Skip to main content
NIST Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIST Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 25.
Published in final edited form as: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2021 Mar 10;60(17):9604–9609. doi: 10.1002/anie.202100584

Electrostatically Driven Selective Adsorption of Carbon Dioxide over Acetylene in an Ultramicroporous Material

Yi Xie 1, Hui Cui 2, Hui Wu 3, Rui-Biao Lin 4,5,*, Wei Zhou 6,*, Banglin Chen 7,*
PMCID: PMC10961737  NIHMSID: NIHMS1918341  PMID: 33524215

Abstract

Separating acetylene from carbon dioxide is important but highly challenging owing to their similar physical properties and molecular dimensions. Herein, we report highly efficient electrostatically driven CO2/C2H2 separation in an ultramicroporous cadmium nitroprusside (Cd-NP) with compact pore space and complementary electrostatic potential well fitting for CO2, thus enabling molecular quadrupole moment recognition of CO2 over C2H2. This material shows a high CO2/C2H2 uptake ratio of 6.0 as well as remarkable CO2/C2H2 selectivity of 85 under ambient conditions with modest CO2 heat of adsorption. Neutron powder diffraction experiments and molecular simulations revealed that the electrostatic potential compatibility between pore structure and CO2 allows it to be trapped in a head-on orientation towards the Cd center, whereas the diffusion of C2H2 is electrostatically forbidden. Dynamic breakthrough experiments have validated the separation performance of this compound for CO2/C2H2 separation.

Keywords: cadmium nitroprusside, carbon dioxide, electrostatic potential, gas separation, ultramicroporous materials

Introduction

Acetylene is the simplest alkyne, which is widely used as a fuel and an important raw material in the chemical industry.[1] This unstable hydrocarbon can be converted to a variety of valuable products, such as vinyl compound, butynediol and acrylic acid. The acetylene molecule shows a linear shape with molecular dimensions of 3.3×3.3×5.7 Å3 that are very close to those of its counterpart, carbon dioxide (3.2×3.3×5.4 Å3), which is a major impurity in the manufacture of crude acetylene by the partial combustion approach.[2] Both C2H2 and CO2 are in high similarity with each other not only on their molecular sizes and shapes, but also on the physical properties including boiling point, dipole moment and polarizability. In this context, there has been great interest in separation of CO2 from C2H2 owing to its industrial relevance and scientific challenge. Given the fact that C2H2 can decompose explosively at gas pressure above 2 bar upon any intense heat or shockwave, the energy-efficient separation schemes through pressure or temperature swing adsorption processes are also of particularly challenging.

Extensive research efforts have been devoted to developing porous solids such as zeolites, carbon molecular sieves, and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) for adsorptive separations.[3] Depending on the different binding preference for both gas molecules, the adsorbents can be either C2H2-selective or CO2-selective. Most relevant adsorbents, including zeolites[4] and carbon molecular sieves,[5] are C2H2-selective with modest selectivity, featuring certain functional sites to preferentially bind the relatively acidic and polarizable C2H2. The performance of the C2H2-selective adsorbents relies on the strength of adsorbent–adsorbate interactions, ranging from nonelectrostatic interactions[6] to hydrogen bonding[7] and π-complexation.[8] By incorporating basic moieties like open oxygen and fluoride sites as hydrogen-bonding acceptors, some C2H2-selective adsorbents can even show exclusive C2H2 adsorption with high adsorption enthalpy of up to 50 kJmol−1.[9] For adsorbents featuring open metal sites, the coordinative-like interactions with π-electrons of C2H2 endow some MOFs to show remarkably higher C2H2 uptakes in contrast to CO2, especially at low-pressure region. But those open metal sites in MOFs can also interact with electronegative O sites of CO2 that make inverse contribution for C2H2-selective separation, resulting in modest selectivity.[10]

