Skip to content

Original Research

Frontiers in Earth Science ·

Volume 14 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2026.1989592

Hydrogen storage and diffusion in shale nanopores: molecular dynamics effects of pressure, temperature, confinement, and wall chemistry

  • Yang Xu1,2
  • Xin Zhang3,4*corresponding author
  • Hao Wang1,2
  • Jingyi Wang3,4
  • Yungang Chi1,2
  • Jing Gao3,4
  • Renfeng Wang1,2
  • Bingfei Wang1,2
  • Zhixia Tang1,2
  • Fangxiang Xu1,2
  • Mingqi Li1,2
  • Xu Wu3,4
  • Ran Wei3,4
  1. 1CCDC Drilling & Production Technology Research Institute, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
  2. 2National Engineering Laboratory for Exploration and Development of Low-Permeability Oil & Gas Fields, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
  3. 3College of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Xi’an Petroleum University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
  4. 4Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Petroleum Accumulation Geology, Xi’an Petroleum University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Article metrics0 viewsView details

Abstract

Underground hydrogen storage in shale is governed by pore occupancy, interfacial interactions, and molecular diffusion. This study examines their combined effects on hydrogen retention and transport. Molecular dynamics simulations were performed for five mineral slit-pore models and type I–III kerogen pores. The effects of temperature, pressure-associated loading, pore width, kerogen type, and pore-wall type were assessed using adsorption heat, pore H₂ population (the mean number of H₂ molecules within the pore region), density profiles, and directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients. Higher prescribed loadings corresponding to higher pressures increased pore H₂ population and were accompanied by reduced diffusion. Heating decreased adsorption heat and pore population while enhancing diffusion. Narrower pores accommodated fewer molecules and restricted molecular motion, with the largest change in diffusion between the sampled pore widths occurring from 2 to 3 nm in quartz. Differences among kerogen types were modest, although type III exhibited a tendency toward stronger H₂ retention. Pore-wall type yielded more pronounced differences: quartz exhibited the highest adsorption heat, calcite combined the largest pore population with the lowest diffusion coefficient, and graphite supported the fastest diffusion. The differing rankings of adsorption heat, pore population, and diffusion indicate that interaction strength alone cannot adequately characterize hydrogen storage and transport. Joint assessment of these descriptors provides molecular-scale insights into shale pore structures and the trade-offs between hydrogen retention and transport.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Hydrogen is increasingly considered an energy carrier for balancing variable renewable electricity and decarbonizing sectors that are difficult to electrify directly (Wang et al., 2018; Evangelopoulou et al., 2019; He et al., 2021; Shiraishi et al., 2024). Its large-scale deployment requires storage capacities and cycling durations beyond those of conventional surface vessels (Tarkowski, 2019; Ali et al., 2025). Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) in salt caverns, depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs, and saline aquifers can provide seasonal-scale capacity while reducing surface land use (Tarkowski, 2019; Ali et al., 2025). Salt caverns provide the clearest engineering precedent, but suitable salt formations are geographically restricted (Caglayan et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2020). Porous formations may allow partial reuse of wells, gathering systems, and subsurface characterization developed during hydrocarbon production (Okoroafor et al., 2022; Ali et al., 2025).

Hydrogen presents distinctive containment and recovery challenges in porous media (Gomez Mendez et al., 2024; Ren et al., 2025; Shi et al., 2025). Its low molecular mass, low viscosity, and high diffusivity favor rapid migration, whereas adsorption, dissolution, capillary trapping, residual gases, water, geochemical reactions, and microbial conversion can alter both stored inventory and deliverability (Gomez Mendez et al., 2024; Baru et al., 2025; Shi et al., 2025). A formation therefore cannot be assessed from geometric pore volume alone. The spatial distribution of H2 near pore walls and its diffusion through the connected pore system must be considered together, particularly in fine-grained rocks where much of the internal surface area occurs in nanopores and continuum descriptions may not resolve interfacial structuring or strong confinement.

Depleted shale gas formations are potential UHS targets because shale combines low matrix permeability with abundant organic and mineral nanopores (Zhang M. et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2026; Liang et al., 2026). Kerogen provides chemically heterogeneous carbonaceous surfaces (Craddock et al., 2018; Duan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022), whereas silicates, clays, carbonates, and carbon-rich components provide different charge distributions, surface corrugations, and adsorption environments (Al-Harbi et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025). Previous experimental and molecular-simulation studies have shown that H2 storage and transport are sensitive to temperature, pressure, pore aperture, kerogen maturity, residual gases, water, and mineral identity (Kahzadvand et al., 2024; Zhang M. et al., 2024; Wang and Bai, 2026). However, these factors are commonly investigated separately, making it difficult to compare their relative influence on H2 storage and diffusion within a unified molecular framework. In particular, the coupled response of pore-scale H2 distribution and diffusion to thermodynamic conditions, nanoconfinement, organic-matter type, and pore-wall chemistry remains insufficiently resolved. A systematic multi-factor comparison is therefore required to compare the observed controls on H2 retention and transport in shale nanopores.

This study compares H2 storage and diffusion in shale slit-pore models using a unified molecular simulation and analysis framework. Its specific contribution is the joint evaluation of adsorption heat, H2 population, pore-normal density profiles, and self-diffusion coefficients across variations in temperature, pressure, pore width, kerogen type, and pore-wall type. Rather than treating any single descriptor as a proxy for all storage behavior, the analysis examines whether energetic affinity, pore occupancy, and molecular diffusion respond consistently to changes in the investigated factors. Three questions are addressed: (i) what storage and diffusion characteristics H2 exhibits in the reference quartz pore; (ii) how each investigated factor changes the complementary descriptors; and (iii) whether the rankings based on adsorption heat, H2 population, and diffusion coincide. This comparison identifies the largest observed responses within the tested ranges and clarifies the distinction between energetic binding, pore occupancy, and molecular diffusion. The resulting molecular-scale insights can support the evaluation of shale pore structures and the assessment of retention–transport trade-offs in underground hydrogen storage.

2 Molecular models and simulation methods

2.1 Molecular model construction

2.1.1 Mineral crystal and pore-wall models

Albite (NaAlSi3O8) (Harlow, 1982), illite [KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH)2] (Zhang X. et al., 2024), quartz (SiO2) (Liu et al., 2018), calcite (CaCO3) (Graf, 1961), and graphite (Kwiecińska and Petersen, 2004; Hou et al., 2019) were selected as representative inorganic pore-wall components of shale. Their crystal structures were constructed from crystallographic data in Materials Studio and geometrically optimized before replication. The optimized unit-cell structures are shown in Figure 1.

Optimized crystal structures of the inorganic shale components used in the simulations: **(a)** albite, **(b)** illite, **(c)** quartz, **(d)** calcite, and **(e)** graphite.
Figure 1. Optimized crystal structures of the inorganic shale components used in the simulations: (a) albite, (b) illite, (c) quartz, (d) calcite, and (e) graphite.

