Review Article | Published:

Chemical, thermal and mechanical stabilities of metal–organic frameworks

Nature Reviews Materials volume 1, Article number: 15018 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

The construction of thousands of well-defined, porous, metal–organic framework (MOF) structures, spanning a broad range of topologies and an even broader range of pore sizes and chemical functionalities, has fuelled the exploration of many applications. Accompanying this applied focus has been a recognition of the need to engender MOFs with mechanical, thermal and/or chemical stability. Chemical stability in acidic, basic and neutral aqueous solutions is important. Advances over recent years have made it possible to design MOFs that possess different combinations of mechanical, thermal and chemical stability. Here, we review these advances and the associated design principles and synthesis strategies. We focus on how these advances may render MOFs effective as heterogeneous catalysts, both in chemically harsh condensed phases and in thermally challenging conditions relevant to gas-phase reactions. Finally, we briefly discuss future directions of study for the production of highly stable MOFs.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Assembly of porphyrin building blocks into network structures with large channels. Nature 369, 727–729 (1994).

  2. 2.

    , & Introduction to metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Rev. 112, 673–674 (2012).

  3. 3.

    , , & The chemistry and applications of metal–organic frameworks. Science 341, 1230444 (2013).

  4. 4.

    , & Soft porous crystals. Nat. Chem. 1, 695–704 (2009).

  5. 5.

    , , , & Zeolite-like metal–organic frameworks (ZMOFs): design, synthesis, and properties. Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 228–249 (2015).

  6. 6.

    , & Functional porous coordination polymers. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 43, 2334–2375 (2004).

  7. 7.

    Hybrid porous solids: past, present, future. Chem. Soc. Rev. 37, 191–214 (2008).

  8. 8.

    , & Functional hybrid porous coordination polymers. Chem. Mater. 26, 310–322 (2014).

  9. 9.

    & Rational design, synthesis, purification, and activation of metal–organic framework materials. Acc. Chem. Res. 43, 1166–1175 (2010).

  10. 10.

    & Deconstructing the crystal structures of metal–organic frameworks and related materials into their underlying nets. Chem. Rev. 112, 675–702 (2012).

  11. 11.

    et al. Metal–organic framework materials with ultrahigh surface areas: is the sky the limit? J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 15016–15021 (2012).

  12. 12.

    et al. A new metal–organic framework with ultra-high surface area. Chem. Commun. 50, 3450–3452 (2014).

  13. 13.

    et al. Ultrahigh porosity in metal–organic frameworks. Science 329, 424–428 (2010).

  14. 14.

    et al. Isoreticular expansion of metal–organic frameworks with triangular and square building units and the lowest calculated density for porous crystals. Inorg. Chem. 50, 9147–9152 (2011).

  15. 15.

    , & Selective gas adsorption and separation in metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 1477–1504 (2009).

  16. 16.

    , & Evaluating metal–organic frameworks for natural gas storage. Chem. Sci. 5, 32–51 (2014).

  17. 17.

    et al. Methane storage in metal–organic frameworks: current records, surprise findings, and challenges. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 11887–11894 (2013).

  18. 18.

    , & Metal–organic frameworks for separations. Chem. Rev. 112, 869–932 (2012).

  19. 19.

    et al. Metal–organic frameworks as efficient materials for drug delivery. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 45, 5974–5978 (2006).

  20. 20.

    et al. Metal–organic framework materials as catalysts. Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 1450–1459 (2009).

  21. 21.

    , , , & Metal–organic framework materials for light-harvesting and energy transfer. Chem. Commun. 51, 3501–3510 (2015).

  22. 22.

    , & Metal–organic frameworks for light harvesting and photocatalysis. ACS Catal. 2, 2630–2640 (2012).

  23. 23.

    et al. Simple and compelling biomimetic metal–organic framework catalyst for the degradation of nerve agent simulants. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 53, 497–501 (2014).

  24. 24.

    et al. Exploiting parameter space in MOFs: a 20-fold enhancement of phosphate-ester hydrolysis with UiO-66-NH2. Chem. Sci. 6, 2286–2291 (2015).