On the contrary, adsorbents with selective adsorption of CO2 over C2H2 are rarely reported, which is more challenging not only because CO2 is less polarizable but because of the lack of a clear separation mechanism for exploring potential adsorbents. It should be mentioned that the CO2-selective separation is a more efficient and feasible purification process, since pure C2H2 can be directly produced in a single adsorption stage.[11] Several adsorbents with framework flexibility show CO2-selective adsorption.[12] But there are significant C2H2 co-adsorption for flexible adsorbents upon CO2/C2H2 mixture owing to structural transformations like gate opening. Even for adsorbents with chemisorptive CO2-binding sites, there is still a significant C2H2 adsorption with minor uptake difference comparing to CO2.[13] Motivated by the complementary electrostatic interaction for determining the binding orientation of a variety of biological molecular recognitions, like protein folding and substrate binding,[14] the dramatically different charge distributions of both gas molecules (opposite quadrupole moments, −13.4×10−40 Cm2 for CO2 and +20.5×10−40 Cm2 for C2H2) facilitate the applicability to exclusively recognize CO2 or C2H2 through similar mechanism.[15] However, in wide open pore space with size beyond those of both molecules, both CO2 and C2H2 can get their own optimal binding configurations in different orientations, making it impossible to differentiate them by their molecular charge distributions. In this context, restricting the molecular orientations in the rigid confined space make the charge-distribution recognition become possible, whereas charge distribution on the pore surface complementary to CO2 can ensure the CO2-selective recognition. Ultramicroporous materials featuring compact pore space (close to the molecular size of CO2 and C2H2) and positive charge distribution at both ends are thus targeted to maximize the inverse selectivity and sieving effect of CO2 over C2H2.

Metal ions and cyanides have been employed as building blocks to construct robust ultramicroporous adsorbents due to their short length and strong basicity, as exemplified by Prussian blue[16] and Hofmann-type compounds.[17] As a member of the Prussian blue family, transition metal nitroprusside (NP) compounds, MII[Fe(CN)5NO], have been developed for small molecule adsorptions and various applications.[18] In particular, cadmium nitroprusside Cd[Fe(CN)5NO] (termed as Cd-NP) exhibits a narrow pore aperture of 3.2 c connecting quasi-discrete ellipsoidal cavities that are similar to the molecular shapes of both CO2 and C2H2, and the open Cd sites at the pore extremity afford a complementary electrostatic potential field for CO2 binding. Such compact pore space is applicable for studying the interaction contribution of quadrupole moments under restricted molecule orientations, which prompted our investigation on potential CO2/C2H2 separation in Cd-NP. Herein, gas adsorption experiments show that CO2 is dramatically captured in Cd-NP (58.0 cm3g−1) with a significant preference over C2H2, giving a new benchmark CO2/C2H2 selectivity of 85 at room temperature. Crystallography and modeling studies reveal that CO2 molecules can be well oriented in the confined charge-matching cavity through multiple weak host–guest interactions. Therefore, Cd-NP can preferentially absorb CO2 from the CO2/C2H2 mixture under ambient condition, which is well supported by breakthrough experiments. Furthermore, the facile and low-cost synthesis of this material indicates its potential for scaleup synthesis and C2H2 purification.

Results and Discussion

In this structure, each CdII atom is coordinated by five nitrogen atoms from different cyanide groups, whereas the FeII atoms are octahedrally coordinated by the five carbon atoms of these cyanide groups and one nitrogen atom of a nitrosyl group, which piles up in an antiparallel fashion along b-axis, affording a three-dimensional (3D) network (Figure 1). Cd-NP consisted of a 3D pore system with a void ratio of 27.2%, in which the quasi-discrete cavities (size: 6.1×4.5×4.5 Å3) are interconnected through narrow window surrounded by cyanide linkers and nitrosyl groups (aperture size: 3.2 Å; Figure S1). The cavity and aperture size matches well with the molecular dimensions of CO2 and C2H2, which underlies the potential sieving effect towards these two gases. After the removal of guest water molecules, the Cd atoms are exposed to the cavity as unsaturated metal center. We further mapped the electrostatic potential (ESP) of pore surface in the cavity of Cd-NP by applying density functional theory (DFT) calculations (Figure 1b, see the Supporting Information), where strong positive potential α and β are found on the vertex of the ellipsoidal cavity, near Cd center and nitrogen atom in the nitrosyl group, respectively, as well as weak negative potential γ near the nitrogen atom of the cyanide groups surrounding the center of the ellipsoid. Apparently, the ESP of pore surface in Cd-NP is complementary to CO2 molecule whereas is not compatible for C2H2 (Figures 1c and S19), which promotes us to investigate it for CO2/C2H2 separation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

a) Local coordination environments of the nitroprusside linker and cadmium atom. Top: Crystal structure of Cd-NP viewed along the b-axis. Bottom: Side view of the ellipsoidal cavity unit. Cd light green, Fe orange, C gray, N blue. b) Electrostatic potential (ESP) of Cd-NP mapped onto the Connolly surface with a probe radius of 1.2 Å. c) Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) of the CO2 and C2H2 molecule mapped onto the 0.015 eÅ−3 electron density isosurfaces. The gradation on the scale bar is in kcalmol−1.

