Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Central Science logoLink to ACS Central Science
. 2025 Mar 18;11(4):583–591. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.5c00022

Host–Guest Synergy of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Enhanced Near-Infrared Ultrafast Laser Responsiveness

Ruibing Lv †, Lei Sun ‡, Zhenghang Luo †, Yujie Song †, Shuo Li ‡,*, Qi Zhang †,*
PMCID: PMC12022905  PMID: 40290149

Abstract

graphic file with name oc5c00022_0009.jpg

Host–guest metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) offer significant potential and value in regulating and optimizing novel material properties and functionalities, owing to the synergistic effects between the host framework and the guest units. This study reported two silver-based host–guest MOFs, [Ag(ATRZ)(BrO3)]n (CMOF-1) and [Ag(ATRZ)1.5(ClO4)]n (CMOF-2), as promising candidates for laser-responsive materials. These materials feature 1D and 3D structures, respectively, comprising Ag-ATRZ cationic MOF frameworks integrated with two distinct oxidizing anionic guests, BrO3– and ClO4–. CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 are synthesized through straightforward, environmentally benign methods, enabling rapid fabrication. The exceptional near-infrared (NIR) laser responsiveness of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 was achieved through the modulation of the cationic MOFs (CMOFs) architectures and synergistic interactions between the host and guest components. Moreover, both exhibit ultrafast deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) capabilities, alongside excellent thermal stability. This work expands the application scope of host–guest MOFs, and provides an effective strategy for developing high-performance laser-responsive materials.

Short abstract

This study reports Ag-based host−guest MOFs with ultrafast NIR laser responsiveness: CMOF-1 and CMOF-2, which exhibit excellent ultrafast deflagration-to-detonation transition and thermal stability.

Introduction

Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) are crystalline materials characterized by ordered pores and channels, formed through the coordination bonding between metal centers and organic linkers.1−4 Typically synthesized via the self-assembly of metal ions or metal clusters with organic ligands, MOFs exhibit remarkable compositional diversity, structural flexibility, and tunable porosity.5−7 These attributes make MOFs highly versatile platforms for the orderly dispersion and stabilization of various guest molecules, such as optoelectronic enhancement units, catalysts, and pharmaceuticals, etc. (Scheme 1a) Strategic modifications to the MOF framework can alter structural rigidity and pore environments, facilitating the directed assembly of host–guest systems. These adaptations often induce distinct physical and chemical phenomena, such as electron or energy transfer, redox reactions, or synergistic host–guest interactions, which can generate functionalities beyond those of the individual components.8,9 For instance, incorporating fluorescent or phosphorescent guest molecules within MOFs can tune optical properties through host–guest synergy.10−12 Similarly, embedding electron or ion-conducting guests into MOFs can modulate conductivity by influencing charge transfer dynamics.13−15 Loading guest entities such as metal nanoparticles (MNPs), molecular catalysts, or enzymes into MOFs can yield advanced materials suitable for CO2 conversion,16−18 hydrogenation reactions,19,20 biocatalysis,21−23 and photocatalysis or electrocatalysis.24−27 Consequently, MOFs can be used as a multifunctional platform and granted new application scenarios by changing the guest molecules in the pores, which will further expand the application horizons of host–guest MOFs as high-performance materials across diverse fields.

Scheme 1. (a) Schematic Diagram of Host–Guest MOFs Structure, (b) Functional Mechanisms of Photoresponsive MOFs, (c) Ultrafast Laser Response of Cationic MOFs based on Host–Guest Synergy and Laser-Sensitive Guests.

Scheme 1

Open in a new tab

Photoresponsive MOFs represent a burgeoning research frontier, offering tunable platforms for high-performance materials in the fields of energy, medicine and information and so on.28,29 As shown in Scheme 1b, these materials are constructed by integrating photoresponsive linkers or guest molecules into the MOFs structure. Upon light stimulation, the intrinsic structures and morphologies of photoresponsive MOFs can undergo reversible or irreversible transformations. These changes can enable functions such as gas adsorption and release,30,31 optical information storage,32,33 photoelectronic devices,34,35 and photoresponsive actuators.36,37 Noteworthily, light stimuli offer distinct advantages, including noncontact activation, high spatial and temporal precision, and ease of control compared to electromagnetic, thermal, or mechanical stimuli.28 As a result, photoresponsive MOFs hold immense potential for existing applications and provide new insights for exploring novel technological avenues.

As special light-responsive materials, laser-responsive materials are designed to convert light energy into heat or photonic resonance,38,39 inducing molecular bond dissociation under laser irradiation at specific wavelengths. Then a cascade of radical reactions was triggered, facilitating rapid decomposition and a deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT).40,41 Such materials form the cornerstone of safe laser initiation technologies employed in the aerospace, defense, and civil blasting sectors.42 Compared to conventional initiation methods involving electricity, heat, or mechanical impact, laser initiation offers superior resistance to electromagnetic pulses, microwaves, static discharge, and corrosion.43,44 Consequently, advancing research into laser-responsive materials remains a critical and urgent endeavor. In recent years, significant progress has been made in developing ultrafast laser-responsive materials, including modifications to existing explosives and the synthesis of energetic coordination compounds.43−47 Despite promising advances, challenges persist in preparing a comprehensive material that exhibits exceptional energy density, stability, and initiation performance.48,49 Notably, there is a pressing need for near-infrared (NIR) laser-responsive materials with excellent properties.39,45 This demand arises because NIR laser sources, characterized by their compact size and low cost, are highly suitable for miniaturized laser ignition devices. As a result, they have garnered significant attention in the field of laser initiation of energetic materials.50 Inspired by the design concept of light-responsive MOFs, given the orderly holes and adjustable host frameworks, and the synergistic effect between guest units and the host skeletons, it is expected to break through the limitations of existing laser responsive materials and obtain reliable materials with near-infrared laser response.

