Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2021 Aug 9;60(37):20383–20390. doi: 10.1002/anie.202106263

Benchmark Acetylene Binding Affinity and Separation through Induced Fit in a Flexible Hybrid Ultramicroporous Material

Mohana Shivanna 1,2, Ken‐ichi Otake 2, Bai‐Qiao Song 1, Lisa M van Wyk 3, Qing‐Yuan Yang 1, Naveen Kumar 1, Wesley K Feldmann 3, Tony Pham 4,5, Shanelle Suepaul 4, Brian Space 4, Leonard J Barbour 3, Susumu Kitagawa 2,, Michael J Zaworotko 1,
PMCID: PMC8457195  PMID: 34250717

Abstract

Structural changes at the active site of an enzyme induced by binding to a substrate molecule can result in enhanced activity in biological systems. Herein, we report that the new hybrid ultramicroporous material sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn exhibits an induced fit binding mechanism when exposed to acetylene, C2H2. The resulting phase change affords exceptionally strong C2H2 binding that in turn enables highly selective C2H2/C2H4 and C2H2/CO2 separation demonstrated by dynamic breakthrough experiments. sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn was observed to exhibit at least four phases: as‐synthesised (α); activated (β); and C2H2 induced phases (β′ and γ). sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn‐β exhibited strong affinity for C2H2 at ambient conditions as demonstrated by benchmark isosteric heat of adsorption (Q st) of 67.5 kJ mol−1 validated through in situ pressure gradient differential scanning calorimetry (PG‐DSC). Further, in situ characterisation and DFT calculations provide insight into the mechanism of the C2H2 induced fit transformation, binding positions and the nature of host‐guest and guest‐guest interactions.

Keywords: coordination polymers, C2H2/C2H4 and C2H2/CO2 separation, induced fit mechanism, physisorption, ultramicroporous materials


We introduce the new flexible physisorbent sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn and reveal that it exhibits an induced fit structural change that results in extraordinary affinity for C2H2 that in turn enables high selectivity for separation of C2H2 over C2H4 and CO2.

graphic file with name ANIE-60-20383-g007.jpg

Introduction

The induced fit mechanism is a well‐known process for the formation of enzyme‐substrate complexes that enhance activity.[1] In this phenomenon, the enzyme active site undergoes a structural transformation to optimize the binding site for a specific substrate (Scheme 1 a). Induced fit plays an important role in biological processes such as signal transduction, signal amplification and others.[2] Whereas induced fit is prominent in enzymatic reactions, it is rare and poorly understood in the context of crystalline porous materials, where such behaviour could result in enhanced selectivity to enable challenging gas capture or purification processes.[3] Metal organic materials (MOMs)[4] such as metal organic frameworks (MOFs),[5] porous coordination polymers (PCPs)[6] and hybrid ultramicroporous materials (HUMs)[7] are typically sustained by linker ligands and metal‐based nodes and can overcome the limitations of traditional classes of porous materials such as zeolites.[8] Such porous coordination networks offer a high degree modularity which makes them amenable to design from first principles using crystal engineering strategies.[9] A small subset of MOFs and HUMs can undergo structural transformation upon exposure to stimuli[10] such as heat, gas/vapor or light could therefore be relevant for application in storage,[11] separations,[12] catalysis,[13] molecular sensor[14] and drug release.[15] There are at least 150 MOFs[16] that have been shown to exhibit flexibility among the >75 000 reported MOFs.[17] The origin of flexibility has been well studied and is attributed to various mechanism such as breathing, swelling, switching, shape memory and others.[10a, 10b, 18] To our knowledge, there are only five previous reports of induced fit driven by gas sorption.[19]

Scheme 1.

Scheme 1

Induced fit transformations. a) Enzyme active sites can undergo structural changes to better fit a substrate and enhance activity. b) A stimulus responsive ultramicroporous physisorbent that exhibits a structural transformation induced by a sorbate would be expected to offer enhanced binding energy and in turn enable better separations.

For example, Rosseinsky et al.[19b] reported a flexible framework, (ZnGGH‐1⋅DMF‐H2O) (GGH=tripeptide glycine‐glycine‐l‐histidine) which changes conformation to adapt to the shape and size of specific guest thanks to the flexible skeleton of the organic linker. A CPL network, [Cu2(pzdc)2(bpy)] (pzdc=pyrazine‐2,3‐dicarboxylate and bpy=4,4‐bipyridine), was found to contract upon heating the as synthesised phase; further contraction occurred with benzene occupying channels. This induced fit is attributed to isomerisation from square pyramidal to square planar geometry.[19d] Similarly, a flexible chemisorbent, [Zn3(OH)2(btca)2] (H2btca=benzotriazole‐5‐carboxylic acid), contracted after activation from its as synthesised phase and further contraction occurred following C2H2 adsorption with binding affinity of 47.6 kJ mol−1.[19c] The mechanism of contraction was driven by the binding affinity of C2H2 towards unsaturated Zn centres and self‐adaptive shrinkage of the framework. Whereas physisorbents can exhibit C2H2 induced structural transformations,[20] flexible physisorbents that offer induced fit mechanisms for C2H2 (Scheme 1 b) have not yet been reported. We consider this to be a desirable objective since high binding energy, low regeneration energy and good separation performance would be anticipated from such sorbents.

