Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Chemical Science logoLink to Chemical Science
. 2026 Sep 23. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1039/d6sc05766g

Hydrogen-bond-directed regulation of the stacking pattern in MOF adsorbents for efficient reversed C3H8/C3H6 separation

Yanan Wang a, Huiyin Lin a, Longsheng Yang a, Zhenxin Wang a, Haoran Li a, Jingwen Chen a,✉, Zhenyu Zhou a, Shixia Chen a, Shuguang Deng b, Jun Wang a,✉
PMCID: PMC13639584  PMID: 42840711

Abstract

The adsorptive separation of propylene (C3H6) and propane (C3H8) is critically important in the petroleum industry. Nevertheless, the development of C3H8-selective metal–organic framework adsorbents is challenging, with only preferential C3H8 adsorption under low-pressure conditions. The non-uniform distribution of inert adsorption sites results in poor separation performance across a wide pressure range. Herein, we regulate the stacking pattern via hydrogen bonds of interlayers to construct uniform and parallel π-electron surfaces. As a result, the optimized Co-MOF-H-bond exhibits preferential C3H8 adsorption across the 0–1.0 bar range with a high C3H8 adsorption capacity of 2.03 mmol g−1 at 298 K compared to Co-MOF-vdW (1.24 mmol g−1). Moreover, the adsorption selectivity for C3H8/C3H6 increases from 0.9 to 2.6. Dynamic breakthrough experiments demonstrate that polymer-grade C3H6 (>99.9%) can be directly obtained with a productivity of 12.2 L kg−1. Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations and density functional theory calculations reveal that the synergistic effect of uniform distribution of adsorption sites and superimposed van der Waals forces is responsible for the enhanced adsorption of C3H8.

This study proposes a hydrogen-bond-directed strategy to regulate MOF interlayer stacking, yielding Co-MOF-H-bond with uniform parallel π-electron surfaces for efficient reversed C3H8/C3H6 separation and direct C3H6 purification.graphic file with name d6sc05766g-ga.webp

Introduction

The separation of alkenes and alkanes is recognized as one of the “Seven Chemical Separations to Change the World.”1 The rapid growth in global propylene (C3H6) demand for the massive production of polypropylene has highlighted the importance of C3H6/C3H8 adsorption separation.2,3 Achieving energy-efficient separation is extremely challenging due to the nearly identical kinetic diameter difference (<0.4 Å) and similar chemical properties.4,5 Currently, the majority of reported adsorbents are C3H6-selective.6,7 Therefore, multiple adsorption–desorption cycles are required to obtain high-purity C3H6, which in turn increases energy consumption and operational complexity.8–10 In contrast, C3H8-selective adsorbents enable the one-step production of high-purity C3H6 from C3H6/C3H8 gas mixtures, thus offering a more energy-efficient process.11–13 Consequently, it is critical to develop advanced adsorbents with stronger affinity for the preferential adsorption of C3H8. However, in previously reported C3H8-selective adsorbents, C3H8 is often preferentially adsorbed at low pressures.14–17 As the pressure increases, the adsorption capacity of C3H6 surpasses that of C3H8, which limits the separation performance of C3H8-selective adsorbents under practical operating conditions.9,18

Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) provide an ideal platform for in-depth investigation of C3H6/C3H8 adsorptive separation due to their highly adjustable pore structure.19–23 Current strategies for C3H8-selective separation leverage the difference in the number of hydrogen atoms between C3H6 and C3H8, through the formation of hydrogen bonds24–26 and van der Waals forces.27,28 Specifically, nonpolar cavities formed by aromatic rings enable enhanced C3H8 recognition via reinforced C–H⋯π interactions. The stacking mode of aromatic rings directly influences the uniformity of the nonpolar environment within the pore channels.29 When aromatic rings are arranged in a non-coplanar, staggered, or disordered manner, it leads to a dispersed π-electron cloud and an uneven electrostatic potential distribution, thereby forming energetically heterogeneous sites.14,30 Although such non-uniform pore environments can still capture C3H8 through localized strong high-energy sites at low pressures, the weak interactions on the pore surfaces are insufficient to maintain the preferential adsorption of C3H8. As a result, C3H6 can gradually gain the adsorption advantage at relatively high pressures (Fig. 1a). Therefore, we propose that precisely regulating the stacking of aromatic rings to construct uniform π-electron-enriched pore channels is the key to overcoming the current bottleneck of C3H8-selective adsorbents.31–33 When benzene rings are arranged in a co-planar and continuous manner on both sides of the pore channels, the generated uniformly distributed π-electrons can synergistically enhance C–H⋯π interactions, which enable stable recognition and preferential adsorption of C3H8 across the entire pressure range (Fig. 1b).15,34,35

