Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Constitutional isomerism of the linkages in donor–acceptor covalent organic frameworks and its impact on photocatalysis

Open access
Yang, Jin, Ghosh, Samrat, Roeser, Jérôme, Acharjya, Amitava, Penschke, Christopher, Tsutsui, Yusuke, Rabeah, Jabor, Wang, Tianyi, Djoko Tameu, Simon Yves, Ye, Meng-Yang, Grüneberg, Julia, Li, Shuang, Li, Changxia, Schomäcker, Reinhard, Van De Krol, Roel, Seki, Shu, Saalfrank, Peter, Thomas, Arne·2022·Nature Communications

Abstract

When new covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are designed, the main efforts are typically focused on selecting specific building blocks with certain geometries and properties to control the structure and function of the final COFs. The nature of the linkage (imine, boroxine, vinyl, etc.) between these building blocks naturally also defines their properties. However, besides the linkage type, the orientation, i.e., the constitutional isomerism of these linkages, has rarely been considered so far as an essential aspect. In this work, three pairs of constitutionally isomeric imine-linked donor-acceptor (D-A) COFs are synthesized, which are different in the orientation of the imine bonds (D-C=N-A (DCNA) and D-N=C-A (DNCA)). The constitutional isomers show substantial differences in their photophysical properties and consequently in their photocatalytic performance. Indeed, all DCNA COFs show enhanced photocatalytic H 2 evolution performance than the corresponding DNCA COFs. Besides the imine COFs shown here, it can be concluded that the proposed concept of constitutional isomerism of linkages in COFs is quite universal and should be considered when designing and tuning the properties of COFs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-022-33875-9

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Yang, J., Ghosh, S., Roeser, J., Acharjya, A., Penschke, C., Tsutsui, Y., Rabeah, J., Wang, T., Djoko Tameu, S. Y., Ye, M.-Y., Grüneberg, J., Li, S., Li, C., Schomäcker, R., Van De Krol, R., Seki, S., Saalfrank, P., & Thomas, A.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2022-10-23
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
6317-6317
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4307101086
Cited by
279
References
44
FWCI
15.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Constitutional isomerism of the linkages in donor–acceptor covalent organic frameworks and its impact on photocatalysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-022-33875-9
The paper
Yang, J., Ghosh, S., Roeser, J., Acharjya, A., Penschke, C., Tsutsui, Y., Rabeah, J., Wang, T., Djoko Tameu, S. Y., Ye, M.-Y., Grüneberg, J., Li, S., Li, C., Schomäcker, R., Van De Krol, R., Seki, S., Saalfrank, P., & Thomas, A. (2022). Constitutional isomerism of the linkages in donor–acceptor covalent organic frameworks and its impact on photocatalysis. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33875-9

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.