The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multipoint Interactions Enhanced CO2 Uptake: A Zeolite-like Zinc–Tetrazole Framework with 24-Nuclear Zinc Cages
Abstract
A zeolite-like microporous tetrazole-based metal-organic framework (MOF) with 24 nuclear zinc cages was synthesized and characterized. It exhibits high CO(2) adsorption capacity up to 35.6 wt % (8.09 mmol/g) and excellent CO(2)/CH(4) selectivity at 273 K/1 bar, being among the highest values known to date. Theoretical calculations based on simulated annealing techniques and periodic DFT revealed that CO(2) is predominantly located around the inner surface of the cages through multipoint interactions, in particular, around the aromatic tetrazole rings. Importantly, it is the first time that multipoint interactions between CO(2) molecules and frameworks resulting in high CO(2) uptake are observed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The chemistry of metal–organic frameworks for CO2 capture, regeneration and conversion
Trickett, C. A., Helal, A., Al-Maythalony, B. A., Yamani, Z. H., Cordova, K. E., & Yaghi, O. M. (2017) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2017.45 · Cited by 1,524
CO2 Capture and Separations Using MOFs: Computational and Experimental Studies
Yu, J., Xie, L.-H., Li, J.-R., Ma, Y., Seminario, J. M., & Balbuena, P. B. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00626 · Cited by 1,047
Self-citationMetal–organic frameworks based on flexible ligands (FL-MOFs): structures and applications
Lin, Z.-J., Lü, J., Hong, M., & Cao, R. (2014) · Chem. Soc. Rev. · doi:10.1039/c3cs60483g · Cited by 874
Perspective of microporous metal–organic frameworks for CO2capture and separation
Zhang, Z., Yao, Z.-Z., Xiang, S., & Chen, B. (2014) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c4ee00143e · Cited by 767
Porous Inorganic Membranes for CO2 Capture: Present and Prospects
Pera-Titus, M. (2014) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr400237k · Cited by 614
Applications of metal-organic frameworks featuring multi-functional sites
Li, B., Chrzanowski, M., Zhang, Y., & Ma, S. (2016) · Coordination Chemistry Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2015.05.005 · Cited by 520
Zhao, X., Bu, X., Zhai, Q.-G., Tran, H., & Feng, P. (2015) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja512137t · Cited by 355
Linker functionalized metal-organic frameworks
Ali Akbar Razavi, S., & Morsali, A. (2019) · Coordination Chemistry Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2019.213023 · Cited by 341
Design and synthesis of multifunctional metal–organic zeolites
Tan, Y.-X., Wang, F., & Zhang, J. (2018) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c7cs00782e · Cited by 305
Recent progress in metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) for CO2 capture at different pressures
Mahajan, S., & Lahtinen, M. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.108930 · Cited by 282
Formation of CX Bonds in CO2 Chemical Fixation Catalyzed by Metal−Organic Frameworks
Hou, S., Dong, J., & Zhao, B. (2020) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201806163 · Cited by 142
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cui, P., Ma, Y.-G., Li, H.-H., Zhao, B., Li, J.-R., Cheng, P., Balbuena, P. B., & Zhou, H.-C.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Chemical Society
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2012-11-07
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 46
- Pages
- 18892-18895
- ISSN
- 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5126
- OpenAlex
- W1965944206
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