Among commodity gases, high purity C2H2 is the starting material for industrially relevant products such as plastics, vinyl compounds, acrylic derivatives and α‐ethyl alcohols.[20f] Currently, C2H2 is produced by the partial combustion of methane or through the cracking of hydrocarbons. However, this process generates impurities such as C2H4 and CO2. The similar quadruple moments and kinetic diameters (Table S1) of these gases makes the process of selective capture of one gas (for example, C2H2) from the other gases difficult and energy intensive. In this context, rigid MOFs with high C2H2 affinity have been reported with binding driven by open metal sites,[21] hydrogen bonding,[22] synergistic effect of open metal sites and electronegative sites[23] or acidic/basic functional groups.[24] HUMs[7a] have also demonstrated high C2H2 binding affinity over other gases such as C2H4,[25] CO2 [26] and other hydrocarbon mixtures.[27] For example, Li et al. achieved benchmark C2H2 selectivity over C2H4 using SIFSIX‐14‐Cu‐i.[25] The high performance exhibited by HUMs has been attributed to ultramicropores (<0.7 nm), strong electrostatic interactions with the inorganic “pillars” (SiF6 2− or SIFSIX) and pore structure. Overall, the current C2H2 benchmark for isosteric heat of adsorption (Q st), ≈60 kJ mol−1 at low loading, rests with the rigid ultramicroporous MOF known as NKMOF‐1‐Ni.[28] The binding affinity of a sorbent can provide a guide to its separation performance for a specific gas in a mixture of gases. Flexible physisorbents which exhibits induced fit have the advantage over chemisorbents. This is because flexible framework can recognise only specific guest molecule vs. different multiple guest and then adopt new configuration from their original structure especially those designed with special binding sites (for example, originating from inorganic pillar) and flexible skeleton from ligand. That newly transformed structure induces tight cavity for that specific guest, combining strong interactions lead to extraordinary guest binding affinity with low regeneration energy. Herein we report that the use of an inorganic pillar, SiF6 2− and a flexible dipyridyl linker ligand affords a new flexible physisorbent [Zn(SiF6)(1,2‐bis(4‐pyridyl)ethane)2]n, which exhibits induced fit in single crystal to single (SC‐SC) fashion when exposed to C2H2 under ambient conditions. In‐situ X‐ray diffraction was used to study the reversibility of the phase transformations and the switching mechanisms driven by C2H2 and CO2 loading at 195 K. As revealed herein, the observed SC‐SC transformations are driven by host‐guest interactions with the inorganic pillar and therefore differ from the previously reported examples of induced fit binding (Table S2).

Results and Discussion

[Zn(SiF6)(bpe)2]n exists as a 3D pcu or 2D sql network when prepared from 1,2‐bis(4‐pyridyl) ethane and ZnSiF6 2− using different solvent combinations. Chloroform and methanol resulted in the pcu variant (Figure S1). Single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction (SC‐XRD) revealed that the organic linker adopts the trans‐ conformation and orthorhombic space group Ibam (Table S3). Single crystals were unstable to loss of guest, making it a 1st generation PCP.[6] When pure methanol was used, single crystals of the sql variant were harvested. Crystals were observed to be stable when removed from other liquor and SC‐XRD revealed that bpe linkers are in cis‐ conformation and the monoclinic space group C2/c was adopted (Table S3). The ability of bpe to exhibit conformational flexibility is long known.[29] The sql phase (sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn‐α; Figure 1) exhibits 18 % guest‐accessible volume which is occupied by methanol molecules. The void space was calculated with a probe radius of 1.2 Å and a grid spacing of 0.7 Å. Single crystals of the activated or β phase (sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn‐β) were obtained by heating the α phase at 353 K under vacuum for 12 h.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Schematic representation of the synthesis and structural transformations of sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn. a) Structure of the organic linker (1,2‐bis(4‐pyridyl) ethane) and inorganic components (Zn2+ and SIFSIX pillar) that formed a 2D net with sql topology that exhibits channels. b) The as‐synthesised phase, α, underwent reversible transformation to the β phase upon removal/insertion of MeOH or CO2. C2H2 sorption induced another phase, β′⊃2C2H2, which accommodated 2C2H2 molecules. β⊃2C2H2 can adsorb two additional C2H2 molecules within the layers at 195 K by a switching transformation from β⊃2C2H2 to γ⊃4C2H2. Upon desorption, reversible transformation from γ⊃4C2H2 and β⊃2C2H2 to β occurred at 195 K and 298 K, respectively.

The β phase transformed to the triclinic space group P‐1 with a density of 1.351 g cm−3 well below that of the α phase (1.523 g cm−3). The crystal structures of the β phase revealed that its 2D networks are distorted and the guest‐accessible volume is reduced to 14 % (Figures 2 a and b). The phase transformation from α to β was also studied by in situ variable temperature powder X‐ray diffraction (PXRD) at intervals of 10 °C every 10 min, which revealed that transformation occurred at 333 K (Figure S2). This phase change was also observed in differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurements as a small exothermic peak occurred at 333 K (Figure S3). Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) indicated that both the α and β phases were stable up to 463 K with ≈13 % weight loss for α, which corresponds to 5 MeOH molecules per unit cell that include one additional methanol from the surface of crystals (Figure S4).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The phases of sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn studied by in situ single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction. a) The as‐synthesized α phase exhibits 1D channels occupied by 5 methanol molecules per unit cell as determined by SCXRD and TGA. b) The α phase underwent transformation to the β phase upon heating at 353 K. This transformation was investigated by in situ variable temperature PXRD and in situ SC‐XRD. c) and d) In‐situ SCXRD measurements at 298 and 195 K enabled determination of the C2H2 binding sites in the β′ and γ crystal structures, respectively, which revealed a single binding site (site‐I) in β′2C2H2 and multiple binding sites in γ4C2H2. The respective crystal photomicrographs of SC‐SC transformations are presented in (a), (b) and (c).

