Skip to main content
NCBI home page
RSC Advances logoLink to RSC Advances
. 2026 Jul 8;16(35):34373–34384. doi: 10.1039/d6ra01591c

MOF-derived carbon materials for efficient electromagnetic interference shielding

Jun Du a,b, Hengchao Sun b,✉, Yao Li a, Shuai Jiang b, Yiqiang Zhao a,✉
PMCID: PMC13344877  PMID: 42422296

Abstract

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding has attracted growing attention for broadband and high-frequency electronic systems. Metal–organic framework (MOF)-derived carbons have attracted considerable attention as EMI shielding materials owing to their tunable chemical composition, hierarchical porosity, heteroatom doping, and in situ embedded magnetic nanoparticles. In this review, we present a mechanism-oriented overview of MOF-derived carbon EMI shielding materials, focusing on reflection loss, absorption loss, and multiple internal reflections. The relationships between structure and electromagnetic parameters, such as electrical conductivity, complex permittivity, permeability, impedance matching, and attenuation capability, are systematically discussed. Structural engineering strategies are categorized into reflection-dominant shielding based on densified graphitized architectures and absorption-dominant shielding enabled by impedance matching and multi-loss synergy. Finally, the key challenges and future opportunities for developing lightweight and broadband EMI shielding materials are highlighted.

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding has attracted growing attention for broadband and high-frequency electronic systems.graphic file with name d6ra01591c-ga.jpg

1. Introduction

Current sensors are widely employed for accurate current measurement in applications such as power system monitoring, industrial automation, motor control, electric vehicle battery management systems, and intelligent energy management.1 However, in high-frequency or complex electronic systems, strong electromagnetic (EM) fields can induce noise and spurious signals, thus decreasing the accuracy and reliability of current sensors. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding has become indispensable, particularly under broadband and high-frequency operating conditions. Encapsulating EMI shielding materials around current sensors is an effective and straightforward strategy to attenuate incident EM waves and suppress interference.2

Since Faraday first demonstrated the use of metal shrouds to shield electric fields in 1839,3 diverse EMI shielding materials such as reflection and absorption-type have attracted significant attention.4–9 In general, EMI shielding effectiveness originates from the synergistic contributions of reflection, absorption, and multiple internal reflections, which is fundamentally governed by electrical conductivity, permittivity/permeability, interfacial characteristics, and microstructural features of EMI shielding materials.10–12 Conventional reflection-type shielding materials, including metals and highly conductive polymers, typically exhibit high electrical conductivity (generally above 103–104 S m−1), which leads to strong impedance mismatch at the air-material interface. However, such materials often suffer from secondary reflections, high density, corrosion, and high costs.13–16 In contrast, absorption-type shielding materials, such as moderately conductive polymers and magnetic ferrites, possess relatively lower conductivity (typically in the range of 10−1–103 S m−1), which facilitates impedance matching and enables electromagnetic wave to penetrate into the material, thus can be dissipated through multiple attenuation mechanisms. However, the relatively low electrical conductivity or inadequate impedance matching may limit the EMI shielding effectiveness (EMI SE), particularly under high-frequency broadband operating conditions.17–24 Consequently, developing lightweight and integration-friendly EMI shielding materials that simultaneously enable impedance matching, and multiple loss pathways has become a central theme in next-generation EMI shielding research.25–29

Carbon-based materials have attracted considerable attention for EMI shielding materials owing to their low density, high electrical conductivity, excellent mechanical strength, and outstanding chemical stability.30–33 Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have found widespread application as unique platforms for in situ constructing carbon-based EMI shielding materials due to their intrinsic high porosity, large surface area, tunable composition, and controllable morphology (Fig. 1a).34–36 During pyrolysis, the intrinsic structural characteristics of MOFs can be effectively inherited and transformed into hierarchical porous carbon with adjustable graphitization degree, high specific surface area, abundant defects, heteroatom doping, and in situ embedded metals/oxides nanoparticles, thereby creating rich heterogeneous interfaces (Fig. 1a).37 Such unique structural advantages enable MOFs-derived carbon materials to simultaneously regulate electrical conductivity, impedance matching, dielectric/magnetic losses, and electromagnetic attenuation performance.38 Specifically, the hierarchical porous structures and high specific surface areas facilitate multiple scattering/reflection and improve impedance matching, thereby enhancing electromagnetic wave penetration and attenuation. Meanwhile, the introduction of heteroatoms (N, P, S etc.) and defect during carbonization generates abundant dipoles to strengthen the dipolar polarization, while offering tunable electrical conductivity to optimize impedance matching.39,40 Notably, the metal species in MOFs can be converted into magnetic metals or metal oxides, which contributes to effective magnetic loss to enhance EM wave attenuation.41 Additionally, the derivatives possess abundant heterogeneous interfaces, which enhance interface polarization and facilitate the dissipation and conversion of EM wave.42 As a result, MOFs-derived carbon materials not only optimize impedance matching but also enhance absorption efficiency through multiple loss mechanisms, leading to a significant improvement in overall EMI SE.43 For example, MOFs-derived carbon materials, such as Co/C44,45 Fe/C,46,47 CoFe,48 show excellent EMI SE due to the combining of dielectric and magnetic loss. Despite numerous studies reporting high EMI SE values, a systematic understanding the relationship between structure and EMI shielding performance in MOF-derived carbons, and thereby elucidating the dominant attenuation mechanism, remains a significant challenge.49,50

Fig. 1. (a) Uniqueness of MOF-derived carbons for EMI shielding. (b) Schematic illustration of EMI shielding mechanisms.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Herein, we focus on a mechanism-oriented overview of MOFs-derived carbon materials for EMI shielding, including reflection loss and absorption loss, all of which contribute to enhancing the EMI SE. Particular attention is given on how structural features, such as graphitization degree, hierarchical porosity, heteroatom doping, magnetic nanoparticle incorporation, and interfacial density, governs the electrical conductivity, permittivity, permeability, and impedance matching, which clarifies the correlation between structural engineering strategies and electromagnetic parameter regulation. This review is organized into three main sections: (i) fundamental understanding of EMI shielding mechanisms, including dielectric loss, magnetic loss, impedance matching, and multiple internal reflections (Section 2); (ii) structural engineering strategies for MOFs-derived carbons toward reflection-dominant and absorption-dominant shielding (Section 3). Finally, the key challenges and future opportunities for developing lightweight, broadband, and multifunctional EMI shielding systems are identified.