Fig. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of adsorption of C3H8/C3H6 by an uneven arrangement of aromatic motifs in pores; (b) the schematic diagram of preferential adsorption of C3H8 by a uniform arrangement of aromatic motifs in pores.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Herein, we demonstrate a hydrogen-bond-directed strategy to regulate the stacking pattern of interlayers, creating uniform channels with regularly arrayed aromatic rings and continuous π-enriched surfaces. The organic ligand (1,3-di(pyridin-4-yl)urea) in the optimized Co-MOF-H-bond contains both H-bond acceptors (–C Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019 O) and donors (–NH), and the second organic ligand (5-methylisophthalic acid) changes from a µ2-η1:η1-κ2 to a µ2-η1:η1-κ1 configuration, releasing an uncoordinated oxygen. As a result, compared to Co-MOF-vdW connected by van der Waals interactions, Co-MOF-H-bond exhibits enlarged pore sizes (from 2.0 × 3.0 Å2 to 3.0 × 4.0 Å2) and increased porosity (from 22.0% to 32.2%). Meanwhile, Co-MOF-H-bond achieves complete inverse adsorption of C3H8 over C3H6 under 0–1.0 bar. The IAST selectivity for C3H8/C3H6 (50/50) increases from 0.9 to 2.6, surpassing most reported C3H8-selective adsorbents. Dynamic breakthrough experiments demonstrate that the column filled with Co-MOF-H-bond can directly obtain polymer-grade C3H6 (>99.9%) with a high productivity of 12.2 L kg−1 from a C3H8/C3H6 (50/50, v/v) gas mixture. Furthermore, Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations and density functional theory calculations reveal that the synergistic effect of uniformly distributed adsorption sites and superimposed van der Waals forces is responsible for the enhanced C3H8 adsorption.

Results and discussion

Sample synthesis and characterization

Single crystals of Co-MOF-vdW (CCDC:2504693, Co2(5-Meipa)2(bipy)2·DMF, vdW = interlayer interactions of van der Waals forces) and Co-MOF-H-bond (CCDC: 2504694, Co(5-Meipa)(bpu) DMF, H-bond = interlayer interactions of H-bonds) were synthesized solvothermally from Co(NO3)2·6H2O, 4,4′-bipyridine (bipy) or 1,3-di(pyridin-4-yl)urea (bpu), and 5-methylisophthalic acid (5-Meipa) at 80 °C using a mixture of DMF/EtOH (v/v = 5 : 1, Fig. S1 and Table S1). The phase purity of both as-synthesized samples was verified by their powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) patterns (Fig. S2). Single-crystal X-ray diffraction (SCXRD) analyses reveal that each Co2+ ion adopts a six-coordinate octahedral geometry in Co-MOF-vdW (Fig. S3a). The equatorial plane is occupied by four O atoms originating from three 5-Meipa ligands, while the axial positions are coordinated by two N atoms from two bipy ligands. In contrast, the Co2+ ion is five-coordinate in Co-MOF-H-bond, with three O atoms from three 5-Meipa ligands in the equatorial positions and two N atoms from two bpu ligands occupying the axial sites (Fig. S3b). Two adjacent Co2+ ions are bridged by oxygen atoms from two 5-Meipa ligands to form one-dimensional (1D) {[Co(5-Meipa)]}n ribbons, which are further connected by bipy or bpu ligands into two-dimensional (2D) layers (Fig. S4). In Co-MOF-vdW, the adjacent 2D layers are alternately stacked via van der Waals interactions (Fig. 2a). The parallelly arranged benzene rings of interlayers with the same orientation facilitate the face-to-face π–π stacking interactions between adjacent isophthalic acid units (C–H⋯π: 3.06–3.47 Å, Fig. 2b). In contrast, the interlayers of Co-MOF-H-bond are connected by H-bonds, which is ascribed to the fact that the bpu ligand contains both H-bond acceptors (–C Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019 O) and donors (–NH) (Fig. 2c). Driven by the strong H-bond donor of the introduced urea group, the 5-Meipa ligand changes from a µ2-η1:η1-κ2 to a µ2-η1:η1-κ1 configuration, releasing an uncoordinated oxygen (Fig. 2d). The oxygen atom is capable of forming H-bonds with adjacent urea groups (N–H⋯O: 1.95–2.02 Å). The directional H-bonds “lock” the relative positions between layers, forcing the aromatic rings apart and thereby inhibiting π–π stacking (Fig. 2e and f). The FTIR spectrum further confirms the structural evolution; Co-MOF-H-bond exhibits an additional –C Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019 O vibration band at 1680 cm−1, confirming the presence of uncoordinated carboxylic acid groups (Fig. S5).36 The red shift of –N–H stretching of the urea group from 3500 cm−1 to 3300 cm−1 is direct evidence for the formation of H-bonds, which is consistent with the results of crystal structure analysis (Fig. S5b). Owing to the altered coordination mode, it drives a topological evolution from the 2D sql net in Co-MOF-vdW to a higher-connected and more robust tfz-d topology in Co-MOF-H-bond (Fig. 2g and S6).