To study the porosity of sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn, gas sorption isotherms were measured for CO2 at 195 K, C2H2 at 195 K, and N2 at 77 K. Prior to gas sorption measurements, the α phase was activated at 353 K under vacuum for 12 h. A stepped isotherm was observed for C2H2 adsorption at 195 K (Figure S8). A plateau from 0 to 40 cm3 g−1 (2 guests per unit cell) was observed upon increasing the pressure up to p/p 0=0.01, followed by a sudden increase in uptake to 82 cm3 g−1 (4 guests per unit cell), which is the saturated uptake at p/p 0=1. In the case of CO2 adsorption (Figure S9), a slight inflection was observed up to p/p 0=0.008 in the uptake range from 30 to 65 cm3 g−1. Saturated CO2 uptake (80 cm3 g−1, 4 CO2 per unit cell) was the same as that for C2H2 at p/p 0=1. In both isotherms, desorption matches the adsorption profile and the PXRD pattern after desorption indicates that the β phase is recovered (Figure S11). N2 sorption revealed a typical type‐I isotherm with saturated uptake limited to only 38 cm3 g−1 at p/p 0=1, which is approximately equal to 2 guests per unit cell (Figure S10).

To gain insight into the mechanism behind the stepped isotherm, in situ coincidence PXRD measurements during C2H2 and CO2 adsorption at 195 K were conducted. A few selected adsorption and desorption points in each sorption profile in which significant phase change occurred are plotted in Figure 3. Diffraction patterns from point 6 to 87 are shown for C2H2 at 195 K in Figure 3 a. C2H2 sorption revealed that the β phase remains to point 44 with an uptake of 40 cm3 g−1. Further increase in pressure afforded new peaks after the step that we attribute to the structural transformation from β to a new more open phase, γ (sql‐SISIX‐bpe‐Zn‐γ). The fully loaded γ phase remains unchanged during further adsorption (from point 46 to 55) and desorption (from point 78 to 87). Following the desorption process, we observed that γ returned to β as revealed by Figure 3 a. With respect to in situ CO2 sorption, the diffraction patterns indicated that transformation occurs from β to α in a reversible manner. Selected patterns from point 1 to 77 are plotted in Figure 3 b. At point 12, new PXRD pattern emerged, which remained unchanged to p/p 0=1 and after desorption. The PXRD pattern at fully loaded point 33 matches the α phase. Finally, after desorption, α returns to β as shown in Figure 3 b. In‐situ PXRD patterns were also measured during N2 sorption at 77 K (Figure 3 c). The PXRD patterns indicate that N2 does not induce a phase change during sorption, presumably because of its weaker interactions with the sorbent. This can also be inferred from the uptake reaching 38 cm3 g−1 at p/p 0=1, which is half of the uptake vs. C2H2 and CO2. To identify guest binding sites upon C2H2 sorption in situ gas loading experiments were conducted on single crystals. A suitable single crystal was selected for these studies and activated in situ at 80 °C for 2 hrs under vacuum. C2H2 was dosed into the capillary when the temperature had reached 298 K. Cooling to 195 K revealed that transformation from β to γ occurred within 30 mins, as confirmed by a change in unit cell parameters. SCXRD analysis revealed that the γ phase retained the same space group as the β phase and that there are four distinct C2H2 binding sites (Table S3 and Figure S15). The occupancy of each C2H2 site was refined at 0.5, which we attribute to slow loading kinetics. The calculated PXRD pattern for the γ phase matches the in situ PXRD pattern at adsorption point 55 as revealed by Figure 3 a and Figure S14. The transformation from the β to γ phase resulted in reduced quality data vs. that obtained for the β phase at 298 K (R=16 %, wR2=45 %).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

In‐situ coincidence PXRD. Numbers in adsorption/desorption traces correspond to numbering of the PXRD patterns: a) In‐situ PXRD measured at 195 K during C2H2 adsorption/desorption revealed a reversible switching transformation from β to γ. b) In‐situ PXRD experiments conducted during CO2 adsorption/desorption at 195 K revealed that switching occurred from β to α in reversible manner. c) In‐situ PXRD measurements conducted under N2 at 77 K revealed that the β phase remains unchanged during the adsorption/desorption.