Each unit cell was replicated to form a mineral supercell with lateral dimensions of at least 40 Å and a thickness of at least 15 Å (Figure 2). The exposed surfaces were albite (010), illite (001), calcite (104), graphite (001) and quartz (001), as summarized in Table 1. During the production simulations, the mineral atoms were fixed to maintain the specified pore geometry. Related molecular studies of confined fluids and mineral interfaces provide the context for this idealized pore-wall representation (Greathouse et al., 2015; Mu et al., 2022).

Mineral supercells used to construct the slit-pore walls: **(a)** albite, **(b)** illite, **(c)** quartz, **(d)** calcite, and **(e)** graphite.
Figure 2. Mineral supercells used to construct the slit-pore walls: (a) albite, (b) illite, (c) quartz, (d) calcite, and (e) graphite.

TABLE 1. Molecular compositions and pore-wall characteristics used in the simulations.

ModelComposition/formulaStructural descriptor/exposed surfaceRole in the study
Type I kerogenC291H442O9N2S3 H/C = 1.52; O/C = 0.03Aliphatic-rich; low aromatic fraction (14%)Kerogen comparison
Type II kerogenC274H387O16N3S3 H/C = 1.41; O/C = 0.06Mixed aliphatic–aromatic structure (31% aromatic C)Kerogen comparison
Type III kerogenC251H293O24N3S2 H/C = 1.17; O/C = 0.10Aromatic- and oxygen-rich (53% aromatic C)Kerogen comparison
GraphiteC; hexagonalGraphite (001) basal surfacePore-wall-type comparison
CalciteCaCO3; trigonalCalcite (104) surfacePore-wall-type comparison
IlliteKAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH)2; monoclinicIllite (001) basal surfacePore-wall-type comparison
AlbiteNaAlSi3O8; triclinicAlbite (010) surfacePore-wall-type comparison
QuartzSiO2Quartz (001) surfaceReference and parametric comparisons

2.1.2 Kerogen molecular and pore-wall models

Three kerogen models were constructed following the type-dependent molecular framework reported by Ungerer et al. (2015). Type I kerogen is aliphatic-rich and has the highest H/C ratio; type II contains both aliphatic and aromatic moieties; and type III has the highest aromatic fraction and oxygen content. Their molecular formulas, elemental ratios, and structural descriptors are listed in Table 1. Each kerogen molecule was first geometrically optimized and then packed into a periodic amorphous cell. Five annealing cycles between 300 and 600 K were performed to reduce configurational bias, followed by energy minimization to obtain stable kerogen wall structures. The molecular structures and equilibrated amorphous cells of the three kerogen types are shown in Figure 3.

Molecular structures (top) and equilibrated amorphous cells (bottom) of the kerogen models: **(a)** type I, **(b)** type II, and **(c)** type III.
Figure 3. Molecular structures (top) and equilibrated amorphous cells (bottom) of the kerogen models: (a) type I, (b) type II, and (c) type III.

2.1.3 Slit-pore model assembly

For each inorganic model, two identical mineral slabs were placed parallel to the xy plane, with their inner surfaces facing each other along the z direction. For the organic models, two copies of the equilibrated kerogen cell were arranged in the same manner. The separation between the opposing inner surfaces was adjusted to 2, 3, 4, or 5 nm to generate slit pores of different widths. Periodic boundary conditions were applied in all three directions, and the pore normal was aligned with z.

The quartz-based slit pore at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a width of 5 nm was used as the common reference system. Quartz was selected as a representative silicate component of shale, and retaining this single pore-wall type in temperature, pressure, and pore-width series allowed those effects to be compared without simultaneously changing the wall composition (Liu et al., 2018). The three kerogen models and the five mineral models were used for the respective composition comparisons. The models and their exposed surfaces are summarized in Table 1.

2.2 Hydrogen loading and simulation matrix

Hydrogen was represented as a rigid diatomic molecule with an H–H bond length of 0.074 nm. For each slit-pore volume, the bulk H2 density at the target temperature and pressure was calculated with the Peng–Robinson equation of state (Peng and Robinson, 1976). The corresponding number of H2 molecules was prescribed from that density and the accessible pore volume and inserted before the NVT trajectory. The pressure values reported for these comparisons therefore specify the bulk reference states used to initialize the loading; pressure was not independently controlled during the NVT production runs. The total H2 number, pore volume, and temperature were fixed in each run. Consequently, the reported H2 population depends partly on the prescribed loading and is not an independently predicted equilibrium adsorption capacity. The simulation matrix comprised temperatures of 313, 323, 333, 343, and 353 K; pressures of 5, 15, 25, and 35 MPa; pore widths of 2, 3, 4, and 5 nm; three kerogen types; and five inorganic pore-wall types.

The reference condition was 323 K, 5 MPa, and a 5 nm quartz-based slit pore. These values were adopted as a common comparison point shared by the different parameter series, rather than as an optimized storage condition. Temperature was varied at 5 MPa and a pore width of 5 nm; pressure was varied at 323 K and a pore width of 5 nm; and pore width was varied at 323 K and 5 MPa. The kerogen-type and pore-wall-type comparisons were also performed at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm. This arrangement permits each reported comparison to be interpreted against the same reference settings (Table 2).

TABLE 2. Simulation matrix and common numerical settings.

VariableLevelsFixed conditions for the reported comparison
Reference condition323 K; 5 MPa; 5 nmQuartz-based reference slit pore
Temperature313, 323, 333, 343, 353 K5 MPa; 5 nm reference pore
Pressure5, 15, 25, 35 MPa323 K; 5 nm reference pore
Pore width2, 3, 4, 5 nm323 K; 5 MPa; reference wall
Kerogen typeI, II, III323 K; 5 MPa; 5 nm
Pore-wall typeQuartz, graphite, calcite, illite, albite323 K; 5 MPa; 5 nm
Common settings1 fs time step; 500 ps NVT equilibration; 100 ps NVT production; three initializationsCOMPASS III; Nosé–Hoover thermostat; Ewald electrostatics; 1.25 nm cutoff; rigid walls

2.3 Force field and molecular dynamics protocol

All models were built and simulated in BIOVIA Materials Studio 2023 using the COMPASS III force field. The COMPASS III framework combines bonded terms with Lennard–Jones and electrostatic interactions. Unlike-atom Lennard–Jones parameters were obtained with Lorentz–Berthelot mixing rules. A 1.25 nm cutoff was used for nonbonded interactions, and long-range electrostatics were evaluated by Ewald summation with a convergence criterion of 1 × 10−6 kcal mol-1. Three-dimensional periodic boundary conditions were applied, with the slit-pore normal along z. COMPASS III was used consistently for the organic, mineral, and H2 components to provide a unified force-field framework for comparison among the simulated systems (Zhang X. et al., 2024b; Dang et al., 2025).

