Metal–Organic Frameworks as Catalysts for (De)Hydrogenation: Progress, Challenges, and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Storing hydrogen through chemical bonding in liquid-organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) offers a safer and more practical approach for hydrogen transportation compared to physical liquefaction, which is limited by low volumetric efficiency and gas release. The efficiency of LOHC systems is highly dependent on effective catalysts, which are typically composed of transition metals supported on metal oxides. However, these materials often rely upon costly noble metals, and their nonuniform nature limits mechanistic insights and structure–function relationships that could improve catalyst design. Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) are promising alternatives to existing catalysts due to their crystalline, tunable, and porous nature. However, their use as catalysts for (de)hydrogenation reactions remains largely underexplored. Related to this, we identify two general classes of MOFs reported as catalysts for (de)hydrogenation reactions: MOFs as scaffolds for catalytically active species and MOFs that function as reactive materials themselves. MOF composites anchor reactive nanoparticles or homogeneous species, imparting reactivity to the framework. The confinement effects experienced by the affixed species, combined with favorable substrate adsorption interactions or acid sites provided by the MOF, enhance the stability, selectivity, and activity of these catalysts for (de)hydrogenation reactions. Additionally, catalytically active MOFs often feature open metal sites at the node or undergo postsynthetic modification at either node or linker to impart reactivity. Taking inspiration from these materials, we outline the current state and key challenges of utilizing MOFs as (de)hydrogenation catalysts and propose research pathways to advance materials in this field for energy applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".