  25. 25.

    , , , & Promotion of phosphoester hydrolysis by the Zr(IV)-based metal–organic framework UiO-67. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 208, 21–29 (2015).

  26. 26.

    et al. Textile/metal–organic-framework composites as self-detoxifying filters for chemical-warfare agents. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 54, 6790–6794 (2015).

  27. 27.

    et al. A new zirconium inorganic building brick forming metal–organic frameworks with exceptional stability. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 13850–13851 (2008).

  28. 28.

    , & Water stability and adsorption in metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Rev. 114, 10575–10612 (2014).

  29. 29.

    , & Increasing the stability of metal–organic frameworks. Adv. Chem. 2014, 182327 (2014).

  30. 30.

    et al. Exceptional chemical and thermal stability of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10186–10191 (2006).

  31. 31.

    , , , & Water adsorption in MOFs: fundamentals and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5594–5617 (2014).

  32. 32.

    , , & Zr- and Hf-based metal–organic frameworks: tracking down the polymorphism. Cryst. Growth Des. 13, 1231–1237 (2013).

  33. 33.

    et al. Ultrahigh surface area zirconium MOFs and insights into the applicability of the BET theory. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 3585–3591 (2015).

  34. 34.

    , , , & Postsynthetic ligand and cation exchange in robust metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 18082–18088 (2012).

  35. 35.

    & High valence 3p and transition metal based MOFs. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 6097–6115 (2014).

  36. 36.

    , , , & Small-molecule adsorption in open-site metal–organic frameworks: a systematic density functional theory study for rational design. Chem. Mater. 27, 668–678 (2015).

  37. 37.

    & High-throughput computational screening of metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5735–5749 (2014).

  38. 38.

    , , & Crystallized frameworks with giant pores: are there limits to the possible? Acc. Chem. Res. 38, 217–225 (2005).

  39. 39.

    , & Pore size analysis of > 250,000 hypothetical zeolites. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 5053–5060 (2011).

  40. 40.

    et al. Selective anion exchange with nanogated isoreticular positive metal–organic frameworks. Nat. Commun. 4, 2344 (2013).

  41. 41.

    , , & Highly water-stable zirconium metal–organic framework UiO-66 membranes supported on alumina hollow fibers for desalination. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 6999–7002 (2015).

  42. 42.

    , & MOFs as adsorbents for low temperature heating and cooling applications. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 2776–2777 (2009).

  43. 43.

    et al. Design of hydrophilic metal–organic framework water adsorbents for heat reallocation. Adv. Mater. 27, 4775–4780 (2015).

  44. 44.

    , & Exceptional mechanical stability of highly porous zirconium metal–organic framework UiO-66 and its important implications. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4, 925–930 (2013).

  45. 45.

    , & MOFs as proton conductors — challenges and opportunities. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5913–5932 (2014).

  46. 46.

    , & Rational designs for highly proton-conductive metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 9906–9907 (2009).

  47. 47.

    , & Ion conductivity and transport by porous coordination polymers and metal–organic frameworks. Acc. Chem. Res. 46, 2376–2384 (2013).

  48. 48.

    , & Toxic gas removal — metal–organic frameworks for the capture and degradation of toxic gases and vapours. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5419–5430 (2014).

  49. 49.

    & Metal–organic frameworks for air purification of toxic chemicals. Chem. Rev. 114, 5695–5727 (2014).

  50. 50.

    , & Metal–organic frameworks as potential drug carriers. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14, 262–268 (2010).

  51. 51.

    et al. Metal–organic frameworks in biomedicine. Chem. Rev. 112, 1232–1268 (2012).

  52. 52.

    , , , & CAF@ZIF-8: one-step encapsulation of caffeine in MOF. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 4, 5016–5021 (2012).

  53. 53.

    & Mechanical properties of hybrid inorganic–organic framework materials: establishing fundamental structure-property relationships. Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 1059–1080 (2011).

  54. 54.

    et al. Topotactic transformations of metal–organic frameworks to highly porous and stable inorganic sorbents for efficient radionuclide sequestration. Chem. Mater. 26, 5231–5243 (2014).