2. EMI shielding mechanisms

The EMI shielding mechanisms includes reflection loss (SER), absorption loss (SEA) and multiple reflection loss (SEM) mechanisms (Fig. 1b). Surface reflection occurs primarily owing to impedance mismatch at the interface of air-material. Dielectric loss includes conduction loss, dipole polarization and interfacial polarization, which can be enhanced by introducing network structures to optimize impedance matching, and incorporating multiple heterogeneous interfaces to facilitate polarization relaxation. Conduction loss is promoted by ensuring sufficient electrical conductivity, enabling free electrons to dissipate EM energy via Joule heating. Dipole polarization originates from the presence of polarizable entities, such as Fe nanoparticles, which responds to alternating EM fields. Interfacial polarization benefits from large specific surface area.

Magnetic loss includes the eddy current loss, natural resonance, and exchange resonance, which results from magnetic response of components like Fe nanoparticles. In the gigahertz range, resonance and eddy current effects dominate and can be evaluated through complex permittivity. Natural resonance (<10 GHz) and exchange resonance (>10 GHz) contribute to EM wave attenuation and energy loss in 2–18 GHz, while magnetic eddy currents are present across the entire frequency band.

According to the Schelkunoffs theory, total EMI SE value (SET) includes SER, SEA, and SEM. The coefficients of transmission (T), reflection (R), and absorption (A) are derived from the measured S-parameters:T = |S21|2 = |S12|2R = |S11|2 = |S22|2A = 1 − T − R

The SER, SEA and SET are obtained using measured parameters:51SET = SER + SEA + SEMSER = −10 log(1 − R) = −10 log(1 − |S11|2)SEA = −10 log[T/(1 − R)] = −10 log[|S21|2/(1 − |S11|2)]

When SEA is greater than 10 dB, SEM can be ignored.23 A high SEA endows the material with outstanding SET, favoring environmentally friendly green EMI shielding. When the green shielding index (gs) exceeds 1, the absorption dominates over reflection, signifying the green EMI shielding. Both gs and SET serve as key parameters in designing high-performance, ecofriendly green EMI shielding materials. The higher gs and SET, the better environmental friendliness.52

SEA = (−8.68 tInline graphic) depends on the thickness, relative permittivity and permeability. The real permittivity (ε′) and permeability (µ′) reflect the ability of storing electric and magnetic field energy, whereas the imaginary components (ε″ = 1/πε0ρf and µ″) correspond to their respective energy dissipation capabilities. The dielectric loss (tan δe) and magnetic loss tangent (tan δm) are used to quantify the capacities of dielectric and magnetic losses. An increase in tan δe indicates enhanced dielectric loss capacity. When tan δe value exceed tan δm value, dielectric loss is the dominant attenuation mechanism (Table 1).

Table 1. EMI shielding performances for MOF derived carbon-based materials.

Materials Thickness (µm) Density (g cm−3) Frequency range (GHz) SE (dB) Electrical conductivity (S m−1) Ref.
CW/Fe 600 0.5 8.2–12.4 61.2 2280 58
Magnetic carbon/CNF-MXene/CNF composite films 100 68.9 8.2–12.4 68.9 372.3 59
Bulk graphite composites 740 — 8.2–12.4 68.3 7311 S cm−1 (in-plane); 5541 S cm−1 (out-of-plane) 61
CF/CNT cluster array composites 1380 — 2–18 >20 — 52
Co/C@CNF aerogel — 1.74 × 10−3 8.2–12.4 35.1 2.35 65
CNF@Co/C aerogels 4000 0.023 8.2–12.4 56.1 — 66
CoFe/C/HCF composites 900 0.28 8.5–12.4 30.7 33.7 68
CWF/EP/Co 120 0.27 8.2–12.4 56.3 105 69
Fe/CNTs co-decorated carbon matrix 1000 0.14 8.2–12.4 48 714.0 37
Fe3O4–C 120 — 8.2–12.4 28 37.8 43
Co/ZnO composite carbon aerogel 3000 4.89 × 10−3 8.2–12.4 46.5 1.3 63
Co/Ni@C/MXene/cellulose-derived carbon foams 3000 0.16 8.2–12.4 70.4 366.7 64
CNTs/MCF/Fe3O4 composites 3000 0.03 8.2–12.4 46.4 83.1 38
C-ZIF67/GNP double-layer composite film 100 — 8.2–12.4 50.5 12.9 49
BixSey@C/PEDOT:PSS composite film 41.9 2.6 8.2–12.4 45 153.5 42
Co/C@WC 1500 0.52 8.2–12.4 43.2 3247 70
Fe/Fe3C@C 1580 0.82 8.2–12.4 35 — 46
Polypyrrole/Ni-CAT/PI fiber paper-based composites — 3.85 × 10−4 8.2–12.4 41 >8 22
Co@C@carbon fabric 100 0.59 2–18 30.95 — 45
CoFe/CoCu-PCF 200 0.006 2–18 73.5 — 48
Open in a new tab

According to Debye relaxation theory, dielectric loss is described by [ε′ − (εs + ε∞)/2]2 + (ε″)2 = [(εs − ε∞)/2]2, where εs is static dielectric constant, and ε∞ denotes the dielectric constant at the high-frequency region.53 A semicircular Cole–Cole plot indicates polarization relaxation, while the appearance of long straight segments in the high-frequency region signifies conduction loss.54 When the eddy current coefficient (C0 = 2πµ0σd2/3) remains constant with increasing frequency, magnetic loss is mainly governed by eddy current effects.55 A sudden rise or the appearance of peaks in the C0–f curves at low frequencies indicates the occurrence of natural resonance, while a pronounced peak near 13.5 GHz signifies exchange resonance.