Each H2-filled slit-pore system was first minimized using the conjugate-gradient method, with a maximum-force criterion of 0.001 kcal mol-1 Å-1 and a maximum of 10,000 iterations. The minimized system was then equilibrated for 500 ps in the NVT ensemble at the target temperature using a Nosé–Hoover thermostat and a 1 fs time step. Equilibration was confirmed by the stabilization of temperature and total energy without systematic drift. A subsequent 100 ps NVT production simulation was performed under the same thermodynamic conditions (Jia et al., 2026). Only the stabilized 100 ps production trajectory was used to determine adsorption heat, H2 population, density profiles, MSD, and diffusion coefficients. Three independently initialized simulations were conducted for each condition, and the mean values were used for comparison.

2.4 Data analysis

2.4.1 Adsorption heat, H2 population, and density profiles

The adsorption heat, Q a d s, was evaluated using the interaction-energy difference for the H2–pore-wall system. For each configuration sampled from the stabilized production trajectory, the mean binding energy per H2 molecule was calculated using Equation 1:where E t o t a l is the total potential energy of the combined H2–pore-wall system, E H 2 and E w a l l are the potential energies of the H2 and wall subsystems used as the energy references, respectively, and N H 2 is the number of H2 molecules used to normalize the energy difference for that configuration. The resulting Q a d s values were averaged over the stabilized production trajectory and are reported in kcal mol-1 on a per-H2 basis. An attractive interaction lowers E t o t a l relative to E H 2 + E w a l l and therefore gives a positive Q a d s; a larger positive value denotes stronger mean energetic binding under this sign convention. Here, “adsorption heat” denotes this interaction-energy-based descriptor, rather than an independently determined thermodynamic isosteric heat. Related energy-difference descriptions of fluid–solid adsorption have been used for shale nanopores (Liu et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025).

Q a d s = E H 2 + E w a l l − E t o t a l N H 2 (1)

H2 population was defined as the mean number of H2 molecules present within the slit-pore region during the stabilized production stage and is reported in molecules. It describes occupancy under the prescribed loading, rather than an adsorbed-only population or an independently predicted equilibrium adsorption capacity. The total H2 number in each NVT trajectory remains fixed at its initialized value; the trajectory samples the distribution and motion of those molecules, rather than exchange with an external gas reservoir. Population comparisons among conditions therefore reflect the loading procedure in Section 2.2 together with the specified pore region. They should not be read as equilibrium adsorption isotherms or excess adsorption capacities. Pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles were obtained by dividing the z direction into 0.08 nm slabs and averaging the molecular distribution over 1,000 production-trajectory records. The distance coordinate was referenced to the pore center. Together, Q a d s, H2 population, and density profiles characterize mean energetic binding, pore occupancy, and the spatial distribution of H2, respectively. Related pore-scale analyses have also used joint energetic and spatial characterization for shale fluids (Zhang X. et al., 2026b).

2.4.2 Mean squared displacement and diffusion coefficient

Mean squared displacement (MSD) was calculated from the center-of-mass trajectories of the H2 molecules and is reported in nm2. The total MSD contains the x, y, and z displacement components. Its definition and the scalar Einstein coefficient used for reporting the results are given in Equations 2, 3 (Ernst and Köhler, 2012; Nagai et al., 2020):

M S D t = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N r i t − r i 0 2 (2)

D = 1 6 lim t → ∞ d M S D t d t (3)

Here N is the total number of H2 molecules, rᵢ(t) is the center-of-mass position vector of molecule i, and t is elapsed time in the production trajectory. The squared norm includes all three Cartesian components, so M S D x y z = M S D x + M S D y + M S D z. The linear portion of the total MSD from the stabilized 100 ps production trajectory was fitted with slope k in nm2 ps-1. The reported coefficient is D = k/6 in nm2 ps-1, or 100k/6 in Å2 ps-1 because 1 nm2 = 100 Å2; equivalently, one Å2 ps-1 = 10−8 m2 s-1. The same analysis and unit convention were applied to every condition.

The slit pore is anisotropic, and the factor 1/6 is used to define a directionally averaged scalar, not to assume equal diffusion in all directions. If the directional slopes are evaluated over the same fitting interval, D = D x + D y + D z / 3, with each directional coefficient defined by one-half of the corresponding MSD slope. This trace-based average provides a consistent summary of the total molecular displacement for the present comparisons. In contrast, the in-plane coefficient is D ∥ = 1 4 d M S D x + M S D y dt. The pore-normal MSD is bounded at sufficiently long times by the opposing walls, so the reported D must not be identified with D ∥ or with an isotropic bulk diffusivity. Anisotropic H2 diffusion in clay slits has also been reported by Liu et al. (2022). The values retained here are derived from the total three-dimensional MSD; no separately evaluated in-plane values are reported.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 H2 storage and diffusion characteristics in a shale slit pore

At 323 K, 5 MPa, and a 5 nm quartz-based slit pore, H2 occupies the full accessible pore (Figure 4a). The density profile is approximately symmetric, with a central value of about 0.0033 g cm-3 and modest near-wall oscillations (Figure 4b). The adsorption heat is 0.67 kcal mol-1 and the H2 population is 94.96 molecules. These energetic, quantitative, and spatial quantities characterize the H2 distribution under the reference loading; the population is not an independently calculated adsorption capacity.

H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion in a quartz slit pore at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: **(a)** equilibrium molecular configuration, **(b)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profile in g cm<sup>-3</sup>, and **(c)** MSD curve in nm<sup>2</sup> over the 100 ps production trajectory. The directionally averaged coefficient D is obtained from the linear MSD slope and converted from nm<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup> to Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>. The total MSD includes the x, y, and z components.
Figure 4. H2 storage and diffusion in a quartz slit pore at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: (a) equilibrium molecular configuration, (b) pore-normal H2 mass-density profile in g cm-3, and (c) MSD curve in nm2 over the 100 ps production trajectory. The directionally averaged coefficient D is obtained from the linear MSD slope and converted from nm2 ps-1 to Å2 ps-1. The total MSD includes the x, y, and z components.

The MSD increases approximately linearly over the stabilized 100 ps production trajectory (Figure 4c). Linear fitting gives the reported directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficient of 409.32 Å2 ps-1, equivalent to 4.0932 nm2 ps-1 (or 4.09 × 10−6 m2 s-1). Through the Einstein relation, this coefficient corresponds to an MSD slope of 24.5592 nm2 ps-1, making the conversion between the plotted MSD unit and the reported diffusion unit explicit. Together, the adsorption heat, H2 population, density distribution, and diffusion coefficient provide a complementary basis for the subsequent factor comparisons.