  55. 55.

    et al. Rationale of drug encapsulation and release from biocompatible porous metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Mater. 25, 2767–2776 (2013).

  56. 56.

    et al. A robust infinite zirconium phenolate building unit to enhance the chemical stability of Zr MOFs. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 54, 13297–13301 (2015).

  57. 57.

    , & [Zn(bim)2]·(H2O)1.67: a metal–organic open-framework with sodalite topology. Chin. Sci. Bull. 48, 1531–1534 (2003).

  58. 58.

    , , & Metal azolate frameworks: from crystal engineering to functional materials. Chem. Rev. 112, 1001–1033 (2012).

  59. 59.

    et al. Control of pore size and functionality in isoreticular zeolitic imidazolate frameworks and their carbon dioxide selective capture properties. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 3875–3877 (2009).

  60. 60.

    et al. High-throughput synthesis of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks and application to CO2 capture. Science 319, 939–943 (2008).

  61. 61.

    et al. Synthesis, structure, and carbon dioxide capture properties of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Acc. Chem. Res. 43, 58–67 (2010).

  62. 62.

    , , & Ligand-directed strategy for zeolite-type metal–organic frameworks: zinc(II) imidazolates with unusual zeolitic topologies. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 45, 1557–1559 (2006).

  63. 63.

    & Crystal engineering of binary metal imidazolate and triazolate frameworks. Chem. Commun. 1689–1699 (2006).

  64. 64.

    , , & Copper(I) 1,2,4-triazolates and related complexes: studies of the solvothermal ligand reactions, network topologies, and photoluminescence properties. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 5495–5506 (2005).

  65. 65.

    et al. Selective gas adsorption and unique structural topology of a highly stable guest-free zeolite-type MOF material with N-rich chiral open channels. Chem. Eur. J. 14, 2771–2776 (2008).

  66. 66.

    & in Supramolecular Chemistry: From Molecules to Nanomaterials Vol. 6 (eds Steed, J. W. & Gale, P. A.) 3087–3107 (Wiley, 2012).

  67. 67.

    , & Template-directed assembly of zeolite-like metal–organic frameworks (ZMOFs): a usf-ZMOF with an unprecedented zeolite topology. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 47, 8446–8449 (2008).

  68. 68.

    et al. Water interactions in metal–organic frameworks. CrystEngComm 17, 247–260 (2015).

  69. 69.

    et al. Fluorous metal–organic frameworks with superior adsorption and hydrophobic properties toward oil spill cleanup and hydrocarbon storage. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 18094–18097 (2011).

  70. 70.

    et al. High thermal and chemical stability in pyrazolate-bridged metal–organic frameworks with exposed metal sites. Chem. Sci. 2, 1311–1319 (2011).

  71. 71.

    , & Microporous metal–organic frameworks incorporating 1,4-benzeneditetrazolate: syntheses, structures, and hydrogen storage properties. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 8904–8913 (2006).

  72. 72.

    , , & Hydrazinium 5-aminotetrazolate: an insensitive energetic material containing 83.72% nitrogen. Cent. Eur. J. Energ. Mater. 5, 3–18 (2008).

  73. 73.

    et al. Very large breathing effect in the first nanoporous chromium(III)-based solids: MIL-53 or CrIII(OH)·{O2C–C6H4–CO2}·{HO2C–C6H4–CO2H}x·H2Oy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 13519–13526 (2002).

  74. 74.

    et al. A chromium terephthalate-based solid with unusually large pore volumes and surface area. Science 309, 2040–2042 (2005).

  75. 75.

    et al. MIL-96, a porous aluminum trimesate 3D structure constructed from a hexagonal network of 18-membered rings and μ3-oxo-centered trinuclear units. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 10223–10230 (2006).

  76. 76.

    et al. Synthesis of MIL-102, a chromium carboxylate metal–organic framework, with gas sorption analysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 14889–14896 (2006).

  77. 77.

    et al. Synthesis and catalytic properties of MIL-100(Fe), an iron(III) carboxylate with large pores. Chem. Commun. 2820–2822 (2007).