Impedance matching and attenuation constants influences the absorption performance. When a material's impedance approaches unity, external electromagnetic wave can enter efficiently the absorber. Meanwhile, a higher attenuation constant enables greater conversion and dissipation of the incoming EM wave into other energy forms.56

The attenuation constant (α) is derived from the following equation:2.

The normalized impedance matching (|Zin/Z0|) is calculated by the following equation:2.

When the ratio |Zin/Z0| approaches 1, impedance matching improves, allowing incident wave to penetrate effectively the absorber.57

3. Tuning structure of MOFs-derived carbon for excellent electromagnetic interference shielding

3.1. Reflection-dominated EMI shielding enabled by densification and graphitization

High graphitization degree and densified conductive networks primarily enhance electrical conductivity, leading to impedance mismatch and reflection-dominant shielding. Designing layered and Janus architectures offers an effective route to optimize impedance matching and electrical conductivity, thereby enhancing overall EMI shielding performance. The elevated electrical conductivity leads to a reflection-dominant shielding (R > A) due to impedance mismatch at the air/material interface, while additional attenuation originates from ohmic/conduction loss, multiple internal reflections/scattering, and polarization/magnetic losses.

CW/Fe was prepared by in situ growing Fe-MOF on wood, following by pressing and carbonization treatments, as shown in Fig. 2a.58 Increasing the carbonization temperature significantly enhances the graphitization degree, resulting in progressively improved electrical conductivity, thus markedly improving the EMI shielding performance of CW/Fe composites. Raman results reveal that the IG/ID ratio decreases from 1.10 to 0.99 as the carbonization temperature increases, indicating that the high carbonization temperature promotes the transformation of disordered carbon into graphitized carbon frameworks. The improved graphitization facilitates electron transport, thus markedly enhancing their electrical conductivity. Correspondingly, the electrical conductivity increases from 920 and 1050 to 2280 S m−1 for CW/Fe-800, CW/Fe-900, and CW/Fe-1000, respectively (Fig. 2b). The improved conductivity consequently strengthens conduction loss and electromagnetic wave reflection, leading to progressively enhanced EMI shielding performance. As a result, CW/Fe-1000 achieves an EMI SE of 61.2 dB with only 0.6 mm thickness (Fig. 2c). In addition, the R remains higher than the A and increases slightly with increasing carbonization temperature, while A shows a slight decrease (Fig. 2d). Results confirm the EMI shielding mechanism is dominated by reflection due to the high electrical conductivity and dense lamellar skeleton, which induces strong impedance mismatch at the air/material interface. Meanwhile, the saturation magnetization values also increase from 2.76 and 2.85 to 3.02 emu g−1 with increasing carbonization temperature, further contributing to EM attenuation through magnetic loss.

Fig. 2. (a) Schematics of the preparation, (b) electrical conductivities, (c) average SE values, EMI shielding efficiencies and (d) T, R and A values at 8.2–12.4 GHz of CW/Fe composites;58 this figure has been reproduced from ref. 58 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2025; (e) Janus-structured composite films; (f) schematic illustration of the EMI shielding mechanism for Janus-structured magnetic carbon/CNF-MXene/CNF composite films; (g) average EMI SE of magnetic carbon/CNF-MXene/CNF composite films.59 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 59 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2024.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

A Janus-structured magnetic carbon/CNF-MXene/CNF composite films were engineered by two-step vacuum-assisted filtration strategy (Fig. 2e).59 Magnetic carbon/CNF layer improves EM wave entry by regulating impedance mismatching and providing dielectric/magnetic losses, while the MXene/CNF layer supplies a highly conductive pathway for EM attenuation. The layered Janus configuration induces the absorption–reflection–reabsorption dissipation to enhance the EMI SE, as shown in Fig. 2f. The optimized film provides 68.86 dB EMI SE with a dominant absorption contribution of 58.82 dB at 0.1 mm thickness (Fig. 2g), demonstrating an excellent EMI shielding performance. Similarly, a multilayer gradient CMOF/SBR-CNT/SBR architecture also follows a Janus-like absorption–reflection–reabsorption mechanism to enhance EMI performance while maintaining flexibility.60

For ultrahigh EMI SE and wideband shielding, densified bulk graphitized architectures provide an efficient route to constructed the continuous electron-transport pathways and stacked lamellar structures. Bulk graphite composites constructed from densely stacked multilayer graphene nanosheets interconnected with Co species were fabricated using MOF-derived carbon nanocomposites as precursors, as shown in Fig. 3a.61 With the increased sintering temperature, the degree of crystallization of graphite increases from 93% to 97%, while the ID/IG ratio decreases from 0.42 to 0.05, indicating high temperature induced the formation of oriented and highly graphitized crystallites. Highly graphitized graphene layers form the conductive pathway to promote the electron migration via the basal plane. Meanwhile, the Co species, primarily composed of nanoparticles, single atoms, and clusters (Fig. 3b and c), act as binders to promote the interlayer adhesion among highly graphitized graphene layers, which facilitates the electron transport within the graphite nanosheets (Fig. 3d and e), resulting in high electrical conductivity in both in-plane (7311 S cm−1) and out-of-plane (5541 S cm−1) directions. Highly graphitized layered conductive network produces pronounced ohmic/conduction loss via rapid electron migration, thus converting incident EM energy into heat. The densely layered structure promotes multiple internal reflections or scattering to weaken the propagation ability of EM wave (Fig. 3f). In addition, Co single atoms and clusters contribute to dipolar polarization, while heterogeneous interface between Co nanoparticles and graphitic carbon induce space charges accumulation and strong interfacial polarization loss, as shown in Fig. 3g. Owing to the synergistic effects of ultrahigh conductivity and hierarchical structure, the bulk graphite composites show excellent EMI SE of 68.26, 53.52, and 32.45 dB in the X, Ku, and K bands, respectively, demonstrating strong potential for practical wideband protection (Fig. 3h). Notably, R values remain higher than A values (Fig. 3i), demonstrating a reflection-dominated shielding mechanism owing to the impedance mismatch between the bulk surface and free space.

