4.8 Review

Nanoconfinement and mass transport in metal-organic frameworks

Journal

CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS
Volume 50, Issue 20, Pages 11530-11558

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1cs00558h

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Army Research Laboratory
  2. U.S. Army Research Office [W911NF-20-2-0058]
  3. NRC Research Associateship award at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
  4. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0012445]
  5. National Science Foundation [1551964]
  6. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-19-1-0007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are highly versatile and have been developed for various applications like sensors and catalysis. The mass transport of guest molecules within the pores and channels is often overlooked. Factors like pore sizes, linker functionalization, and crystal sizes influence molecular diffusion within MOFs.
The ubiquity of metal-organic frameworks in recent scientific literature underscores their highly versatile nature. MOFs have been developed for use in a wide array of applications, including: sensors, catalysis, separations, drug delivery, and electrochemical processes. Often overlooked in the discussion of MOF-based materials is the mass transport of guest molecules within the pores and channels. Given the wide distribution of pore sizes, linker functionalization, and crystal sizes, molecular diffusion within MOFs can be highly dependent on the MOF-guest system. In this review, we discuss the major factors that govern the mass transport of molecules through MOFs at both the intracrystalline and intercrystalline scale; provide an overview of the experimental and computational methods used to measure guest diffusivity within MOFs; and highlight the relevance of mass transfer in the applications of MOFs in electrochemical systems, separations, and heterogeneous catalysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available