ShareThis Page

Pitt researchers examine better CNG storage technology

| Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016, 10:09 a.m.

University of Pittsburgh researchers are experimenting with chemical compounds that could potentially improve the design of fuel tanks for compressed natural gas vehicles.

In research published this week in the journal Physical Review Letters, the team led by Christopher Wilmer and Hasan Babaei said they are developing a fuel storage system that would replace reinforced, heavy tanks with a material known as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that would absorb gas like a sponge.

The goal is to find an alternative for bulky tanks required to handle the pressurized, volatile gas while overcoming challenges involved with the porous, crystal-like MOFs, which can generate a lot of heat.

“Unfortunately, not a lot is known about how to make absorbents dissipate heat quickly. This study illuminates some of the fundamental mechanisms involved,” said Wilmer, an assistant professor in Pitt's Swanson School of Engineering.

Government agencies and companies that operate large fleets of vehicles have moved toward more use of compressed natural gas — or CNG — because of its domestic availability, lower cost and fewer air emissions. Wilmer, whose startup NuMat Technologies is focused on developing the technology, hopes it can increase efficiency across the gas storage industry.

“Beyond natural gas, these insights could help us design better hydrogen gas storage systems as well,” he said. “Any industrial process where a gas interacts with a porous material, where heat is an important factor, could potentially benefit from this research.”

David Conti is the assistant business editor at the Tribune-Review. Reach him at 412-388-5802 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.