Based on this, constructing MOF host frameworks using silver ions (Ag+) and the nitrogen-rich conjugated energetic ligand 4,4’-azo-1,2,4-triazole (ATRZ)51 was proposed, which ensures both the energetic performance and stability of the resulting materials (Scheme 1c). This approach aims to improve oxygen balance and uniformly distribute photosensitive radical generation sites within the framework by incorporating oxidizing counterion guests in a controlled, ordered manner. This crucial assembly facilitates rapid redox reactions under laser stimulation, minimizing reaction delay and achieving ultrafast laser responsiveness. Additionally, careful selection of laser-sensitive guest units can lower the initiation threshold and enhance wavelength selectivity, enabling effective near-infrared laser initiation.

Herein, two oxygen-rich anions: ClO4– and BrO3–, were integrated as guest units into Ag-ATRZ cationic MOFs (CMOFs) hosts with high detonation heats (Scheme 1c). Two solvent-free silver-based CMOFs: [Ag(ATRZ)(BrO3)]n (CMOF-1) and [Ag(ATRZ)1.5(ClO4)]n (CMOF-2) were obtained through this approach. Comprehensive studies of their thermal stability, mechanical sensitivity, energetic performance, and laser sensitivity properties revealed that CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 exhibit excellent thermal stability and outstanding detonation characteristics. Importantly, both materials demonstrated efficient near-infrared laser initiation with low energy input and minimal delay periods. To better illustrate the advantages of host–guest synergy, the previously reported [Ag(ATRZ)1.5(NO3)]n (CMOF-0),52 incorporating NO3– as the guest unit, was selected as a reference material. Notably, CMOF-0 exhibits negligible laser responsiveness. These findings confirm that the laser-responsive behavior of CMOFs can be finely tuned by adjusting oxygen-rich anionic guests, thereby providing a new approach for the development of high-performance laser-responsive materials.

Results and Discussion

Synthesis and Single-Crystal Structures

4,4′-Azo-1,2,4-triazole (ATRZ) was synthesized based on existing literature.51 As shown in Scheme 2, the “one-pot” synthesis method for CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 is straightforward, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. ATRZ and inorganic salts were added to hot water successively, and the white product precipitated instantly. After filtration and air drying, pure product crystals can be quickly obtained with high yields (CMOF-1:59.5%; CMOF-2:72.5%), and the mother liquor is colorless and transparent. This synthesis process uses water as a solvent, eliminating the need for organic solvents and averting the production of polluting gases and highly toxic waste liquids, which aligns with the principles of green chemistry.

Scheme 2. Synthesis Process of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2.

Scheme 2

Open in a new tab

Single crystals of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 suitable for characterization were prepared by recrystallization in a hot aqueous solution. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction (SCXRD) determination shows that CMOF-1 (CCDC 2383631) crystallized in the triclinic P-1 space group, with two asymmetric units per unit cell (Z = 2). The optical image of CMOF-1 shows a colorless needle-like morphology with a regular shape. Remarkably, the calculated crystal density at 296 K was as high as 2.634 g cm–3. As shown in Figure 1a, the asymmetric unit consists of an Ag(I) cation, an ATRZ ligand, and a BrO3– guest anion. Each ATRZ molecule interacts with two adjacent Ag(I) ions, forming a one-dimensional (1D) chain host with the lengths of the coordination bonds Ag1–N4, Ag1–N7 were 2.206 Å and 2.253 Å, and the bond angle of N4–Ag1–N7 is 159.4°. Each central Ag+ is coordinated with three neighboring atoms including two N atoms and one O atom, and the O atom comes from the BrO3– guest involved in the coordination, the bond length of Ag1–O2 was 2.46 Å. Due to the planar properties of the ATRZ molecule, all atoms in each 1D Ag-ATRZ chain are in almost the same plane (Figure 1b). Observed from the a-axis direction, the host chains are regularly arranged along the (0,1,-1) direction to form a plane (Figure 1d), and form a tightly stacked layered structure with a distance of 3.045 Å between each layer (Figure 1e), which contributes to the high density of CMOFs. The oxidant BrO3– guest is anchored between the 1D host chains through coordination bonds, and fills the gaps formed by Ag-ATRZ stacking along the a-axis direction (Figure 1c), which is more conducive to achieving rapid redox reactions and producing a faster DDT process.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(a) Asymmetric unit of CMOF-1 and the coordination environment between ATRZ ligand, BrO3– guest and Ag(I) cation. (b) 1D chain-like structure of CMOF-1. (c) Distribution of BrO3– guest in the 1D structure of CMOF-1, and the red shading indicates the pores in the structure. (d) The molecular arrangement in the same layer of CMOF-1. (d) The layered-like crystal packing of CMOF-1.

CMOF-2 (CCDC 2383633) crystallized in the triclinic P 21/n space group, with two asymmetric units per unit cell (Z = 2), and its optical image shows a colorless needle-like morphology with a regular shape. Notably, the calculated crystal density at 223 K was as high as 2.155 g cm–3. CMOF-2 has a 3D irregular porous structure similar CMOF-0.52 As shown in Figure 2a, the asymmetric unit consists of an Ag(I) cation, one and a half ATRZ ligand molecules and one free ClO4– guest anion. Each silver atom is tetracoordinated with four nitrogen atoms from ATRZ to form an irregular tetrahedral geometry. As shown in Figure 2b, different from CMOF-1, the coordination mode of ATRZ is divided into two types in CMOF-2: bidentate and tridentate. The Ag–N coordination bond length is 2.254 Å −2.445 Å, longer than the Ag–N bond in CMOF-1. In the 3D structure of CMOF-2, there are two different channels along the a-axis. The first is a channel with a larger pore size, which is composed of three ATRZ molecules and Ag(I) ions as linkers. The oxidant guest ClO4– is free in the channel, which is different from the BrO3– involved in the coordination in CMOF-1. This allows for uniform distribution and full contact in the host skeleton, which is also conducive to the occurrence of a rapid DDT process under laser stimulation.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a) Asymmetric unit of CMOF-2. (b) Two coordination environments between ATRZ ligand and Ag(I) cation. (c) 3D porous crystal structure of CMOF-2, and the red shading indicates the pores in the 3D structure.