By mixing the aqueous solution of commercially available raw materials Cd(NO3)2 and sodium nitroprusside, the Cd-NP can be obtained under mild condition. The purity of the bulk products was validated by comparing the simulated PXRD patterns with the experimental one. The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) indicated that Cd-NP lost all guest water molecules at around 100°C, with a weight loss of 8.5%, and exhibit good thermal stability up to 250°C (Figure S2). After removing the guest water molecules under 100°C and high vacuum, the framework of Cd-NP is conserved, as determined in powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), which further supported the thermal stability of Cd-NP and allowed to examine its gas adsorption properties (Figure S3).

The Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area of activated Cd-NP was measured to be 305 m2g−1 by CO2 sorption experiment at 273 K (Figures S4 and S5). The experimental total pore volume is 0.13 cm3g−1, consistent with the theoretical value from the crystal structure (0.14 cm3g−1). The low pressure C2H2 and CO2 gas adsorption isotherms of Cd-NP were collected at 298 K (Figure 2a). As expected, Cd-NP exhibited a large uptake of CO2 (58.0 cm3g−1, 2.59 mmolg−1) at 1 bar and 298 K, corresponding to 0.88 CO2 molecule per cavity. The adsorption amount of C2H2 at the same condition (9.7 cm3g−1, 0.43 mmolg−1) is significantly lower than that of CO2, which gives an uptake ratio of 6.0, higher than those of most other CO2 selective MOFs and comparable to [Mn(bdc)(dpe)] (6.4).[12d] It should be mentioned there is no uptake increase for C2H2 at thermodynamically favorable temperatures namely 195 and 273 K (Figures S4 and S6). In this context, the minor C2H2 adsorption at ambient temperature is probably from surface adsorption of defective microcrystalline samples. Interestingly, larger molecules like C2H4 and C2H6 are completely excluded by the pore aperture, which could be attributed to kinetic diffusion issues as diameter of these molecules (4.2 Å and 4.4 Å, respectively) is obviously too large to permeate into the relatively rigid cavity (Figure S7). Single-site Langmuir–Freundlich equation was employed to fit the isotherms of CO2 and C2H2 measured (Figure S9 and Table S1). Ideal adsorbed solution selectivity (IAST) theory was then utilized to evaluate the adsorption selectivity towards equimolar CO2/C2H2 mixture at 1 bar and 298 K (Figure S8). The calculated selectivity (85) exceeded those of most MOFs, such as [Tm2(OH-bdc)23-OH)2(H2O)2] (18).[11b] The high selectivity and uptake ratio both suggested the potential of Cd-NP for high sieving CO2/C2H2 separation. The adsorption enthalpy (Qst) of Cd-NP for CO2 was calculated by virial fitting from the adsorption isotherms measured at 273 and 298 K. The calculated Qst for CO2 is 27.7 kJmol−1 at near zero coverage, which keeps almost constant at higher coverage (Figures 2b and S11). Notably, the Qst value for CO2 is lower than those of typical inorganic porous adsorbents and other CO2selective MOFs, such as zeolite 4A (33.5 kJmol−1),[4b] carbon molecular sieve (CMS) (28.4 kJmol−1),[5b] [Mn(bdc)(dpe)] (29.5 kJmol−1),[12d] SIFSIX-3-Ni (50.9 kJmol−1),[11a] Ionic crystal (38 kJmol−1),[12b] [Tm2(OH-bdc)23-OH)2(H2O)2] (45.2 kJmol−1),[11b] CD-MOF-1 (41.0 kJmol−1) and CD-MOF-2 (67.2 kJmol−1)[13] (Figure 2c). Such low adsorption enthalpy for CO2 supports the feasibility to easily regenerate this material under mild condition.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

a) CO2 and C2H2 sorption isotherms for Cd-NP at 298 K. b) Coverage-dependent adsorption enthalpy of CO2 calculated by the virial fitting method. c) Comparison of the zero-coverage heat of adsorption of Cd-NP with those of other materials for CO2/C2H2 separation. d) Comparison of CO2/C2H2 selectivity and uptake ratio between Cd-NP and other CO2-selective materials at 298 K and 1 bar.

