Spectroscopic Evidence of Pore Geometry Effect on Axial Coordination of Guest Molecules in Metalloporphyrin-Based Metal Organic Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic comparison of host-guest interactions in two iron porphyrin-based metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), FeCl-PCN222 and FeCl-PCN224, with drastically different pore sizes and geometries is reported in this fundamental spectroscopy study. Guest molecules (acetone, imidazole, and piperidine) of different sizes, axial binding strengths, and reactivity with the iron porphyrin centers are employed to demonstrate the range of possible interactions that occur at the porphyrin sites inside the pores of the MOF. Binding patterns of these guest species under the constraints of the pore geometries in the two frameworks are established using multiple spectroscopy methods, including UV-vis diffuse reflectance, Raman, X-ray absorption, and X-ray emission spectroscopy. Line shape analysis applied to the latter method provides quantitative information on axial ligation through its spin state sensitivity. The observed coordination behaviors derived from the spectroscopic analyses of the two MOF systems are compared to those predicted using space-filling models and relevant iron porphyrin molecular analogues. While the space-filling models show the ideal axial coordination behavior associated with these systems, the spectroscopic results provide powerful insight into the actual binding interactions that occur in practice. Evidence for potential side reactions occurring within the pores that may be responsible for the observed deviation from model coordination behavior in one of the MOF/guest molecule combinations is presented and discussed in the context of literature precedent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".