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic illustration for the fabrication process of C/CoB; (b) HAADF-STEM image of Co; (c) wavelet transforms (WT), (d) HRTEM image, (e) microstructure, (f and g) schematic illustration of EMI shielding mechanism, (h) average SE values and (i) R, T, and A coefficients in the X-band, Ku-band, and K-band of C/CoB.61 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 61 with permission from Wiley, copyright 2025.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

A complementary strategy to boost EMI shielding performance is to increase interface density via multilayer stacking. In the layer-by-layer assembled CFP@rGO/Co/C architecture, increasing the number of stacked conductive layers introduces abundant heterogeneous interfaces and prolongs the propagation pathway of EM wave within the materials. With the increase of layer number, the interface density of CFP@rGO/Co/C increases, which results in more multiple reflections or scattering of incident EM wave. Although the conductivity decreases with increasing layer number due to the longer electron transport distance, the overall EMI shielding performance is significantly enhanced. Specifically, layer-by-layer assembled CFP@rGO/Co/C architecture with 7-layers demonstrates a remarkable EMI SE of 85.83 dB. The EMI SE can be tuned by controlling layer number, highlighting the role of dense interfacial networks in enhancing reflection/scattering and interfacial polarization.62 Meanwhile, the material exhibits excellent chemical durability, maintaining over 90% of its EMI SE after harsh environmental testing (strong acid, strong alkali, organic reagent). Densification/graphitization-enabled bulk architectures maximize EMI SE by combining ultrahigh conductivity with lamellar multiple reflections and Co-induced polarization/magnetic loss, offering a scalable pathway toward wideband shielding devices.

3.2. Absorption-dominated EMI shielding via impedance matching and multi-loss synergy

In contrast to reflection-dominant EMI shielding that may trigger secondary EM pollution, the absorption-dominant EMI shielding aims to increase the absorption-to-reflection ratio by simultaneously optimizing impedance matching and multiple attenuation pathways. Increasing effectively the ratio of EM absorption and reflection can solve the secondary reflection for carbon fibers (CFs). Interfacial and conductive-network regulation is a direct route to boost absorption, while maintaining sufficient conductivity. In CF/CNT cluster array composites prepared by pyrolysis of CF/ZIF-8/ZIF-67 (Fig. 4a and b), the density of Co-doped CNT clusters can be effectively controlled by adjusting the surface functional groups of CFs. CNT cluster arrays increase the absorption and attenuation of EM wave to improve impedance matching.52 As a result, CF/CNTs clusters show green EMI shielding performance with maximal larger gs value (>351), and gs >12, as shown in Fig. 4c. Meanwhile, the SET of CF/CNT clusters reaches over 20 dB due to the multi-resonance absorption.

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of the growth process of CNT cluster arrays on CF; (b) HRTEM of CF/CNTs cluster arrays; (c) gs of CF/CNT cluster arrays;52 this figure has been reproduced from ref. 52 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2023; (d) schematic representation of the EMI shielding mechanism of Co/C@CNF aerogel; (e) magnetic hysteresis loops, (f) electrical conductivities and densities, (g) dielectric loss, (h) magnetic loss, and (i) average SET, SEA and SER values in the X-band of the Co/C@CNF aerogels pyrolyzed at different temperatures.65 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 65 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2020.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Beyond 1D conductive networks, constructing ultralight porous frameworks with magnetic composites can further promote absorption-dominant EMI shielding through dielectric and magnetic synergistic losses.63,64 Co/C@cellulose nanofiber (CNF) aerogels were obtained via the carbonizing ZIF-67@CNF, as shown in Fig. 4d.65 The growth and crystalline of Co nanoparticle raise the saturation magnetization (Ms) values of Co/C@CNF to generate strong magnetic loss to dissipate EM wave (Fig. 4e). As pyrolysis temperature rises, the carbonization degree and three-dimensional conductivity ability are improved (Fig. 4f), contributing to the enhanced dielectric constant and conduction loss. Meanwhile, Co/C@CNF aerogel at the pyrolysis temperature of 900 °C (Co/C@CNF-900) has the highest tan δε (Fig. 4g), which origins form conduction loss, dipole and interfacial polarization relaxation. Furthermore, Co/C@CNF-900 shows the highest tan δµ (Fig. 4h), demonstrating the remarkable magnetic loss. Co/C@CNF-900 achieves an EMI SE of 35.1 dB at an ultralow density of 1.74 mg cm−3, corresponding to a maximum specific SE of 20 172.4 dB cm3 g−1 owing to the improved permittivity and magnetic response (Fig. 4i). The primary EMI shielding mechanism for Co/C@CNF aerogel is absorption.

In addition, ZIF-67/biocellulose-derived ultralight architectures further corroborate that constructing a continuous porous conductive network integrated with magnetic Co species is highly effective for absorption-enhanced shielding. The three-dimensional interconnected conductive network contains abundant free electrons, which facilitates rapid electron migration and thereby strengthens conduction loss. Meanwhile, the doped N heteroatom into carbon network can act as electron hopping center to generate electric dipoles, leading to dipole polarization relaxation and enhanced dielectric loss. The hierarchically porous structures provide large specific surface area and abundant active sites to create the interfacial polarization relaxation for facilitating multiple scattering and internal reflections of EM wave, thus resulting in multiple dielectric relaxation process. Furthermore, the introduction of Co increases complex permeability, and achieves the optimized magnetic loss capability derived from the natural response and exchange resonance. Benefiting from the excellent dielectric-magnetic synergistic effect, the CNF@Co/C aerogel delivers an EMI SE of 56.07 dB with an extremely low density of 0.023 g cm−3, while the average A reaches to 0.79, indicating a strong absorption-dominant attenuation. The outstanding EMI shielding performance is mainly attributed to the synergistic effects of conduction loss, dipolar/interfacial polarization relaxation, magnetic loss, and multiple scattering within hierarchical porous structure.66