Fig. 2. Structure diagrams of (a) Co-MOF-vdW and (e) Co-MOF-H-bond along the a-axis direction; (c) schematic diagram of the urea group in the bpu ligand (–C Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019 O acts as a H-bond acceptor and the –NH group acts as a H-bond donor); (d) variable coordination patterns of 5-Meipa in Co-MOF-vdW and Co-MOF-H-bond; (b and f) the interlayer interactions change from π–π interaction to H-bond-directed; (g) diagram of topological transformation of Co-MOF-vdW and Co-MOF-H-bond.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Gas adsorption and separation performance

The H-bond connection in the stacking mode leads to a significant transformation of the pore channels and their microenvironments. Co-MOF-vdW exhibits 1D channels with dimensions of 2.0 × 3.0 Å2 and a solvent-accessible void of 22.0%. In contrast, Co-MOF-H-bond possesses larger pores of 3.0 × 4.0 Å2 and a markedly increased void of 32.2% (Fig. 3a, b and S7). The N2 sorption isotherm at 77 K reveals that Co-MOF-H-bond exhibits a higher N2 uptake capacity and a characteristic Type I isotherm, indicating its microporous nature (Fig. S8a). The Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) specific surface area is calculated to be 228.2 m2 g−1, and the pore-size distribution shows two distinct peaks at 4.1 Å and 5.8 Å (Fig. S8b). Electrostatic potential (ESP) calculations performed on Co-MOF-vdW and Co-MOF-H-bond also reveal distinct pore environments. In Co-MOF-vdW, cross-sectional analysis reveals that the non-coplanar arrangement of benzene rings leads to a divergent negative electrostatic potential and dispersed interaction energy, thereby hindering cooperative C–H⋯π interactions between C3H8 and multiple benzene rings (Fig. 3c and S9a). In contrast, the uniform negative ESP on the pore walls of Co-MOF-H-bond originates from parallel benzene rings with a highly consistent directionality. As C3H8 slides along the channel, this continuous negative potential environment induces cooperative C–H⋯π interactions between the C–H bonds of C3H8 and multiple benzene rings (Fig. 3d and S9b).

Fig. 3. The schematic diagram for 1D pore channels in (a) Co-MOF-vdW and (b) Co-MOF-H-bond. ESP distribution of benzene rings on dotted surfaces in (c) Co-MOF-vdW and (d) Co-MOF-H-bond; (e) C3H6 and C3H8 adsorption isotherms of Co-MOF-vdW and Co-MOF-H-bond at 298 K; (f) comparison of C3H8 uptake ratios and IAST selectivity of C3H8/C3H6 with reported adsorbents for C3H8/C3H6 gas mixtures separation.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

The single-component adsorption isotherms of Co-MOF-vdW and Co-MOF-H-bond for C3H8 and C3H6 were measured at different temperatures (Fig. S10). At low pressures (0.002–0.05 bar), Co-MOF-vdW exhibits preferential adsorption of C3H8, and the adsorption advantage gradually shifts to C3H6 as the pressure increases to 0.053 bar (Fig. S11a). This phenomenon highlights the limitation of non-uniform pore channels in maintaining stable C3H8 selectivity over a wide pressure range. In contrast, the adsorption capacities of Co-MOF-H-bond for both C3H6 (1.83 mmol g−1) and C3H8 (2.03 mmol g−1) are higher than those of Co-MOF-vdW (C3H6: 1.35 mmol g−1 and C3H8: 1.24 mmol g−1, Fig. 3e). Notably, Co-MOF-H-bond maintains a consistently higher adsorption capacity for C3H8 over C3H6 across the pressure range of 0–1.0 bar at 298 K (Fig. S11b). The separation preference was further evaluated by ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST) calculations based on the dual-site Langmuir–Freundlich (DSLF) model (Fig. S12 and Table S2). The IAST selectivity for the C3H8/C3H6 (50/50) mixture was calculated to be 2.6 for Co-MOF-H-bond, significantly surpassing 0.9 for Co-MOF-vdW (Fig. S13). This value exceeds those of most previously reported benchmark materials for C3H8-selective adsorption (Fig. 3f and Table S3), such as PCP-IPA15 (2.48), FDMOF-2 (ref. 17) (2.18), and NUM-7 (ref. 14) (1.70), only surpassed by JNU-90 (ref. 37) (2.70) and Ni(ADC)(TED)0.5 (ref. 38) (6.40). Furthermore, Co-MOF-H-bond exhibited a C3H8/C3H6 uptake ratio of 1.11, which is higher than those of JNU-90 (ref. 37) (1.10), Ni(ADC)(TED)0.5 (ref. 38) (1.09), and NU-57 (ref. 39) (1.08) (Fig. S14). The origin of this anomalous and excellent selectivity lies in the distinct guest–host binding strengths. At low coverage, the isosteric heats of adsorption (Qst) of C3H8 and C3H6 on Co-MOF-H-bond are calculated to be 44.7 kJ mol−1 and 36.8 kJ mol−1, respectively (Table S4). Their difference (7.9 kJ mol−1) is larger than that of Co-MOF-vdW (4.4 kJ mol−1), indicating its stronger affinity and higher selectivity toward C3H8 (Fig. S15 and S16). Moreover, the time-dependent gas uptake profiles of C3H6 and C3H8 were recorded. The adsorption kinetic curves show rapid diffusion of all gases and no kinetic difference between C3H6 and C3H8 (Fig. S17).

Computational simulation studies

To further explore the host–guest interactions, the in situ Fourier transform infrared spectra of C3H6- and C3H8-loaded Co-MOF-H-bond were collected. The spectra revealed characteristic peaks for C3H6 (–C Created by potrace 1.16, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2019 C– at 1680–1620 cm−1) and C3H8 (C–H stretch at 3100–2800 cm−1) as the adsorption progressed (Fig. 4a and b).40 The observed redshift and broadening of the C–H stretching vibrations at ∼3100–2800 cm−1 are direct spectral evidence for the presence of C–H⋯π interactions, which are identified as the primary mechanism for C3H8 adsorption in Co-MOF-H-bond (Fig. S18).41

Fig. 4. In situ FTIR spectra of (a) C3H6 and (b) C3H8 adsorption in Co-MOF-H-bond; the DFT-calculated binding sites for (c) C3H8 and (d) C3H6 in Co-MOF-H-bond; 2D-fingerprint plots for (e) C3H8 and (f) C3H6 within Co-MOF-H-bond. The de (Å) and di (Å) represent the distances from the Hirshfeld surface to atoms outside and inside the surface, respectively. The atomic subscripts “in” and “out” represent atoms from guest molecules and the host Co-MOF-H-bond framework, respectively. (Inset: Hirshfeld surface mapped with dnorm for C3H6 and C3H8 within Co-MOF-H-bond in red, white and blue colors; the red color indicates shorter contacts, white represents contacts around van der Waals separation, and blue is for longer contacts).

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Furthermore, Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) and density functional theory (DFT) simulations were used to illustrate the adsorption behavior of the C3H8/C3H6 mixtures and their corresponding adsorption sites (Fig. 4 and S19). As for Co-MOF-vdW, DFT calculations show that both C3H6 and C3H8 preferentially locate at the pore center, forming similar C–H⋯H (C3H6: 2.60–2.93 Å and C3H8: 2.69–2.94 Å) and C–H⋯π (C3H6: 2.28–2.85 Å and C3H8: 2.23–2.91 Å) interactions with the framework (Fig. S18a and b). This suggests that Co-MOF-vdW exhibits no significant binding preference for C3H6 and C3H8. Hirshfeld surface analyses further confirm that the surfaces of both C3H6 and C3H8 display localized red spots (characteristic of strong interactions), and the density distributions of the fingerprint plots are nearly identical (Fig. S20–S22).42–44

In contrast, DFT calculations indicated that C3H8 forms multiple additional C–H⋯π (2.68–2.93 Å) interactions with adjacent aromatic rings and establishes a H-bond (C–H⋯N: 2.94 Å) with carbonyl groups, indicating a stronger adsorption affinity for C3H8 than for C3H6 (C–H⋯π: 2.87–2.99 Å) within Co-MOF-H-bond (Fig. 4c and d). The equimolar mixture of C3H6/C3H8 was further introduced into Co-MOF-H-bond. After reaching equilibrium, the distribution density of C3H8 was slightly higher than that of C3H6, which is consistent with the experimental adsorption isotherms (Fig. S23). In addition, Hirshfeld surface analysis demonstrated the pronounced and localized red spots (intense and specific interactions) for C3H8 within Co-MOF-H-bond (Fig. 4e). The corresponding 2D-fingerprint plots of de (Å) and di also showed the dense clustering (30.32%) of points in the shorter contact region (1.6–1.8 Å), reflecting the strong affinity of C3H8 (Fig. S24). In contrast, for C3H6, the surface exhibited predominantly white regions, indicating moderate interaction strength and less dense short-range contacts (Fig. 4f and S25).

Dynamic breakthrough experiments

To validate the practical separation performance of Co-MOF-H-bond for C3H8/C3H6 mixtures, the equimolar C3H8/C3H6 mixed gases were introduced into an adsorption column at a flow rate of 3 mL min−1 and room temperature. As shown in Fig. 5a, C3H8 and C3H6 are eluted almost simultaneously from the column, indicating that Co-MOF-vdW cannot efficiently separate C3H8/C3H6. As for Co-MOF-H-bond, C3H6 broke through the column at 46.5 min, while C3H8 was detected after 9.3 min, owing to its high C3H8/C3H6 selectivity (Fig. 5b). The initially eluted C3H6 exhibited a purity of >99.9% with a productivity of 12.2 L kg−1, which is higher than that of Co-MOF-vdW and also surpasses those of reported materials such as Zn-DMOF-DM17 (9.1 L kg−1), FDMOF-2 (ref. 17) (9.1 L kg−1), and JNU-60 (ref. 34) (6.02 L kg−1) (Fig. 5c).

Fig. 5. The dynamic breakthrough curves for C3H8/C3H6 (50/50, v/v) gas mixture on (a) Co-MOF-vdW and (b) Co-MOF-H-bond at a flow rate of 3.0 mL min−1; (c) comparison of C3H6 productivity of Co-MOF-H-bond with reported adsorbents for C3H8/C3H6 gas mixture; (d) breakthrough curves of C3H8/C3H6 (50/50, v/v) gas mixture for Co-MOF-H-bond at different flow rates; (e) cycling breakthrough curves of C3H8/C3H6 (50/50, v/v) gas mixture for Co-MOF-H-bond; (f) PXRD patterns (right) and C3H8 adsorption isotherms (left) of Co-MOF-H-bond after the breakthrough test.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Moreover, breakthrough experiments for C3H8/C3H6/He (2.5/47.5/50, v/v/v) confirmed the separation capability of Co-MOF-H-bond for lower C3H8 content, which obtained 99.9% pure C3H6 with a productivity of 11.6 L kg−1 (Fig. S26). Notably, at higher flow rates, the Co-MOF-H-bond packed column could still achieve direct production of high-purity C3H6. At a flow rate of 4 mL min−1, the elution times of C3H6 and C3H8 are 9.3 min and 15.5 min, respectively. When the flow rate is increased to 5 mL min−1, C3H6 elutes earlier at 6.3 min, and C3H8 elutes earlier at 9.3 min (Fig. 5d). Moreover, five successive cycles of breakthrough experiments demonstrated that the repeated regenerations have no observed impact on the adsorption capacity of Co-MOF-H-bond (Fig. 5e). In addition, the PXRD pattern of Co-MOF-H-bond showed no significant change after five cycles of C3H8 adsorption tests, indicating that it exhibits good cyclability (Fig. 5f). Moreover, Co-MOF-H-bond exhibited excellent chemical stability after immersion in various organic solvents and aqueous solution at pH values for 24 hours (Fig. S27). Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) showed that its framework did not decompose below 250 °C, and the observed weight loss could be ascribed to the release of uncoordinated DMF molecules (Fig. S28). These results suggest that Co-MOF-H-bond holds greater potential for industrial applications.

Conclusion

In summary, we proposed an H-bond directed strategy to transform Co-MOF-vdW into Co-MOF-H-bond, which integrates the optimal pore size with a highly regulated pore structure and periodically arrayed aromatic rings forming parallel π-electron surfaces. As a result, Co-MOF-H-bond exhibits a significant enhancement in the adsorption capacities for both C3H6 (1.83 mmol g−1) and C3H8 (2.03 mmol g−1) compared to Co-MOF-vdW for C3H6 (1.35 mmol g−1) and C3H8 (1.24 mmol g−1). The IAST selectivity for a C3H8/C3H6 (50/50) mixture was calculated to be 2.6 for Co-MOF-H-bond, significantly surpassing 0.9 for Co-MOF-vdW. Moreover, Co-MOF-H-bond reversed the conventional adsorption preference, exhibiting stable selectivity for C3H8 over the entire 0–1.0 bar pressure range. Dynamic breakthrough experiments demonstrated the direct production of polymer-grade C3H6 (>99.9%) with a productivity of 12.2 L kg−1. GCMC and DFT calculations revealed that the restructured pore environment creates multiple synergistic host–guest interactions, providing a stronger binding affinity for C3H8.

Author contributions

Yanan Wang: data curation, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing, investigation, conceptualization; Huiyin Lin: data curation, formal analysis; Longsheng Yang: validation; Zhenxin Wang: data curation; Haoran Li: data curation; Jingwen Chen: writing – review & editing, formal analysis, supervision; Zhenyu Zhou: writing – review & editing, data curation; Shixia Chen: visualization, data curation; Shuguang Deng: supervision, project administration; Jun Wang: writing – review & editing, resources, funding acquisition, supervision, project administration.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Material

SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s001
SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s002

Acknowledgments

The research work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 22308142) and the Key Technology Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province (20243BBG71016).

Data availability

CCDC 2504693 (Co-MOF-vdW) and 2504694 (Co-MOF-H-bond) contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.45a,b

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within this article and its supplementary information (SI). Source data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Supplementary information: additional graphics, PXRD diffractogram, FTIR spectra, dual site Langmuir–Freundlich isotherm model fitting, BET surface area calculations, IAST calculations of adsorption selectivities, and the calculations results. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d6sc05766g.

References

  1. Sholl D. S. Lively R. P. Seven chemical separations to change the world. Nature. 2016;532:435–437. doi: 10.1038/532435a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balogun M. L. Adamu S. Bakare I. A. Ba-Shammakh M. S. Hossain M. M. CO2 Assisted Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane to Propylene over Fluidizable MoO3/La2O3-γAl2O3 Catalysts. J. CO2 Util. 2020;42:101329. doi: 10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101329. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Martins V. F. D. Ribeiro A. M. Plaza M. G. Santos J. C. Loureiro J. M. Ferreira A. F. P. Rodrigues A. E. Gas-phase simulated moving bed: Propane/propylene separation on 13X zeolite. J. Chromatogr. A. 2015;1423:136–148. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.10.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Noonikara-Poyil A. Cui H. Wang B. Shi Y. Chen B. Dias H. V. R. Remarkably Selective Propylene–Propane Separation Using a Copper Scorpionate. Small. 2023;19:2206984. doi: 10.1002/smll.202206984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhang T. Lv J. J. Dang Y. Gao Z. Wang H. Cao J. W. Zhang G. H. Rao H. Pan F. P. Chen K. J. High-Throughput Computational Screening-Driven Porous Material Discovery for Benchmark Propylene/Propane Separation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025;35:2412457. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202412457. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Liu P. Li J. Yan F. Lian X. Xu J. Chen Y. Liu Y. Shi Q. Cui X. Sun L. B. Li J. Li L. Immobilization of Lewis Basic Sites into a Quasi-Molecular-Sieving Metal–Organic Framework for Enhanced C3H6/C3H8 Separation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024;34:2406664. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202406664. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu P. Chen K. Chen Y. Wang X. Yang J. Li L. Li J. Linker micro-regulation of a Hofmann-based metal–organic framework for efficient propylene/propane separation. Inorg. Chem. Front. 2022;9:1082–1090. doi: 10.1039/D1QI01562A. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen Y. Tu S. Fu P. Wu H. Wang X. Wu Y. Li Z. Xia Q. A cobalt-based metal–organic framework for efficient separation of propene from propane via electrostatic effect. AIChE J. 2022;68:e17730. doi: 10.1002/aic.17730. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wen H.-M. Liu M. Ling Y. Gu X.-W. Liu D. Yu C. Liang Y. Xie B. Li B. Hu J. A metal–organic framework based propylene nano-trap with dual functionalities for highly efficient propylene/propane separation. J. Mater. Chem. A. 2023;11:17821–17827. doi: 10.1039/D3TA02737F. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Liang B. Zhang X. Xie Y. Lin R.-B. Krishna R. Cui H. Li Z. Shi Y. Wu H. Zhou W. Chen B. An Ultramicroporous Metal–Organic Framework for High Sieving Separation of Propylene from Propane. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020;142:17795–17801. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c09466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. He C. Wang Y. Chen Y. Wang X. Yang J. Li L. Li J. Modification of the pore environment in UiO-type metal-organic framework toward boosting the separation of propane/propylene. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;403:126428. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.126428. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hong A. N. Yang H. Li T. Wang Y. Wang Y. Jia X. Zhou A. Kusumoputro E. Li J. Bu X. Feng P. Pore-Space Partition and Optimization for Propane-Selective High-Performance Propane/Propylene Separation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2021;13:52160–52166. doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c10391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Li X. Liu J. Zhou K. Ullah S. Wang H. Zou J. Thonhauser T. Li J. Tuning Metal–Organic Framework (MOF) Topology by Regulating Ligand and Secondary Building Unit (SBU) Geometry: Structures Built on 8-Connected M6 (M = Zr, Y) Clusters and a Flexible Tetracarboxylate for Propane-Selective Propane/Propylene Separation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022;144:21702–21709. doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c09487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Yang S.-Q. Sun F.-Z. Krishna R. Zhang Q. Zhou L. Zhang Y.-H. Hu T.-L. Propane-Trapping Ultramicroporous Metal–Organic Framework in the Low-Pressure Area toward the Purification of Propylene. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces. 2021;13:35990–35996. doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c09808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhang P. Yang L. Liu X. Wang J. Suo X. Chen L. Cui X. Xing H. Ultramicroporous material based parallel and extended paraffin nano-trap for benchmark olefin purification. Nat. Commun. 