4.8 Review

Porosimetry for Thin Films of Metal-Organic Frameworks: A Comparison of Positron Annihilation Lifetime Spectroscopy and Adsorption-Based Methods

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 33, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.202006993

关键词

adsorption; metal– organic frameworks; porosimetry; porous materials; positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy; thin films

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [G85720N, G0E6319N, G0H0716N, G083016N, 1501618N, 1S53316N, 1S00917N, 12L5417N]
  2. European Union [801464, 2020 FETOPEN-1-2016-2017]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [716472]
  4. KU Leuven [C32/18/056]
  5. German BMBF project [05K16WN1-Positec]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thin films of crystalline and porous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have great potential in various applications, but characterizing their pore size, volume, and surface area can be challenging. Positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy (PALS) is introduced as a powerful method to obtain pore size information in MOF films, complementing existing physisorption-based techniques.
Thin films of crystalline and porous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have great potential in membranes, sensors, and microelectronic chips. While the morphology and crystallinity of MOF films can be evaluated using widely available techniques, characterizing their pore size, pore volume, and specific surface area is challenging due to the low amount of material and substrate effects. Positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy (PALS) is introduced as a powerful method to obtain pore size information and depth profiling in MOF films. The complementarity of this approach to established physisorption-based methods such as quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) gravimetry, ellipsometric porosimetry (EP), and Kr physisorption (KrP) is illustrated. This comprehensive discussion on MOF thin film porosimetry is supported by experimental data for thin films of ZIF-8.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据