  78. 78.

    et al. Four super water-stable lanthanide-organic frameworks with active uncoordinated carboxylic and pyridyl groups for selective luminescence sensing of Fe3+. Dalton Trans. 44, 13325–13330 (2015).

  79. 79.

    , , , & Synthesis, characterisation and properties of a new three-dimensional yttrium–europium coordination polymer. Solid State Sci. 7, 1074–1082 (2005).

  80. 80.

    et al. Tunable rare earth fcu-MOF platform: access to adsorption kinetics driven gas/vapor separations via pore size contraction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 5034–5040 (2015).

  81. 81.

    et al. Quest for highly connected metal–organic framework platforms: rare-earth polynuclear clusters versatility meets net topology needs. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 5421–5430 (2015).

  82. 82.

    et al. High CO2/N2/O2/CO separation in a chemically robust porous coordination polymer with low binding energy. Chem. Sci. 5, 660–666 (2014).

  83. 83.

    et al. High CO2/CH4 and C2 hydrocarbons/CH4 selectivity in a chemically robust porous coordination polymer. Adv. Funct. Mater. 23, 3525–3530 (2013).

  84. 84.

    et al. Extended and functionalized porous iron(III) tri- or dicarboxylates with MIL-100/101 topologies. Chem. Commun. 50, 6872–6874 (2014).

  85. 85.

    et al. Stable metal–organic frameworks containing single-molecule traps for enzyme encapsulation. Nat. Commun. 6, 5979 (2015).

  86. 86.

    et al. A robust amino-functionalized titanium(IV) based MOF for improved separation of acid gases. Chem. Commun. 49, 10082–10084 (2013).

  87. 87.

    et al. Synthesis and stability of tagged UiO-66 Zr-MOFs. Chem. Mater. 22, 6632–6640 (2010).

  88. 88.

    et al. Modulated synthesis of Zr-based metal–organic frameworks: from nano to single crystals. Chem. Eur. J. 17, 6643–6651 (2011).

  89. 89.

    et al. Disclosing the complex structure of UiO-66 metal–organic framework: a synergic combination of experiment and theory. Chem. Mater. 23, 1700–1718 (2011).

  90. 90.

    , , & Zr(IV) and Hf(IV) based metal–organic frameworks with reo-topology. Chem. Commun. 48, 8407–8409 (2012).

  91. 91.

    et al. Zirconium-metalloporphyrin PCN-222: mesoporous metal–organic frameworks with ultrahigh stability as biomimetic catalysts. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51, 10307–10310 (2012).

  92. 92.

    et al. Synthesis, structure, and metalation of two new highly porous zirconium metal–organic frameworks. Inorg. Chem. 51, 6443–6445 (2012).

  93. 93.

    et al. Unusual and highly tunable missing-linker defects in zirconium metal–organic framework UiO-66 and their important effects on gas adsorption. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 10525–10532 (2013).

  94. 94.

    et al. Water adsorption in porous metal–organic frameworks and related materials. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 4369–4381 (2014).

  95. 95.

    et al. Superacidity in sulfated metal–organic framework-808. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 12844–12847 (2014).

  96. 96.

    et al. Topology-guided design and syntheses of highly stable mesoporous porphyrinic zirconium metal–organic frameworks with high surface area. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 413–419 (2014).

  97. 97.

    et al. A highly stable zeotype mesoporous zirconium metal–organic framework with ultralarge pores. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 54, 149–154 (2015).

  98. 98.

    et al. Chemical and structural stability of zirconium-based metal–organic frameworks with large three-dimensional pores by linker engineering. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 54, 221–226 (2015).

  99. 99.

    et al. Vapor-phase metalation by atomic layer deposition in a metal–organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 10294–10297 (2013).

  100. 100.

    et al. Energy-efficient dehumidification over hierarchically porous metal–organic frameworks as advanced water adsorbents. Adv. Mater. 24, 806–810 (2012).

  101. 101.

    et al. Tuned to perfection: ironing out the defects in metal–organic framework UiO-66. Chem. Mater. 26, 4068–4071 (2014).