Stability and Sensitivity

Heat resistance is a key factor in determining whether laser-responsive materials can function reliably in high-temperature environments. The thermal stabilities of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 were investigated through thermogravimetry (TG) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) at a heating rate of 10 K min–1 under an argon atmosphere. The TG-DSC curves of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 were shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Both did not show melting and phase change during the early programmed temperature increase, but exhibited a rapid one-step explosive decomposition process characterized by sharp exothermic peaks. Their explosive decomposition severely damaged the ceramic crucibles, even though the initial mass of the CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 samples was only 0.114 mg and 0.069 mg, respectively. These phenomena indicate their ultrafast DDT properties under thermal loading. Additionally, the thermal decomposition temperature (Td) of CMOF-1 is 201 °C, which is almost the same as that of copper azide (CA) (Td = 205 °C). The thermal decomposition temperature of CMOF-2 is 267 °C, which aligns closely with the Td value of the classic laser-responsive material [Co(NH3)4(NT)]ClO4 (BNCP) (Td = 268 °C) and higher than CMOF-1, this could be attributed to the stable 3D CMOF host. Moreover, the thermal decomposition temperature of CMOF-2 is 37 °C higher than that of [Ag(ATCA)ClO4]n,53 another laser-responsive material synthesized by our group, which serves as a representative of Ag-based laser-sensitive primary explosives. In addition, both CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 demonstrate superior thermal stability compared to most organic primary explosives, including DDNP (Td = 157 °C), making them suitable for various military and civilian applications. Noteworthily, CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 show remarkable insensitivity to both air and water. This conclusion is supported by powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR) analyses conducted over a period of 7 days (Figure 3c-3f), all samples were from the same batch of products and must be dried identically (80 °C, 3 h) before PXRD and FTIR testing to minimize moisture content. The results showed that both materials meet the environmental stability standards typically required for laser-responsive materials.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(a) TG-DSC curves of CMOF-1. (b) TG-DSC curves of CMOF-2. (c) Stability testing of CMOF-1 by PXRD. (d) Stability testing of CMOF-2 by PXRD. (e) Stability testing of CMOF-1 by FTIR. (d) Stability testing of CMOF-2 by FTIR.

The mechanical sensitivities of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 were evaluated experimentally in accordance with the BAM standard procedures. Impact sensitivity (IS) was measured using the standard BAM Fall Hammer, while friction sensitivity (FS) was assessed using the BAM friction tester. The results are summarized in Table 1. Both CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 exhibit mechanical sensitivities typical of primary explosives (CMOF-1: IS = 0.75 J, FS < 5 N; CMOF-2: IS = 0.5 J, FS = 5 N), a characteristic attributed to the incorporation of oxygen-rich guest molecules. In comparison, the impact sensitivity of CMOF-0 (IS = 30 J)52 is significantly lower, and the sensitivity ranking of the three materials following the order: NO3– < ClO4– < BrO3–. This optimized sensitivity ensures that the CMOFs can be effectively initiated when employed as laser-responsive materials.

Table 1. Comparison of the Physical and Energetic Properties of CMOF-1, CMOF-2 ,and Other Selected Compoundsa.

Comp. Nb [%] ρc [g cm–3] Tdd [°C] OBCOe [%] OBCO2f [%] ISg [J] FSh [N] λi [nm] tj [ms] Ek [mJ]
CMOF-1 28.02 2.634 201 –14.0 –30.0 0.75 <5 808 1.14 11.4
CMOF-2 30.15 2.155l 267 –19.4 –40.6 0.5 5 808 0.15 1.5
CMOF-0 43.76 3.160 257 –25.1 –48.2 30 - 808 X X
ATRZ 68.3 1.620 313 –58.5 –97.5 14 160 808 X X
[Ag(ATCA)(ClO4)]nm 24.00 2.534 230 –4.6 –18.3 5 72 800 72.68 207
[Cu(N3)2(1-NET)]n 50.24 1.985 122 –18.3 –34.0 3 1 915 - 25.5
[Pb(OH-ATZ)2]no 34.4 3.180 284 –11.8 –19.7 10 50 800 5.22 27.0
CAp 56.90 2.600 205 –10.9 –10.9 <1 ≤0.1 - - -
LAp 28.90 4.800 315 –5.5 –5.5 2.5–4 0.1–1 - - -
DDNPp 26.70 1.720 157 –15.2 –60.9 <1 24.7 - - -
Open in a new tab
a

“-” indicates that no data was obtained, and “X” indicates that it cannot be initiated by the laser.

b

Nitrogen content.

c

Density.

d

Decomposition temperature.

e

Oxygen balance based on CO.

f

Oxygen balance based on CO2.

g

Impact sensitivity.

h

Friction sensitivity.

i

Laser wavelength.

j

Laser initiation delay time.

k

Laser initiation energy value.

l

Crystal density (223 K).

m

Reference (53).

n

Reference (58).

o

Reference (54).

p

Reference (59).