Hollow architectures provide another effective lever to tune impedance matching and the absorption–reflection balance, especially when combined with conductive fibrous networks. Co-carbon hollow dodecahedron@carbon nanofiber (Co-CHD@CNF) composites (Fig. 5a–c) achieves EMI SE as high as 33.4 dB (ref. 67) (Fig. 5d). As the carbonization temperature and loading content increase, the SEM SE is enhanced. Absorption plays a major role at low loading content and high frequencies, whereas reflection becomes predominant as the loading content increases. The excellent EMI SE is attribute to as following: (i) with the carbonization temperature, ε′ and ε″ increase due to the conductive network, thus enhancing the electronic conductivity and conduction losses (Fig. 5e–i); (ii) for Fig. 5j and k, comparing the tan δε and tan δm, dielectric loss predominates in the overall electromagnetic attenuation, where uniformly distributed Co nanoparticles on the dodecahedral carbon framework generate abundant heterogeneous interfaces with graphitic layers and defects, inducing the asymmetric distribution of charges that enhances charge relaxation loss; (iii) the hollow structure improves the impedance matching at the absorption peak frequencies with |Zin| value closer to 1 (Fig. 5l), enabling efficient penetration of EM wave into the material; (iv) Co nanoparticles additionally induce magnetic losses through resonance effects and eddy current dissipation.

Fig. 5. (a) TEM images of Co-CHD@CNF; (b and c) HRTEM images of Co-CHD@CNF800; (d) average SET, (e) ε′, (f) ε″ and (j) tan δe curves of Co-CHD@CNF800 with different loading contents of 40, 50, and 60 wt%; (g) ε′, (h) ε″ and (k) tan δe curves of Co-CHD@CNF1000 with different loading contents of 40, 50, and 60 wt%; (i) conductivity of Co-CHD@CNF600, Co-CHD@CNF800, and Co-CHD@CNF1000; (l) dependence of RL peak frequency for Co-CHD@CNF800 with the loading content of 60 wt% on the 1/4 λ matching thickness and |Zin|.67 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 67 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2025.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

While aerogels and hollow fillers highlight ultralight porous architectures for absorption-dominant shielding, wearable practical applications require mechanically robust and conformable platforms that can be processed into large-area textiles. Accordingly, MOF-enabled magnetic nanoarchitectures on fabric substrates have emerged as an effective route to integrate impedance-matching regulation with multi-loss dissipation in real-world application.

CoFe/C/HCF composites with hierarchical pore structures were fabricated on cotton fabric via in situ growth of Co-MOF, etching/ion exchange, and high-temperature pyrolysis.68 Increasing pyrolysis temperature induces more curled CoFe-LDH-derived nanosheets and deposited CoFe alloy nanoparticles, which increases electronic transport, leading to enhanced electrical conduction (33.67 S m−1) and shielding efficiency (Fig. 6a). Correspondingly, CoFe/C/HCF composite obtained at 800 °C (0.28 g cm−3) achieves an average EMI SE of 30.7 dB and a specific SSE of 109.64 dB cm3 g−1 at 0.9 mm thickness in the X-band. Although the overall mechanism remains reflection-dominant with R ≈ 0.8, and A ≈ 0.2, absorption is still substantial with SEA accounting for 62.2% of SET. The saturation magnetization (Ms) increases from 4.61 to 9.77 to 11.76 emu g−1 with pyrolysis temperature in Fig. 6b, indicating enhanced magnetic responsiveness that can contribute to magnetic loss. Dielectric analysis shows that ε′ and ε″ decrease with frequency in Fig. 6c and d, indicating a conduction-dominant dielectric loss. As the synthesis temperature increases, electrical conduction is improved, resulting in elevated conductive loss (tan δe) in Fig. 6e. Meanwhile, ε′–ε″ Cole–Cole plots reveal fewer semicircles at 800 °C due to pore shrinkage or collapse, linking thermal evolution to polarization relaxation behavior. In addition, µ′ and µ″ exhibit multiple resonance peaks in Fig. 6f–h, and the C0 = µ″(µ′)−2f−1 value is not constant, suggesting that magnetic loss is predominantly attributed to eddy current and natural resonance. Overall, the excellent EMI SE originates form the synergistic attenuation via multiple scattering, conduction loss, interfacial/dipole polarization, natural and exchange resonance due to hierarchical pore conductive network and CoFe magnetic particles, as shown in Fig. 6i. Notably, CoFe/C nanosheets reduce reflection and promote absorption, offering a reflection–absorption cooperative shielding behavior for wearable and multifunctional protection (Fig. 6i).

Fig. 6. (a) Electrical conductivity and resistivity of the HCF-800 and CoFe/C/HCF-T composite; (b) magnetic hysteresis loops of CoFe/C/HCF-T composite fabric at room temperature; frequency dependence of (c) real and (d) imaginary part of permittivity, and (e) dielectric tangent loss of the HCF-800 and CoFe/C/HCFT composite, (f) real and (g) imaginary part of permeability, and (h) magnetic tangent loss of all CoFe/C/HCF-T composites. (i) EMI shielding mechanism of the CoFe/C/HCF.68 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 68 with permission from American Chemical Society, copyright 2022.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Ultrathin carbon composite film derived from MOF@wood (CWF/EP/Co) was fabricated by impregnating ultrathin wood veneer into a mixture of water–borne epoxy (EP) and Co/Zn-MOF (ZIF-67/8), followed by hot-pressing and carbonization,69 as shown in Fig. 7a. Benefiting from the EP-enabled densification and MOF-derived Co@C, CWF/EP/Co film shows a high electrical conductivity of 105 S cm−1 in Fig. 7b and delivers an EMI SE of 56.3 dB at 120 µm thickness in Fig. 7c, corresponding to an ultrahigh EMI shielding effectiveness (SSE/t) of 15 833.3 dB cm2 g−1. Notably, the introducing of Co@C nanoparticles effectively enhances the absorption of EM wave. For CWF/EP/Co film, the SET, SEA, and SER reach to 56.3, 52.4, and 3.9 dB, respectively. R declines to 0.6, accompanied by an increase in A to 0.4 in Fig. 7d. The overall shielding efficiency exceeds 99.999% at 120 µm thickness. The EMI shielding performance is governed by the synergistic attenuation mechanisms in Fig. 7e: (i) EP impregnation and hot-pressing increase the density (≈300 mg cm−3) and strengthen the adhesion of wood inner walls, which enhances the charge transport, conduction loss, and multiple interfacial reflections/scattering; (ii) Co@C nanoparticles promote the graphitization of carbon matrix to improve electrical conductivity (105 S cm−1) and conduction loss. While the magnetic Co introduces magnetic loss to convert EM energy into heat, and thus increasing the absorption loss of EM wave; (iii) abundant heterointerfaces provide the interfacial polarization and relaxation loss, optimizing impedance matching and absorption efficiency. Moreover, CWF/EP/Co shows superior flexibility and tensile strength (≈18.5 MPa), enabling its application in diverse EMI shielding scenarios. In a Tesla coil interference setup, the CWF/EP/Co immediately extinguishes the bulb in Fig. 7f. Considering its flexibility and large-area process ability, CWF/EP/Co film with 170 mm × 170 mm as a home wallpaper nearly eliminates the EM and electric field in Fig. 7g. All results demonstrate the effectively EMI shielding performance for large-area indoor/building electromagnetic protection. Notably, CWF/EP/Co also exhibits the rapid Joule heating (≈56 °C at 2.0 V and ≈ 110 °C at 5.0 V) with good electro-thermal stability in Fig. 7h, suggesting multifunctional shielding for smart surfaces, device enclosures, and energy-saving thermal regulation.