2022;13:4928. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32677-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang Y.-B. Lin Y.-X. Wang J.-X. Zhang X. Wu H. Zhou W. Chen B. Qian G. Li B. A. Microporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework with Alkynyl Sites for Highly Efficient Propane/Propylene Separation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2025;147:24403–24412. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5c02924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang Y. Li T. Li L. Lin R. B. Jia X. Chang Z. Wen H. M. Chen X. M. Li J. Construction of Fluorinated Propane-Trap in Metal–Organic Frameworks for Record Polymer-Grade Propylene Production under High Humidity Conditions. Adv. Mater. 2023;35:2207955. doi: 10.1002/adma.202207955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen J. Zheng Y. Wang X. Gao Y. Gao X. Zhang Y. Gao J. Yang X. Amine-functionalized ultramicroporous metal-organic framework for efficient propylene/propane separation. J. Solid State Chem. 2023;325:124138. doi: 10.1016/j.jssc.2023.124138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Yong J. Chen J. Chen Y. Cai Y. Gao J. Hofmann-type metal-organic frameworks with high open metal sites density for efficient propylene/propane separation. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2022;344:112233. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2022.112233. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang X. Chen F. Sun H. Yang L. Yang Q. Zhang Z. Yang Y. Ren Q. Bao Z. Quasi-Discrete Pore Engineering via Ligand Racemization in Metal–Organic Frameworks for Thermodynamic–Kinetic Synergistic Separation of Propylene and Propane. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146:617–626. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c10495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wan J. Zhou H. L. Hyeon-Deuk K. Chang I. Y. Huang Y. Krishna R. Duan J. Molecular Sieving of Propyne/Propylene by a Scalable Nanoporous Crystal with Confined Rotational Shutters. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2023;62:e202316792. doi: 10.1002/anie.202316792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lou X. Ke X. Cui M. Chen X. Qiu T. Chen J. Kinetic Effect Intensified Thermodynamic Separation of Ethane via Low-Cost but Effective Metal-Organic Frameworks for Ethylene Purification. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2026;36:e75139. doi: 10.1002/adfm.75139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang K. Zhang H. Jiang Y. Yang S. Cao H. Wang W. Wang Q. Cui P. Al-Enizi A. M. Nafady A. Ma S. Polar-Nonpolar Synergistic Incorporation in Metal-Organic Frameworks for Promoting Methane Separation From Natural Gas. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2026;36:e74758. doi: 10.1002/adfm.74758. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Li L. Lin R.-B. Krishna R. Li H. Xiang S. Wu H. Li J. Zhou W. Chen B. Ethane/ethylene separation in a metal-organic framework with iron-peroxo sites. Science. 2018;362:443–446. doi: 10.1126/science.aat0586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zeng H. Xie X.-J. Xie M. Huang Y.-L. Luo D. Wang T. Zhao Y. Lu W. Li D. Cage-Interconnected Metal–Organic Framework with Tailored Apertures for Efficient C2H6/C2H4 Separation under Humid Conditions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019;141:20390–20396. doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b10923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang L. Gao R. C. Liu X. Zhang B. Hou L. Wang Y. Y. Unique H2O Vortex in One New MOF Material Strengthening C3H6 Adsorption and Unprecedented Purification from C2H4/C3H8/C3H6 Mixtures. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025;35:2420927. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202420927. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gong W. Xie Y. Yamano A. Ito S. Reinheimer E. W. Dong J. Malliakas C. D. Proserpio D. M. Cui Y. Farha O. K. Rational Design and Reticulation of Infinite qbe Rod Secondary Building Units into Metal–Organic Frameworks through a Global Desymmetrization Approach for Inverse C3H8/C3H6 Separation. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2024;63:e202318475. doi: 10.1002/anie.202318475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin R.-B. Wu H. Li L. Tang X.-L. Li Z. Gao J. Cui H. Zhou W. Chen B. Boosting Ethane/Ethylene Separation within Isoreticular Ultramicroporous Metal–Organic Frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140:12940–12946. doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b07563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang L. Liu Z. Wang Y. Liu J. Li J. Yang J. Rational Design of a Multifunctional MOFs for Alkane-Selective Gas Separation. Adv. Sci. 2026;13:e16118. doi: 10.1002/advs.202516118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Chen Y. Wu H. Yu L. Tu S. Wu Y. Li Z. Xia Q. Separation of propylene and propane with pillar-layer metal–organic frameworks by exploiting thermodynamic-kinetic synergetic effect. Chem. Eng. J. 2022;431:133284. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.133284. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Du X.-S. Yan B.-J. Wang J.-Y. Xi X.-J. Wang Z.-Y. Zang S.-Q. Layer-sliding-driven crystal size and photoluminescence change in a novel SCC-MOF. Chem. Commun. 