Theory for Fluids Adsorption in MOFs 103 19 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/64632

**Figure 7.** Self-diffusivity of (a) H2 in CuBTC and MOF-5; (b) H2 in MFI and ZIF-8; (c) He and Ne in MFI; (d) Ar in MOF-5. Comparison between CDFT-based entropy scaling rule and MD simulation [31]. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [31]. Copyright (2016) American Chemical Society.

#### **4. Conclusion and prospect**

Besides hydrogen storage, CDFT has also been extended to other screenings such as methane storage [36] and desulfurization [34]. Again, CDFT has revealed itself as a more efficient

Besides the density profile and uptake, CDFT could also predict other important properties of

To generate entropy from CDFT is straightforward as the free energy functional is given

( )

\* ex\* *D A Bs* = exp( ) (45)

One of the most important usage of entropy is the entropy scaling rule, which was proposed by Rosenfeld in 1977 [57] and explained by Dzugutov in 1996 [58]. The entropy scaling rule

where *D*\* is the dimensionless self-diffusivity, *s*ex\* is the dimensionless excess entropy, *A* and *B* are universal constants that are independent of external conditions and molecular models. Eq. (45) had been first introduced for homogeneous fluids; however, Truskett et al. [59–61] have shown that the correlations between entropy and diffusivity also exist in inhomogeneous fluids. Recently, Liu et al. [31] have applied entropy scaling rule together with CDFT, MD

> 3 3 s KE free free

where *D*<sup>s</sup> is the self-diffusivity of fluids in MOFs, *D*<sup>K</sup> is the Knudsen diffusivity, which can be calculated by one MD simulation, *D*E is the diffusivity calculated from entropy scaling rule and CDFT, i.e., Eq. (45), *V*free is the free volume and *α* is the mixing parameter, which can be determined from face center cubic (FCC) approximation or empirical method. Liu et al. have applied Eq. (46) to predict the self-diffusivity of fluids in MOFs. **Figure 7** shows the comparison between Eq. (46) and pure MD simulations. It seems combining CDFT and entropy scaling rule could capture the essentials of the diffusion curve, and Eq. (46) may accelerate the

 as

simulation, and mean free volume theory to predict the self-diffusivity of MOFs:

=- + ç ÷ è ø

æ ö as

prediction of self-diffusivities.

ln 1 ln ln *N N D DD V V*

(44)

(46)

*<sup>F</sup> <sup>S</sup> T* r

æ ö ¶ = -ç ÷ è ø ¶ **<sup>r</sup>**

method than simulations in these high-throughput calculations.

MOF adsorption, such as entropy and even self-diffusivity.

explicitly in CDFT. Entropy can be obtained by a simple derivative:

correlates excess entropy and self-diffusivity by a universal equation:

**3.4. Entropy scaling**

10218 Metal-Organic Frameworks

We have introduced the theoretical framework of CDFT and reviewed the applications of using CDFT to predict fluid adsorption in MOFs. Although the framework of CDFT had been proposed 40 years ago, its application on real system such as MOF adsorption is still a new frontier. The applications of CDFT on MOF adsorption are reported in the past 6–7 years and mainly come from a few research groups. However, CDFT has been successfully applied to gas adsorption/diffusion in nanoporous materials and high-throughput screening of MOFs. In these applications, the FFT seems to be the key which makes CDFT more efficient than conventional simulations. One reason for the relatively fewer applications of CDFT is the lack of CDFT software in the current stage. Developing a usable CDFT software would extend the application of CDFT.

Besides the advantages, the challenge of current CDFT is how to deal with polar molecules which may not be coarse grained into a spherical model such as H2O. It is well known that the hydrogen bonding network instead of spherical Van der Waals interaction is the dominating factor of such polar systems. For non-spherical molecule, the difficulty is how to construct an accurate excess free energy functional which can be accelerated by numerical method such as Eq. (43). For example, in MFA, Eq. (31), the molecule-molecule interaction *u*(**R**1, **R**2)is a multidimensional function which cannot be simplified into a one-dimensional function *u*(*r*); in functional expansion theory, the high-order terms (so-called bridge functional) give an important contribution, which often cannot be accelerated by FFT. If such problems are solved, CDFT will be a perfect substitute for MC simulation.
