Understanding Gas Storage in Cuboctahedral Porous Coordination Cages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous molecular solids are promising materials for gas storage and gas separation applications. However, given the relative dearth of structural information concerning these materials, additional studies are vital for further understanding their properties and developing design parameters for their optimization. Here, we examine a series of isostructural cuboctahedral, paddlewheel-based coordination cages, M24(tBu-bdc)24 (M = Cr, Mo, Ru; tBu-bdc2– = 5-tert-butylisophthalate), for high-pressure methane storage. As the decrease in crystallinity upon activation of these porous molecular materials precludes diffraction studies, we turn to a related class of pillared coordination cage-based metal–organic frameworks, M24(Me-bdc)24(dabco)6 (M = Fe, Co; Me-bdc2– = 5-methylisophthalate; dabco = 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane) for neutron diffraction studies. The five porous materials display BET surface areas from 1057–1937 m2/g and total methane uptake capacities of up to 143 cm3(STP)/cm3. Both the porous cages and cage-based frameworks display methane adsorption enthalpies of −15 to −22 kJ/mol. Also supported by molecular modeling, neutron diffraction studies indicate that the triangular windows of the cage are favorable methane adsorption sites with CD4–arene interactions between 3.7 and 4.1 Å. At both low and high loadings, two additional methane adsorption sites on the exterior surface of the cage are apparent for a total of 56 adsorption sites per cage. These results show that M24L24 cages are competent gas storage materials and further adsorption sites may be optimized by judicious ligand functionalization to control extracage pore space.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".