Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 21;5(30):18941–18949. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c02171

Table 1. Comparison of the Synthesized MIL-100(Fe) N2 BET Isotherm Values with the Reported Ones.

sample synthesis process BET surface area (m2 g–1) pore volume (cm3 g–1) reference
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal without HF 1836 0.34 (16)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal with HF 1770 0.76 (32)
MIL-100(Fe) microven method 1350 0.86 (33)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal HF, HNO3 2350.20 - (34)
MIL-100(Fe)/CoFe2O4 hydrothermal 2109 0.9 (17)
MIL-100 room temperature 2028 0.07 (36)
MIL-100 reflux 1593 0.88 (37)
MIL-100 hydrothermal HF, HNO3 2546 - (38)
MIL-100 green synthesis 1940 0.56 (39)
MIL-100 large-scale hydrothermal 1800 1.15 (40)
MIL-100 hydrothermal 1976 - (41)
MIL-100 hydrothermal HNO3, HF 2042 0.90 (42)
MIL-100 hydrothermal NH4F 1626 - (43)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal HF 2007 0.77 (44)
Au/MIL-100(Fe) fabrication process 230 0.12 (45)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal 1598 - (46)
MIL-100(Fe) reflux HF, HNO3 1754 0.80 (47)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal DMSO 1215 0.61 (48)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal, HF 1917 1.00 (49)
MIL-100(Fe) hydrothermal without HF 2551 1.407 this work