The storage and diffusion characteristics obtained here are broadly consistent with previous molecular studies of H2 in geological nanopores. Yang et al. reported weak physical adsorption of H2 in quartz slit pores, with relatively low adsorption heats and no pronounced multilayer accumulation, consistent with the modest near-wall density modulation observed in the present quartz system (Yang et al., 2023). Previous molecular dynamics simulations further showed that H2 self-diffusion in quartz and other geological slit pores is sensitive to pressure, pore confinement, and surface chemistry, with diffusivity generally decreasing with increasing pressure and increasing with pore aperture (Zheng et al., 2024). Similar transport trends have also been reported for kerogen and clay nanopores (Raza et al., 2022a; Oliver et al., 2024). These agreements in interfacial distribution and transport behavior support the physical consistency of the present molecular model.

3.2 Effects of controlling factors on H2 storage and diffusion

The five factors were evaluated using four complementary descriptors: adsorption heat, H2 population, pore-normal density distribution, and the MSD-derived, directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficient. The adsorption heat represents mean H2–wall energetic binding, H2 population and density profiles describe pore occupancy and its spatial distribution, and D quantifies molecular motion. Throughout the manuscript, “pore-wall type” identifies the investigated material variable, whereas “pore-wall chemistry” describes the interfacial properties used to interpret its effects. Each series varied one factor while keeping the remaining parameters fixed at their reference values: 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm, as applicable.

3.2.1 Temperature

At 5 MPa and a 5 nm quartz-based pore, adsorption heat decreases monotonically from 0.69 kcal mol-1 at 313 K to 0.67, 0.65, 0.63, and 0.61 kcal mol-1 at 323, 333, 343, and 353 K, respectively (Figure 5a). Over the same temperature range, the H2 population decreases from 100.47 to 94.96, 94.22, 90.69, and 89.31 molecules (Figure 5b). The density profiles retain a broad pore-center distribution and exhibit temperature-dependent variations in local density and interfacial modulation (Figure 5c). The lower population is associated in part with the temperature-dependent initialization density. Together with the energy change, the results describe temperature-dependent occupancy and H2–wall interactions under this loading protocol.

Temperature effects on H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores at 313, 323, 333, 343, and 353 K, with pressure fixed at 5 MPa and pore width at 5 nm: **(a)** adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol<sup>-1</sup>), **(b)** mean H<sub>2</sub> population (molecules), **(c)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profiles (g cm<sup>-3</sup>), and **(d)** directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>).
Figure 5. Temperature effects on H2 storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores at 313, 323, 333, 343, and 353 K, with pressure fixed at 5 MPa and pore width at 5 nm: (a) adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol-1), (b) mean H2 population (molecules), (c) pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles (g cm-3), and (d) directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å2 ps-1).

The self-diffusion coefficient exhibits the opposite trend, increasing from 352.88 Å2 ps-1 at 313 K to 409.32, 450.14, 481.96, and 500.30 Å2 ps-1 at 323, 333, 343, and 353 K, respectively (Figure 5d). The overall increase is 41.8%. Higher molecular kinetic energy accelerates translational motion and facilitates H2 redistribution away from the pore walls, thereby increasing diffusion. The positive temperature dependence agrees with previous H2 diffusion simulations in organic and mineral nanopores (Owusu et al., 2022; Yang and Jin, 2025; Zhao et al., 2025).

The coupled changes in adsorption heat, H2 population, and D reveal a clear storage–deliverability trade-off. Lower temperature strengthens adsorption and favors H2 retention, whereas higher temperature promotes molecular diffusion and facilitates injection–withdrawal redistribution. Temperature should therefore be considered together with fracture connectivity, water saturation, pressure gradients, and cycling frequency when selecting storage intervals and operating conditions.

3.2.2 Pressure

At 323 K and a 5 nm quartz-based pore, adsorption heat decreases from 0.67 kcal mol-1 at 5 MPa to approximately 0.63 kcal mol-1 at 15, 25, and 35 MPa (Figure 6a), indicating only a modest pressure dependence of the average H2–wall interaction strength. Under the prescribed pressure-dependent loadings, the H2 population rises from 94.96 molecules at 5 MPa to 285.28, 459.72, and 653.57 molecules at 15, 25, and 35 MPa, respectively (Figure 6b). The density profiles increase correspondingly throughout the pore across the prescribed loading states (Figure 6c). Because the initial molecular number increases according to the EOS-based protocol, this population increase is partly prescribed and must not be interpreted as an independently simulated increase in equilibrium adsorption capacity.

Pressure effects on H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores at 5, 15, 25, and 35 MPa, with temperature fixed at 323 K and pore width at 5 nm: **(a)** adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol<sup>-1</sup>), **(b)** mean H<sub>2</sub> population (molecules), **(c)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profiles (g cm<sup>-3</sup>), and **(d)** directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>).
Figure 6. Pressure effects on H2 storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores at 5, 15, 25, and 35 MPa, with temperature fixed at 323 K and pore width at 5 nm: (a) adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol-1), (b) mean H2 population (molecules), (c) pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles (g cm-3), and (d) directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å2 ps-1).

The self-diffusion coefficient decreases from 409.32 Å2 ps-1 at 5 MPa to 295.17 Å2 ps-1 at 15 MPa, 171.23 Å2 ps-1 at 25 MPa, and 136.05 Å2 ps-1 at 35 MPa (Figure 6d), giving an overall reduction of 66.8%. Higher H2 density reduces intermolecular separation and increases collision frequency, thereby limiting the net displacement accumulated over a fixed time interval. The nearly stable adsorption heat above 15 MPa further indicates that pressure primarily regulates H2 storage through pore filling and molecular crowding rather than through a substantial increase in interaction energy.

At the nanopore scale, the higher-pressure loading states contain more H2 molecules and yield lower directionally averaged diffusion coefficients. The decrease in diffusivity is consistent with previous H2 simulations in organic nanopores (Raza et al., 2022a), while the larger population must be interpreted in the context of the prescribed loading. These results describe an occupancy–diffusion trade-off for the simulated states; operating pressure in a storage project must additionally account for geomechanical constraints, caprock and well integrity, and withdrawal performance (Okoroafor et al., 2022).

3.2.3 Pore width

At 323 K and 5 MPa, adsorption heat increases from 0.62 kcal mol-1 in the 2 nm pore to 0.63 kcal mol-1 in the 3 and 4 nm pores and 0.67 kcal mol-1 in the 5 nm pore (Figure 7a). Under the loading procedure in Section 2.2, the H2 population increases with accessible pore volume, from 41.97 molecules at 2 nm to 59.51, 77.53, and 94.96 molecules at 3, 4, and 5 nm, respectively (Figure 7b). The density profiles broaden progressively with pore width, whereas the 2 nm pore contains no extensive pore-center region that is independent of both walls (Figure 7c). Thus, pore width controls storage through both accessible volume and the spatial extent of wall confinement.