Modified Koenen Test

To experimentally examine the impact of NO3–, BrO3–, and ClO4– on the explosive properties of laser-responsive materials, a modified Koenen test was conducted, using a Bunsen burner for rapid heating. This approach served to characterize the DDT process of CMOF-1, CMOF-2, and [Ag(ATRZ)1.5(NO3)]n, with the experimental results shown in Figure 4. For each test, a precisely weighed 5 mg sample of loose powder was sealed within an aluminum crucible and subjected to rapid heating. After combustion or detonation, the crucible fragments were collected for a preliminary evaluation of the explosive performance of the materials. The results demonstrated that CMOF-1 and CMOF-2, which incorporate BrO3– and ClO4– as guest units, respectively, exhibit exceptional explosive characteristics. Similar to the typical primary explosives lead azide (LA), the brief heating triggered a rapid deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2, resulting in explosions that caused significant damage to the crucibles (Figure 4b and Figure 4c). In contrast, CMOF-0, which incorporates a NO3– guest unit, underwent rapid decomposition under intense heating, leading to only minor deformation of the crucible without any rupture (Figure 4d). In brief, among the tested oxidizing guest units, both BrO3– and ClO4– were more effective in facilitating detonation than NO3–, as evidenced by their faster transition to detonation. These findings underscore the critical role of oxidizing guest molecules in modulating the DDT process of laser-responsive materials under thermal stress, highlighting the influence of specific guest species on detonation efficiency.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Modified Koenen test of CMOF-1, CMOF-2, and CMOF-0.

Laser-Response Performance

Based on the excellent fast deflagration-detonation transition (DDT) performance of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2, six sets of parallel experiments were conducted to further evaluate their laser-responsive properties at two distinct wavelengths (808 and 980 nm). These tests were compared against CMOF-0, a CMOF with nitrate (NO3–) as the guest molecule. All experiments were carried out under identical conditions, maintaining consistent sample weight and laser parameters (wavelength and power). High-speed cameras captured the response of the three CMOFs under laser irradiation at near-infrared wavelengths of 808 and 980 nm, as shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b. Both CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 demonstrated rapid and violent explosions shortly after brief exposure to either 808 or 980 nm laser irradiation, resulting in significant damage to the confinement tube. These detonations were accompanied by intense acoustic emissions, and CMOF-1 produced a bright flame column within the transparent tube. In stark contrast, the laser responsiveness of CMOF-0 is significantly weaker. with only partial ignition observed and no substantial structural damage to the tube. These results align with findings from the Modified Koenen test. To quantitatively assess the laser-responsive capabilities of these compounds, the initiation delay time (t) and initiation energy (E) were used as evaluation metrics. As shown in Figure 5a, CMOF-2 displayed superior laser-responsive performance (t = 0.15 ms, E = 1.5 mJ) compared to CMOF-1 (t = 1.14 ms, E = 11.4 mJ) when irradiated with 808 nm laser, outperforming most existing laser-responsive materials, e.g. [Ag(ATCA)(ClO4)]n (t = 72.68 ms, E = 207 mJ),53 [Pb(OH-ATZ)2]n (t = 5.22 ms, E = 27 mJ),54 and [Cu(PZCA)2(ClO4)2] (t = 5.0 ms, E = 45 mJ),41 this phenomenon is related to the host–guest synergy effects present in CMOF-1 and CMOF-2. Under laser irradiation, the halogen-oxygen bonds within the guest units undergo cleavage, producing a large amount of highly reactive oxygen radicals. These radicals subsequently initiate chain reactions by attacking the host framework, thereby facilitating the rapid and efficient decomposition of the CMOFs. When subjected to 980 nm laser irradiation, both CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 exhibited slightly longer initiation delay times of 1.86 ms (Figure 5b), with corresponding initiation energies of 18.6 mJ. This variation may be attributed to the dependence of the light absorption capacity and photothermal conversion efficiency of CMOFs on the laser wavelength, which influences the rate of energy absorption and initiation.50,55,56 These findings demonstrate that CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 exhibit exceptional laser responsiveness within the shortwave near-infrared (SW-NIR) range, aligning perfectly with our design principles, and underscore the remarkable potential of host–guest CMOF-based materials for high-efficiency, near-infrared laser response applications, highlighting their robust and tunable performance characteristics.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(a) 808 nm (10 W) laser response process of CMOF-1, CMOF-2, and CMOF-0. (b) 980 nm (10 W) laser response process of CMOF-1, CMOF-2, and CMOF-0.

Theoretical Investigation of Ignition Mechanism

It is generally accepted that the laser response under infrared irradiation is primarily driven by thermal loading resulting from photothermal conversion. The decomposition of laser-responsive energetic materials is typically initiated by highly reactive oxygen radicals generated from oxidizing anions due to photothermal effects.41 The complexity of this process directly reflects the laser response capability of materials. In this study, we employed Gaussian16 (Revision A. 03) software,57 using density functional theory (DFT) to calculate both the dissociation energy of the weakest bonds in the ligands and the bond dissociation energies (BDEs) required to generate oxygen radicals (Figure 5), all geometry optimizations and energy calculations were at the theoretical level of B3LYP/6–31G* (nonmetallic elements) combined with Stuttgart/Dresden (SDD) pseudopotential (Ag). The results reveal that a set of N–N bonds in ATRZ exhibits the lowest BDE value at 175.2 kJ mol–1. Among the three oxidizing anions (BrO3–, ClO4–, and NO3–) studied, the BDE values required for O radical formation increase in the following order: O-ClO3 (282.7 kJ mol–1) < O-BrO2 (351.7 kJ mol–1) < O-NO2 (411.1 kJ mol–1). This indicates that ATRZ dissociation occurs most readily, followed by ClO4– and BrO3–, with NO3– being the most difficult to dissociate. The results align closely with laser-initiation experiments, suggesting that the laser response of CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 results from the synergistic interaction between host frameworks and guest anions, CMOF-1: [Ag+(ATRZ)]n and BrO3–, CMOF-2: [Ag+(ATRZ)1.5]n and ClO4–. Upon decomposition of ATRZ, guest molecules rapidly produce highly reactive oxygen radicals, accelerating the deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) and facilitating the reaction process. In contrast, under laser irradiation, CMOF-0 undergoes rapid ATRZ decomposition, but the NO3- anion is not easily triggered, thus preventing a detonation-level laser response. Therefore, this study presents an effective strategy for enhancing near-infrared laser initiation in energetic CMOFs by modulating their response through host–guest synergistic effects.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Bond dissociation energy (BDE) of ATRZ, CMOF-1, CMOF-2, and CMOF-0.