  102. 102.

    et al. Synthesis modulation as a tool to increase the catalytic activity of metal–organic frameworks: the unique case of UiO-66(Zr). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 11465–11468 (2013).

  103. 103.

    et al. Correlated defect nanoregions in a metal–organic framework. Nat. Commun. 5, 4176 (2014).

  104. 104.

    et al. Are Zr6-based MOFs water stable? Linker hydrolysis versus capillary-force-driven channel collapse. Chem. Commun. 50, 8944–8946 (2014).

  105. 105.

    , & Conventional and unconventional metal–organic frameworks based on phosphonate ligands: MOFs and UMOFs. Chem. Rev. 112, 1034–1054 (2012).

  106. 106.

    et al. Beyond post-synthesis modification: evolution of metal–organic frameworks via building block replacement. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5896–5912 (2014).

  107. 107.

    & High-enthalpy hydrogen adsorption in cation-exchanged variants of the microporous metal–organic framework Mn3[(Mn4Cl)3(BTT)8(CH3OH)10]2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 11172–11176 (2007).

  108. 108.

    et al. Supermolecular building blocks (SBBs) and crystal design: 12-connected open frameworks based on a molecular cubohemioctahedron. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 1560–1561 (2008).

  109. 109.

    et al. Stepwise synthesis of robust metal–organic frameworks via postsynthetic metathesis and oxidation of metal nodes in a single-crystal to single-crystal transformation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 7813–7816 (2014).

  110. 110.

    , , , & Synthesis of cobalt-, nickel-, copper-, and zinc-based, water-stable, pillared metal–organic frameworks. Langmuir 30, 14300–14307 (2014).

  111. 111.

    et al. Structure and properties of an amorphous metal–organic framework. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 115503 (2010).

  112. 112.

    , , , & Reversible solid-to-liquid phase transition of coordination polymer crystals. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 864–870 (2015).

  113. 113.

    & Functional materials derived from open framework templates/precursors: synthesis and applications. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 2071–2100 (2014).

  114. 114.

    et al. Control of pore distribution of porous carbons derived from Mg2+ porous coordination polymers. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2, 473–476 (2015).

  115. 115.

    et al. An amine-functionalized titanium metal–organic framework photocatalyst with visible-light-induced activity for CO2 reduction. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51, 3364–3367 (2012).

  116. 116.

    , & Tuning the moisture and thermal stability of metal–organic frameworks through incorporation of pendant hydrophobic groups. Cryst. Growth Des. 13, 4760–4768 (2013).

  117. 117.

    et al. Mechanochemistry: opportunities for new and cleaner synthesis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 413–447 (2012).

  118. 118.

    et al. Conversion of cellulose and cellobiose into sorbitol catalyzed by ruthenium supported on a polyoxometalate/metal–organic framework hybrid. ChemSusChem 6, 1545–1555 (2013).

  119. 119.

    & Thermal analysis and heat capacity study of metal–organic frameworks. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 22748–22754 (2011).

  120. 120.

    et al. Virtual high throughput screening confirmed experimentally: porous coordination polymer hydration. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 15834–15842 (2009).

  121. 121.

    et al. Loading of MOF-5 with Cu and ZnO nanoparticles by gas-phase infiltration with organometallic precursors: properties of Cu/ZnO@MOF-5 as catalyst for methanol synthesis. Chem. Mater. 20, 4576–4587 (2008).

  122. 122.

    , , & MOFs for use in adsorption heat pump processes. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 2625–2634 (2012).

  123. 123.

    et al. Porous materials with optimal adsorption thermodynamics and kinetics for CO2 separation. Nature 495, 80–84 (2013).

  124. 124.

    et al. Metal–organic frameworks with precisely designed interior for carbon dioxide capture in the presence of water. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 8863–8866 (2014).

  125. 125.

    , , & Atomically precise growth of catalytically active cobalt sulfide on flat surfaces and within a metal–organic framework via atomic layer deposition. ACS Nano 9, 8484–8490 (2015).

  126. 126.