Pore-width effects on H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores of 2, 3, 4, and 5 nm, with temperature fixed at 323 K and pressure at 5 MPa: **(a)** adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol<sup>-1</sup>), **(b)** mean H<sub>2</sub> population (molecules), **(c)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profiles (g cm<sup>-3</sup>), and **(d)** directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>).
Figure 7. Pore-width effects on H2 storage and diffusion in quartz slit pores of 2, 3, 4, and 5 nm, with temperature fixed at 323 K and pressure at 5 MPa: (a) adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol-1), (b) mean H2 population (molecules), (c) pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles (g cm-3), and (d) directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å2 ps-1).

The self-diffusion coefficient increases from 314.25 Å2 ps-1 at 2 nm to 389.61 Å2 ps-1 at 3 nm, 391.62 Å2 ps-1 at 4 nm, and 409.32 Å2 ps-1 at 5 nm (Figure 7d). The largest discrete increase occurs between 2 and 3 nm; above 3 nm, the diffusion coefficients change only slightly. This nonlinear response shows that diffusion becomes strongly restricted when the pore width approaches the combined influence range of the opposing pore walls.

Within the investigated quartz models, the largest discrete diffusion change occurs between 2 and 3 nm, consistent with stronger confinement in the narrower pore. This trend is supported by earlier molecular studies: Liu et al. (2022) reported increasing H2 diffusivity with slit aperture in montmorillonite, while Oliver et al. (2024) found a similar pore-size dependence in graphene and kaolinite slit pores. Zheng et al. (2024) further showed that confinement depends on mineral–H2 interactions in calcite, hematite, and quartz pores. These studies support the direction of the pore-size effect rather than a universal transition at exactly 2–3 nm. In the present models, narrower pores contain fewer H2 molecules because of their smaller accessible volume and also restrict molecular motion. The observed contrast therefore illustrates the trade-off between available storage space and diffusion resistance; its relevance to connected shale pore networks requires consideration of the pore-size distribution and connectivity.

3.2.4 Kerogen type

At 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm, the adsorption heat is 0.63 kcal mol-1 for type I and type II kerogen and increases slightly to 0.64 kcal mol-1 for type III (Figure 8a). The corresponding mean H2 populations are 53.80, 54.75, and 57.24 molecules (Figure 8b). The density profiles have similar overall shapes and show modest type-dependent differences (Figure 8c). In combination, the slightly higher mean adsorption heat and population in the type III model suggest a modest tendency toward stronger H2 retention under the tested conditions.

Kerogen-type effects on H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion for type I, II, and III kerogen pores at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: **(a)** adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol<sup>-1</sup>), **(b)** mean H<sub>2</sub> population (molecules), **(c)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profiles (g cm<sup>-3</sup>), and **(d)** mean directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>).
Figure 8. Kerogen-type effects on H2 storage and diffusion for type I, II, and III kerogen pores at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: (a) adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol-1), (b) mean H2 population (molecules), (c) pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles (g cm-3), and (d) mean directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å2 ps-1).

The mean self-diffusion coefficients decrease from 417.75 Å2 ps-1 for type I kerogen to 407.23 Å2 ps-1 for type II and 398.74 Å2 ps-1 for type III (Figure 8d), a type I-to-type III difference of 4.6%. This spread is comparatively small relative to the pressure, pore-width, and pore-wall-type contrasts. The results are therefore described as a modest tendency toward enhanced retention in the type III model, rather than as evidence that this kerogen type is universally the most favorable for hydrogen storage.

This tendency may be associated with differences in aromatic structure, surface heterogeneity, and heteroatom content among the selected kerogen models, which can modify H2–kerogen interactions and resistance to molecular translation. Previous studies have similarly related H2 adsorption and transport to kerogen maturity, carbon content, microporosity, surface chemical heterogeneity, and residual methane (Raza et al., 2022b; Raza et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2026). These studies provide a mechanistic context, while the present comparison concerns kerogen type rather than a controlled maturity series. Kerogen type produced comparatively modest changes in the reported mean descriptors within the investigated models.

Organic–mineral heterogeneity provides an additional context for this comparison. Zhang L. et al. (2026) examined CO2/CH4 competition in type I–III kerogen–illite composite nanopores and found kerogen-dependent adsorption selectivity and different diffusion behavior for the two gases. This related result motivates consideration of composite organic–mineral interfaces when extending the present models. It concerns CO2 and CH4 rather than H2, however, and is used here as mechanistic context rather than quantitative validation of the present H2 ranking.

3.2.5 Pore-wall type

At 323 K, 5 MPa, and a 5 nm pore, the adsorption heat follows the order quartz (0.67 kcal mol-1) > graphite (0.64 kcal mol-1) > illite, albite, and calcite (approximately 0.63 kcal mol-1) (Figure 9a). The H2 population follows a different order: calcite (100.39 molecules) > albite (96.90) > quartz (94.96) > illite (87.33) > graphite (83.26) (Figure 9b). The pore-normal density profiles also display wall-dependent differences in local density and edge position (Figure 9c). These results show that adsorption heat and total H2 population reflect complementary aspects of storage and do not necessarily follow the same mineralogical ranking.

Pore-wall-type effects on H<sub>2</sub> storage and diffusion for illite, albite, calcite, graphite, and quartz slit pores at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: **(a)** adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol<sup>-1</sup>), **(b)** mean H<sub>2</sub> population (molecules), **(c)** pore-normal H<sub>2</sub> mass-density profiles (g cm<sup>-3</sup>), and **(d)** mean directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å<sup>2</sup> ps<sup>-1</sup>).
Figure 9. Pore-wall-type effects on H2 storage and diffusion for illite, albite, calcite, graphite, and quartz slit pores at 323 K, 5 MPa, and a pore width of 5 nm: (a) adsorption heat Q a d s (kcal mol-1), (b) mean H2 population (molecules), (c) pore-normal H2 mass-density profiles (g cm-3), and (d) mean directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficients D (Å2 ps-1).

The self-diffusion coefficients follow the order graphite (1,240.24 Å2 ps-1) > albite (637.10 Å2 ps-1) > illite (518.59 Å2 ps-1) > quartz (409.32 Å2 ps-1) > calcite (371.97 Å2 ps-1) (Figure 9d). H2 therefore diffuses 3.3 times faster in the graphite pore than in the calcite pore. Calcite combines the highest H2 population with the lowest D, whereas graphite combines the lowest population with the highest D. Quartz exhibits the highest adsorption heat but an intermediate population and diffusion coefficient. These population rankings refer to the individual loaded models and should not be taken as intrinsic mineral-specific adsorption capacities without a common volume or mass normalization.

The distinct rankings arise because wall-controlled storage and diffusion depend jointly on interaction energy, accessible adsorption sites, surface polarity, charge distribution, and structural corrugation. Previous molecular simulations have shown that mineral surface composition, interaction strength, and roughness can substantially modify H2 adsorption and self-diffusion in geological slit pores. In particular, relatively smooth carbonaceous surfaces tend to permit faster molecular translation, whereas ionic and structurally heterogeneous mineral surfaces can impose stronger interfacial resistance to H2 transport. The large wall-dependent contrast observed here therefore highlights mineralogical composition as an important control on H2 retention and diffusion in shale nanopores (Al-Harbi et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2025).

3.3 Relative importance, engineering implications, and future perspectives

The integrated comparison shows that the largest response depends on the quantity considered (Table 3). Across the prescribed pressure-dependent loadings, H2 population increases from 94.96 to 653.57 molecules and D decreases by 66.8%, while adsorption heat changes only modestly. Pore-wall type produces the largest diffusion contrast, with mean H2 populations ranging from 83.26 to 100.39 molecules in the individual models. Heating lowers adsorption heat and H2 population while increasing D, whereas pore width changes accessible space and confinement. Kerogen type produces smaller differences among the reported mean values. Within the investigated conditions, pressure-associated loading and pore-wall type therefore produced the largest observed variations in the coupled storage–diffusion quantities. The temperature, pressure, and pore-width intervals and the categorical material comparisons are not directly commensurate; these observations therefore describe the tested cases rather than a universal or normalized ranking of factor sensitivity.

TABLE 3. Observed responses of adsorption heat, H2 population, and the directionally averaged self-diffusion coefficient to the five investigated factors. Ranges are taken from Figures 5–9; population is expressed in molecules and reflects the loading procedure in Section 2.2. The numerical and categorical ranges differ, so these descriptive comparisons do not constitute a normalized sensitivity ranking.

Factor and comparisonAdsorption heat and H2 populationD range (Å2 ps-1)Integrated response
Temperature: 313 → 353 KQ a d s: 0.69 → 0.61 kcal mol-1; population: 100.47 → 89.31352.88 → 500.30Heating lowers Q a d s and accelerates diffusion
Pressure: 5 → 35 MPaQ a d s: 0.67 → 0.63 kcal mol-1; population: 94.96 → 653.57409.32 → 136.05Pressure greatly increases pore filling and suppresses diffusion
Pore width: 2 → 5 nmQ a d s: 0.62 → 0.67 kcal mol-1; population: 41.97 → 94.96314.25 → 409.32Wider pores accommodate more H2 and permit faster diffusion
Kerogen: type I → type IIIQ a d s: 0.63 → 0.64 kcal mol-1; population: 53.80 → 57.24417.75 → 398.74Type III shows a modest retention tendency
Pore wall: observed rangeQ a d s: 0.63–0.67 kcal mol-1; population: 83.26–100.39371.97–1,240.24Calcite gives the highest population and lowest D; graphite gives the highest D

The different descriptor rankings are a central outcome of the comparison. Q a d s describes mean energetic binding per H2 molecule, H2 population describes occupancy of the specified pore region under the prescribed loading, and D describes their directionally averaged translational diffusion. Quartz has the highest Q a d s, whereas calcite combines the largest population with the lowest D; graphite exhibits the fastest diffusion. These observations show that strong energetic binding alone does not establish either the largest pore occupancy or the greatest diffusion resistance. Interfacial interactions must therefore be considered alongside accessible pore space and confinement when interpreting storage and transport. For shale evaluation, these model-specific relationships motivate joint consideration of pore-size distribution, mineral composition, kerogen type, and operating pressure, while retaining the distinction between molecular-scale retention and field-scale injection–withdrawal performance.

Formation water is a particularly important extension because hydrated mineral surfaces need not retain the gas-accessible interface of a dry pore. Zhang et al. (2027) studied CO2-induced water-film reconstruction in hydrated shale-related nanoslits containing CO2, CH4, and He. Their results associate mineral-dependent hydration layers and asymmetric water films with differences in gas access to the walls. Although that system does not contain H2, it provides a useful interfacial framework for examining whether hydration changes the pore-wall trends observed here. H2–brine–mineral simulations also show sensitivity to salinity, mineral surface structure, and organic functional groups (Chen et al., 2023). Future hydrated H2 models should therefore consider water-film distribution and gas-accessible pore space alongside mineral composition.

Future studies incorporating formation water, residual CH4 and CO2, surface roughness, flexible pore walls, and multicomponent interactions can further clarify how adsorption heat, pore population, and diffusion evolve during repeated injection–withdrawal cycles. Coupling these molecular descriptors with pore-network and reservoir-scale models will strengthen multiscale evaluation of shale formations for underground hydrogen storage. Pore geometry, connectivity, and geomechanical characterization are also required for reservoir-scale transport assessment (Wood and Hazra, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2019; Mu et al., 2025). At the UHS scale, Mu et al. (2025) further emphasize the joint assessment of lithology, water, and gas-flow performance when screening depleted reservoirs.

4 Conclusion

The molecular simulations lead to three main conclusions:

  • At 323 K and 5 MPa in the 5 nm quartz slit pore, H2 exhibits pore-center filling with modest near-wall density modulation. The adsorption heat is 0.67 kcal mol-1, the mean H2 population is 94.96 molecules, and the directionally averaged MSD-derived D is 409.32 Å2 ps-1. These complementary quantities describe energetic binding, pore occupancy, and molecular motion under a common reference loading.
  • Heating increases diffusion while reducing adsorption heat and population under the prescribed initialization protocol; higher-pressure loading states contain more molecules and show lower diffusion. Narrowing the pore reduces the number of accommodated molecules and increases diffusion resistance, with the largest discrete change between 2 and 3 nm in the investigated quartz models. The population changes reflect the loading protocol as well as accessible pore space and do not constitute an independent prediction of equilibrium adsorption capacity.
  • Pore-wall type produces nonidentical rankings of energetic binding, population, and diffusion: quartz has the highest adsorption heat, calcite the largest population and lowest D, and graphite the highest D. Differences among kerogen types are modest, with type III showing a tendency toward stronger retention. Joint interpretation of these descriptors provides a more informative basis for comparing shale pore models than any single adsorption or diffusion measure. Pressure-associated loading and pore-wall type produced the largest observed variations within the investigated conditions, rather than establishing a universal ordering of controlling factors.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Tao Hu, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China

Reviewed by: Fuhua Shang, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, China

Hexin Huang, Chang’an University, China

Liyuan Zhang, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by the Postgraduate Innovation and Practice Ability Development Fund of Xi’an Petroleum University (Grant No. YCX2612024).

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

YX: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft. XZ: Writing – review and editing, Software, Funding acquisition. HW: Software, Writing – original draft, Data curation. JW: Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft, Investigation. YC: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Project administration. JG: Visualization, Validation, Writing – review and editing. ReW: Methodology, Writing – original draft. BW: Investigation, Writing – original draft. ZT: Data curation, Writing – original draft. FX: Software, Writing – original draft. ML: Resources, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft. XW: Writing – original draft, Investigation. RaW: Supervision, Writing – original draft.

References

  1. Al-Harbi A., Al-Marri M., Carchini G., Saad M., Hussein I. A. (2023). Hydrogen underground storage in silica-clay shales: experimental and density functional theory investigation. ACS Omega 8, 45906 – 45913. doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c06644
  2. Ali M., Isah A., Yekeen N., Hassanpouryouzband A., Sarmadivaleh M., Okoroafor E. R. (2025). Recent progress in underground hydrogen storage. Energy Environ. Sci. 18, 5740 – 5810. doi:10.1039/d4ee04564e
  3. Baru A. M., Eyitayo S. I., Okere C. J., Baru A., Watson M. C. (2025). Large-scale hydrogen storage in deep saline aquifers: multiphase flow, geochemical–microbial interactions, and economic feasibility. Materials 18, 5097. doi:10.3390/ma18225097
  4. Caglayan D. G., Weber N., Heinrichs H. U., Linßen J., Robinius M., Kukla P. A. (2020). Technical potential of salt caverns for hydrogen storage in Europe. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45, 6793 – 6805. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.161
  5. Chen Y., Niasar V., Ma L., Xie Q. (2023). Effect of salinity, mineralogy, and organic materials in hydrogen wetting and its implications for underground hydrogen storage (UHS). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48, 32839 – 32848. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.085
  6. Chen Y., Zhou J., Xian X., Jiang H., Yang K., Peng Y. (2026). Hydrogen and methane adsorption in shale kerogen: implications for underground hydrogen storage in depleted shale reservoirs. J. Energy Storage 141, 119512. doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.119512
  7. Craddock P. R., Bake K. D., Pomerantz A. E. (2018). Chemical, molecular, and microstructural evolution of kerogen during thermal maturation: case study from the woodford shale of Oklahoma. Energy fuels. 32, 4859 – 4872. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b00189
  8. Dang W., Zhang X., Zhang J., Shangguan L., He Y. (2025). Research on the characteristics and mechanisms of supercritical CO2 displacement of shale oil under nanoscale confinement. Energy Sci. Eng. 13, 4417 – 4432. doi:10.1002/ese3.70184
  9. Duan D., Zhang D., Ma X., Yang Y., Ran Y., Mao J. (2018). Chemical and structural characterization of thermally simulated kerogen and its relationship with microporosity. Mar. Petroleum Geol. 89, 4 – 13. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.12.016
  10. Ernst D., Köhler J. (2012). Measuring a diffusion coefficient by single-particle tracking: statistical analysis of experimental mean squared displacement curves. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15, 845 – 849. doi:10.1039/C2CP43433D
  11. Evangelopoulou S., De Vita A., Zazias G., Capros P. (2019). Energy system modelling of carbon-neutral hydrogen as an enabler of sectoral integration within a decarbonization pathway. Energies 12, 2551. doi:10.3390/en12132551
  12. Gomez Mendez I., El-Sayed W. M. M., Menefee A. H., Karpyn Z. T. (2024). Insights into underground hydrogen storage challenges: a review on hydrodynamic and biogeochemical experiments in porous media. Energy fuels. 38, 20015 – 20032. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c03142
  13. Graf D. L. (1961). Crystallographic tables for the rhombohedral carbonates. Am. Mineralogist 46, 1283 – 1316.
  14. Greathouse J. A., Hart D. B., Bowers G. M., Kirkpatrick R. J., Cygan R. T. (2015). Molecular simulation of structure and diffusion at smectite–water interfaces: using expanded clay interlayers as model nanopores. J. Phys. Chem. C 119, 17126 – 17136. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b03314
  15. Harlow G. E. (1982). The anorthoclase structures: the effects of temperature and composition. Am. Mineralogist 67, 975 – 996.
  16. He G., Mallapragada D. S., Bose A., Heuberger-Austin C. F., Gençer E. (2021). Sector coupling via hydrogen to lower the cost of energy system decarbonization. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 4635 – 4646. doi:10.1039/d1ee00627d
  17. Hou Y., Zhang K., Wang F., He S., Dong T., Wang C. (2019). Structural evolution of organic matter and implications for graphitization in over-mature marine shales, south China. Mar. Petroleum Geol. 109, 304 – 316. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.06.009
  18. Jia J., Li X., Zheng J., Guo Y., Zhang X., Chen Z. (2026). Molecular mechanism of selective displacement and competitive adsorption of associated gas components by CO2 in nanopores during miscible flooding. Appl. Sci. 16, 5473. doi:10.3390/app16115473
  19. Kahzadvand K., Ghasemi M., Yazaydin A. O., Babaei M. (2024). Risk of H2 leakage into caprock and the role of cushion gas as a barrier in H2 geo-storage: a molecular simulation study. J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 16161 – 16171. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c04280
  20. Kwiecińska B., Petersen H. I. (2004). Graphite, semi-graphite, natural coke, and natural char classification—Iccp system. Int. J. Coal Geol. 57, 99 – 116. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2003.09.003
  21. Liang Z., Jiang Z., Ostadhassan M., Zhu G., Li Z., Arif M. (2026). Maturity-controlled competitive adsorption of CO 2 -H 2 and CH 4 -H 2 gas mixtures in shale kerogen nanopores. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. 20, 259 – 276. doi:10.46690/ager.2026.06.07
  22. Liu J., Ding W., Wang R., Wu Z., Gong D., Wang X. (2018). Quartz types in shale and their effect on geomechanical properties: an example from the lower Cambrian niutitang formation in the Cen’gong block, south China. Appl. Clay Sci. 163, 100 – 107. doi:10.1016/j.clay.2018.07.019
  23. Liu J., Wang S., Javadpour F., Feng Q., Cha L. (2022). Hydrogen diffusion in clay slit: implications for the geological storage. Energy fuels. 36, 7651 – 7660. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c01189
  24. Liu J., Wen Y., Jiang L., Yuan H., Liu Z., Shui Z. (2024). Molecular dynamics simulation of micro mechanisms of gas and water migration and diffusion in shale reservoirs. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 682, 132865. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2023.132865
  25. Mu Z., Ning Z., Lyu F., Liu B. (2022). Sorption of deep shale gas on minerals and organic matter from molecular simulation. Energy fuels. 37, 251 – 259. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c03156
  26. Mu Y., Zou C., Wang S., Hu Z., Duan X., Pan S. (2025). Screening depleted oil and gas reservoirs suitable for underground hydrogen storage: insights from gas flow. J. Energy Storage 132, 117810. doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.117810
  27. Nagai T., Tsurumaki S., Urano R., Fujimoto K., Shinoda W., Okazaki S. (2020). Position-dependent diffusion constant of molecules in heterogeneous systems as evaluated by the local mean squared displacement. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 7239 – 7254. doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00448
  28. Okoroafor E. R., Saltzer S. D., Kovscek A. R. (2022). Toward underground hydrogen storage in porous media: reservoir engineering insights. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47, 33781 – 33802. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.239
  29. Oliver M. C., Zheng R., Huang L., Mehana M. (2024). Molecular simulations of hydrogen diffusion in underground porous media: implications for storage under varying pressure, confinement, and surface chemistry conditions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 65, 540 – 547. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.04.068
  30. Owusu J. P., Karalis K., Prasianakis N. I., Churakov S. V. (2022). Mobility of dissolved gases in smectites under saturated conditions: effects of pore size, gas types, temperature, and surface interaction. J. Phys. Chem. C 126, 17441 – 17455. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c05678
  31. Peng D.-Y., Robinson D. B. (1976). A new two-constant equation of state. J. Industrial & Eng. Chem. Fundam. 15, 59 – 64. doi:10.1021/i160057a011
  32. Raza A., Alafnan S., Glatz G., Arif M., Mahmoud M., Rezk M. G. (2022a). Hydrogen diffusion in organic-rich porous media: implications for hydrogen geo-storage. Energy fuels. 36, 15013 – 15022. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c03070
  33. Raza A., Mahmoud M., Alafnan S., Arif M., Glatz G. (2022b). H2, CO2, and CH4 adsorption potential of kerogen as a function of pressure, temperature, and maturity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 12767. doi:10.3390/ijms232112767
  34. Raza A., Glatz G., Alafnan S., Mahmoud M., Gholami R. (2023). Depleted shale gas formations as naturally-occurring storage compartments for hydrogen: a molecular-level assessment. Fuel 334, 126695. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126695
  35. Ren J., Sun L., Li X., Wang P., Jiang L., Song Y. (2025). Interfacial dynamics and mass transfer in underground hydrogen storage applications: a review of H 2 flow, stability and storage performance. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. 18, 121 – 136. doi:10.46690/ager.2025.11.03
  36. Schwartz B., Huffman K., Thornton D., Elsworth D. (2019). The effects of mineral distribution, pore geometry, and pore density on permeability evolution in gas shales. Fuel 257, 116005. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116005
  37. Shi Y., Guo Y., Tai N., Mohanty K. K. (2025). A critical review of underground hydrogen storage in porous media: focus on fluid–fluid and rock–fluid interactions. Energy fuels. 39, 17083 – 17111. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c01541
  38. Shiraishi K., Park W. Y., Kammen D. M. (2024). The role of hydrogen as long-duration energy storage and as an international energy carrier for electricity sector decarbonization. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 084011. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad5856
  39. Tarkowski R. (2019). Underground hydrogen storage: characteristics and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105, 86 – 94. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.051
  40. Ungerer P., Collell J., Yiannourakou M. (2015). Molecular modeling of the volumetric and thermodynamic properties of kerogen: influence of organic type and maturity. Energy fuels. 29, 91 – 105. doi:10.1021/ef502154k
  41. Wang G., Bai L. (2026). Molecular insights into hydrogen adsorption on clay–organic nanocomposites: implications for underground hydrogen storage in shale reservoirs. Fuel 407, 137237. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2025.137237
  42. Wang D., Muratori M., Eichman J., Wei M., Saxena S., Zhang C. (2018). Quantifying the flexibility of hydrogen production systems to support large-scale renewable energy integration. J. Power Sources 399, 383 – 391. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.07.101
  43. Wood D. A., Hazra B. (2017). Characterization of organic-rich shales for petroleum exploration & exploitation: a review-part 3: applied geomechanics, petrophysics and reservoir modeling. J. Earth Sci. 28, 779 – 803. doi:10.1007/s12583-017-0734-8
  44. Yang C., Jin Z. (2025). Hydrogen storage state in clay mineral nanopores: a molecular dynamics simulation study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 105, 1491 – 1502. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.01.341
  45. Yang L., Mao S., Yi L., Liu H., Wang H., Liu H. (2023). Adsorption behavior of H2 in quartz silt-pores at high temperature and pressure. AIP Adv. 13, 115025. doi:10.1063/5.0177533
  46. Zhang C., Yao Y., Dong Y. (2022). Heterogeneous development of micro- and meso-pores in shale kerogen: new insights from chemical structure analysis. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 102, 104552. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104552
  47. Zhang M., Yang Y., Pan B., Liu Z., Jin Z., Iglauer S. (2024a). Molecular simulation on H2 adsorption in nanopores and effects of cushion gas: implications for underground hydrogen storage in shale reservoirs. Fuel 361, 130621. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130621
  48. Zhang X., Dang W., Zhang Q., Nie H., Chen S., Feng Y. (2024b). Pore-scale gas storage mechanisms, characteristics, and influencing factors in water-bearing shale: insights from molecular dynamics simulations. ACS Omega 9, 47005 – 47022. doi:10.1021/acsomega.4c06869
  49. Zhang L., Chen J., Stupakova A. (2026a). Competitive adsorption and diffusion of CO2 and CH4 in type I–III kerogen-illite composite nanopores: implications for CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery in ultra-deep shale. Langmuir 42, 19270 – 19285. doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.6c02248
  50. Zhang X., Dang W., Zhang Q., Nie H., Huang D., Shangguan L. (2026b). Decoding microscopic storage mechanisms of shale oil and its influencing factors. Energy fuels. 40, 1645 – 1660. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c05725
  51. Zhang L., Yang H., Jiang W., Stupakova A. (2027). CO2-induced water-film reconstruction and apparent wettability alteration in shale-related nanoslits. Chem. Eng. Sci. 338, 124808. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2026.124808
  52. Zhao Y., Quan D., Wang C., Wu R., Zhang K., Bi J. (2025). Experiments and molecular simulations study on hydrogen adsorption and diffusion behavior of the inorganic mineral surfaces of shale. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 97, 1302 – 1315. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.12.010
  53. Zheng Y., Wanyan Q., Qiu X., Kou Y., Ran L., Lai X. (2020). New technologies for site selection and evaluation of salt-cavern underground gas storages. Nat. Gas. Ind. B 7, 40 – 48. doi:10.1016/j.ngib.2019.06.002
  54. Zheng R., Germann T. C., Gross M., Mehana M. (2024). Hydrogen diffusion in slit pores: role of temperature, pressure, confinement, and roughness. Energy fuels. 38, 21642 – 21650. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c04493

Citation

Xu, Y., et al. (2026). Hydrogen storage and diffusion in shale nanopores: molecular dynamics effects of pressure, temperature, confinement, and wall chemistry. Frontiers in Earth Science, Volume 14. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
14 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Xu, Zhang, Wang, Wang, Chi, Gao, Wang, Wang, Tang, Xu, Li, Wu and Wei.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Xin Zhang

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0