The nature of the pore size and chemistry of the β phase prompted us to explore gas sorption of C2H2, C2H4, CH4, C2H6, and CO2 at 298 K. C2H2 exhibited strong affinity with sharp uptake at low pressures compared to the other four gases (Figure 4 a and S16). The C2H2 uptake was 26 cm3 g−1 at p/p 0=0.01, reached close to saturation at a relatively low pressure (p/p 0=0.1) with an uptake of 38 cm3 g−1 and was saturated (40 cm3 g−1) at p/p 0=1. In contrast, the C2H4, C2H6 and CO2 sorption isotherms exhibited negligible uptake at p/p 0=0.01 whereas increasing pressure to p/p 0=0.1 resulted in uptakes of 11, 5 and 24 cm3 g−1, respectively. The uptake capacity at p/p 0=1 was found to be 28, 18 and 40 cm3 g−1 for C2H4, C2H6 and CO2, respectively. Interestingly, molecular sieving behaviour towards CH4 was observed, with a saturated uptake of only 3 cm3 g−1 at p/p 0=1. When fully saturated at p/p 0=1, the guest occupancy for C2H2, C2H4, C2H6 and CO2 was observed to be on the order of 2, 1, 1 and 2 molecules per unit cell, respectively. Cycling experiments indicated that C2H2 sorption profiles were reproducible with the same uptake over 10 cycles (Figure S17). Sample regeneration was achieved by vacuum treatment at 313 K for 30 mins without additional heat. In order to calculate Q st, we measured sorption at various temperatures ranging from 273 to 328 K in 5 °C or 10 °C intervals (Figures 4 b, S18, S19). The resulting Q st calculations on C2H2 sorption revealed that β offers a new benchmark for sorbent‐C2H2 interaction energy (Figure 4 c). A Q st value of 67.5 kJ mol−1 was observed at zero loading, this value decreasing to ≈48 kJ mol−1 and then increased with uptake capacity. Conversely, C2H4, CH4, and CO2 exhibits low affinity with Q st values of 38.4, 11, and 33.6 kJ mol−1, respectively (Figures 4 c and S23). The observed interaction energy for C2H2 exceeds previously reported materials as detailed in Figure 4 d and Table S4, for example, SIFIX‐3‐Ni (Q st, 36.7 kJ mol−1),[26] SIFSIX‐2‐Cu‐i (Q st, 52.7 kJ mol−1),[30] TIFSIX‐2‐Cu‐i (Q st, 46.3 kJ mol−1)[26, 30] and UTSA‐300a (Q st, 57.6 kJ mol−1),[20e] Ni3(pzdc)2 (7Hade)2 (Q st, 44.5 kJ mol−1),[23] Fe(pyz)Ni(CN)4 (Q st, 32.8 kJ mol−1),[31] Co(pyz)Ni(CN)4 (Q st, 45–65 kJ mol−1),[32] ZUL‐100 Q st, 65.3 kJ mol−1) and ZUL‐200 (Q st, 57.6 kJ mol−1).[20b] Other approaches that focus upon chemisorption can exhibit higher energies such as the nano‐trap MOF ATC‐Cu, for which a Q st of 79.1 kJ mol−1 driven by coordination between two metal centres was reported.[33] To further verify the energy of C2H2 sorption, we conducted in situ pressure gradient differential scanning calorimetry (PG‐DSC) measurements. The enthalpy obtained for C2H2 was in good agreement with the Q st obtained from the Clausius‐Clapeyron equation (Figures 4 c and S24).[34] To address gas mixture selectivity we conducted ideal adsorbed solution theory (IAST)[35] calculations. IAST calculations are not always well‐suited for induced structural transformations but the subtle transformations upon C2H2 loading did not result in stepped or “S‐shaped” isotherms, instead they appeared as Type‐I isotherms. Unfortunately, selectivity calculations using breakthrough data were infeasible because of co‐adsorption and steps. Calculated IAST selectivity values at 1 bar for both trace and bulk concentrations were as follows: C2H2/C2H4 (1:1, 62.8 and 1:99, 53.1), C2H2/CH4 (2:1, 2426 and 1:1, 2302) and C2H2/CO2 (1:1, 8.4) (Figure 4 e and Table S4). The IAST selectivity for C2H2/C2H4 and C2H2/CO2 can be compared to other leading sorbents (Table S4). TIFSIX‐2‐Cu‐i has slightly higher selectivity for 1:99 C2H2/C2H4 (55) but is lower for 1:1 C2H2/C2H4 (45) and 1:1 C2H2/CO2, (6.2) at 1:1.[26, 30] Co(pyz)Ni(CN)4 offers higher selectivity for 1:1 C2H2/CO2 (36.5) but is lower for 1:99 C2H2/C2H4 (24.2).[32] SIFSIX‐3‐Ni exhibited relatively low selectivity of 16.5, 17.6, 0.14 for C2H2/C2H4 (1:99 and 1:1) and C2H2/CO2 (1:1), respectively.[26] A number of highly selective materials that were studied for one gas mixture only have recently been reported, for example, ATC‐Cu (1:1 C2H2/CO2=53.6),[33] Ni3(pzdc)2 (7Hade)2 (1:99 C2H2/C2H4=168)[23] and Fe(pyz)Ni(CN)4 (1:1 C2H2/CO2=24).[31] In order to further investigate gas mixture separations, we conducted dynamic breakthrough experiments on 1:1 mixture upon Helium dilution. These experiments revealed that the breakthrough time for C2H2/C2H4 was ≈1 h 15 mins whereas that for C2H2/CO2 was ≈1 h 40 mins (Figure 4 f). C2H2 uptake (≈20 cm3 g−1) reached half of the total capacity (40 cm3 g−1) from sorption experiments and outlet purity was found to be ≈99 %. To determine the gate opening temperature for C2H2, C2H4 and CO2, we conducted isobar experiments with increasing temperature from 195 K to 328 K (Figure S26). In the C2H2 isobar, the uptake capacity from 328 to 278 K remained almost constant with a value of 40 cm3 g−1 at p/p 0=1. A sudden step occurred from 268 to 258 K, when uptake capacity nearly doubled (≈77 cm3 g−1). Decreasing in temperature from 258 to 238 K resulted in C2H2 uptake gradually increasing to ≈82 cm3 g−1, a value that was maintained until 195 K. A similar sorption profile was observed for C2H4, but with a very low gate opening temperature. No step was observed from 328 to 238 K while a large step from 228 to 218 K with an uptake of 80 cm3 g−1 was seen. This type of switching isobar trend is rare in MOFs.[36] The CO2 isobar exhibits a normal trend, showing a gradual increase in uptake from 40 to 82 cm3 g−1 with decrease in temperature from 328 to 195 K.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Pure component C2H2, C2H4, C2H6, CH4, CO2 sorption isotherms, their interaction energies and separation performance. a) C2H2, C2H4, CH4, and CO2 sorption isotherms for sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn measured at 298 K, plotted in log scale. b) C2H2 sorption isotherms measured at different temperatures in 10 °C intervals from 273 to 328 K. c) Isosteric heat of adsorption (Q st) calculated from Clausius‐Clapeyron equation for C2H2 (blue), CO2 (purple), and C2H4 (red). d) C2H2 Q st of sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn in this work and other benchmark materials. e) IAST selectivity calculated for C2H2/C2H4, C2H2/CH4, and C2H2/CO2 gas mixtures for various ratios at 298 K and pressures up to 1 bar. f) Breakthrough separation of C2H2/CO2 and C2H2/C2H4 measured at 1:1 ratio under helium flow at 298 K.