2018;54:5361–5364. doi: 10.1039/C8CC01559G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Biradha K. Hongo Y. Fujita M. Crystal-to-Crystal Sliding of 2D Coordination Layers Triggered by Guest Exchange. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002;41:3395–3398. doi: 10.1002/1521-3773(20020916)41:18<3395::AID-ANIE3395>3.0.CO;2-D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang S. M. Xu L. Zhang L. P. Li Y. T. Wang T. Yang Q. Y. Rational Design of a π-Electron Rich Co-MOF Enabling Benchmark C2H6/CH4 Selectivity in Natural Gas Purification. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025;35:2504251. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202504251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhong Y. Ye Z.-M. Sha F. Xie H. Wang X. Zhang C. Lv D. Chen Y. Li Z. Farha O. K. Reduced-Symmetry Ligand Constructed Y-Based Metal–Organic Framework for Inverse Propane/Propylene Separation. ACS Mater. Lett. 2024;6:5348–5353. doi: 10.1021/acsmaterialslett.4c01957. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu Y. Y. Wang J. W. Fan S. C. Xing C. C. Zhong Z. L. Yuan F. Yuan W. Y. Wang Y. Zhai Q. G. Maximizing the Density of π-Electron in Metal-Organic Frameworks for Benchmark Paraffin Separation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2025;35:2504614. doi: 10.1002/adfm.202504614. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondal P. P. Muthukumar D. Fathima S. K. P. Pillai R. S. Neogi S. Interpenetrated Robust Metal–Organic Framework with Urea-Functionality-Decked Pores for Selective and Ultrasensitive Detection of Antibiotics and Oxo-anions. Cryst. Growth Des. 2023;23:8342–8351. doi: 10.1021/acs.cgd.3c00979. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang Y. Jiang Z.-J. Wang D.-R. Lu W. Li D. Machine Learning-Assisted Discovery of Propane-Selective Metal–Organic Frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024;146:6955–6961. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c14610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Chang M. Ren J. Wei Y. Wang J.-X. Yang Q. Liu D. Chen J.-F. A robust metal-organic framework with guest molecules induced splint-like pore confinement to construct propane-trap for propylene purification. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021;279:119656. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119656. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang C. Formalik F. Lv D. Sha F. Kirlikovali K. O. Wang X. Tang X. Su S. Xie H. Chen Y. Li Z. Snurr R. Q. Farha O. K. Lowering Linker Symmetry to Access Zirconium Metal–Organic Frameworks for Inverse Alkane/Alkene Separations. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2025;64:e202424260. doi: 10.1002/anie.202424260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Chang M. Wang Z. Wang R. Liu M. Wang Y. Liu D. Cost-Effective Scalable Production of Ultra-Stable Alkyl MOF Featuring Single-Molecule C3H6 Trap for Record Capture of Trace C3H6 from C2H4. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2025;64:e202515496. doi: 10.1002/anie.202515496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Yi M. Wang S. Li S. Zhang S. Liu Y. Zhang L. You Z. Liu X. Li L. Wang J. Wang H. Zhao Q. Li B. Bu X.-H. Superhydrophobic Molecular Selector for Efficient Separation of Ethane over Ethylene under Dry and Humid Conditions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2025;147:13592–13600. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5c00658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lu T. Chen F. Multiwfn: A multifunctional wavefunction analyzer. J. Comput. Chem. 2012;33:580–592. doi: 10.1002/jcc.22885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lu T. A comprehensive electron wavefunction analysis toolbox for chemists, Multiwfn. J. Chem. Phys. 2024;161:082503. doi: 10.1063/5.0216272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Humphrey W. Dalke A. Schulten K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graphics. 1996;14:33–38. doi: 10.1016/0263-7855(96)00018-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. (a) CCDC 2504693: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2q2bkq [DOI]; (b) CCDC 2504694: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2q2blr [DOI]

Associated Data

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

Data Citations

  1. (a) CCDC 2504693: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2q2bkq [DOI]
  2. (b) CCDC 2504694: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination, 2026, 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc2q2blr [DOI]

Supplementary Materials

SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s001
SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s001.pdf (3.3MB, pdf)
SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s002
SC-OLF-D6SC05766G-s002.cif (58.4KB, cif)

Data Availability Statement

CCDC 2504693 (Co-MOF-vdW) and 2504694 (Co-MOF-H-bond) contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper.45a,b

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within this article and its supplementary information (SI). Source data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Supplementary information: additional graphics, PXRD diffractogram, FTIR spectra, dual site Langmuir–Freundlich isotherm model fitting, BET surface area calculations, IAST calculations of adsorption selectivities, and the calculations results. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d6sc05766g.

Articles from Chemical Science are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Chemistry

RESOURCES