    , & Chromium terephthalate metal–organic framework MIL-101: synthesis, functionalization, and applications for adsorption and catalysis. RSC Adv. 4, 52500–52525 (2014).

  127. 127.

    , , , & Mü The progression of Al-based metal–organic frameworks — from academic research to industrial production and applications. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 157, 131–136 (2012).

  128. 128.

    , , & Chemical and thermal stability of isotypic metal–organic frameworks: effect of metal ions. Chem. Eur. J. 17, 6437–6442 (2011).

  129. 129.

    , , , & Effect of water adsorption on retention of structure and surface area of metal–organic frameworks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51, 6513–6519 (2012).

  130. 130.

    , , & A functional zeolite analogue assembled from metalloporphyrins. Nat. Mater. 1, 118–121 (2002).

  131. 131.

    et al. A series of isoreticular, highly stable, porous zirconium oxide based metal–organic frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51, 9267–9271 (2012).

  132. 132.

    , & Structural stability of metal organic frameworks in aqueous media — controlling factors and methods to improve hydrostability and hydrothermal cyclic stability. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 201, 61–90 (2015).

  133. 133.

    et al. Mechanical tunability via hydrogen bonding in metal–organic frameworks with the perovskite architecture. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 7801–7804 (2014).

  134. 134.

    , , & Methyl modified MOF-5: a water stable hydrogen storage material. Chem. Commun. 47, 5244–5246 (2011).

  135. 135.

    Superhydrophobicity in highly fluorinated porous metal–organic frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 51, 6048–6050 (2012).

  136. 136.

    et al. Selective capture of carbon dioxide under humid conditions by hydrophobic chabazite-type zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 53, 10645–10648 (2014).

  137. 137.

    et al. In situ X-ray diffraction monitoring of a mechanochemical reaction reveals a unique topology metal–organic framework. Nat. Commun. 6, 6662 (2015).

  138. 138.

    Responsive metal–organic frameworks and framework materials: under pressure, taking the heat, in the spotlight, with friends. Chem. Mater. 27, 1905–1916 (2015).

  139. 139.

    , & Research update: mechanical properties of metal–organic frameworks — influence of structure and chemical bonding. APL Mater. 2, 123902 (2014).

  140. 140.

    , & Pressure-induced amorphization and porosity modification in a metal–organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 17546–17547 (2009).

  141. 141.

    et al. Improving the mechanical stability of zirconium-based metal–organic frameworks by incorporation of acidic modulators. J. Mater. Chem. A 3, 1737–1742 (2015).

  142. 142.

    , , & Mechanical properties of zeolitic metal–organic frameworks: mechanically flexible topologies and stabilization against structural collapse. CrystEngComm 17, 286–289 (2015).

  143. 143.

    , , , & Water stabilization of Zr6-based metal–organic frameworks via solvent-assisted ligand incorporation. Chem. Sci. 6, 5172–5176 (2015).

  144. 144.

    , & Metal–organic frameworks: structural, energetic, electronic, and mechanical properties. J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 8179–8186 (2007).

  145. 145.

    , , & On the flexibility of metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 2228–2231 (2014).

  146. 146.

    , & Chemical structure, network topology, and porosity effects on the mechanical properties of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9938–9943 (2010).

  147. 147.

    , , , & Metal–organic framework mixed matrix membranes for gas separations. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 131, 13–20 (2010).

  148. 148.

    , , , & Metal–organic framework based mixed matrix membranes: an increasingly important field of research with a large application potential. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 166, 67–78 (2013).

  149. 149.

    , , & Metal–organic frameworks with wine-rack motif: what determines their flexibility and elastic properties? J. Chem. Phys. 138, 174703 (2013).

  150. 150.

    et al. A rationale for the large breathing of the porous aluminum terephthalate (MIL-53) upon hydration. Chem. Eur. J. 10, 1373–1382 (2004).

  151. 151.

    , , , & Structural effects of solvents on the breathing of metal–organic frameworks: an in situ diffraction study. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 47, 4100–4105 (2008).

  152. 152.

    & Dynamic porous properties of coordination polymers inspired by hydrogen bonds. Chem. Soc. Rev. 34, 109–119 (2005).