Conclusion

In summary, this study has demonstrated that laser-responsive materials with superior thermal stability and rapid initiation times can be constructed through a host–guest MOF strategy. By rationally modulating the synthesis and assembly of the Ag-ATRZ cationic MOF framework and oxidizing anionic guests, it is possible to design materials with laser response capabilities. Combined with their environmentally friendly and scalable rapid self-assembly in aqueous systems, this approach enables efficient material preparation. Moreover, the host–guest CMOF structures impart CMOF-1 and CMOF-2 with remarkable thermal stability and exceptional deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) capabilities, as reflected by their ultrafast thermal decomposition at 201 and 267 °C, respectively. Most notably, through designing the host–guest MOFs architecture, the synergistic effects between the host and guest units ensure outstanding laser response properties, characterized by initiation times of 1.14 and 0.15 ms for CMOF-1 and CMOF-2. The energetic Ag-ATRZ host framework offers an ideal platform for the development of novel laser-responsive materials, effectively balancing energy density and laser sensitivity attributes essential for advanced energetic applications. This strategy is anticipated to serve as a promising pathway for the rational design and fabrication of laser-responsive materials with innovative architectures, thereby expanding their potential applications.

Acknowledgments

Financial support is acknowledged by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 21975232 (Q. Z.).

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.5c00022.

  • Additional experimental details, materials, and methods. FTIR, PXRD curves and crystallographic data for all compounds. (PDF)

  • Crystallographic file for CMOF-1 (CIF)

  • Crystallographic file CMOF-2 173K (CIF)

  • Crystallographic file CMOF-2 223K (CIF)

Author Contributions

Investigation, design, and main experimental work: R.L., L.S., Z.L., and S.L. Calculation: R.L. and Y. S. Writing: R.L. Review and editing work: R.L., Y. S., and Q.Z. Single crystal: R.L., S.L., and Q. Z. Supervision and project administration: Q.Z.

National Natural Science Foundation of China 21975232.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

oc5c00022_si_001.pdf (726.1KB, pdf)
oc5c00022_si_002.cif (297KB, cif)
oc5c00022_si_003.cif (388.9KB, cif)
oc5c00022_si_004.cif (937.1KB, cif)