To gain insight into the sorption performance and benchmark interaction energy towards C2H2, we conducted in situ gas loading on single crystals, in situ coincidence PXRD and in situ FTIR measurements at 298 K (Figure 5). From in situ gas loading experiments, we obtained the structures of β′⊃2C2H2 and β⊃2C2H2 at less than p/p 0=1. In β′, C2H2 molecules were found to align between the SIFSIX pillars (Figure 5 c). In the β phase, C2H2 molecules were found to align between the SIFSIX pillars (site‐I) and in adjacent cavities (site‐II) (Figure 5 d). In‐situ coincidence PXRD measurements from selected adsorption (1–22) and desorption points (49–65) are plotted in Figure 5 a. Point 1 indicates that the β phase remains unchanged. When the pressure is increased up to point 6, a slight difference in the peak intensity is observed at lower 2θ values, which nearly matches the calculated β′ powder pattern. Further increase in pressure up to point 18 produces a new PXRD pattern corresponding to the β⊃2C2H2 phase. After the desorption process, the pure β phase can be recovered as indicated in the calculated β powder pattern (Figure S11). In‐situ FTIR study of C2H2 adsorption reveals two stretching bands that indicate two different types of C2H2 binding positions in the framework (Figure 5 b). At low pressures (p/p 0=0.001 at point 4), a band at 3200 cm−1 emerges, which corresponds to C2H2 at site‐I. When the pressure is increased to point 20, another stretching band at 3311 cm−1 appears, which we attribute to C2H2 adsorbed at site‐II. The two stretching bands are consistent with the binding positions identified in the in situ structures.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

In‐situ coincidence PXRD, FTIR and gas loading experiments at 298 K. Numbers in adsorption/desorption traces correspond to numbering of the PXRD patterns/FTIR spectra. a) In‐situ PXRD during C2H2 adsorption/desorption at 298 K provides insight into phase transformations and the gas diffusion mechanisms at various pressures. b) In‐situ FTIR measurements were conducted during C2H2 sorption at 298 K to gain insight into C2H2 stretching bands at different gas loading pressures. c) In‐situ gas loading structure of β′2C2H2 measured at 298 K. C2H2 molecules (orange/grey) were found to occupy the region between the SIFSIX pillars. d) In‐situ structure of β2C2H2 at 298 K and 1 bar with C2H2 occupying site‐I and site‐II. e) Illustration of the environment of C2H2 molecules in β2C2H2, and f) Illustration of σ⋅⋅⋅π and π⋅⋅⋅π interactions in β2C2H2.