  153. 153.

    et al. Role of solvent–host interactions that lead to very large swelling of hybrid frameworks. Science 315, 1828–1831 (2007).

  154. 154.

    et al. Functionalized flexible MOFs as fillers in mixed matrix membranes for highly selective separation of CO2 from CH4 at elevated pressures. Chem. Commun. 47, 9522–9524 (2011).

  155. 155.

    et al. Complex adsorption of short linear alkanes in the flexible metal–organic-framework MIL-53(Fe). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 13002–13008 (2009).

  156. 156.

    et al. How linker's modification controls swelling properties of highly flexible iron(III) dicarboxylates MIL-88. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 17839–17847 (2011).

  157. 157.

    et al. Selective sorption of organic molecules by the flexible porous hybrid metal–organic framework MIL-53(Fe) controlled by various host–guest interactions. Chem. Mater. 22, 4237–4245 (2010).

  158. 158.

    et al. An explanation for the very large breathing effect of a metal–organic framework during CO2 adsorption. Adv. Mater. 19, 2246–2251 (2007).

  159. 159.

    & Design and construction of a new class of scaffolding-like materials comprising infinite polymeric frameworks of 3D-linked molecular rods. A reappraisal of the zinc cyanide and cadmium cyanide structures and the synthesis and structure of the diamond-related frameworks [N(CH3)4][CuIZnII(CN)4] and CuI[4,4′,4′′,4′′′-tetracyanotetraphenylmethane]BF4.xC6H5NO2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112, 1546–1554 (1990).

  160. 160.

    , , & Preparation, clathration ability, and catalysis of a two-dimensional square network material composed of cadmium(II) and 4,4′-bipyridine. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 116, 1151–1152 (1994).

  161. 161.

    , , & Doping metal–organic frameworks for water oxidation, carbon dioxide reduction, and organic photocatalysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 13445–13454 (2011).

  162. 162.

    , & Elucidating molecular iridium water oxidation catalysts using metal–organic frameworks: a comprehensive structural, catalytic, spectroscopic, and kinetic study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 19895–19908 (2012).

  163. 163.

    , & Improved synthesis, thermal stability and catalytic properties of the metal–organic framework compound CU3(BTC)2. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 73, 81–88 (2004).

  164. 164.

    , , , & Zeolite-like metal–organic frameworks as platforms for applications: on metalloporphyrin-based catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 12639–12641 (2008).

  165. 165.

    , , & MOF-supported selective ethylene dimerization single-site catalysts through one-pot postsynthetic modification. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 4195–4198 (2013).

  166. 166.

    et al. Direct and remarkably efficient conversion of methane into acetic acid catalyzed by amavadine and related vanadium complexes. A synthetic and a theoretical DFT mechanistic study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 10531–10545 (2007).

  167. 167.

    , , , & Metal–organic frameworks of vanadium as catalysts for conversion of methane to acetic acid. Inorg. Chem. 50, 7388–7390 (2011).

  168. 168.

    , & Metal–metalloporphyrin frameworks: a resurging class of functional materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5841–5866 (2014).

  169. 169.

    & Metal–organic frameworks as nitric oxide catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 3330–3333 (2012).

  170. 170.

    , & Tunable, stable and bioactive MOF catalyst for generating a localized therapeutic from endogenous sources. Adv. Funct. Mater. 24, 7503–7509 (2014).

  171. 171.

    , , , & Highly active heterogeneous palladium catalyst for the Suzuki–Miyaura and Ullmann coupling reactions of aryl chlorides in aqueous media. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 49, 4054–4058 (2010).

  172. 172.

    et al. Synthesis of nanocrystals of Zr-based metal–organic frameworks with csq-net: significant enhancement in the degradation of a nerve agent simulant. Chem. Commun. 51, 10925–10928 (2015).

  173. 173.

    , , , & Probing the Lewis acid sites and CO catalytic oxidation activity of the porous metal–organic polymer [Cu(5-methylisophthalate)]. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 8402–8403 (2007).