To understand the adsorption behavior of CO2 and structurally visualize the host–guest interaction, high-resolution neutron powder diffraction (NPD) measurements were carried out to determine the binding site of CO2 (see SI for details). From a sample loaded with CO2 and equilibrated at room temperature and 1 bar, a single type of CO2 binding configuration was identified. It is located at the ellipsoidal cavity (Figure 3a,b), with an occupancy of 0.712(6), as determined from Rietveld structural refinement. The CO2 molecules are well confined within the narrow ellipsoidal cavity through Cdδ+···Oδ− interactions (3.017(19) Å, Cd-O-C 123.4(9)°), accompanied by van der Waals (vdW) interactions with the two cyanide ligands symmetrically (Nδ−···Cδ+ 3.854(3) Å). Notably, the observed Cd···O(CO2) distance is longer than those exhibited by other MOFs with open metal sites (for example, 2.27 Å for the Mg···O(CO2) in Mg-MOF-74),[19] which indicates the weak interactions and rationalizes the low adsorption heat. As shown in Figure 3c, the negative and positive potential regions of CO2 molecules are mainly stabilized by the attractive interactions with positive potential region near Cd center and the negative potential region near cyanide groups, respectively, which validates the complementary electrostatically matching between Cd-NP and CO2. In addition, comparing the bare Cd-NP structure to that of Cd-Np⊃CO2, negligible unit cell expansion (ΔV/Vbare ≈1%) and conformation change are exhibited, revealing the rigidity of Cd-NP framework and its pore structure (Figure S12).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

a, b) Neutron diffraction crystal structure of Cd-NP⊃CO2 with close contacts indicated. Guest molecules are highlighted as CPK models. c) Electrostatic potential (ESP) of Cd-NP⊃CO2 mapped onto the 0.15 eÅ−3 electron density isosurface. The gradation on the scale bar is in kcalmol−1. d) Electrostatically driven adsorption mechanism towards CO2 and C2H2 molecules (see the Supporting Information for the CCDC deposition number).

We performed Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulation to further investigate the C2H2 and CO2 adsorption mechanism. The calculated CO2 binding configuration is consistent with the experimental result from neutron powder diffraction data (Figure S13). The hypothetical structures indicated that both CO2 and C2H2 were located in the ellipsoidal cavity with a head-on orientation towards cadmium sites due to the size confinement effect. In terms of electrostatic potential compatibility, the binding interactions between Cd-NP framework and CO2 molecule (Cdδ+···Oδ− 3.187 Å, Nδ−···Cδ+ 3.796 Å) is apparently allowed, whereas the C2H2 binding (Cdδ+···Hδ+ 2.867 Å, Nδ−···Cδ− 3.767–3.910 Å) is electrostatically forbidden (Figures 3d and S15). The overall host–guest interactions gave a modest binding energy for CO2 of approximately 26 kJmol−1, in great agreement with the experimental one. In contrast, the hypothetical binding energy is only 7.5 kJmol−1 after taking into account a significant electrostatic barrier of 24.9 kJmol−1. Overall, suitable pore size and confinement effect could maximize the interactions with the preferentially absorbed guest molecule and optimize the sieving effect.

To evaluate the practical CO2/C2H2 separation performances of Cd-NP, column breakthrough experiments were carried out, where CO2/C2H2 (50/50 v/v) gas mixtures flowed over a packed column of activated Cd-NP at a flow rate of 2 mLmin−1 at 298 K (Figure 4a). A complete separation of CO2 from the mixture has been demonstrated at ambient condition. C2H2 was first eluted from the outlet with no detectable CO2 found, showing a high purity of 99.9%, whereas CO2 was retained in the column until the uptake capacity of Cd-NP got saturated, giving a dynamic C2H2 productivity of 2342 mmol per liter sorbent. Multiple cycling breakthrough experiments under the same condition showed the same retention time of CO2 and C2H2 productivity, indicating the adsorption capability of Cd-NP is well retained under dynamic capturing (Figure 4b).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Experimental column breakthrough curves for a) an equimolar CO2/C2H2 mixture and b) cycling tests of the equimolar CO2/C2H2 mixture (open symbols: C2H2, solid symbols: CO2) in a column packed with Cd-NP at 298 K and 1 bar.

Conclusion

In summary, we have successfully realized inverse CO2/C2H2 separation by an ultramicroporous metal nitroprusside compound Cd-NP. Basically, porous materials featuring size- or shape-matching pore structures do have the potential for high sieving gas separation. But for separating gases with identical molecular size and shape, the investigation on the electric properties of the pore surface and pore structure affords another feasible approach. Such molecular recognition and high separation selectivity are enabled by the pore sieving and confinement effect as well as electrostatically complementary pore surface, which will inspire future rational design of ultramicroporous materials for other challenging gas separation processes.

Supplementary Material

2

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by “Hundred Talents Program” of Sun Yat-Sen University (R.-B.L) and Grant AX-1730 from the Welch Foundation (B.C.).

Supporting information and the ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article can be found under: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202100584.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Contributor Information

Yi Xie, Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0698 (USA).

Hui Cui, Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0698 (USA).

Dr. Hui Wu, NIST Center for Neutron Research National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6102 (USA)

Prof. Rui-Biao Lin, MOE Key Laboratory of Bioinorganic and Synthetic Chemistry School of Chemistry, Sun Yat-Sen University Guangzhou 510275 (China); Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0698 (USA).

Dr. Wei Zhou, NIST Center for Neutron Research National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-6102 (USA).

Prof. Banglin Chen, Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249-0698 (USA).

References

  • [1].Pässler P, Hefner W, Buckl K, Meinass H, Meiswinkel A, Wernicke HJ, Ebersberg G, Müller R, Bässler J, Behringer H, Mayer D, Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Webster CE, Drago RS, Zerner MC, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 5509–5516. [Google Scholar]
  • [3] a).Furukawa H, Cordova KE, O’Keeffe M, Yaghi OM, Science 2013, 341, 1230444; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Zhao X, Wang Y, Li D-S, Bu X, Feng P, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1705189; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Lin R-B, Xiang S, Zhou W, Chen B, Chem 2020, 6, 337–363; [Google Scholar]; d) Pérez-Botella E, Palomino M, Valencia S, Rey F, Nanoporous Materials for Gas Storage, Springer, Dordrecht, 2019, pp. 173–208; [Google Scholar]; e) Yang S, Ramirez-Cuesta AJ, Newby R, Garcia-Sakai V, Manuel P, Callear SK, Campbell SI, Tang CC, Schröder M, Nat. Chem. 2015, 7, 121–129; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Adil K, Belmabkhout Y, Pillai RS, Cadiau A, Bhatt PM, Assen AH, Maurin G, Eddaoudi M, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 3402–3430; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Hao H-G, Zhao Y-F, Chen D-M, Yu J-M, Tan K, Ma S, Chabal Y, Zhang Z-M, Dou J-M, Xiao Z-H, Day G, Zhou H-C, Lu T-B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 16067–16071; Angew. Chem. 2018, 130, 16299–16303; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; h) Wang H, Liu Y, Li J, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 2002603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4] a).Breck DW, Eversole WG, Milton RM, Reed TB, Thomas TL, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1956, 78, 5972–5977; [Google Scholar]; b) Harper RJ, Stifel GR, Anderson RB, Can. J. Chem. 1969, 47, 4661–4670. [Google Scholar]
  • [5].a) Reid CR, Thomas KM, J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 10619–10629; [Google Scholar]; b) Reid CR, Thomas KM, Langmuir 1999, 15, 3206–3218. [Google Scholar]
  • [6] a).Zhang J-P, Chen X-M, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 5516–5521; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Li P, He Y, Zhao Y, Weng L, Wang H, Krishna R, Wu H, Zhou W, O’Keeffe M, Han Y, Chen B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 574–577; Angew. Chem. 2015, 127, 584–587; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Yang H, Trieu TX, Zhao X, Wang Y, Wang Y, Feng P, Bu X, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 11757–11762; Angew. Chem. 2019, 131, 11883–11888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7] a).Lee J, Chuah CY, Kim J, Kim Y, Ko N, Seo Y, Kim K, Bae TH, Lee E, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 7869–7873; Angew. Chem. 2018, 130, 7995–7999; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Ye Y, Ma Z, Lin R-B, Krishna R, Zhou W, Lin Q, Zhang Z, Xiang S, Chen B, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 4130–4136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Uchida S, Kawamoto R, Tagami H, Nakagawa Y, Mizuno N, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 12370–12376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9] a).Matsuda R, Kitaura R, Kitagawa S, Kubota Y, Belosludov RV, Kobayashi TC, Sakamoto H, Chiba T, Takata M, Kawazoe Y, Mita Y, Nature 2005, 436, 238–241; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Lin R-B, Li L, Wu H, Arman H, Li B, Lin R-G, Zhou W, Chen B, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 8022–8028; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Dong Q, Zhang X, Liu S, Lin R-B, Guo Y, Ma Y, Yonezu A, Krishna R, Liu G, Duan J, Matsuda R, Jin W, Chen B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 22756–22762; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 22944–22950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10] a).Luo F, Yan C, Dang L, Krishna R, Zhou W, Wu H, Dong X, Han Y, Hu T-L, O’Keeffe M, Wang L, Luo M, Lin R-B, Chen B, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 5678–5684; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Duan J, Higuchi M, Zheng J, Noro S.-i., Chang I-Y, Hyeon-Deuk K, Mathew S, Kusaka S, Sivaniah E, Matsuda R, Sakaki S, Kitagawa S, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 11576–11583; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Peng YL, Pham T, Li P, Wang T, Chen Y, Chen KJ, Forrest KA, Space B, Cheng P, Zaworotko MJ, Zhang Z, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 10971–10975; Angew. Chem. 2018, 130, 11137–11141; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; d) Gao J, Qian X, Lin RB, Krishna R, Wu H, Zhou W, Chen B, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 4396–4400; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 4426–4430; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Niu Z, Cui X, Pham T, Verma G, Lan PC, Shan C, Xing H, Forrest KA, Suepaul S, Space B, Nafady A, Al-Enizi AM, Ma S, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 10.1002/anie.202016225; Angew. Chem. 2021, 133, ; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; f) Li Y-P, Wang Y, Xue Y-Y, Li H-P, Zhai Q-G, Li S-N, Jiang Y-C, Hu M-C, Bu X, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 13590–13595; Angew. Chem. 2019, 131, 13724–13729; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; g) Wang Y, Jia X, Yang H, Wang Y, Chen X, Hong AN, Li J, Bu X, Feng P, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 19027–19030; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 19189–19192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].a) Chen K-J, Scott HS, Madden DG, Pham T, Kumar A, Bajpai A, Lusi M, Forrest KA, Space B, Perry IV JJ, Zaworotko MJ, Chem 2016, 1, 753–765; [Google Scholar]; b) Ma D, Li Z, Zhu J, Zhou Y, Chen L, Mai X, Liufu M, Wu Y, Li Y, J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 11933–11937. [Google Scholar]
  • [12] a).Yanai N, Kitayama K, Hijikata Y, Sato H, Matsuda R, Kubota Y, Takata M, Mizuno M, Uemura T, Kitagawa S, Nat. Mater. 2011, 10, 787–793; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Eguchi R, Uchida S, Mizuno N, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 1635–1639; Angew. Chem. 2012, 124, 1667–1671; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; c) Yang W, Davies AJ, Lin X, Suyetin M, Matsuda R, Blake AJ, Wilson C, Lewis W, Parker JE, Tang CC, George MW, Hubberstey P, Kitagawa S, Sakamoto H, Bichoutskaia E, Champness NR, Yang S, Schröder M, Chem. Sci. 2012, 3, 2993–2999; [Google Scholar]; d) Foo ML, Matsuda R, Hijikata Y, Krishna R, Sato H, Horike S, Hori A, Duan J, Sato Y, Kubota Y, Takata M, Kitagawa S, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 3022–3030; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; e) Qazvini OT, Babarao R, Telfer SG, Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Li L, Wang J, Zhang Z, Yang Q, Yang Y, Su B, Bao Z, Ren Q, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 2543–2550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].a) Honig B, Nicholls A, Science 1995, 268, 1144–1149; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; b) Naray-Szabo G, Ferenczy GG, Chem. Rev. 1995, 95, 829–847. [Google Scholar]
  • [15].He C-T, Ye Z-M, Xu Y-T, Zhou D-D, Zhou H-L, Chen D, Zhang J-P, Chen X-M, Chem. Sci. 2017, 8, 7560–7565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Zakaria MB, Chikyow T, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2017, 352, 328–345. [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Otsubo K, Haraguchi T, Kitagawa H, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2017, 346, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].a) Gu ZZ, Sato O, Iyoda T, Hashimoto K, Fujishima A, Chem. Mater. 1997, 9, 1092–1097; [Google Scholar]; b) Reguera L, Balmaseda J, Krap CP, Reguera E, J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 10490–10501; [Google Scholar]; c) Roque-Malherbe R, Uwakweh ONC, Lozano C, Polanco R, Hernandez-Maldonado A, Fierro P, Lugo F, Primera-Pedrozo JN, J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 15555–15569. [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Queen WL, Hudson MR, Bloch ED, Mason JA, Gonzalez MI, Lee JS, Gygi D, Howe JD, Lee K, Darwish TA, James M, Peterson VK, Teat SJ, Smit B, Neaton JB, Long JR, Brown CM, Chem. Sci. 2014, 5, 4569–4581. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

2

RESOURCES