To obtain a better understanding of the interaction energy, we analysed the in situ structures obtained at 298 K. In β′⊃2C2H2, C2H2 molecules at site‐I position form multiple C−H⋅⋅⋅F hydrogen bonding interactions (D C⋅⋅⋅F=2.199 Å, 2.200 Å, 2.240 Å, 2.675 Å) with the SIFSIX pillars (Figure 5 c). In β⊃2C2H2, C2H2 guests are also positioned at site‐I with C−H⋅⋅⋅F hydrogen bonding interactions (D C⋅⋅⋅F=2.716 Å, 2.766 Å, 3.014 Å) (Figure 5 d). The C2H2 molecules at site‐II in β⊃2C2H2 exhibit multiple interactions with the aromatic ligand (C−C⋅⋅⋅π with D C⋅⋅⋅C=2.517 Å, 2.615 Å and C−H⋅⋅⋅π with D C⋅⋅⋅C=3.448 Å, 3.353 Å) (Figure 5 e). There are also intermolecular hydrogen bonding interactions between C2H2 molecules (σ⋅⋅⋅π, C−H⋅⋅⋅C with D C⋅⋅⋅C=3.316 Å, 4.153 Å, 3.636 Å and π⋅⋅⋅π, C−C⋅⋅⋅C with D C⋅⋅⋅C=3.189 Å, 3.571 Å, 3.724 Å, 4.108 Å) (Figure 5 f). DFT calculations support the experimentally determined structure of β′⊃2C2H2 with C2H2 molecules forming favourable interactions between two SIFSIX pillars (D C⋅⋅⋅F=1.998, 2.113, 2.151, and 2.644 Å) (Figure S31). C2H4 and CO2 molecules align with the SIFSIX pillar in a less favourable perpendicular manner. The interaction distances between the SIFSIX pillar and both C2H4 molecules (D C⋅⋅⋅F=2.31, 2.53, 2.71, and 3.42 Å) and CO2 molecules (C‐O⋅⋅⋅F with D O⋅⋅⋅F=2.57 Å) are longer than those for C2H2 (Figure S32). For the β⊃2C2H2, the calculated binding positions of C2H2 also support the experimental results (Figure S33). The calculated binding energies of C2H2 in β′⊃2C2H2 and β⊃2C2H2 and the energy of transition from β⊃empty to β′⊃2C2H2 and β′⊃2C2H2 to β⊃2C2H2 were determined to be −48.26 and −32.87, −17.8, and +5.29 kJ mol−1, respectively. These calculations suggest that β′ is more energetically favourable than β by about 5 kJ mol−1 and that the transition from β′ to β is driven by the heat released from adsorption of the C2H2 molecules. Further, to understand the mechanism of induced fit for C2H2, we analysed and compared crystal structures of β⊃empty, β′⊃2C2H2 and β⊃2C2H2. In β′⊃2C2H2, the alkane chain of the ligand undergoes distortion (∡C‐C‐C=113° to 123°), the rotation angle of SIFSIX pillar largely affected (∡M‐Si‐F=82.63° to 97.36°) and metal to F of SIFSIX bond distances becomes longer (D Zn⋅⋅⋅F=1.98 to 2.19 Å and D Si⋅⋅⋅F=1.55 to 1.93 Å) (Figures S27 and S29). In β⊃empty, the alkane chain (∡C‐C‐C=116° to 118°), rotation angle of SIFISX pillar (∡M‐Si‐F=88.31° to 91.68°) and metal to F atom of SIFSIX bond distances (D Zn⋅⋅⋅F=2.07 to 2.09 Å and D Si⋅⋅⋅F=1.72 to 1.74 Å) were observed to be slightly distorted (Figures S27 and S28), similar to β⊃2C2H2. For example, angle of alkane chain (∡C‐C‐C=112° to 116°), angle of metal to SIFSIX (∡M‐Si‐F=87.01° to 92.98°) and bond distances of metal to F atom (D Zn⋅⋅⋅F=2.09 Å and D Si⋅⋅⋅F=1.72 Å) (Figures S27 and S30). The pore cavity of F to F interactions increased in β′⊃2C2H2 (D F⋅⋅⋅F=7.02 to 7.24 Å) than β⊃empty (D F⋅⋅⋅F=6.87 to 6.75 Å) and β⊃2C2H2 (D F⋅⋅⋅F=6.84 to 6.96 Å) (Figures S28 to S30). This analysis reveals that pore cavity in β′ structure is more suitable to accommodate C2H2 and energetically favourable than β. Therefore, we conclude that the following primary factors contribute to the induced fit mechanism in sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn: i) degree of freedom in the structure and electronic structure of the system; ii) multiple hydrogen bonding interactions between C2H2 molecules and SIFSIX pillars providing tighter binding site; iii) rotational motion of SIFSIX pillar and organic ligand that can undergo contortion.

Conclusion

In summary, herein we report a new 2D flexible ultramicroporous physisorbent, sql‐SIFSIX‐bpe‐Zn, that exhibits induced fit specifically for C2H2 under ambient conditions and undergoes switching from open to more open phases induced by C2H2 and CO2 adsorption at cryogenic temperatures. The induced fit transformation results in benchmark C2H2 binding affinity thanks to a tight binding site that enables multiple sorbent‐sorbate interactions. High C2H2 selectivity and strong separation performance was found for C2H4 and CO2 binary gas mixtures. In‐situ characterization using PXRD, SC‐XRD, synchrotron diffraction, FTIR, and PG‐DSC measurements were used to elucidate the mechanism of induced fit and identify sorbate binding sites. The detailed in situ characterization results are supported by modelling studies provides insight that could be used to enable a new and general approach to the design of the next‐generation porous physisorbents: flexible ultramicroporous sorbents that exhibit induced fit for of a specific gas molecule, resulting in a selectivity hitherto unseen in rigid porous physisorbents.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supporting information

As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re‐organized for online delivery, but are not copy‐edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.

Supporting Information

Acknowledgements

M.Z. thanks Science Foundation Ireland for funding of this research (SFI Awards 13/RP/B2549, 16/IA/4624). K.O. and S. Kitagawa acknowledge the financial support of KAKENHI, Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (S) (JP18H05262), and Early‐Career Scientists (JP19K15584) from the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Synchrotron XRD measurements were supported by the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute (JASRI) (Proposal Nos. 2018B1820, 2019A1600, 2019B1554). L.B. thanks the National Research Foundation of South Africa for financial support. We thank D. M. Franz and G. Beemer for preliminary DFT calculations, A. Bajpai for providing details of initial synthesis, and thank to Andrey. A. Bezrukov for drawing Figure 1. B.S. acknowledges the National Science Foundation (Award No. CHE‐1152362), including support from the Major Research Instrumentation Program (Award No. CHE‐1531590), the computational resources that were made available by a XSEDE Grant (No. TG‐DMR090028), and the use of the services provided by Research Computing at the University of South Florida. Open access funding provided by IReL.