  174. 174.

    et al. CO catalytic oxidation by a metal–organic framework containing high density of reactive copper sites. Chem. Commun. 47, 6377–6379 (2011).

  175. 175.

    , & Preparation, adsorption properties, and catalytic activity of 3D porous metal–organic frameworks composed of cubic building blocks and alkali-metal ions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 45, 2542–2546 (2006).

  176. 176.

    et al. Au@ZIF-8: CO oxidation over gold nanoparticles deposited to metal–organic framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 11302–11303 (2009).

  177. 177.

    et al. Highly dispersed Au nanoparticles immobilized on Zr-based metal–organic frameworks as heterostructured catalyst for CO oxidation. J. Mater. Chem. A 1, 14294–14299 (2013).

  178. 178.

    , & Core–shell catalysts of metal nanoparticle core and metal–organic framework shell. ACS Catal. 4, 4409–4419 (2014).

  179. 179.

    , , & Chemical environment control and enhanced catalytic performance of platinum nanoparticles embedded in nanocrystalline metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 7810–7816 (2015).

  180. 180.

    et al. Metal@MOF: loading of highly porous coordination polymers host lattices by metal organic chemical vapor deposition. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 44, 6237–6241 (2005).

  181. 181.

    , , , & Crystalline catalyst based on a porous metal–organic framework and 12-tungstosilicic acid: particle size control by hydrothermal synthesis for the formation of dimethyl ether. Adv. Synth. Catal. 353, 733–742 (2011).

  182. 182.

    et al. Metal–organic framework based upon the synergy of a Brønsted acid framework and Lewis acid centers as a highly efficient heterogeneous catalyst for fixed-bed reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 4243–4248 (2015).

  183. 183.

    , , & Catalytic properties of MIL-101. Chem. Commun. 4192–4194 (2008).

  184. 184.

    et al. Selective propene oligomerization with nickel(II)-based metal–organic frameworks. ACS Catal. 4, 717–721 (2014).

  185. 185.

    et al. Vanadium-node-functionalized UiO-66: a thermally stable MOF-supported catalyst for the gas-phase oxidative dehydrogenation of cyclohexene. ACS Catal. 4, 2496–2500 (2014).

  186. 186.

    The concept, reality and utility of single-site heterogeneous catalysts (SSHCs). Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 7647–7661 (2014).

  187. 187.

    , & Gold(III) — metal–organic framework bridges the gap between homogeneous and heterogeneous gold catalysts. J. Catal. 265, 155–160 (2009).

  188. 188.

    et al. Oxidative dehydrogenation of cyclohexene on size selected subnanometer cobalt clusters: improved catalytic performance via evolution of cluster-assembled nanostructures. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14, 9336–9342 (2012).

  189. 189.

    et al. Metal–organic framework nodes as nearly ideal supports for molecular catalysts: NU-1000- and UiO-66-supported iridium complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 7391–7396 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (grant HDTRA10-1-0023; nerve agents), the Institute of Catalysis for Energy Processes at Northwestern University (V-AIM catalytic chemistry), the DOE Separations and Analysis program (MOF synthesis methods), and the Inorganometallic Catalyst Design Center, an Energy Frontier Research Center, funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (awards DE FG02-03ER15457, DE-FG02-08ER15967 and DE-SC0012702, respectively) for support.

Author information

Author notes

    • Ashlee J. Howarth
    •  & Yangyang Liu

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, Illinois 60208–3113, USA.

    • Ashlee J. Howarth
    • , Yangyang Liu
    • , Peng Li
    • , Zhanyong Li
    • , Timothy C. Wang
    • , Joseph T. Hupp
    •  & Omar K. Farha
  2. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

    • Omar K. Farha

Authors

  1. Search for Ashlee J. Howarth in:

  2. Search for Yangyang Liu in:

  3. Search for Peng Li in:

  4. Search for Zhanyong Li in:

  5. Search for Timothy C. Wang in:

  6. Search for Joseph T. Hupp in:

  7. Search for Omar K. Farha in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Joseph T. Hupp or Omar K. Farha.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2015.18

Further reading