Fig. 7. (a) Thickness and densities of samples; (b) electrical conductivities of samples; (c) the average SET values and EMI shielding efficiencies of samples; (d) corresponding average R, A, and T values of samples; (e) schematic illustration of the EMI shielding mechanism of the CWF/EP/Co composite; (f) a small house model with CWF/EP/Co wallpaper and a simulated circuit diagram; (g) electric and magnetic field values of the house before and after the installation of the wallpaper. (h) Infrared images of CWF/EP/Co at various input voltages.69 This figure has been reproduced from ref. 69 with permission from Wiley, copyright 2024.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Absorption-dominant EMI shielding in MOF-derived carbon systems is effectively achieved by designing multi-loss mechanisms. Conductive-network regulation such as CNT clustering on CFs provides controllable electron transport and resonance losses. Porous aerogels and hollow architectures tailor effective permittivity and prolong propagation paths to promote absorption. MOF-derived magnetic composites and hetero-interfaces activate conduction loss, dipolar/interfacial polarization relaxation, and magnetic losses, which increases the absorption contribution and suppressing secondary reflection.

4. Conclusion and outlook

In summary, MOF-derived carbon materials have demonstrated great potential as EMI shielding materials owing to their structural tunability, hierarchical porosity, tunable electrical conductivity, and the ability to incorporate magnetic components. Through controlled carbonization and structural inheritance from MOF precursors, MOF-derived carbon materials can integrate multiple attenuation pathways such as conduction loss, dipolar and interfacial polarization relaxation, magnetic loss, and multiple internal reflections. Structural engineering, such as densification, graphitization, hierarchical pore construction, heteroatom doping, and magnetic nanoparticle incorporation, have been demonstrated to effectively regulate conductivity, polarization relaxation, magnetic response, and impedance matching. Densified and highly graphitized architectures exhibit reflection-dominant shielding owing to their ultrahigh conductivity and continuous electron transport pathways. In contrast, hierarchical porous and hollow structures, as well as magnetic composites, promote impedance matching and multi-loss dissipation, enabling absorption-dominant attenuation and reduced secondary reflection.

Despite significant advancements in improving EMI SE of MOFs-derived carbon, their widespread practical application remains limited by several critical challenges. The future development of MOF-derived carbon EMI shielding materials is schematically illustrated in Fig. 8. First, balancing conductivity and impedance matching remains challenge, as excessive graphitization results in reflection-dominant shielding and secondary electromagnetic pollution. Future efforts may focus on gradient conductivity architectures, multilayer or Janus configurations, and impedance-transition interfaces to achieve reflection–absorption cooperative attenuation.

Fig. 8. Future development of MOF-derived carbon materials for EMI shielding.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Second, the quantitative contribution of dielectric and magnetic losses is still insufficiently clarified. Advanced in situ electromagnetic characterization, combined with frequency-resolved permittivity/permeability analysis and electromagnetic simulations, could provide deeper insights into attenuation mechanism. In addition, scalable and cost-effective production requires the development of low-cost MOF precursors, rapid synthesis techniques, and energy-efficient thermal processing routes.

Third, data-driven and artificial intelligence-assisted materials design is anticipated to promote the advancement of high-performance EMI shielding materials before fabrication and experimental assessments. Machine learning algorithms combined with high-throughput simulations can establish structure-EMI shielding performance databases, enabling predictive optimization of conductivity, impedance matching, and attenuation performance of MOFs-derived carbon. Integrating machine-learning-guided design and high-throughput synthesis techniques may further facilitate the discovery of next-generation flexible films, aerogels, and textile-based composites, thereby reducing experimental trial-and-error and shortening development cycles.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