M. Shivanna, K.-i. Otake, B.-Q. Song, L. M. van Wyk, Q.-Y. Yang, N. Kumar, W. K. Feldmann, T. Pham, S. Suepaul, B. Space, L. J. Barbour, S. Kitagawa, M. J. Zaworotko, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 20383.

Contributor Information

Prof. Susumu Kitagawa, Email: kitagawa@icems.kyoto-u.ac.jp.

Prof. Michael J. Zaworotko, Email: Michael.Zaworotko@ul.ie.

References

  • 1. 
  • 1a.Domínguez R., Souchon H., Lascombe M.-B., Alzari P. M., J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 257, 1042–1051; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1b.Talotta C., Gaeta C., De Rosa M., Ascenso J. R., Marcos P. M., Neri P., Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2016, 158–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 2. 
  • 2a.Matile S., Vargas Jentzsch A., Montenegro J., Fin A., Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 2453–2474; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2b.Maiti S., Pezzato C., Garcia Martin S., Prins L. J., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 11288–11291; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2c.Langton M. J., Scriven L. M., Williams N. H., Hunter C. A., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 15768–15773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sholl D. S., Lively R. P., Nature 2016, 532, 435–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. 
  • 4a.J. J.Perry  IV , Perman J. A., Zaworotko M. J., Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 1400–1417; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4b.Cook T. R., Zheng Y. R., Stang P. J., Chem. Rev. 2013, 113, 734–777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. 
  • 5a.“Functional Metal-Organic Frameworks: Gas Storage, Separation and Catalysis”: Schroder M. in Topics in Current Chemistry, Vol. 293 (Ed.: Schroder M.), Springer, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 1–262; [Google Scholar]
  • 5b.MacGillivray L. R., Lukehart C. M., Metal-Organic Framework Materials, Wiley, Hoboken, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kitagawa S., Kitaura R., Noro S., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004, 43, 2334–2375; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2004, 116, 2388–2430. [Google Scholar]
  • 7. 
  • 7a.Scott H. S., Bajpai A., Chen K.-J., Pham T., Space B., Perry J. J., Zaworotko M. J., Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 14832–14835; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7b.Nugent P., Belmabkhout Y., Burd S. D., Cairns A. J., Luebke R., Forrest K., Pham T., Ma S., Space B., Wojtas L., Eddaoudi M., Zaworotko M. J., Nature 2013, 495, 80–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sherman J. D., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 3471.10097059 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Moulton B., Zaworotko M. J., Chem. Rev. 2001, 101, 1629–1658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. 
  • 10a.Schneemann A., Bon V., Schwedler I., Senkovska I., Kaskel S., Fischer R. A., Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 6062–6096; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10b.Horike S., Shimomura S., Kitagawa S., Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 695–704; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10c.Férey G., Serre C., Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 1380–1399; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10d.Elsaidi S. K., Mohamed M. H., Banerjee D., Thallapally P. K., Coord. Chem. Rev. 2018, 358, 125–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mason J. A., Oktawiec J., Taylor M. K., Hudson M. R., Rodriguez J., Bachman J. E., Gonzalez M. I., Cervellino A., Guagliardi A., Brown C. M., Llewellyn P. L., Masciocchi N., Long J. R., Nature 2015, 527, 357–361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sato H., Kosaka W., Matsuda R., Hori A., Hijikata Y., Belosludov R. V., Sakaki S., Takata M., Kitagawa S., Science 2014, 343, 167–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang Y., Zhang X., Lyu J., Otake K.-i., Wang X., Redfern L. R., Malliakas C. D., Li Z., Islamoglu T., Wang B., Farha O. K., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 11179–11183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Haldar R., Matsuda R., Kitagawa S., George S. J., Maji T. K., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 11772–11777; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2014, 126, 11966–11971. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Horcajada P., Chalati T., Serre C., Gillet B., Sebrie C., Baati T., Eubank J. F., Heurtaux D., Clayette P., Kreuz C., Chang J. S., Hwang Y. K., Marsaud V., Bories P. N., Cynober L., Gil S., Ferey G., Couvreur P., Gref R., Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 172–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhu A.-X., Yang Q.-Y., Kumar A., Crowley C., Mukherjee S., Chen K.-J., Wang S.-Q., O'Nolan D., Shivanna M., Zaworotko M. J., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 15572–15576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Moghadam P. Z., Li A., Wiggin S. B., Tao A., Maloney A. G. P., Wood P. A., Ward S. C., Fairen-Jimenez D., Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 2618–2625. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shivanna M., Yang Q.-Y., Bajpai A., Patyk-Kazmierczak E., Zaworotko M. J., Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. 
  • 19a.Yu M.-H., Space B., Franz D., Zhou W., He C., Li L., Krishna R., Chang Z., Li W., Hu T.-L., Bu X.-H., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 17703–17712; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19b.Katsoulidis A. P., Antypov D., Whitehead G. F. S., Carrington E. J., Adams D. J., Berry N. G., Darling G. R., Dyer M. S., Rosseinsky M. J., Nature 2019, 565, 213–217; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19c.Zeng H., Xie M., Huang Y.-L., Zhao Y., Xie X.-J., Bai J.-P., Wan M.-Y., Krishna R., Lu W., Li D., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 8515–8519; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2019, 131, 8603–8607; [Google Scholar]
