We acknowledge the Institute of Catalysis for Energy Processes
at Northwestern University, AFOSR, NSF, and the Basic Energy
Sciences Program, Office of Science, US Department of Energy
(Grant No. DE-FG02-01ER15244) for support of this work.
Notes and references
z Crystal data. Compound A: C32H30N4O6Zn1, M = 631.97, monoclinic,
C2/c, a = 28.848(7), b = 6.1751(15), c = 17.144(4) A, b = 98.838(4)1,
U = 3017.8(13) A3, Z = 4, Dc = 1.391 g cmꢂ3, m = 0.850 mmꢂ1, F(000)
= 1312, GOF = 1.111. R1 and wR2 are 0.072 and 0.195, respectively for
197 parameters and 2702 reflections [I
4 2s(I)]. Compound B:
C69H48N3O12Zn13, M = 1307.21, monoclinic, C2, a = 21.792(2), b =
27.979(3), c = 14.0334(15) A, b = 93.579(2)1, U = 8539.9(16) A3, Z = 4,
Dc = 1.017 g cmꢂ3, m = 0.88 mmꢂ1, F(000) = 2676, GOF = 0.89. R1
and wR2 are 0.051 and 0.116, respectively for 783 parameters and 11 758
reflections [I 4 2s(I)]. Compound C: C46H32N2O12Zn2, M = 935.52,
monoclinic, C2, a = 21.909(16), b = 27.458(16), c = 14.013(9) A, b =
93.183(17)1, U = 8417(10) A3. Compound D: C126H60Br12N6O24Zn6, M
= 3392.94, monoclinic, P2(1), a = 14.0828(9), b = 28.2518(18), c =
21.4518(14) A, b = 93.5600(10)1, U = 8518.4(9) A3, Z = 2, Dc = 1.323 g
cmꢂ3, m = 3.70 mmꢂ1, F(000) = 3300, GOF = 0.91. R1 and wR2 are
0.066 and 0.199, respectively for 1565 parameters and 22 525 reflections
[I 4 2s(I)]. The data were collected on a SMART CCD 1000 with MoKa
Fig. 4 Top left: TGA curves for A. Remaining panels, clockwise from
top right: N2, CO2, and H2 adsorption (open), and desorption (closed)
isotherms for A (&), B (J), and D (n).
´
radiation (ı) 0.710 73 A at 120 K. The structures were solved by direct
methods and refined by a full matrix least-squares technique based on F2
using the SHELXL 97 program. Modeling of solvent molecules for all but
A proved impossible due to severe disorder, thus the SQUEEZE sub-
routine in the PLATON software package was applied to mask the
electron density in the cavities. CCDC 661009–661012.
for BET fitting). The difference in adsorption capabilities of
the two materials can potentially be attributed to the smaller
pore mouth of A, B7 A vs. B12 A for B. Indeed, when Ar, a
probe with a similar kinetic diameter to N2 (cross-sectional
area for Ar is 14.2 A2 vs. B16.2 A2 for N2), was used in the gas
sorption experiments, the results were similar to those for the
N2 uptake, with only B indicating adsorption within the pores.
Structure B also adsorbed H2, with an uptake of B1 wt% at 1
atm and 77 K.
1 C.-J. Li, S. Hu, W. Li, C.-K. Lam, Y.-Z. Zheng and M.-L. Tong,
Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 2006, 1931–1935.
2 J. L. C. Rowsell and O. M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128,
1304–1315.
3 R. Vaidhyanathan, D. Bradshaw, J.-N. Rebilly, J. P. Barrio, J. A.
Gould, N. G. Berry and M. J. Rosseinsky, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.,
2006, 45, 6495–6499.
4 A. G. Wong-Foy, A. J. Matzger and O. M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 2006, 128, 3494–3495.
5 M. Eddaoudi, J. Kim, N. Rosi, D. Vodak, J. Wachter, M. O’Keeffe
and M. Yaghi Omar, Science, 2002, 295, 469–472.
6 B. Chen, S. Ma, F. Zapata, E. B. Lobkovsky and J. Yang, Inorg.
Chem., 2006, 45, 5718–5720.
7 X. Lin, J. Jia, X. Zhao, K. M. Thomas, A. J. Blake, G. S. Walker, N.
R. Champness, P. Hubberstey and M. Schroeder, Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed., 2006, 45, 7358–7364.
8 B. Kesanli, Y. Cui, R. Smith Milton, W. Bittner Edward, C. Bockrath
Bradley and W. Lin, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2004, 44, 72–75.
9 J. L. C. Rowsell and O. M. Yaghi, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2005,
44, 4670–4679.
10 X.-C. Huang, Y.-Y. Lin, J.-P. Zhang and X.-M. Chen, Angew.
Chem., Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 1557–1559.
11 A. L. Grzesiak, F. J. Uribe, N. W. Ockwig, O. M. Yaghi and A. J.
Matzger, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2006, 45, 2553–2556.
12 D. Bradshaw, T. J. Prior, E. J. Cussen, J. B. Claridge and M. J.
Rosseinsky, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2004, 126, 6106–6114.
13 S.-H. Cho, B. Ma, S. T. Nguyen, J. T. Hupp and T. E. Albrecht-
Schmitt, Chem. Commun., 2006, 2563–2565.
14 H. Chun, D. N. Dybtsev, H. Kim and K. Kim, Chem.–Eur. J.,
2005, 11, 3521–3529.
15 B.-Q. Ma, K. L. Mulfort and J. T. Hupp, Inorg. Chem., 2005, 44,
4912–4914.
16 D. N. Dybtsev, H. Chun and K. Kim, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.,
2004, 43, 5033–5036.
17 S. I. Vagin, A. K. Ott and B. Rieger, Chem.-Ing.-Tech., 2007, 79,
767–780.
18 M. J. Mio, L. C. Kopel, J. B. Braun, T. L. Gadzikwa, K. L. Hull,
R. G. Brisbois, C. J. Markworth and P. A. Grieco, Org. Lett.,
2002, 4, 3199–3202.
19 L. Pauling, The Nature of the Chemical Bond, Cornell University
Press, New York, 3rd edn, 1960.
As expected, based on similar ligand sterics and degree of
catenation to B, D also adsorbed all three gases, with H2 uptake
of B0.3 wt% at 1 atm and 77 K. The BET surface area based on
N2 adsorption was 230 m2 ꢂ1, while CO2 gave a Langmuir
g
surface area of 280 m2 gꢂ1. That only B and D, among the four
materials reported herein, can take up all three gases suggests a
‘‘Goldilocks’’ principle for designing MOFs with good general
gas-sorption capabilities: the pores of such MOFs must be large
enough to allow gas molecules to access the MOF interior, but
not so large as to be non-robust.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that substituents in
ligand struts can be used as structure-influencing tools in the
synthesis of MOFs with different levels of catenation. That small
changes in the side groups of the ethynylene dibenzoate struts,
from H to Me and CH2OH, can lead to three different struc-
tures, all with large pores and different gas adsorption behaviors,
hints at the vast potential for manipulating solid structures via
organic synthesis. In addition, because similarly sized Me and Br
substituents afford similarly interpenetrated MOFs, it may be
possible that ligand sterics can be relied on to induce specific
topologies with different chemical environments.
While the results described herein pertain to a specific set of
ligands and metal ion, there exists a tantalizing possibility that a
wide range of different MOF structures can be accessed with very
nearly the same ligand motif. By modifying the substituents of the
organic struts, a diverse collection of MOFs with differing con-
nectivities and varying levels of interpenetration should be possi-
ble, allowing one to unravel the effect of chemical functionality
and structural differences on the material properties of MOFs.
20 D. Cazorla-Amoros, J. Alcaniz-Monge and A. Linares-Solano,
Langmuir, 1996, 12, 2820–2824.
ꢁc
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2008
3674 | Chem. Commun., 2008, 3672–3674