  1. Xie Y. Jiang D. Ding J. Liu Z. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2025;40:8093–8108. [Google Scholar]
  2. Li X. F. Chen C. Y. Li Z. Y. Yi P. Zou H. H. Deng G. Fang M. He J. Z. Sun X. Yu R. H. Shui J. L. Pan C. F. Liu X. F. Nano-Micro Lett. 2024;17:52. doi: 10.1007/s40820-024-01540-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Faraday M. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. 1839:1–12. doi: 10.1098/rstl.1839.0002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Wan S. J. Chen Y. Huang C. J. Huang Z. J. Liang C. Deng X. L. Cheng Q. F. Nature. 2024;634:1103–1110. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08067-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhou X. F. Min P. Liu Y. Jin M. Yu Z. Z. Zhang H. B. Science. 2024;385:1205–1210. doi: 10.1126/science.adp6581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gholipur R. Sci. Rep. 2024;14:30699. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79286-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Verma R. Thakur P. Chauhan A. Jasrotia R. Thakur A. Carbon. 2023;208:170–190. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2023.03.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhu W. J. Feng R. Y. Li Z. X. Yang W. Zhang C. Du S. X. Ding Z. Z. Cao Z. Y. Dong J. Y. Kong L. Y. Li Y. F. Carbon. 2025;242:120432. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120432. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nan Z. Wei W. Lin Z. H. Chang J. J. Hao Y. Nano-Micro Lett. 2023;15:172. doi: 10.1007/s40820-023-01122-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pandey M. Anju C. Praveen B. V. S. Dashan A. Verma R. K. Ramezanzadeh B. Composites, Part A. 2025;190:108682. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108682. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng Z. Wang R. F. Wang Y. Cao Y. S. Shen Y. Huang Y. Chen Y. S. Carbon. 2023;205:112–137. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2023.01.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang S. J. Zheng J. J. Zhao Z. W. Du S. X. Lan D. Gao Z. G. Wu G. L. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2026;36:e13762. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202513762. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Yang Q. Gao Y. Li T. Ma L. Qi Q. Yang T. Meng F. B. Carbon. 2024;226:119203. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2024.119203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu K. Zhang M. Zhou K. Y. Liu X. T. Xu T. Huang Z. H. Du H. S. Si C. L. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024;210:118148. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118148. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pu T. L. Li C. G. Yang L. Tang X. Z. Ruan Y. J. Guo T. RSC Adv. 2025;15:9430–9442. doi: 10.1039/D5RA00159E. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nath N. K. Parida R. Parida B. N. Das D. Parashar S. K. S. Nayak N. C. RSC Adv. 2026;16:3543–3553. doi: 10.1039/D5RA09486K. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. He M. K. Zhong X. Lu X. H. Hu J. W. Ruan K. P. Guo H. Zhang Y. L. Guo Y. Q. Gu J. W. Adv. Mater. 2024;36:2410186. doi: 10.1002/adma.202410186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cui R. P. Li Y. Zhang X. F. Duan Z. W. Zhao B. Wan C. L. Nat. Commun. 2025;16:5804. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-60707-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu A. Qiu H. Lu X. H. Guo H. Hu J. W. Liang C. B. He M. K. Yu Z. Zhang Y. L. Kong J. Gu J. W. Adv. Mater. 2025;37:2414085. doi: 10.1002/adma.202414085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ma X. F. Guo H. T. Zhang C. M. Chen D. H. Tian Z. W. Wang Y. F. Chen Y. M. Wang S. W. Han J. Q. Lou Z. C. Mei C. T. Jiang S. H. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2022;9:6305–6316. doi: 10.1039/D2QI01943D. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang S. Zhang S. Y. Zhu P. Y. Li J. Y. Li Y. F. Zhou C. L. Qiu Q. Y. Jing X. Y. Paik K. W. He P. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2025;335:103336. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2024.103336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang R. Q. Lv W. Z. Zhu R. F. Zhang D. Wang S. H. Long Z. Polym. Compos. 2022;43:8904–8913. doi: 10.1002/pc.27071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Yadav R. S. Kuritka I. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024;326:103137. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2024.103137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Suresha R. Sachidananda H. K. Shivamurthy B. George G. Parasuram S. RSC Adv. 2025;15:40252–40266. doi: 10.1039/D5RA06245D. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cui Z. R. Yang M. L. Han G. Y. Zhang H. Wang Y. Zhang Y. Li Z. Y. He J. Z. Yu R. H. Shui J. L. Liu X. F. Carbon. 2024;230:119627. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2024.119627. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Yu Y. Y. Liu X. B. Lu D. Q. Liu T. Li Y. S. Wu Z. P. Carbon. 2025;236:120093. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120093. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Chen J. Liu Y. L. Sun D. X. Qi X. D. Yang J. H. Wang Y. Chem. Eng. J. 2024;495:153586. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.153586. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Salunke P. S. Patil M. R. Alone K. S. Fulari A. V. Barote V. K. Mane M. L. Kadam R. H. Alone S. T. Shirsath S. E. Dhage V. N. RSC Adv. 2025;15:49900–49917. doi: 10.1039/D5RA08548A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gan Y. Xiong Y. Z. RSC Adv. 2025;15:9555–9568. doi: 10.1039/D4RA08030K. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ma Q. H. Wang Z. P. Zhang L. Y. Xiao B. Zhang L. Xiao C. Y. Zhang W. Y. Xia J. H. Liu Y. Yuan X. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2025;353:128503. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2024.128503. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Guo Z. X. Shen G. Z. Wang Z. P. Ma Q. H. Zhang L. Y. Xiao B. Yan Y. D. Zheng Y. L. Liu Y. Yuan X. Desalination. 2024;576:117329. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2024.117329. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Yang K. Liu X. J. Xu J. Gong Y. Shen S. L. Fan J. C. Zhang X. J. Xue Y. H. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. Int. 2024;34:102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2024.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. He L. F. Wang R. Deng M. Jin M. Wu Y. J. Long X. Y. RSC Adv. 2025;15:34406–34416. doi: 10.1039/D5RA05446J. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ma X. F. Pan J. J. Guo H. T. Wang J. W. Zhang C. M. Han J. Q. Lou Z. C. Ma C. X. Jiang S. H. Zhang K. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023;33:2213431. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202213431. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ye H. R. Wu Y. Jin X. Wu J. M. Gan L. Li J. Z. Cai L. P. Liu C. W. Xia C. L. Adv. Sci. 2024;11:2400074. doi: 10.1002/advs.202400074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Deeraj B. D. S. Jayan J. S. Raman A. Saritha A. Joseph K. Synth. Met. 2023;296:117354. doi: 10.1016/j.synthmet.2023.117354. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Yu C. C. Zhu S. P. Xing C. T. Pan X. C. Zuo X. B. Liu J. F. Chen M. L. Liu L. W. Tao G. H. Li Q. J. Alloys Compd. 2020;820:153108. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.153108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jin W. W. Wang W. K. Mazumdar S. Xu G. Z. Zhang Q. Q. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2023;304:127797. doi: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.127797. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wei K. X. Shi Y. Tan X. Shalash M. Ren J. N. Faheim A. A. Jia C. Huang R. Z. Sheng Y. Q. Guo Z. H. Ge S. B. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024;332:103271. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2024.103271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zheng S. S. Zhou K. K. Zhang X. X. Ren N. RSC Adv. 2025;15:30921–30968. doi: 10.1039/D5RA04436G. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shu J. C. Cao W. Q. Cao M. S. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021;31:2100470. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202100470. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Huang J. L. Qin J. Meng Q. F. Wang L. Du Y. Shen S. Z. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2023;639:158162. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.158162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Fei Y. Liang M. Chen Y. Zou H. W. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020;59:154–165. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b04416. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Li K. Han L. W. L. Wang X. M. Gao F. Zhang J. Y. Cheng J. Chem. Eng. J. 2023;455:140542. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.140542. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Bai W. H. Zhai J. Y. Zhou S. G. Cui C. Wang W. J. Ren E. H. Xiao H. Y. Zhou M. Zhang J. W. Cheng C. Guo R. H. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022;61:11825–11839. doi: 10.1021/acs.iecr.2c02021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Yang X. F. Zhou Y. Xing H. N. Wang H. P. Feng W. Feng J. Zhu X. H. Shi Z. H. Zong Y. Li X. H. Zheng X. L. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2022;55:145003. doi: 10.1088/1361-6463/ac3e29. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sridhar V. Lee I. Park H. Molecules. 2021;26:1018. doi: 10.3390/molecules26041018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Bai W. H. Zhai J. Y. Zhou S. G. Cui C. Wang W. J. Jiang S. Cheng C. Ren E. H. Xiao H. Y. Zhou M. Zhang J. W. Guo R. H. Carbon. 2022;199:96–109. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2022.07.059. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yuan M. Fei Y. Zhang H. R. Qiu B. W. Shen L. He X. R. Liang M. Zhou S. T. Chen Y. Zou H. W. Composites, Part B. 2022;233:109622. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2022.109622. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu N. N. Hu Q. Wei R. B. Mai X. M. Naik N. Pan D. Guo Z. H. Shi Z. J. Carbon. 2021;176:88–105. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2021.01.124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Luo Z. A. Han P. J. Yu B. K. Yan W. G. Chen X. X. Feng Y. L. Zheng H. M. Guo H. Cheng Z. K. He J. X. Carbon. 2024;226:119142. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2024.119142. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Gao X. S. Wang X. Cai J. N. Zhang Y. Q. Zhang J. Y. Bi S. Hou Z. L. Carbon. 2023;211:118083. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2023.118083. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Isari A. A. Ghaffarkhah A. Hashemi S. A. Wuttke S. Arjmand M. Adv. Mater. 2024;36:2310683. doi: 10.1002/adma.202310683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Panahi-Sarmad M. Samsami S. Ghaffarkhah A. Hashemi S. A. Ghasemi S. Amini M. Wuttke S. Rojas O. Tam K. C. Jiang F. Arjmand M. Ahmadijokani F. Kamkar M. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024;34:2304473. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202304473. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Shu R. W. Wu J. J. Yang X. H. Composites, Part A. 2023;173:107677. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shen S. Q. Long F. L. Wang L. Dong W. W. Peng B. Y. Wei M. J. Zhang W. M. Rehman S. U. Hu Y. F. Liang T. X. J. Alloys Compd. 2024;990:174422. doi: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2024.174422. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Huang X. Wu W. Jing D. D. Yang L. K. Guo H. Y. Wang L. T. Zhang W. Y. Pu F. F. Shao Z. W. J. Control. Release. 2022;343:107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.01.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rong Y. J. Zhou X. Jiang S. H. Zhu W. K. Wang H. W. Dang B. K. Sun Q. F. Ma X. F. Chem. Eng. J. 2025;503:158556. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.158556. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Guo Z. Z. Zhao Y. D. Luo P. E. Wang J. J. Pei L. Yu H. Song P. Ren F. Ren P. G. Chem. Eng. J. 2024;497:155707. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2024.155707. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Dehghani A. Sambyal P. Arjmand M. Carbon. 2025;238:120180. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2025.120180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Zhang Y. Q. Wang J. Z. Zhang Y. H. Zheng Q. Wang L. J. Jiang W. Adv. Sci. 2025;12:2416210. doi: 10.1002/advs.202416210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Liu Z. Liu C. H. Wang Y. Song M. P. Guo J. C. Wang W. Gao X. P. Carbon. 2024;217:118655. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2023.118655. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ma H. Wang Z. G. Zhang X. F. Yao J. F. Ceram. Int. 2023;49:20951–20959. doi: 10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.03.228. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ren F. Ma L. Li C. J. Wu T. Zhang J. L. Pei L. Jin Y. L. Sun Z. F. Guo Z. Z. Song P. Ren P. G. Carbohydr. Polym. 2025;356:123369. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2025.123369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Fei Y. Liang M. Yan L. W. Chen Y. Zou H. W. Chem. Eng. J. 2020;392:124815. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124815. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Fei Y. Liang M. Zhou T. Chen Y. Zou H. W. Carbon. 2020;167:575–584. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2020.06.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang Z. Z. Zheng Q. Yu M. J. Cao M. S. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2025;228:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jmst.2025.01.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Yu R. R. Pei X. Y. Sun L. W. Xia Y. H. Liu S. K. Liu D. Chen L. Tang Y. H. Xu Z. W. Liu L. S. Wang W. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2022;5:11665–11678. doi: 10.1021/acsanm.2c02642. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Ma X. F. Liu S. Y. Luo H. Guo H. T. Jiang S. H. Duan G. G. Zhang G. Y. Han J. Q. He S. J. Lu W. Zhang K. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024;34:2310126. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202310126. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Fang Y. J. Xiao L. F. Qian J. F. Ai X. P. Yang H. X. Cao Y. L. Nano Lett. 2014;14:3539–3543. doi: 10.1021/nl501152f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Articles from RSC Advances are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Chemistry

RESOURCES