References

  1. Martí-Gastaldo C.; Antypov D.; Warren J. E.; Briggs M. E.; Chater P. A.; Wiper P. V.; Miller G. J.; Khimyak Y. Z.; Darling G. R.; Berry N. G.; Rosseinsky M. J. Side-Chain Control of Porosity Closure in Single- and Multiple-Peptide-Based Porous Materials by Cooperative Folding. Nat. Chem. 2014, 6 (4), 343–351. 10.1038/nchem.1871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Li L.; Xiang S.; Cao S.; Zhang J.; Ouyang G.; Chen L.; Su C.-Y. A Synthetic Route to Ultralight Hierarchically Micro/Mesoporous Al(III)-Carboxylate Metal-Organic Aerogels. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4 (1), 1774. 10.1038/ncomms2757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu L.; Yao Z.; Ye Y.; Yang Y.; Lin Q.; Zhang Z.; O’Keeffe M.; Xiang S. Integrating the Pillared-Layer Strategy and Pore-Space Partition Method to Construct Multicomponent MOFs for C2H2/CO2 Separation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142 (20), 9258–9266. 10.1021/jacs.0c00612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Masoomi M. Y.; Morsali A.; Dhakshinamoorthy A.; Garcia H. Mixed-Metal MOFs: Unique Opportunities in Metal–Organic Framework (MOF) Functionality and Design. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, 58 (43), 15188–15205. 10.1002/anie.201902229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Wang K.; Feng D.; Liu T.-F.; Su J.; Yuan S.; Chen Y.-P.; Bosch M.; Zou X.; Zhou H.-C. A Series of Highly Stable Mesoporous Metalloporphyrin Fe-MOFs. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136 (40), 13983–13986. 10.1021/ja507269n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhang Q.; Shreeve J. M. Metal–Organic Frameworks as High Explosives: A New Concept for Energetic Materials. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53 (10), 2540–2542. 10.1002/anie.201310014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Yuan S.; Qin J.-S.; Zou L.; Chen Y.-P.; Wang X.; Zhang Q.; Zhou H.-C. Thermodynamically Guided Synthesis of Mixed-Linker Zr-MOFs with Enhanced Tunability. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138 (20), 6636–6642. 10.1021/jacs.6b03263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu X.; Qian B.; Zhang D.; Yu M.; Chang Z.; Bu X. Recent Progress in Host–Guest Metal–Organic Frameworks: Construction and Emergent Properties. Coordin. Chem. Rev. 2023, 476, 214921. 10.1016/j.ccr.2022.214921. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jiao Y.; Zuo Y.; Yang H.; Gao X.; Duan C. Photoresponse within Dye-Incorporated Metal-Organic Architectures. Coordin. Chem. Rev. 2021, 430, 213648. 10.1016/j.ccr.2020.213648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Yu J.; Cui Y.; Xu H.; Yang Y.; Wang Z.; Chen B.; Qian G. Confinement of Pyridinium Hemicyanine Dye within an Anionic Metal-Organic Framework for Two-Photon-Pumped Lasing. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4 (1), 2719. 10.1038/ncomms3719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sun C.-Y.; To W.-P.; Wang X.-L.; Chan K.-T.; Su Z.-M.; Che C.-M. Metal–Organic Framework Composites with Luminescent Gold(iii) Complexes. Strongly Emissive and Long-Lived Excited States in Open Air and Photo-Catalysis. Chem. Sci. 2015, 6 (12), 7105–7111. 10.1039/C5SC02216A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu X.; Wang K.; Chang Z.; Zhang Y.; Xu J.; Zhao Y. S.; Bu X. Engineering Donor–Acceptor Heterostructure Metal–Organic Framework Crystals for Photonic Logic Computation. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, 58 (39), 13890–13896. 10.1002/anie.201906278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kung C.-W.; Platero-Prats A. E.; Drout R. J.; Kang J.; Wang T. C.; Audu C. O.; Hersam M. C.; Chapman K. W.; Farha O. K.; Hupp J. T. Inorganic “Conductive Glass” Approach to Rendering Mesoporous Metal–Organic Frameworks Electronically Conductive and Chemically Responsive. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (36), 30532–30540. 10.1021/acsami.8b08270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rouhani F.; Rafizadeh-Masuleh F.; Morsali A. Highly Electroconductive Metal–Organic Framework: Tunable by Metal Ion Sorption Quantity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141 (28), 11173–11182. 10.1021/jacs.9b04173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen X.; Wang S.-Z.; Xiao S.-H.; Li Z.-F.; Li G. High Protonic Conductivity of Three Highly Stable Nanoscale Hafnium(IV) Metal–Organic Frameworks and Their Imidazole-Loaded Products. Inorg. Chem. 2022, 61 (12), 4938–4947. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c03679. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Li Z.; Rayder T. M.; Luo L.; Byers J. A.; Tsung C.-K. Aperture-Opening Encapsulation of a Transition Metal Catalyst in a Metal–Organic Framework for CO2 Hydrogenation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140 (26), 8082–8085. 10.1021/jacs.8b04047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rayder T. M.; Bensalah A. T.; Li B.; Byers J. A.; Tsung C.-K. Engineering Second Sphere Interactions in a Host–Guest Multicomponent Catalyst System for the Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143 (3), 1630–1640. 10.1021/jacs.0c08957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Tsai C.-Y.; Chen Y.-H.; Lee S.; Lin C.-H.; Chang C.-H.; Dai W.-T.; Liu W.-L. Uniform Core–Shell Microspheres of SiO2 @MOF for CO2 Cycloaddition Reactions. Inorg. Chem. 2022, 61 (6), 2724–2732. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.1c01570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grigoropoulos A.; McKay A. I.; Katsoulidis A. P.; Davies R. P.; Haynes A.; Brammer L.; Xiao J.; Weller A. S.; Rosseinsky M. J. Encapsulation of Crabtree’s Catalyst in Sulfonated MIL-101(Cr): Enhancement of Stability and Selectivity between Competing Reaction Pathways by the MOF Chemical Microenvironment. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57 (17), 4532–4537. 10.1002/anie.201710091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang W.; Shi W.; Ji W.; Wu H.; Gu Z.; Wang P.; Li X.; Qin P.; Zhang J.; Fan Y.; Wu T.; Fu Y.; Zhang W.; Huo F. Microenvironment of MOF Channel Coordination with Pt NPs for Selective Hydrogenation of Unsaturated Aldehydes. ACS Catal. 2020, 10 (10), 5805–5813. 10.1021/acscatal.0c00682. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. He J.; Yang H.; Zhang Y.; Yu J.; Miao L.; Song Y.; Wang L. Smart Nanocomposites of Cu-Hemin Metal-Organic Frameworks for Electrochemical Glucose Biosensing. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6 (1), 36637. 10.1038/srep36637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liao F.-S.; Lo W.-S.; Hsu Y.-S.; Wu C.-C.; Wang S.-C.; Shieh F.-K.; Morabito J. V.; Chou L.-Y.; Wu K. C.-W.; Tsung C.-K. Shielding against Unfolding by Embedding Enzymes in Metal–Organic Frameworks via a de Novo Approach. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (19), 6530–6533. 10.1021/jacs.7b01794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Tian D.; Hao R.; Zhang X.; Shi H.; Wang Y.; Liang L.; Liu H.; Yang H. Multi-Compartmental MOF Microreactors Derived from Pickering Double Emulsions for Chemo-Enzymatic Cascade Catalysis. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14 (1), 3226. 10.1038/s41467-023-38949-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fei H.; Sampson M. D.; Lee Y.; Kubiak C. P.; Cohen S. M. Photocatalytic CO2 Reduction to Formate Using a Mn(I) Molecular Catalyst in a Robust Metal–Organic Framework. Inorg. Chem. 2015, 54 (14), 6821–6828. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.5b00752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Paille G.; Gomez-Mingot M.; Roch-Marchal C.; Lassalle-Kaiser B.; Mialane P.; Fontecave M.; Mellot-Draznieks C.; Dolbecq A. A Fully Noble Metal-Free Photosystem Based on Cobalt-Polyoxometalates Immobilized in a Porphyrinic Metal–Organic Framework for Water Oxidation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140 (10), 3613–3618. 10.1021/jacs.7b11788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu H. B.; Xia B. Y.; Yu L.; Yu X.-Y.; Lou X. W. Porous Molybdenum Carbide Nano-Octahedrons Synthesized via Confined Carburization in Metal-Organic Frameworks for Efficient Hydrogen Production. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6 (1), 6512. 10.1038/ncomms7512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Wu H. B.; Lou X. W. Metal-Organic Frameworks and Their Derived Materials for Electrochemical Energy Storage and Conversion: Promises and Challenges. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3 (12), eaap9252 10.1126/sciadv.aap9252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang X.; Yu T.; Au V. K. Photoresponsive Metal-Organic Frameworks: Tailorable Platforms of Photoswitches for Advanced Functions. ChemNanoMat 2022, 8 (3), e202100486 10.1002/cnma.202100486. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Haldar R.; Heinke L.; Wöll C. Advanced Photoresponsive Materials Using the Metal–Organic Framework Approach. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32 (20), 1905227. 10.1002/adma.201905227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Luo F.; Fan C. B.; Luo M. B.; Wu X. L.; Zhu Y.; Pu S. Z.; Xu W.-Y.; Guo G.-C. Photoswitching CO2 Capture and Release in a Photochromic Diarylethene Metal–Organic Framework. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53 (35), 9298–9301. 10.1002/anie.201311124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang Z.; Knebel A.; Grosjean S.; Wagner D.; Bräse S.; Wöll C.; Caro J.; Heinke L. Tunable Molecular Separation by Nanoporous Membranes. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7 (1), 13872. 10.1038/ncomms13872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Li Z.; Wang G.; Ye Y.; Li B.; Li H.; Chen B. Loading Photochromic Molecules into a Luminescent Metal–Organic Framework for Information Anticounterfeiting. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019, 58 (50), 18025–18031. 10.1002/anie.201910467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Garai B.; Mallick A.; Banerjee R. Photochromic Metal–Organic Frameworks for Inkless and Erasable Printing. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7 (3), 2195–2200. 10.1039/C5SC04450B. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kent C. A.; Liu D.; Ma L.; Papanikolas J. M.; Meyer T. J.; Lin W. Light Harvesting in Microscale Metal–Organic Frameworks by Energy Migration and Interfacial Electron Transfer Quenching. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133 (33), 12940–12943. 10.1021/ja204214t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin C. R.; Leith G. A.; Kittikhunnatham P.; Park K. C.; Ejegbavwo O. A.; Mathur A.; Callahan C. R.; Desmond S. L.; Keener M. R.; Ahmed F.; Pandey S.; Smith M. D.; Phillpot S. R.; Greytak A. B.; Shustova N. B. Heterometallic Actinide-Containing Photoresponsive Metal-Organic Frameworks: Dynamic and Static Tuning of Electronic Properties. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2021, 60 (15), 8072–8080. 10.1002/anie.202016826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Danowski W.; Van Leeuwen T.; Abdolahzadeh S.; Roke D.; Browne W. R.; Wezenberg S. J.; Feringa B. L. Unidirectional Rotary Motion in a Metal–Organic Framework. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14 (5), 488–494. 10.1038/s41565-019-0401-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Danowski W.; Castiglioni F.; Sardjan A. S.; Krause S.; Pfeifer L.; Roke D.; Comotti A.; Browne W. R.; Feringa B. L. Visible-Light-Driven Rotation of Molecular Motors in a Dual-Function Metal–Organic Framework Enabled by Energy Transfer. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142 (19), 9048–9056. 10.1021/jacs.0c03063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Aluker E. D.; Krechetov A. G.; Mitrofanov A. Y.; Zverev A. S.; Kuklja M. M. Understanding Limits of the Thermal Mechanism of Laser Initiation of Energetic Materials. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116 (46), 24482–24486. 10.1021/jp308633y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Myers T. W.; Bjorgaard J. A.; Brown K. E.; Chavez D. E.; Hanson S. K.; Scharff R. J.; Tretiak S.; Veauthier J. M. Energetic Chromophores: Low-Energy Laser Initiation in Explosive Fe(II) Tetrazine Complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138 (13), 4685–4692. 10.1021/jacs.6b02155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Myers T. W.; Bjorgaard J. A.; Brown K. E.; Chavez D. E.; Hanson S. K.; Scharff R. J.; Tretiak S.; Veauthier J. M. Energetic Chromophores: Low-Energy Laser Initiation in Explosive Fe(II) Tetrazine Complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138 (13), 4685–4692. 10.1021/jacs.6b02155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang T.; Bu S.; Lu Z.; Kuang B.; Yi Z.; Xie Z.; Zhang C.; Li Y.; Zhang J. New Form of High Energy Primary Explosive: Dual Structure Composed of Ionic Salt-Based Coordination Polymers. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 457, 141267. 10.1016/j.cej.2022.141267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Cui M.; Yan Y.; Qian R.; Fan B.; Bian H.; Wen F.; Xu J.; Zheng F.; Guo G. Structure-Induced Energetic Coordination Compounds as Additives for Laser Initiation Primary Explosives. Adv. Mater. 2025, 37, 2414886. 10.1002/adma.202414886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang C.; Guo H.; Pang R.; Ren W.; Wei Y.; He A.; Zhang R.; Zhang L.; Chen J.; Wang Q.; Zang S. Core-Shell Hetero-Framework Derived Copper Azide Composites as Excellent Laser-Ignitable Primary Explosives. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32 (46), 2207524. 10.1002/adfm.202207524. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Deng H.; Wang L.; Tang D.; Zhang Y.; Zhang L. Review on the Laser-Induced Performance of Photothermal Materials for Ignition Application. Energy Mater. Front. 2021, 2 (3), 201–217. 10.1016/j.enmf.2021.08.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Fang X.; McLuckie W. G. Laser Ignitibility of Insensitive Secondary Explosive 1,1-Diamino-2,2-Dinitroethene (FOX-7). J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 285, 375–382. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Myers T. W.; Brown K. E.; Chavez D. E.; Scharff R. J.; Veauthier J. M. Laser Initiation of Fe(II) Complexes of 4-Nitro-Pyrazolyl Substituted Tetrazine Ligands. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56 (4), 2297–2303. 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b02998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lv R.; Pan P.; Luo Z.; Wang Y.; Liu Q.; Deng H.; Zhang Q. Single-Crystal-to-Single-Crystal MOF Encapsulation of Copper Azide to Prepare Laser-Sensitive Primary Explosives. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2024, 11 (23), 8235–8245. 10.1039/D4QI02170C. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Luo L.; Zhou H.; Liu Q.; Deng H.; Hao W.; Guo J.; Huang T.; Jin B.; Peng R. Assessment of the Thermal Stability, Catalytic Behavior, and Laser Ignitability of Energetic Coordination Polymer [Cu(HBTT)(H2O)]. Energy Mater. Front. 2021, 2 (3), 186–192. 10.1016/j.enmf.2021.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hu W.; Tang J.; Ju X.; Yi Z.; Yang H.; Xiao C.; Cheng G. An Efficient One-Step Reaction for the Preparation of Advanced Fused Bistetrazole-Based Primary Explosives. ACS Cent. Sci. 2023, 9 (4), 742–747. 10.1021/acscentsci.3c00219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang J.; Zhang Q.; Wang H.; Sun N.; Wang K. Research Progress of Energetic Coordination Complexes with Laser Ignition Performance. Energy Mater. Front. 2024, 10.1016/j.enmf.2024.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Li S. H.; Pang S. P.; Li X. T.; Yu Y. Z.; Zhao X. Q. Synthesis of New Tetrazene(N–NN–N)-Linked Bi(1,2,4-Triazole). Chin. Chem. Lett. 2007, 18 (10), 1176–1178. 10.1016/j.cclet.2007.08.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Li S.; Wang Y.; Qi C.; Zhao X.; Zhang J.; Zhang S.; Pang S. 3D Energetic Metal–Organic Frameworks: Synthesis and Properties of High Energy Materials. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52 (52), 14031–14035. 10.1002/anie.201307118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang T.; Zhang Q.; Deng H.; Shang L.; Chen D.; Li Y.; Zhu S.; Li H. Evolution of Oxidizing Inorganic Metal Salts: Ultrafast Laser Initiation Materials Based on Energetic Cationic Coordination Polymers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11 (44), 41523–41530. 10.1021/acsami.9b14353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hao W.; Zhang J.; Luo L.; Liu Q.; Deng H.; Shen J.; Peng R.; Jin B. Construction of Laser-Sensitive High-Energy Metal–Organic Frameworks Based on Hydroxyl-Functionalized Tetrazole. Cryst. Growth Des. 2022, 22 (9), 5300–5306. 10.1021/acs.cgd.2c00418. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Savchuk O. A.; Carvajal J. J.; Massons J.; Aguiló M.; Díaz F. Determination of Photothermal Conversion Efficiency of Graphene and Graphene Oxide through an Integrating Sphere Method. Carbon 2016, 103, 134–141. 10.1016/j.carbon.2016.02.075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Deng H.; Wang L.; Tang D.; Zhang Y.; Zhang L. Review on the Laser-induced Performance of Photothermal Materials for Ignition Application. Energy Mater. Front. 2021, 2 (3), 201–217. 10.1016/j.enmf.2021.08.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Frisch M. J.; Trucks G. W.; Schlegel H. B.; Scuseria G. E.; Robb M. A.; Cheeseman J. R.; Scalmani G.; Barone V.; Petersson G. A.; Nakatsuji H.; Li X.; Caricato M.; Marenich A. V.; Bloino J.; Janesko B. G.; Gomperts R.; Mennucci B.; Hratchian H. P.; Ortiz J. V.; Izmaylov A. F.; Sonnenberg J. L.; Williams-Young D.; Ding F.; Lipparini F.; Egidi F.; Goings J.; Peng B.; Petrone A.; Henderson T.; Ranasinghe D.; Zakrzewski V. G.; Gao J.; Rega N.; Zheng G.; Liang W.; Hada M.; Ehara M.; Toyota K.; Fukuda R.; Hasegawa J.; Ishida M.; Nakajima T.; Honda Y.; Kitao O.; Nakai H.; Vreven T.; Throssell K.; Montgomery J. A. Jr.; Peralta J. E.; Ogliaro F.; Bearpark M. J.; Heyd J. J.; Brothers E. N.; Kudin K. N.; Staroverov V. N.; Keith T. A.; Kobayashi R.; Normand J.; Raghavachari K.; Rendell A. P.; Burant J. C.; Iyengar S. S.; Tomasi J.; Cossi M.; Millam J. M.; Klene M.; Adamo C.; Cammi R.; Ochterski J. W.; Martin R. L.; Morokuma K.; Farkas O.; Foresman J. B.; Fox D. J.. Gaussian 16, Revision A. 03, Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gruhne M. S.; Lenz T.; Rösch M.; Lommel M.; Wurzenberger M. H. H.; Klapötke T. M.; Stierstorfer J. Nitratoethyl-5 H -Tetrazoles: Improving the Oxygen Balance through Application of Organic Nitrates in Energetic Coordination Compounds. Dalton Trans. 2021, 50 (31), 10811–10825. 10.1039/D1DT01898A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Feng Y.; Zhang J.; Cao W.; Zhang J.; Shreeve J. M. A Promising Perovskite Primary Explosive. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14 (1), 7765. 10.1038/s41467-023-43320-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

oc5c00022_si_001.pdf (726.1KB, pdf)
oc5c00022_si_002.cif (297KB, cif)
oc5c00022_si_003.cif (388.9KB, cif)
oc5c00022_si_004.cif (937.1KB, cif)

Articles from ACS Central Science are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES