2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41557-019-0372-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient and tunable one-dimensional charge transport in layered lanthanide metal–organic frameworks

Abstract: The emergence of electrically conductive metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) has been one of the most exciting, if somewhat paradoxical, developments in porous materials, and has already led to applications as varied as chemical sensing and electrical energy storage. The most conductive MOFs are those made from organic ligands and square-planar transition metal ions connected into two-dimensional (2D) sheets that stack in a similar manner to the graphene sheets in graphite. Their electrical properties are thought … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
190
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 224 publications
(201 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
10
190
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Theidea of ageneral GFN-type FF is inspired by the latest developments in the field of SQM methods,n amely the evolution of GFN1-, GFN2, and especially GNF0-xTB [25] methods,where the latest key ingredient was the introduction of ac lassical electronegativity-equilibrium (EEQ) atomiccharge model [26,27] for the description of pairwise interatomic electrostatic interactions.T his allowed to truncate the fundamental expansion of the DFT energy E [1]i nt erms of electron-density fluctuations d1 after the first-order term, leading to an on-self-consistent method which employs classical atomic charges.GFN-FF introduces approximations to the remaining quantum-mechanical terms in GFN0-xTB by replacing most of the extended-Hückel-type theory (EHT) for covalent bonding by classical bond, angle,a nd torsion terms.T oh ighlight the ancestry from the xTB methods,t he similarities and differences between FF and QM methods are illustrated in Figure 2.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theidea of ageneral GFN-type FF is inspired by the latest developments in the field of SQM methods,n amely the evolution of GFN1-, GFN2, and especially GNF0-xTB [25] methods,where the latest key ingredient was the introduction of ac lassical electronegativity-equilibrium (EEQ) atomiccharge model [26,27] for the description of pairwise interatomic electrostatic interactions.T his allowed to truncate the fundamental expansion of the DFT energy E [1]i nt erms of electron-density fluctuations d1 after the first-order term, leading to an on-self-consistent method which employs classical atomic charges.GFN-FF introduces approximations to the remaining quantum-mechanical terms in GFN0-xTB by replacing most of the extended-Hückel-type theory (EHT) for covalent bonding by classical bond, angle,a nd torsion terms.T oh ighlight the ancestry from the xTB methods,t he similarities and differences between FF and QM methods are illustrated in Figure 2.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concepts for designing molecules with desired (bio)chemical activities or physical properties have become state-of-theart in experimental chemistry. [1,2] Molecular size and complexity has no boundaries and the elemental composition is versatile. [3] Within the last decades,t he field of theoretical chemistry has evolved into an indispensable part of chemistry and has proven to be an important companion of the experiment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, there were many great efforts to utilize MOFs as materials for preparing various shaped structures with advanced functionalities. [ 11–16 ] In this work, we develop multilayer MOFs with alternating stable and decomposable layers for the autogenous production and stabilization of SNPs in scalable mass loadings. Interestingly, we also show that the single water molecule transfer throughout multilayer MOFs plays a very important role to activate the autogenous synthesis of SNPs.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%