what makes the difference if we choose metal chlorides or acetates instead of metal nitrates for synthesizing MOFs
The choice of metal chlorides, acetates, or nitrates can have an impact on the synthesis of Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) due to several factors:
Ultimately, the selection of metal chlorides, acetates, or nitrates depends on the specific requirements of the desired MOF synthesis, including the target structure, ligand choice, solvent compatibility, and desired properties. It is important to consider these factors and conduct preliminary experiments to optimize the synthesis conditions when choosing the appropriate metal precursor for MOF synthesis.
I agree with what Manpreet has said but it omits the long standing question (pushing 80 years now) of how crystalline/ordered species form. Amorphous MOFs have quite limited utility from both an application and a characterization standpoint and this is the MAJOR problem for making MOFs is controlling the crystallinity/order of the resulting system. To start with, I do NOT consider metal oxides, sulfides or other chalcogenide complexes to be MOFs at all, in my book those compounds are minerals.
So given an organic ligand/framework and a metal source, the purpose of the counterions (& temperature, solvent, reaction time, pH etc.) is largely to give some level of control over the rate of crystallization and thus to a lesser extent control over the order/crystallinity of the resulting complex. Binding constants therefore tend to be on the weaker end of the spectrum, and so that interplay of counter-ion binding and ligand binding is a common method of driving/controlling order in the system.
- Badges
- Science method