  • 19d.Matsuda R., Kitaura R., Kitagawa S., Kubota Y., Kobayashi T. C., Horike S., Takata M., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 14063–14070; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19e.Tian J., Shi C., Xiao C., Jiang F., Yuan D., Chen Q., Hong M., Inorg. Chem. 2020, 59, 18264–18275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. 
  • 20a.Gao S., Morris C. G., Lu Z., Yan Y., Godfrey H. G. W., Murray C., Tang C. C., Thomas K. M., Yang S., Schröder M., Chem. Mater. 2016, 28, 2331–2340; [Google Scholar]
  • 20b.Shen J., He X., Ke T., Krishna R., van Baten J. M., Chen R., Bao Z., Xing H., Dincǎ M., Zhang Z., Yang Q., Ren Q., Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6259; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20c.Ke T., Wang Q., Shen J., Zhou J., Bao Z., Yang Q., Ren Q., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 12725–12730; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 12825–12830; [Google Scholar]
  • 20d.Dong Q., Zhang X., Liu S., Lin R.-B., Guo Y., Ma Y., Yonezu A., Krishna R., Liu G., Duan J., Matsuda R., Jin W., Chen B., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 22756–22762; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 22944–22950; correction: [Google Scholar]; Dong Q., Zhang X., Liu S., Lin R.-B., Guo Y., Ma Y., Yonezu A., Krishna R., Liu G., Duan J., Matsuda R., Jin W., Chen B., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 3850–3850; [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2021, 133, 3894–3894; [Google Scholar]
  • 20e.Lin R.-B., Li L., Wu H., Arman H., Li B., Lin R.-G., Zhou W., Chen B., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 8022–8028; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20f.Matsuda R., Kitaura R., Kitagawa S., Kubota Y., Belosludov R. V., Kobayashi T. C., Sakamoto H., Chiba T., Takata M., Kawazoe Y., Mita Y., Nature 2005, 436, 238–241; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20g.Wang J., Zhang Y., Zhang P., Hu J., Lin R.-B., Deng Q., Zeng Z., Xing H., Deng S., Chen B., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 9744–9751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. 
  • 21a.Smith G. L., Eyley J. E., Han X., Zhang X., Li J., Jacques N. M., Godfrey H. G. W., Argent S. P., McCormick McPherson L. J., Teat S. J., Cheng Y., Frogley M. D., Cinque G., Day S. J., Tang C. C., Easun T. L., Rudić S., Ramirez-Cuesta A. J., Yang S., Schröder M., Nat. Mater. 2019, 18, 1358—1365; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21b.Bae Y.-S., Lee C. Y., Kim K. C., Farha O. K., Nickias P., Hupp J. T., Nguyen S. T., Snurr R. Q., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 1857–1860; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2012, 124, 1893–1896. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li P., He Y., Zhao Y., Weng L., Wang H., Krishna R., Wu H., Zhou W., O'Keeffe M., Han Y., Chen B., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 574–577; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2015, 127, 584–587. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang Z., Peh S. B., Wang Y., Kang C., Fan W., Zhao D., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 18927–18932; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 19089–19094. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Carrington E. J., McAnally C. A., Fletcher A. J., Thompson S. P., Warren M., Brammer L., Nat. Chem. 2017, 9, 882–889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Li B., Cui X. L., O'Nolan D., Wen H. M., Jiang M. D., Krishna R., Wu H., Lin R. B., Chen Y. S., Yuan D. Q., Xing H. B., Zhou W., Ren Q. L., Qian G. D., Zaworotko M. J., Chen B. L., Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 7. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chen K. J., Scott H. S., Madden D. G., Pham T., Kumar A., Bajpai A., Lusi M., Forrest K. A., Space B., Perry J. J., Zaworotko M. J., Chem 2016, 1, 753–765. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bao Z., Chang G., Xing H., Krishna R., Ren Q., Chen B., Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 3612–3641. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Peng Y.-L., Pham T., Li P., Wang T., Chen Y., Chen K.-J., Forrest K. A., Space B., Cheng P., Zaworotko M. J., Zhang Z., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 10971–10975; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2018, 130, 11137–11141. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hennigar T. L., MacQuarrie D. C., Losier P., Rogers R. D., Zaworotko M. J., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1997, 36, 972–973; [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 1997, 109, 1044–1046. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bajpai A., O'Nolan D., Madden D. G., Chen K. J., Pham T., Kumar A., Lusi M., Perry J. J., Space B., Zaworotko M. J., Chem. Commun. 2017, 53, 11592–11595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gao J., Qian X., Lin R.-B., Krishna R., Wu H., Zhou W., Chen B., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 4396–4400; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 4426–4430. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pei J., Shao K., Wang J.-X., Wen H.-M., Yang Y., Cui Y., Krishna R., Li B., Qian G., Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1908275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Niu Z., Cui X., Pham T., Verma G., Lan P. C., Shan C., Xing H., Forrest K. A., Suepaul S., Space B., Nafady A., Al-Enizi A. M., Ma S., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 5283–5288; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Angew. Chem. 2021, 133, 5343–5348. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pan H., Ritter J. A., Balbuena P. B., Langmuir 1998, 14, 6323–6327. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Myers A. L., Prausnitz J. M., AIChE J. 1965, 11, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gu C., Hosono N., Zheng J.-J., Sato Y., Kusaka S., Sakaki S., Kitagawa S., Science 2019, 363, 387–391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re‐organized for online delivery, but are not copy‐edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.

Supporting Information


Articles from Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English) are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES