ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Semiconductor Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks Based on Tetrathiafulvalene Derivatives
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Semiconductor Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks Based on Tetrathiafulvalene Derivatives
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 20, 9074–9082
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c01957
Published May 16, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Herein, we report on the use of tetrathiavulvalene-tetrabenzoic acid, H4TTFTB, to engender semiconductivity in porous hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs). By tuning the synthetic conditions, three different polymorphs have been obtained, denoted MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, all of them presenting open structures (22, 15, and 27%, respectively) and suitable TTF stacking for efficient orbital overlap. Whereas MUV-21 collapses during the activation process, MUV-20a and MUV-20b offer high stability evacuation, with a CO2 sorption capacity of 1.91 and 1.71 mmol g–1, respectively, at 10 °C and 6 bar. Interestingly, both MUV-20a and MUV-20b present a zwitterionic character with a positively charged TTF core and a negatively charged carboxylate group. First-principles calculations predict the emergence of remarkable charge transport by means of a through-space hopping mechanism fostered by an efficient TTF π–π stacking and the spontaneous formation of persistent charge carriers in the form of radical TTF•+ units. Transport measurements confirm the efficient charge transport in zwitterionic MUV-20a and MUV-20b with no need for postsynthetic treatment (e.g., electrochemical oxidation or doping), demonstrating the semiconductor nature of these HOFs with record experimental conductivities of 6.07 × 10–7 (MUV-20a) and 1.35 × 10–6 S cm–1 (MUV-20b).

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The design of materials combining electrical conductivity and porosity is an interesting but challenging topic that has gained exponential attention in recent years for exploitation in next-generation applications. (1,2) Despite being usually considered insulating materials, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) (3) and covalent organic frameworks (COFs) (4) are porous crystalline structures that have proven to be efficient for the transport of electrical charge with a suitable chemical design. (5−7) This has been achieved through organic linkers with an extended π-conjugation, (8,9) via the existence of a π–π stacking through-space pathway, (10−12) or with the incorporation of electroactive guest molecules within the pores of these crystalline materials. (13) Most relevant strategies to boost conductivity in porous materials rely on charge carrier formation, for example, through partial ligand oxidation upon iodine doping or partial metal-node oxidation/reduction in mixed-valence frameworks. (14) However, these approaches imply either a trade-off where porosity and available surface area are decreased or a very limited versatility to access mixed-valence states (e.g., Fe(II)/Fe(III)-based frameworks), respectively. Moreover, the implementation of MOFs/COFs in efficient devices is not trivial, (6) although different approaches have been successfully accomplished in this regard. (15−18)
Hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks, or HOFs, (19−21) have appeared as an alternative type of porous molecular-based crystalline materials that are self-assembled through H-bonding interactions. Similar to MOFs and COFs, HOFs have been used in gas storage, (22) separation, (23) encapsulation, (24) or proton conductivity, (25) among others. (26) However, due to the lack of formation of strong coordination bonds (as in MOFs) or covalent bonds (as in COFs), HOFs can be synthesized under mild conditions, (27) which facilitates their processing, one of the major drawbacks of MOFs and COFs. (16,20) Thus, the preparation of conductive HOFs appears as an intuitive solution for the problematic synthetic methods available for MOFs and COFs.
Tetrathiafulvalene (TTF) derivatives are a well-known family of molecular-based conductors extensively studied in the field of molecular electronics, (28,29) as well as for being used in the preparation of conductive MOFs (30) and COFs. (31) In these systems, in addition to a suitable orbital overlap, it is essential to obtain the radical cation TTF•+ to engender the charge carrier species. This usually implies the oxidation of the material, typically with I2 or Br2, which results in a decreased sorption capacity due to the incorporation of the reduced I3 or Br species. (32)
Tetrathiafulvalene-tetrabenzoic acid, in short H4TTFTB, is a well-known ligand that has been used by us (33−37) and others (38,39) in the preparation of MOFs and COFs. This ligand has also been employed in the construction of a HOF with limited stability, which collapses upon desolvation, (40) and more recently, it has shown to be involved in single-crystal-to-single-crystal transformations. (41) A very recent development in TTF-based HOFs has been shown by Farha and co-workers, who have prepared a HOF with a naphthalene derivative of TTF, which, upon oxidation with I2, becomes a semiconductor (conductivity of 6.0 × 10–7 S cm–1). (42)
Herein, we present the use of the H4TTFTB molecule to prepare two new porous HOFs, in which the building block ligand has a zwitterionic character. These materials, denoted MUV-20a and MUV-20b, do not require additional doping for electrical charge transport, resulting in two porous conducting HOFs while preserving their crystalline porosity. The semiconducting properties of MUV-20a and MUV-20b stand record within the HOF materials and contrast with those exhibited by a non-zwitterionic HOF based on the same ligand, denoted MUV-21, which behaves as an insulator despite the suitable stacking of the TTF units. Zwitterionic polaron formation within an organic crystal therefore emerges as an new potential strategy to boost conductivity in porous materials.

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

TTF-tetrabenzoic ether was prepared from the coupling of TTF and ethyl 4-bromobenzoate, followed by hydrolysis and acidification (see Section S1 in the Supporting Information). Importantly, acidification resulted in the protonation of three among the four carboxylate groups, resulting in an amorphous material of formula NaH3TTFTB, as seen with 1H NMR (see Figure S1) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) (see Figure S2 and Table S1). Dissolution of NaH3TTFTB in THF and heating at 80 °C forms a transparent dark-red solution, and addition of diethyl ether causes the appearance of red needle-like crystals of MUV-20a after few minutes at room temperature (Figure 1). Upon washing the crystals with diethyl ether, the THF molecules are replaced by diethyl ether molecules, yielding crystals of MUV-20b (Figure 2). These crystals were suitable for single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis (see Table S2 for crystallographic details). Quite differently, crystallization from DMF at 105 °C resulted in large single crystals of MUV-21 (Figure 3 and Table S2). Phase purity of each sample was confirmed by powder X-ray diffraction (Figures S28–S30).

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-20a showing the channels along the a-axis. (b) Microporous channel showing the hydrogen-bond interactions (in red) and the π–π stacking (in green) between benzene groups. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the interpenetration along the a-axis. The THF molecules present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-20b showing the channels along the a-axis. (b) Microporous channel showing the hydrogen-bond interactions in red. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the non-interpenetration of the structure along the a-axis. The ether molecules present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-21 showing the mesoporous channels along the a-axis. (b) Closer view of one microporous channel along the a axis. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the non-interpenetrated framework along the a axis. The DMF molecules and DMA+ cations present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

MUV-20a forms a 2D hydrogen-bonded network involving three carboxylic acids from each molecule (Figure 1a), with O···O hydrogen-bond distances in the range of 2.60–2.73 Å (Figure S3), forming voids with dimensions of ca. 7 × 9 Å (Figure S4). The 2D layers are interconnected via π–π stacking between the benzene moieties possessing the carboxylate group that is not involved in hydrogen bonding (Figure 1b), with a distance of 3.28 Å between parallel benzene groups (Figure S5). As a result, interpenetration between adjacent layers occurs (blue and red in Figure 1d). The stacking of the layers results in a 3D-networked, rhombic, interpenetrated framework. The structural features of MUV-20a are completed with π–π stacking between the TTF moieties (Figures 1c, S6, and S7), with shortest S···S distances of 3.66 and 4.45 Å for closest and furthest neighbors, respectively (Tables S3 and S4).
Similarly, MUV-20b forms a 2D hydrogen-bonded network involving three carboxylic acids from each molecule (Figure 2a), with O···O hydrogen-bond distances in the range 2.63–2.67 Å (Figures 2b and S12), forming narrow voids with dimensions of ca. 9 × 9 Å (Figure S13). The stacking of the layers results in a 3D-networked, rhombic, non-interpenetrated framework (blue and red in Figure 2d). The structural features of MUV-20b are completed with π–π stacking between the TTF moieties (Figures 2c, S14, and S15), with shortest S···S distances of 3.64 and 4.45 Å for closest and furthest neighbors, respectively (Tables S5 and S6).
In contrast, structural analysis of MUV-21 (Figure 3) reveals that the three carboxylic acids and the carboxylate group are involved in hydrogen-bonding interactions, with O···O hydrogen bond distances in the range 2.46–2.58 Å (Figure S20). The crystalline structure is connected in a 2D framework with no interpenetration between adjacent layers (Figure 3d), forming large channels along the a axis (Figure 3a) of ca. 20 × 15 Å (Figures 3b and S21). The TTF moieties are closer on average than in MUV-20a and in MUV-20b, with shortest S···S distances of 3.77 and 3.80 Å (Figures 3c, S22, and S23, and Tables S7 and S8). In contrast to MUV-20a and MUV-20b, the structure of MUV-21 contains dimethylammonium cations (DMA+) originating from DMF decomposition.
The calculated free space of MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21 is 22% (308 Å3 as void volume), 15% (250 Å3), and 27.6% (788.3 Å3), respectively (see Figures S9, S17, and S24). However, despite the apparent large porosity of MUV-21, this material collapses upon activation (Figure S38), probably caused by the stronger interactions of DMF molecules with the framework, as previously observed for analogous systems. (40) The crystallinity of MUV-20a and MUV-20b is maintained upon activation (1 h at 70 °C), remaining stable up to 330 °C (Figures S35–S37). CO2 adsorption isotherms reveal a maximum CO2 adsorption capacity, at 10 °C and 6 bar, of 1.91 and 1.71 mmol g–1 for MUV-20a and MUV-20b, respectively (see Figure 4 and Table S9). These values are comparable to other HOFs found in the literature, such as HOF-6 (43) and HOF-7, (44) although it is still far from the CO2 record uptake of 4.02 mmol g–1 of HOF-5 at 1 bar and 296 K. (22)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Gas adsorption isotherms of CO2 on MUV-20a (blue) and MUV-20b (red) at different temperatures. CO2 adsorption and desorption capacities are shown in closed and open circles, respectively.

Comparing the two families of HOFs, MUV-21 has a higher void space and slightly shorter mean distances between TTF units than both MUV-20a and MUV-20b, which seems to indicate a better material for combining porosity and electrical conductivity, although, as already shown, the stability of MUV-21 upon activation is limited. However, close inspection of the structures reveals more relevant differences between the two families. Thus, whereas a DMA+ cation is present in MUV-21 to counterbalance the negative charge of the deprotonated carboxylate, no additional cation is present in MUV-20a or MUV-20b. EPR measurements actually evidence the presence of an unpaired electron in both MUV-20a and MUV-20b, which is neither present in the as-synthesized NaH3TTFTB nor in MUV-21 (Figure 5). The g values (g = 2.07) are in good agreement with an oxidized tetrathiafulvalene moiety. Thus, we hypothesize that compounds MUV-20a and MUV-20b can be considered as zwitterionic HOFs formed by molecules with a negative charge at one carboxylate unit and a positive charge at the TTF core. Unlike DMF, both THF and diethyl ether solvent molecules have a tendency to form peroxides, (45−47) which we believe is at the origin of TTF spontaneous oxidation.

Figure 5

Figure 5. EPR spectra of MUV-20a (blue), MUV-20b (red), MUV-21 (purple), and the NaH3TTFTB (black) ligand at room temperature.

In order to confirm the zwitterionic-radical nature of MUV-20a and MUV-20b, compared to MUV-21, theoretical calculations were performed under the density functional theory (DFT) framework using periodic boundary conditions. The minimum-energy crystal structure of the three compounds was obtained upon full lattice and ionic relaxation at the PBEsol level starting from the experimental X-ray data (see Section S9 in the Supporting Information for computational details). The optimized lattice parameters of the HOFs compare well with the values inferred for the synthetized crystals (see Table S13). Importantly, the presence of DMA+ cations in MUV-21 leads to a H-bonding connection between the countercation and two TTFTB units (one of them with a deprotonated carboxylic acid; COO), involving two diagonal carboxylic positions of the ligands, whereas a H-bond network connecting four TTFTBs is found for the other two diagonal positions (Figure S48). In contrast, the frameworks of MUV-20a and MUV-20b can grow without any need for countercations toward the formation of a HOF with singly deprotonated TTFTB ligands and overall charge neutrality. The most stable site for the deprotonated carboxylic acid of TTFTB was assessed by placing it at the four inequivalent acid groups of the unit cell of MUV-20a and MUV-20b and fully relaxing the resulting structure (Figure S49). Theoretical calculations predict the preferentially deprotonated carboxylic group as that showing short O(COO)···S(TTF) contacts in the range 2.7–3.1 Å for MUV-20a and MUV-20b (Figure S49). As experimental pieces of evidence indicate that the TTFTB ligand is singly deprotonated upon formation of the porous frameworks, the two ligands of the unit cell were considered to be singly deprotonated in their most stable isomer. (48) Moreover, as no countercation is present in the neutral crystal structure of MUV-20a and MUV20b, the negative charge of the carboxylate group has to be compensated by the formation of TTF•+ through spontaneous oxidation of the electron-donor moiety. We then propose two possible scenarios: (i) the extra electron of the carboxylate moves to the cationic TTF, leading to a carboxylic radical TTFTB species, or (ii) the ligand remains in its zwitterionic form engendering persistent charge carriers and a radical in the TTF core (Figure 6a). Preliminary calculations at the molecular level indicate that although both situations are computed very similar in energy, the zwitterionic species is more stable than the radical COO analogue in singly deprotonated, neutral TTFTB when including boundary conditions (Figures S50 and S51).

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Schematic representation of deprotonated TTFTB as a carboxylic radical (left) and a zwitterion (right) in MUV-20a and MUV-20b. (b) VBM and CBM calculated for MUV-20a and MUV-21 with an isovalue contour of 0.05 atomic units (au). (c) Electronic band structure diagram (left) and density of states (right) calculated for the zwitterionic ferromagnetic MUV-20a at the HSE06 level. The Fermi level is set to the VBM. Spin-up α and spin-down β channels are displayed in blue and red, respectively. The band gaps of α (2.15 eV) and β (1.68 eV) channels are colored in blue and red, respectively. (d) Spin density of MUV-20a represented with an isovalue contour of 0.008 au. The charge accumulation increase (Δq) for the TTF core and the carboxylate group with respect to the reference isolated, fully protonated TTFTB ligand is indicated.

MUV-20a and MUV-20b can be modeled in a ferromagnetic or an antiferromagnetic configuration by considering the interaction between neighboring radical TTFTB ligands (Figure S52). Theoretical calculations predict that the ferromagnetic alignment is 0.33 and 0.17 eV more stable in MUV-20a and MUV-20b, respectively, than the antiferromagnetic phase at the HSE06 level. In fact, the antiferromagnetic solution leads to the coupling of the unpaired electrons of the interacting TTFTB radicals, prompting a “diamagnetic”-like configuration (see Figures S53 and S54). As experimental data confirm the presence of the TTF radical, and following the theoretical relative stability calculations indicating that the ferromagnetic configuration is more stable, from now on, we focus on the ferromagnetic phase of both MUV-20a and MUV-20b.
Analysis of the electronic band structure and density of states (DOS) reveals a band gap of 1.42 eV in HOF MUV-21 (Figure S55), with a valence-band maximum (VBM) centered on the TTF unit and a conduction-band minimum (CBM) localized over the benzoic acid groups (Figure 6b). On the other hand, the band gap in MUV-20a and MUV-20b is predicted to be 1.68 and 1.52 eV, respectively, in the β-spin manifold (Figures 6c and S56, respectively). In this case, both the VBM(α) and CBM(β) are centered over the TTF moiety (Figures 6b, S57, and S58), suggesting the formation of the radical TTF•+. The spin density calculated for MUV-20a (Figure 6d) and MUV-20b (Figure S59) is fully located over the TTF core, which experiences a charge accumulation increase (Δq) of +0.58 and +0.55e, respectively, with respect to the isolated, fully protonated TTFTB ligand, whereas the deprotonated carboxylic group is predicted with a Δq of −0.70 and −0.66e, respectively. These results evidence the presence of an oxidized TTF core (with an unpaired electron; TTF•+) and a negatively charged carboxylate group (COO) per TTFTB ligand, therefore confirming the zwitterionic nature of MUV-20a and MUV-20b (Figure 6a).
In our HOFs, the TTF units are assembled in a π-stacking arrangement along the a-axis; thus, charge conduction after carrier generation may arise anisotropically in one dimension. The electronic band structure calculated for our series of HOFs displays flat bands along the full k-path of the first Brillouin zone (Figures 6c, S53, and S56 for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, respectively), which points toward a hopping regime as the dominant charge-transport mechanism. The size of the polaron was estimated from the spin density contours to localize over few (1–3) TTF units in the three HOFs (Figure S60), (49) supporting a hopping-like transport.
To shed light on the conducting properties of MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, the electronic couplings (J) between neighboring TTFTB ligands, the reorganization energy, and the resulting charge-transfer rate constants (k) were estimated by means of the Marcus theory and molecular calculations (see Section S9 in the Supporting Information for details). The energy splitting between the highest-occupied crystal orbitals involving the two TTFs of the unit cell (VBM energy splitting) (50) was evaluated as a bare approximation of the electronic communication between TTF pairs, showing a larger mean value for zwitterionic MUV-20a (175 meV) and MUV-20b (158 meV) than for MUV-21 (90 meV). Accurate electronic couplings for the closest interacting TTF pairs (dimer A in Figure 7) confirm this picture, with J values of 152, 92, and 55 meV for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, respectively, which are in the same order of magnitude of those reported for prototypical organic semiconductors. (51,52) The coupling in the weakly interacting TTF pair (dimer B) is predicted one order of magnitude smaller (14, 37, and 7 meV for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, respectively), which stems from the less efficient π-stacking of the TTF moieties (core-to-core intermolecular distances > 5 Å; Figure 7). Overall, considering the smaller electronic coupling as the limiting step for charge conduction, we predict rate constants of 8 × 1010, 6 × 1011, and 2 × 1010 s–1 for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21, respectively (Table S14). As conductivity depends on charge mobility and carrier concentration, zwitterionic MUV-20a and MUV-20b, which present larger TTFTB electronic couplings and already contain the TTF•+/COO polaron in the framework, are expected to show a significant enhancement of charge transport compared to bare MUV-21.

Figure 7

Figure 7. TTFTB···TTFTB dimeric pairs in the π-stacking arrangement extracted from the minimum-energy crystal structure of MUV-20a (top), MUV-20b (middle), and MUV-21 (bottom). Relevant intermolecular distances and electronic couplings (J) between pairs are indicated.

Transport measurements for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21 were performed using two-contact probe pressed-pellet devices measured at room temperature (300 K) (Figure S46), revealing conductivity values of 6.07 × 10–7, 1.35 × 10–6, and 6.23 × 10–9 S cm–1, respectively (see Table S11). This indicates that MUV-20a and MUV-20b behave as semiconductors, presenting electrical conductivities similar to those reported for Cd2(TTFTB) (53) and TTF-COF (39) after being oxidized with iodine and more than 10 times higher than iodine-doped HOF-110 (42) (see Table S12 for comparative values with all reported MOFs and HOFs containing the TTFTB unit). In contrast, non-zwitterionic MUV-21 behaves as an insulator due to the absence of charge carriers. Thus, conductivity measurements confirm the semiconducting nature of zwitterionic MUV-20a and MUV-20b, which present record charge transport in HOFs without the need for further oxidation due to the existence of persistent positive charge carriers in the form of TTF•+ radicals.
Due to the fast synthesis of the crystals under ambient conditions, the processability to prepare thin films of these porous semiconductor materials was examined for MUV-20a. Drop-casting of a 0.02 M THF solution of NaH3TTFTB on a 3 × 3 cm2 glass support yields a continuous thin film, as shown in Figure 8. This illustrates the facile processability of HOFs, contrary to what is commonly found for MOFs and COFs, which paves the way to their implementation in charge-storage devices, electrochemical sensors, or as electrocatalysts.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Preparation of a thin film of MUV-20a using drop casting.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

A new strategy for the synthesis of conducting HOFs is presented, based on the in situ oxidation of a partially deprotonated TTF-based molecule, which yields a zwitterionic material. This has been exemplified with two different structures, namely, MUV-20a and MUV-20b, which are obtained using the TTFTB building block and have different solvents in the pores (THF and ether, respectively). On the contrary, the solvothermal approach in DMF commonly used for the preparation of porous materials yields a non-zwitterionic HOF, denoted MUV-21. Whereas MUV-21 collapses during pore activation, MUV-20a and MUV-20b display high stability upon evacuation, likely due to their zwitterionic behavior and lower pore sizes, and offer large CO2 sorption capacities up to 1.91 and 1.71 mmol g–1, respectively. Theoretical calculations confirm the zwitterionic nature of these two HOFs and the emergence of efficient charge transport properties without the need of postsynthetic oxidation treatments. Transport measurements indicate conductivity values of 6.07 × 10–7 and 1.35 × 10–6 S·cm–1 for MUV-20a and MUV-20b, respectively, thus placing these materials as the highest conducting HOFs so far, with the added value of facile synthesis for further application in organic electronics.

Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

H4TTFTB was prepared as previously described, (38,54) and all details can be found in the Supporting Information.

Crystallization of MUV-20a

2 mL of tetrahydrofuran (THF) was added to 20 mg of NaH3TTFTB in a 40 mL vial. The mixture was sonicated for 2 min until a transparent dark-red solution was formed. This solution was heated for 5 min at 80 °C by placing the vial on top of a heating plate. Then, 30 mL of diethyl ether was added, resulting in red needle-like single crystals of MUV-20a, after few minutes at room temperature, in which THF molecules are embedded in the pores (Figure S11). Finally, the crystals were filtered in air (12 mg, yield 60%).

Crystallization of MUV-20b

Upon formation of red needle-like single crystals of MUV-20a, these were washed with diethyl ether, yielding red needle-like single crystals of MUV-20b (16 mg, yield 80%), in which THF molecules are replaced by diethyl ether molecules (Figure S19). In fact, immersion of crystals of MUV-20a in diethyl ether causes the transformation of MUV-20a to MUV-20b (see Figure S31 in the Supporting Information).

Crystallization of MUV-21

20 mg of NaH3TTFTB was solved with 1 mL of DMF in a 4 mL vial at 105 °C for 60 h in an oven with heating and cooling ramps of 0.5 °C min–1, resulting in red needle-like single crystals of MUV-21 that were washed with diethyl ether at room temperature (4 mg, yield: 20%).

Single-Crystal Diffraction

X-ray data for compound MUV-20a were collected at beamline I19 in a Diamond Light Source synchrotron at a temperature of 100 K using a Pilatus 6M detector. (55) X-ray data for the compound MUV-20b were collected at 100 K using a Rigaku FR-X rotating anode with a Hypix 6000HE detector. X-ray data for compound MUV-21 were collected at 120 K using a Rigaku microfocus Supernova with an Atlas CCD detector. Data were measured using GDA and CrysAlisPro suite of programs. X-ray data were processed and reduced using the CrysAlisPro suite of programs. Absorption correction was performed using empirical methods (SCALE3 ABSPACK) based upon symmetry-equivalent reflections combined with measurements at different azimuthal angles. The crystal structures were solved and refined against all F2 values using the SHELX and Olex 2 suite of programs. (56,57) All atoms were refined anisotropically with the exception of the partially occupied diethyl ether molecule in MUV-20b and a solvent DMF molecule in MUV-21. Hydrogen atoms were placed in the calculated positions. Details of each refinement can be found in the Supporting Information. CCDC 21533742153376 contains the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/conts/retrieving.html (or from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB21EZ, UK; fax: (+44)1223-336-033; or [email protected]).

Gas Sorption

MUV-20a and MUV-20b crystals were activated at 70 °C during 1 h. High-pressure adsorption isotherms of CO2 were measured at different temperatures from 10 to 55 °C in an IGA-100 gravimetric analyzer (Hiden Isochem) using approximately 35 mg of the different samples. The heat of adsorption was calculated according to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation from the isotherms measured at different temperatures (see Supporting Information Section S6).

Electron Paramagnetic Resonance

Electron paramagnetic resonance was measured using a Bruker ELEXYS E580 at 300 K.

Theoretical Calculations

Quantum chemical calculations were carried out within the DFT framework as implemented in the all-electron full-potential FHI-AIMS electronic structure package. Minimum-energy geometries for MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21 were obtained starting from the experimental crystal structures, and after full lattice and ionic relaxation using the GGA-type PBEsol functional and the numeric atom-centered orbital tier-1 basis set. Dispersion forces were treated by means of the van der Waals Hirshfeld correction. The electronic band structure and density of states were obtained by means of the hybrid HSE06 functional. A full k-path in the P1̅ first Brillouin zone and a 3 × 3 × 3 k-grid were employed. The electronic couplings of the different TTF dimers were computed under the fragment-orbital DFT framework, as implemented in FHI-AIMS. See the Supporting Information for full computational details.

Conductivity Measurements

Powders of MUV-20a, MUV-20b, and MUV-21 were pressed to form pellets (P ≈ 5 US tons), cut in rectangular shapes, and allowed to make contact with platinum wires (Goodfellow, 99.99%, 25 μm of diameter) and silver conductive paint (RS 123-9911) in a two-probe configuration (Figure S46). Two different pellets were measured for each sample. The geometrical factors (width, length, and thickness) were measured using an optical microscope. MUV-21 was also measured using a single crystal (Figure S46).

Film Recrystallization

For the synthesis of the film, 40 mg of NaH3TTFTB was dissolved in 2 mL of THF and then was drop-cast on a 3 × 3 cm2 glass. After a few minutes, the solution was dried and a continuous film forming dark small crystals appeared on the surface of the support.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c01957.

  • General methods, materials, crystallographic data, computational details, and supporting theoretical data (PDF)

Accession Codes

CCDC 21533742153376 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif, or by emailing [email protected], or by contacting The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: +44 1223 336033.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • María Vicent-Morales - Instituto de Ciencia Molecular (ICMol), Universidad de Valencia, c/ Catedrático José Beltrán, 2, Paterna 46980, Spain
    • María Esteve-Rochina - Instituto de Ciencia Molecular (ICMol), Universidad de Valencia, c/ Catedrático José Beltrán, 2, Paterna 46980, Spain
    • Enrique Ortí - Instituto de Ciencia Molecular (ICMol), Universidad de Valencia, c/ Catedrático José Beltrán, 2, Paterna 46980, SpainOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9544-8286
    • Iñigo J. Vitórica-Yrezábal - School of Chemistry, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K.
  • Author Contributions

    M.V.-M. and M.E.-R. contributed equally to this work.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work has been supported by the European Union (ERC-2016-CoG 724681-S-CAGE), Projects PID2020-117177GB-I00, PID2020-119748GA-I00, and Excellence Unit María de Maeztu CEX2019-000919-M granted to ICMol financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE, and the Generalitat Valenciana (PROMETEU/2019/066, PROMETEU/2020/077, and GV/2021/027). We acknowledge Diamond Light Source synchrotron for the time allocated (cy23480) and the members of beamline I19 for the help and support provided. We thank J. M. Martínez and G. Agustí for their help with EPR measurements and A. López and S. Mañas-Valero for their help with conductivity measurements.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 57 other publications.

  1. 1
    Hendon, C. H.; Tiana, D.; Walsh, A. Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks and Networks: Fact or Fantasy?. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, 14, 1312013132,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cp41099k
  2. 2
    Souto, M.; Perepichka, D. F. Electrically Conductive Covalent Organic Frameworks: Bridging the Fields of Organic Metals and 2D Materials. J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, 9, 1066810676,  DOI: 10.1039/d1tc00750e
  3. 3
    Zhou, H.-C. J.; Kitagawa, S. Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs). Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 54155418,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cs90059f
  4. 4
    Côté, A. P.; Benin, A. I.; Ockwig, N. W.; O’Keeffe, M.; Matzger, A. J.; Yaghi, O. M. Porous, Crystalline, Covalent Organic Frameworks. Science 2005, 310, 11661171,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1120411
  5. 5
    Calbo, J.; Golomb, M. J.; Walsh, A. Redox-Active Metal-Organic Frameworks for Energy Conversion and Storage. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 1657116597,  DOI: 10.1039/c9ta04680a
  6. 6
    Xie, L. S.; Skorupskii, G.; Dincă, M. Electrically Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 85368580,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00766
  7. 7
    Meng, Z.; Stolz, R. M.; Mirica, K. A. Two-Dimensional Chemiresistive Covalent Organic Framework with High Intrinsic Conductivity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 1192911937,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b03441
  8. 8
    Hmadeh, M.; Lu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Gándara, F.; Furukawa, H.; Wan, S.; Augustyn, V.; Chang, R.; Liao, L.; Zhou, F.; Perre, E.; Ozolins, V.; Suenaga, K.; Duan, X.; Dunn, B.; Yamamto, Y.; Terasaki, O.; Yaghi, O. M. New Porous Crystals of Extended Metal-Catecholates. Chem. Mater. 2012, 24, 35113513,  DOI: 10.1021/cm301194a
  9. 9
    Dong, R.; Zhang, T.; Feng, X. Interface-Assisted Synthesis of 2D Materials: Trend and Challenges. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 61896235,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00056
  10. 10
    Hoffmann, R. Interaction of Orbitals through Space and through Bonds. Acc. Chem. Res. 1971, 4, 19,  DOI: 10.1021/ar50037a001
  11. 11
    Batra, A.; Kladnik, G.; Vázquez, H.; Meisner, J. S.; Floreano, L.; Nuckolls, C.; Cvetko, D.; Morgante, A.; Venkataraman, L. Quantifying Through-Space Charge Transfer Dynamics in π-Coupled Molecular Systems. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1086,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2083
  12. 12
    Sirringhaus, H.; Brown, P. J.; Friend, R. H.; Nielsen, M. M.; Bechgaard, K.; Langeveld-Voss, B. M. W.; Spiering, A. J. H.; Janssen, R. A. J.; Meijer, E. W.; Herwig, P.; de Leeuw, D. M. Two-Dimensional Charge Transport in Self-Organized, High-Mobility Conjugated Polymers. Nature 1999, 401, 685688,  DOI: 10.1038/44359
  13. 13
    Talin, A. A.; Centrone, A.; Ford, A. C.; Foster, M. E.; Stavila, V.; Haney, P.; Kinney, R. A.; Szalai, V.; El Gabaly, F.; Yoon, H. P.; Léonard, F.; Allendorf, M. D. Tunable Electrical Conductivity in Metal-Organic Framework Thin-Film Devices. Science 2014, 343, 6669,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1246738
  14. 14
    Johnson, E. M.; Ilic, S.; Morris, A. J. Design Strategies for Enhanced Conductivity in Metal-Organic Frameworks. ACS Cent. Sci. 2021, 7, 445453,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.1c00047
  15. 15
    Rubio-Giménez, V.; Galbiati, M.; Castells-Gil, J.; Almora-Barrios, N.; Navarro-Sánchez, J.; Escorcia-Ariza, G.; Mattera, M.; Arnold, T.; Rawle, J.; Tatay, S.; Coronado, E.; Martí-Gastaldo, C. Bottom-Up Fabrication of Semiconductive Metal–Organic Framework Ultrathin Films. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1704291,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201704291
  16. 16
    Ma, K.; Li, P.; Xin, J. H.; Chen, Y.; Chen, Z.; Goswami, S.; Liu, X.; Kato, S.; Chen, H.; Zhang, X.; Bai, J.; Wasson, M. C.; Maldonado, R. R.; Snurr, R. Q.; Farha, O. K. Ultrastable Mesoporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework-Based Fiber Composites toward Mustard Gas Detoxification. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2020, 1, 100024,  DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100024
  17. 17
    Ko, M.; Mendecki, L.; Eagleton, A. M.; Durbin, C. G.; Stolz, R. M.; Meng, Z.; Mirica, K. A. Employing Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks for Voltammetric Detection of Neurochemicals. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 1171711733,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b13402
  18. 18
    Meng, Z.; Stolz, R. M.; Mendecki, L.; Mirica, K. A. Electrically-Transduced Chemical Sensors Based on Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 478598,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00311
  19. 19
    Suzuki, Y.; Gutiérrez, M.; Tanaka, S.; Gomez, E.; Tohnai, N.; Yasuda, N.; Matubayasi, N.; Douhal, A.; Hisaki, I. Construction of Isostructural Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks: Limitations and Possibilities of Pore Expansion. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 96079618,  DOI: 10.1039/d1sc02690a
  20. 20
    Wang, B.; Lin, R.-B.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, S.; Chen, B. Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks as a Tunable Platform for Functional Materials. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 1439914416,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c06473
  21. 21
    Lin, R.-B.; He, Y.; Li, P.; Wang, H.; Zhou, W.; Chen, B. Multifunctional Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework Materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019, 48, 13621389,  DOI: 10.1039/c8cs00155c
  22. 22
    Wang, H.; Li, B.; Wu, H.; Hu, T.-L.; Yao, Z.; Zhou, W.; Xiang, S.; Chen, B. A Flexible Microporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Sorption and Separation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 99639970,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b05644
  23. 23
    Li, P.; He, Y.; Arman, H. D.; Krishna, R.; Wang, H.; Weng, L.; Chen, B. A Microporous Six-Fold Interpenetrated Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Highly Selective Separation of C2H4/C2H6. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 1308113084,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cc05506c
  24. 24
    Liang, W.; Carraro, F.; Solomon, M. B.; Bell, S. G.; Amenitsch, H.; Sumby, C. J.; White, N. G.; Falcaro, P.; Doonan, C. J. Enzyme Encapsulation in a Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 1429814305,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b06589
  25. 25
    Sun, Z.-B.; Li, Y.-L.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Li, Z.-F.; Xiao, B.; Li, G. A Path to Improve Proton Conductivity: From a 3D Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework to a 3D Copper-Organic Framework. New J. Chem. 2019, 43, 1063710644,  DOI: 10.1039/c9nj02025j
  26. 26
    Zhou, H.; Ye, Q.; Wu, X.; Song, J.; Cho, C. M.; Zong, Y.; Tang, B. Z.; Hor, T. S. A.; Yeow, E. K. L.; Xu, J. A Thermally Stable and Reversible Microporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework: Aggregation Induced Emission and Metal Ion-Sensing Properties. J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, 3, 1187411880,  DOI: 10.1039/c5tc02790j
  27. 27
    Han, Y.-F.; Yuan, Y.-X.; Wang, H.-B. Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks. Molecules 2017, 22, 266,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules22020266
  28. 28
    Jana, A.; Bähring, S.; Ishida, M.; Goeb, S.; Canevet, D.; Sallé, M.; Jeppesen, J. O.; Sessler, J. L. Functionalised Tetrathiafulvalene- (TTF-) Macrocycles: Recent Trends in Applied Supramolecular Chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 56145645,  DOI: 10.1039/c8cs00035b
  29. 29
    Otón, F.; Pfattner, R.; Oxtoby, N. S.; Mas-Torrent, M.; Wurst, K.; Fontrodona, X.; Olivier, Y.; Cornil, J.; Veciana, J.; Rovira, C. Benzodicarbomethoxytetrathiafulvalene Derivatives as Soluble Organic Semiconductors. J. Org. Chem. 2011, 76, 154163,  DOI: 10.1021/jo101817j
  30. 30
    Ding, B.; Solomon, M. B.; Leong, C. F.; D’Alessandro, D. M. Redox-Active Ligands: Recent Advances towards Their Incorporation into Coordination Polymers and Metal-Organic Frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2021, 439, 213891,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2021.213891
  31. 31
    Jin, S.; Sakurai, T.; Kowalczyk, T.; Dalapati, S.; Xu, F.; Wei, H.; Chen, X.; Gao, J.; Seki, S.; Irle, S.; Jiang, D. Two-Dimensional Tetrathiafulvalene Covalent Organic Frameworks: Towards Latticed Conductive Organic Salts. Chem.─Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1460814613,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201402844
  32. 32
    Su, J.; Yuan, S.; Wang, H.-Y.; Huang, L.; Ge, J.-Y.; Joseph, E.; Qin, J.; Cagin, T.; Zuo, J.-L.; Zhou, H.-C. Redox-Switchable Breathing Behavior in Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Frameworks. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2008,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02256-y
  33. 33
    Castells-Gil, J.; Mañas-Valero, S.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Ananias, D.; Rocha, J.; Santiago, R.; Bromley, S. T.; Baldoví, J. J.; Coronado, E.; Souto, M.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Electronic, Structural and Functional Versatility in Tetrathiafulvalene-Lanthanide Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem.─Eur. J. 2019, 25, 1263612643
  34. 34
    Souto, M.; Romero, J.; Calbo, J.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Zafra, J. L.; Casado, J.; Ortí, E.; Walsh, A.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Breathing-Dependent Redox Activity in a Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 1056210569,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b05890
  35. 35
    Souto, M.; Calbo, J.; Mañas-Valero, S.; Walsh, A.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Charge-Transfer Interactions between Fullerenes and a Mesoporous Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2019, 10, 18831893,  DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.10.183
  36. 36
    Souto, M.; Santiago-Portillo, A.; Palomino, M.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Vieira, B. J. C.; Waerenborgh, J. C.; Valencia, S.; Navalón, S.; Rey, F.; García, H.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. A Highly Stable and Hierarchical Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework with Improved Performance as a Solid Catalyst. Chem. Sci. 2018, 9, 24132418,  DOI: 10.1039/c7sc04829g
  37. 37
    Vicent-Morales, M.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Souto, M.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Influence of Interpenetration on the Flexibility of MUV-2. CrystEngComm 2019, 21, 30313035,  DOI: 10.1039/c9ce00233b
  38. 38
    Narayan, T. C.; Miyakai, T.; Seki, S.; Dincă, M. High Charge Mobility in a Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Microporous Metal-Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1293212935,  DOI: 10.1021/ja3059827
  39. 39
    Ding, H.; Li, Y.; Hu, H.; Sun, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Xu, W.; Zhang, D. A Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Electroactive Covalent Organic Framework. Chem.─Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1461414618,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201405330
  40. 40
    Hisaki, I.; Emilya Affendy, N. Q.; Tohnai, N. Precise Elucidations of Stacking Manners of Hydrogen-Bonded Two-Dimensional Organic Frameworks Composed of X-Shaped π-Conjugated Systems. CrystEngComm 2017, 19, 48924898,  DOI: 10.1039/c7ce00183e
  41. 41
    Gao, X.-Y.; Li, Y.-L.; Liu, T.-F.; Huang, X.-S.; Cao, R. Single-Crystal-to-Single-Crystal Transformation of Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks. CrystEngComm 2021, 23, 47434747,  DOI: 10.1039/d1ce00519g
  42. 42
    Kirlikovali, K. O.; Goswami, S.; Mian, M. R.; Krzyaniak, M. D.; Wasielewski, M. R.; Hupp, J. T.; Li, P.; Farha, O. K. An Electrically Conductive Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework. ACS Mater. Lett. 2022, 4, 128135,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmaterialslett.1c00628
  43. 43
    Yang, W.; Yang, F.; Hu, T.-L.; King, S. C.; Wang, H.; Wu, H.; Zhou, W.; Li, J.-R.; Arman, H. D.; Chen, B. Microporous Diaminotriazine-Decorated Porphyrin-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework: Permanent Porosity and Proton Conduction. Cryst. Growth Des. 2016, 16, 58315835,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.6b00924
  44. 44
    Yang, W.; Li, B.; Wang, H.; Alduhaish, O.; Alfooty, K.; Zayed, M. A.; Li, P.; Arman, H. D.; Chen, B. A Microporous Porphyrin-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Separation. Cryst. Growth Des. 2015, 15, 20002004,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.5b00147
  45. 45
    Jackson, H. L.; McCormack, W. B.; Rondestvedt, C. S.; Smeltz, K. C.; Viele, I. E. Control of Peroxidizable Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, A175,  DOI: 10.1021/ed047pa175
  46. 46
    Kelly, R. J. Review of Safety Guidelines for Peroxidizable Organic Chemicals. Chem. Health Saf. 1996, 3, 2836,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.8b03515
  47. 47
    Clark, D. E. Peroxides and Peroxide - Forming Compounds, Chemical Health and Safety. Chem. Health Saf. 2001, 8, 1222,  DOI: 10.1016/s1074-9098(01)00247-7
  48. 48

    Note that partial protonation (50% fully protonated TTFTBs in the unit cell) in MUV-20a and MUV-20b leads to a significant change in the electronic band structure of the HOF, with a predicted band gap in the β-channel of 0.51 and 0.52 eV, respectively (see Figures S56–S59).

  49. 49

    Note that there is no TTF•+ polaron in the bare MUV-21; hence, chemical or electrochemical oxidation processes need to be considered for hole-carrier generation in this material.

  50. 50

    The VBM splitting was estimated as the energy difference between the VBM and the VBM-1 divided by 2.

  51. 51
    Zeiser, C.; Moretti, L.; Geiger, T.; Kalix, L.; Valencia, A. M.; Maiuri, M.; Cocchi, C.; Bettinger, H. F.; Cerullo, G.; Broch, K. Permanent Dipole Moments Enhance Electronic Coupling and Singlet Fission in Pentacene. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 74537458,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01805
  52. 52
    Troisi, A. Charge Transport in High Mobility Molecular Semiconductors: Classical Models and New Theories. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 23472358,  DOI: 10.1039/c0cs00198h
  53. 53
    Sun, L.; Park, S. S.; Sheberla, D.; Dincă, M. Measuring and Reporting Electrical Conductivity in Metal-Organic Frameworks: Cd2(TTFTB) as a Case Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1477214782,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b09345
  54. 54
    Mitamura, Y.; Yorimitsu, H.; Oshima, K.; Osuka, A. Straightforward Access to Aryl-Substituted Tetrathiafulvalenes by Palladium-Catalysed Direct C-H Arylation and Their Photophysical and Electrochemical Properties. Chem. Sci. 2011, 2, 20172021,  DOI: 10.1039/c1sc00372k
  55. 55
    Nowell, H.; Barnett, S. A.; Christensen, K. E.; Teat, S. J.; Allan, D. R. I19, the Small-Molecule Single-Crystal Diffraction Beamline at Diamond Light Source. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 2012, 19, 435441,  DOI: 10.1107/s0909049512008801
  56. 56
    Sheldrick, G. M. Crystal Structure Refinement with SHELXL. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C: Struct. Chem. 2015, 71, 38,  DOI: 10.1107/s2053229614024218
  57. 57
    Dolomanov, O. V.; Bourhis, L. J.; Gildea, R. J.; Howard, J. A. K.; Puschmann, H. OLEX2: A Complete Structure Solution, Refinement and Analysis Program. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 339341,  DOI: 10.1107/s0021889808042726

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 40 publications.

  1. Katsuhiro Wakamatsu, Soichiro Furuno, Yoshihiko Yamaguchi, Ryo Matsushima, Takeshi Shimizu, Naoki Tanifuji, Hirofumi Yoshikawa. Electron Storage Performance of Metal–Organic Frameworks Based on Tetrathiafulvalene–Tetrabenzoate as Cathode Active Materials in Lithium- and Sodium-Ion Batteries. ACS Applied Energy Materials 2023, 6 (18) , 9124-9135. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.2c03537
  2. Yonghui Sun, Lijuan Liu, Linnan Jiang, Yong Chen, Hengyue Zhang, Xiufang Xu, Yu Liu. Unimolecular Chiral Stepping Inversion Machine. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145 (30) , 16711-16717. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c04430
  3. Xinlin Li, Ryther Anderson, H. Christopher Fry, Saied Md Pratik, Wenqian Xu, Subhadip Goswami, Taylor G. Allen, Jierui Yu, Sreehari Surendran Rajasree, Christopher J. Cramer, Garry Rumbles, Diego A. Gómez-Gualdrón, Pravas Deria. Metal–Carbodithioate-Based 3D Semiconducting Metal–Organic Framework: Porous Optoelectronic Material for Energy Conversion. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2023, 15 (23) , 28228-28239. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c04200
  4. Jianning Lv, Wenrui Li, Shuai Li, Shuo Xu, Zunhang Lv, Zhejiaji Zhu, Lu Dai, Bo Wang, Pengfei Li. 2D Undulated Metal Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks with Self-Adaption Interlayered Sites for Highly Efficient C–C Coupling in the Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction. Nano-Micro Letters 2025, 17 (1) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40820-025-01679-3
  5. Minju Park, Huiyeong Ju, Joohee Oh, Kwangmin Park, Hyunseob Lim, Seok Min Yoon, Intek Song. Proton-electron coupling and mixed conductivity in a hydrogen-bonded coordination polymer. Nature Communications 2025, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56541-2
  6. Luca Nanni, Savaş Kaya. Importance of electronic and steric effects on proton tunneling dynamics of 2-substituted Malonaldehyde: A computational approach. Computational and Theoretical Chemistry 2025, 1248 , 115225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comptc.2025.115225
  7. Yun Rong, Si-Qi Chen, Yu Dong Zhao, Sheng Zhuo, Yuan-Yuan Li, Jin-Zhuo Liu, Yi-Yi Ju, Yue-Min Xie, Liang-Sheng Liao, Ming-Peng Zhuo, Ke-Qin Zhang. Manipulating molecular conformation of charge-transfer cocrystal for NIR-II absorption and light/thermal-responsive imaging. Chemical Engineering Journal 2025, 513 , 162795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2025.162795
  8. Manuel Carrera, Ion Such‐Basáñez, Juan Pablo Marco‐Lozar, Agustín Bueno‐López, Eduardo Vilaplana‐Ortego, Iván da Silva, Delia Bautista, Alberto Fernández‐Alarcón, Joaquín Calbo, Enrique Ortí, David Curiel. Rational Design of 7‐Azaindole‐Based Robust Microporous Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Sorption. Angewandte Chemie 2025, 137 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202412981
  9. Manuel Carrera, Ion Such‐Basáñez, Juan Pablo Marco‐Lozar, Agustín Bueno‐López, Eduardo Vilaplana‐Ortego, Iván da Silva, Delia Bautista, Alberto Fernández‐Alarcón, Joaquín Calbo, Enrique Ortí, David Curiel. Rational Design of 7‐Azaindole‐Based Robust Microporous Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Sorption. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2025, 64 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202412981
  10. Xiao‐Jie Cao, Li‐Hui Cao, Xiang‐Tian Bai, Xiao‐Ying Hou, Hai‐Yang Li. An Ultra‐Robust and 3D Proton Transport Pathways iHOF with Single‐Crystal Superprotonic Conductivity Around 0.4 S cm −1. Advanced Functional Materials 2024, 34 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202409359
  11. Shimin Chen, Yan Ju, Yisi Yang, Fahui Xiang, Zizhu Yao, Hao Zhang, Yunbin Li, Yongfan Zhang, Shengchang Xiang, Banglin Chen, Zhangjing Zhang. Multistate structures in a hydrogen-bonded polycatenation non-covalent organic framework with diverse resistive switching behaviors. Nature Communications 2024, 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44214-x
  12. Guomin Xia, Chunlei Zhou, Xingliang Xiao, Yang Yang, Fuqing Yu, Hongming Wang. Self-correcting mismatches in metastable hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks with an 11-fold interpenetrated array. Chemical Science 2024, 15 (35) , 14336-14343. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC02751E
  13. Hai-Ruo Li, Shitao Wu, Xuezhuo Jing, Zhengyi Di, Kun Liu, Lu Wang, Cheng-Peng Li, Zhong Liu, Miao Du. Polymer-on-HOF: a new strategy for fabricating “armour-plated” HOFs to sequester radioactive anions. Science China Chemistry 2024, 67 (9) , 2958-2967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-024-2024-8
  14. Rui Wang, Jinlong Gao, Mule Vijayalakshmi, Hui Tang, Kai Chen, Ch. Venkata Reddy, Raghava Reddy Kakarla, P.M. Anjana, Mashallah Rezakazemi, Bai Cheolho, Jaesool Shim, Tejraj M. Aminabhavi. Metal–organic frameworks and their composites: Design, synthesis, properties, and energy storage applications. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 496 , 154294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.154294
  15. Yingru Tang, Yuwei Bu, Liqiong Zhao, Xiaoyan Yang, Hong Zhou, Jing Liu. Ultrasensitive dual-mode detection of amyloid β oligomer via Au NRs modulated photoelectrochemical/electrochemiluminescent response from HOFs/g-C3N4. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 2024, 414 , 135886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2024.135886
  16. Takahiro Sakurai, Tappei Tanabe, Hiroaki Iguchi, Zhuowei Li, Wakana Matsuda, Yusuke Tsutsui, Shu Seki, Ryotaro Matsuda, Hiroshi Shinokubo. An n-type semiconducting diazaporphyrin-based hydrogen-bonded organic framework. Chemical Science 2024, 15 (32) , 12922-12927. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC03455D
  17. Hina Naz, Rai Nauman Ali, Subramanian Premlatha, Yuanjun Liu, Guoxing Zhu. Recent advances in hydrogen bonded organic frameworks and their derived materials for electrocatalytic water splitting. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2024, 12 (3) , 112815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2024.112815
  18. Jian Su, Xiao Han, Si-Wen Ke, Xiao-Cheng Zhou, Shuai Yuan, Mengning Ding, Jing-Lin Zuo. Construction of a stable radical hydrogen-bonded metal–organic framework with functionalized tetrathiafulvalene linkers. Chemical Communications 2024, 60 (45) , 5812-5815. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4CC01152J
  19. Yohan Cheret, Narcis Avarvari, Nicolas Zigon. Metal–organic polyhedron from a flexible tetrakis(thiobenzyl-carboxylate)-tetrathiafulvalene. CrystEngComm 2024, 26 (15) , 2072-2077. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CE01251D
  20. Brij Mohan, Gurjaspreet Singh, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Alexander A. Solovev, Armando J.L. Pombeiro, Peng Ren. Hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks (HOFs): Multifunctional material on analytical monitoring. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2024, 170 , 117436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.117436
  21. Yuto Suzuki, Ichiro Hisaki. Structural details of carboxylic acid-based Hydrogen-bonded Organic Frameworks (HOFs). Polymer Journal 2024, 56 (1) , 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41428-023-00840-2
  22. Yi Xie, Xiaojun Ding, Jianchen Wang, Gang Ye. Hydrogen‐Bonding Assembly Meets Anion Coordination Chemistry: Framework Shaping and Polarity Tuning for Xenon/Krypton Separation. Angewandte Chemie 2023, 135 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202313951
  23. Yi Xie, Xiaojun Ding, Jianchen Wang, Gang Ye. Hydrogen‐Bonding Assembly Meets Anion Coordination Chemistry: Framework Shaping and Polarity Tuning for Xenon/Krypton Separation. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2023, 62 (49) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202313951
  24. Hao Luo, Tianshang Shan, Jianwen Zhou, Liulian Huang, Lihui Chen, Rongjian Sa, Yusuke Yamauchi, Jungmok You, Yusuke Asakura, Zhanhui Yuan, He Xiao. Controlled synthesis of hollow carbon ring incorporated g-C3N4 tubes for boosting photocatalytic H2O2 production. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2023, 337 , 122933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2023.122933
  25. Hao Liu, Yifan Yao, Paolo Samorì. Taming Multiscale Structural Complexity in Porous Skeletons: From Open Framework Materials to Micro/Nanoscaffold Architectures. Small Methods 2023, 7 (10) https://doi.org/10.1002/smtd.202300468
  26. Jiakang Tang, Leihou Shao, Ji Liu, Qizhen Zheng, Xinyi Song, Lanhua Yi, Ming Wang. Hydrogen-bonded organic framework-stabilized charge transfer cocrystals for NIR-II photothermal cancer therapy. Journal of Materials Chemistry B 2023, 11 (36) , 8649-8656. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3TB01475D
  27. Yanchao Song, Shiyuan Zhu, Lizhen Liu, Shengchang Xiang, Zizhu Yao, Zhangjing Zhang. Increasing porosity in hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks for low- κ interlayer dielectric. Inorganic Chemistry Frontiers 2023, 10 (15) , 4503-4509. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3QI00570D
  28. Catarina Ribeiro, Gonçalo Valente, Miguel Espinosa, Rafaela A. L. Silva, Dulce Belo, Sara Gil‐Guerrero, Nicolás Arisnabarreta, Kunal S. Mali, Steven De Feyter, Manuel Melle‐Franco, Manuel Souto. Direct C−H Arylation of Dithiophene‐Tetrathiafulvalene: Tuneable Electronic Properties and 2D Self‐Assembled Molecular Networks at the Solid/Liquid Interface**. Chemistry – A European Journal 2023, 29 (37) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202300572
  29. Mingchao Shao, Yunqi Liu, Yunlong Guo. Customizable 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks for Optoelectronic Applications. Chinese Journal of Chemistry 2023, 41 (10) , 1260-1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjoc.202200664
  30. Carlos Díez-Poza, Lucía Álvarez-Miguel, Marta E. G. Mosquera, Christopher J. Whiteoak. Synthesis and applications of the sulfur containing analogues of cyclic carbonates. Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry 2023, 21 (18) , 3733-3755. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3OB00141E
  31. Yuto Morimachi, Mizuki Urai, Ryota Nakajima, Hajime Kamebuchi, Kazuya Miyagawa, Kazushi Kanoda, Biao Zhou. An organic superconductor, (TEA)(HEDO-TTF-dc) 2 ·2(H 2 C 2 O 4 ), coupled with strong hydrogen-bonding interactions. Chemical Communications 2023, 59 (28) , 4162-4165. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CC00080J
  32. Xiaojun Ding, Yi Xie, Qiang Gao, Yilin Luo, Jing Chen, Gang Ye. Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Frameworks: Structural Design and Emerging Applications. ChemPhysChem 2023, 24 (7) https://doi.org/10.1002/cphc.202200742
  33. Yayong Sun, Jing Wei, Zhihua Fu, Minyi Zhang, Sangen Zhao, Gang Xu, Chunsen Li, Jian Zhang, Tianhua Zhou. Bio‐Inspired Synthetic Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Frameworks for Efficient Proton Conduction. Advanced Materials 2023, 35 (7) https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202208625
  34. Yu Zhang, Li-Yuan Hu, Xu-Feng Luo, Liangjun Shen, Zhong-Qiu Li, Si-Wen Ke, Xing Li, Xunwen Xiao. A hybrid bonding strategy for tetrathiafulvalene-based hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks with electrical- and photo-conductivity. CrystEngComm 2023, 25 (4) , 508-512. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CE01614A
  35. Roghayeh Azizi, Mojtaba Shamsipur, Avat (Arman) Taherpour, Afshin Pashabadi. Zwitterionic hydrogen-bonded organic framework (ZHOF): a metal-free water oxidation proton relay in alkaline and neutral media. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2023, 11 (3) , 1491-1502. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2TA08387F
  36. R. Alan Aitken. Five-membered ring systems: with O and S (Se, Te) atoms. 2023, 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21936-8.00009-4
  37. Xiangyu Gao, Wanyue Lu, Yao Wang, Xiyu Song, Cheng Wang, Kent O. Kirlikovali, Peng Li. Recent advancements of photo- and electro-active hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks. Science China Chemistry 2022, 65 (11) , 2077-2095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11426-022-1333-9
  38. Baoqiu Yu, Ting Meng, Xu Ding, Xiaolin Liu, Hailong Wang, Baotong Chen, Tianyu Zheng, Wen Li, Qingdao Zeng, Jianzhuang Jiang. Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Framework Ultrathin Nanosheets for Efficient Visible‐Light Photocatalytic CO 2 Reduction. Angewandte Chemie 2022, 134 (43) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202211482
  39. Baoqiu Yu, Ting Meng, Xu Ding, Xiaolin Liu, Hailong Wang, Baotong Chen, Tianyu Zheng, Wen Li, Qingdao Zeng, Jianzhuang Jiang. Hydrogen‐Bonded Organic Framework Ultrathin Nanosheets for Efficient Visible‐Light Photocatalytic CO 2 Reduction. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2022, 61 (43) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202211482
  40. Kai Zhu, Xin Xu, Bing Yan. Eu( iii )-Functionalized HOFs based on machine learning-assisted fluorescence sensing: discrimination of quinolones via PCA and BPNN models. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2022, 10 (28) , 10320-10329. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2TC02081E

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 20, 9074–9082
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c01957
Published May 16, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

9238

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-20a showing the channels along the a-axis. (b) Microporous channel showing the hydrogen-bond interactions (in red) and the π–π stacking (in green) between benzene groups. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the interpenetration along the a-axis. The THF molecules present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-20b showing the channels along the a-axis. (b) Microporous channel showing the hydrogen-bond interactions in red. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the non-interpenetration of the structure along the a-axis. The ether molecules present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (a) Crystal structure of MUV-21 showing the mesoporous channels along the a-axis. (b) Closer view of one microporous channel along the a axis. (c) Distances between sulfur atoms of TTF units in adjacent layers. (d) Different layers showing the non-interpenetrated framework along the a axis. The DMF molecules and DMA+ cations present in the pores have been omitted for clarity.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Gas adsorption isotherms of CO2 on MUV-20a (blue) and MUV-20b (red) at different temperatures. CO2 adsorption and desorption capacities are shown in closed and open circles, respectively.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. EPR spectra of MUV-20a (blue), MUV-20b (red), MUV-21 (purple), and the NaH3TTFTB (black) ligand at room temperature.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. (a) Schematic representation of deprotonated TTFTB as a carboxylic radical (left) and a zwitterion (right) in MUV-20a and MUV-20b. (b) VBM and CBM calculated for MUV-20a and MUV-21 with an isovalue contour of 0.05 atomic units (au). (c) Electronic band structure diagram (left) and density of states (right) calculated for the zwitterionic ferromagnetic MUV-20a at the HSE06 level. The Fermi level is set to the VBM. Spin-up α and spin-down β channels are displayed in blue and red, respectively. The band gaps of α (2.15 eV) and β (1.68 eV) channels are colored in blue and red, respectively. (d) Spin density of MUV-20a represented with an isovalue contour of 0.008 au. The charge accumulation increase (Δq) for the TTF core and the carboxylate group with respect to the reference isolated, fully protonated TTFTB ligand is indicated.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. TTFTB···TTFTB dimeric pairs in the π-stacking arrangement extracted from the minimum-energy crystal structure of MUV-20a (top), MUV-20b (middle), and MUV-21 (bottom). Relevant intermolecular distances and electronic couplings (J) between pairs are indicated.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Preparation of a thin film of MUV-20a using drop casting.

  • References


    This article references 57 other publications.

    1. 1
      Hendon, C. H.; Tiana, D.; Walsh, A. Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks and Networks: Fact or Fantasy?. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, 14, 1312013132,  DOI: 10.1039/c2cp41099k
    2. 2
      Souto, M.; Perepichka, D. F. Electrically Conductive Covalent Organic Frameworks: Bridging the Fields of Organic Metals and 2D Materials. J. Mater. Chem. C 2021, 9, 1066810676,  DOI: 10.1039/d1tc00750e
    3. 3
      Zhou, H.-C. J.; Kitagawa, S. Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs). Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 54155418,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cs90059f
    4. 4
      Côté, A. P.; Benin, A. I.; Ockwig, N. W.; O’Keeffe, M.; Matzger, A. J.; Yaghi, O. M. Porous, Crystalline, Covalent Organic Frameworks. Science 2005, 310, 11661171,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1120411
    5. 5
      Calbo, J.; Golomb, M. J.; Walsh, A. Redox-Active Metal-Organic Frameworks for Energy Conversion and Storage. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 1657116597,  DOI: 10.1039/c9ta04680a
    6. 6
      Xie, L. S.; Skorupskii, G.; Dincă, M. Electrically Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 85368580,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00766
    7. 7
      Meng, Z.; Stolz, R. M.; Mirica, K. A. Two-Dimensional Chemiresistive Covalent Organic Framework with High Intrinsic Conductivity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 1192911937,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b03441
    8. 8
      Hmadeh, M.; Lu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Gándara, F.; Furukawa, H.; Wan, S.; Augustyn, V.; Chang, R.; Liao, L.; Zhou, F.; Perre, E.; Ozolins, V.; Suenaga, K.; Duan, X.; Dunn, B.; Yamamto, Y.; Terasaki, O.; Yaghi, O. M. New Porous Crystals of Extended Metal-Catecholates. Chem. Mater. 2012, 24, 35113513,  DOI: 10.1021/cm301194a
    9. 9
      Dong, R.; Zhang, T.; Feng, X. Interface-Assisted Synthesis of 2D Materials: Trend and Challenges. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 61896235,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00056
    10. 10
      Hoffmann, R. Interaction of Orbitals through Space and through Bonds. Acc. Chem. Res. 1971, 4, 19,  DOI: 10.1021/ar50037a001
    11. 11
      Batra, A.; Kladnik, G.; Vázquez, H.; Meisner, J. S.; Floreano, L.; Nuckolls, C.; Cvetko, D.; Morgante, A.; Venkataraman, L. Quantifying Through-Space Charge Transfer Dynamics in π-Coupled Molecular Systems. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1086,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2083
    12. 12
      Sirringhaus, H.; Brown, P. J.; Friend, R. H.; Nielsen, M. M.; Bechgaard, K.; Langeveld-Voss, B. M. W.; Spiering, A. J. H.; Janssen, R. A. J.; Meijer, E. W.; Herwig, P.; de Leeuw, D. M. Two-Dimensional Charge Transport in Self-Organized, High-Mobility Conjugated Polymers. Nature 1999, 401, 685688,  DOI: 10.1038/44359
    13. 13
      Talin, A. A.; Centrone, A.; Ford, A. C.; Foster, M. E.; Stavila, V.; Haney, P.; Kinney, R. A.; Szalai, V.; El Gabaly, F.; Yoon, H. P.; Léonard, F.; Allendorf, M. D. Tunable Electrical Conductivity in Metal-Organic Framework Thin-Film Devices. Science 2014, 343, 6669,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1246738
    14. 14
      Johnson, E. M.; Ilic, S.; Morris, A. J. Design Strategies for Enhanced Conductivity in Metal-Organic Frameworks. ACS Cent. Sci. 2021, 7, 445453,  DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.1c00047
    15. 15
      Rubio-Giménez, V.; Galbiati, M.; Castells-Gil, J.; Almora-Barrios, N.; Navarro-Sánchez, J.; Escorcia-Ariza, G.; Mattera, M.; Arnold, T.; Rawle, J.; Tatay, S.; Coronado, E.; Martí-Gastaldo, C. Bottom-Up Fabrication of Semiconductive Metal–Organic Framework Ultrathin Films. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1704291,  DOI: 10.1002/adma.201704291
    16. 16
      Ma, K.; Li, P.; Xin, J. H.; Chen, Y.; Chen, Z.; Goswami, S.; Liu, X.; Kato, S.; Chen, H.; Zhang, X.; Bai, J.; Wasson, M. C.; Maldonado, R. R.; Snurr, R. Q.; Farha, O. K. Ultrastable Mesoporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework-Based Fiber Composites toward Mustard Gas Detoxification. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2020, 1, 100024,  DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100024
    17. 17
      Ko, M.; Mendecki, L.; Eagleton, A. M.; Durbin, C. G.; Stolz, R. M.; Meng, Z.; Mirica, K. A. Employing Conductive Metal-Organic Frameworks for Voltammetric Detection of Neurochemicals. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 1171711733,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b13402
    18. 18
      Meng, Z.; Stolz, R. M.; Mendecki, L.; Mirica, K. A. Electrically-Transduced Chemical Sensors Based on Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 478598,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00311
    19. 19
      Suzuki, Y.; Gutiérrez, M.; Tanaka, S.; Gomez, E.; Tohnai, N.; Yasuda, N.; Matubayasi, N.; Douhal, A.; Hisaki, I. Construction of Isostructural Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks: Limitations and Possibilities of Pore Expansion. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 96079618,  DOI: 10.1039/d1sc02690a
    20. 20
      Wang, B.; Lin, R.-B.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, S.; Chen, B. Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks as a Tunable Platform for Functional Materials. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 1439914416,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c06473
    21. 21
      Lin, R.-B.; He, Y.; Li, P.; Wang, H.; Zhou, W.; Chen, B. Multifunctional Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework Materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019, 48, 13621389,  DOI: 10.1039/c8cs00155c
    22. 22
      Wang, H.; Li, B.; Wu, H.; Hu, T.-L.; Yao, Z.; Zhou, W.; Xiang, S.; Chen, B. A Flexible Microporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Sorption and Separation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 99639970,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b05644
    23. 23
      Li, P.; He, Y.; Arman, H. D.; Krishna, R.; Wang, H.; Weng, L.; Chen, B. A Microporous Six-Fold Interpenetrated Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Highly Selective Separation of C2H4/C2H6. Chem. Commun. 2014, 50, 1308113084,  DOI: 10.1039/c4cc05506c
    24. 24
      Liang, W.; Carraro, F.; Solomon, M. B.; Bell, S. G.; Amenitsch, H.; Sumby, C. J.; White, N. G.; Falcaro, P.; Doonan, C. J. Enzyme Encapsulation in a Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 1429814305,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.9b06589
    25. 25
      Sun, Z.-B.; Li, Y.-L.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Li, Z.-F.; Xiao, B.; Li, G. A Path to Improve Proton Conductivity: From a 3D Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework to a 3D Copper-Organic Framework. New J. Chem. 2019, 43, 1063710644,  DOI: 10.1039/c9nj02025j
    26. 26
      Zhou, H.; Ye, Q.; Wu, X.; Song, J.; Cho, C. M.; Zong, Y.; Tang, B. Z.; Hor, T. S. A.; Yeow, E. K. L.; Xu, J. A Thermally Stable and Reversible Microporous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework: Aggregation Induced Emission and Metal Ion-Sensing Properties. J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, 3, 1187411880,  DOI: 10.1039/c5tc02790j
    27. 27
      Han, Y.-F.; Yuan, Y.-X.; Wang, H.-B. Porous Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks. Molecules 2017, 22, 266,  DOI: 10.3390/molecules22020266
    28. 28
      Jana, A.; Bähring, S.; Ishida, M.; Goeb, S.; Canevet, D.; Sallé, M.; Jeppesen, J. O.; Sessler, J. L. Functionalised Tetrathiafulvalene- (TTF-) Macrocycles: Recent Trends in Applied Supramolecular Chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 56145645,  DOI: 10.1039/c8cs00035b
    29. 29
      Otón, F.; Pfattner, R.; Oxtoby, N. S.; Mas-Torrent, M.; Wurst, K.; Fontrodona, X.; Olivier, Y.; Cornil, J.; Veciana, J.; Rovira, C. Benzodicarbomethoxytetrathiafulvalene Derivatives as Soluble Organic Semiconductors. J. Org. Chem. 2011, 76, 154163,  DOI: 10.1021/jo101817j
    30. 30
      Ding, B.; Solomon, M. B.; Leong, C. F.; D’Alessandro, D. M. Redox-Active Ligands: Recent Advances towards Their Incorporation into Coordination Polymers and Metal-Organic Frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2021, 439, 213891,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2021.213891
    31. 31
      Jin, S.; Sakurai, T.; Kowalczyk, T.; Dalapati, S.; Xu, F.; Wei, H.; Chen, X.; Gao, J.; Seki, S.; Irle, S.; Jiang, D. Two-Dimensional Tetrathiafulvalene Covalent Organic Frameworks: Towards Latticed Conductive Organic Salts. Chem.─Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1460814613,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201402844
    32. 32
      Su, J.; Yuan, S.; Wang, H.-Y.; Huang, L.; Ge, J.-Y.; Joseph, E.; Qin, J.; Cagin, T.; Zuo, J.-L.; Zhou, H.-C. Redox-Switchable Breathing Behavior in Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Frameworks. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2008,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02256-y
    33. 33
      Castells-Gil, J.; Mañas-Valero, S.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Ananias, D.; Rocha, J.; Santiago, R.; Bromley, S. T.; Baldoví, J. J.; Coronado, E.; Souto, M.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Electronic, Structural and Functional Versatility in Tetrathiafulvalene-Lanthanide Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem.─Eur. J. 2019, 25, 1263612643
    34. 34
      Souto, M.; Romero, J.; Calbo, J.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Zafra, J. L.; Casado, J.; Ortí, E.; Walsh, A.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Breathing-Dependent Redox Activity in a Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 1056210569,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b05890
    35. 35
      Souto, M.; Calbo, J.; Mañas-Valero, S.; Walsh, A.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Charge-Transfer Interactions between Fullerenes and a Mesoporous Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2019, 10, 18831893,  DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.10.183
    36. 36
      Souto, M.; Santiago-Portillo, A.; Palomino, M.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Vieira, B. J. C.; Waerenborgh, J. C.; Valencia, S.; Navalón, S.; Rey, F.; García, H.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. A Highly Stable and Hierarchical Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Metal-Organic Framework with Improved Performance as a Solid Catalyst. Chem. Sci. 2018, 9, 24132418,  DOI: 10.1039/c7sc04829g
    37. 37
      Vicent-Morales, M.; Vitórica-Yrezábal, I. J.; Souto, M.; Mínguez Espallargas, G. Influence of Interpenetration on the Flexibility of MUV-2. CrystEngComm 2019, 21, 30313035,  DOI: 10.1039/c9ce00233b
    38. 38
      Narayan, T. C.; Miyakai, T.; Seki, S.; Dincă, M. High Charge Mobility in a Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Microporous Metal-Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 1293212935,  DOI: 10.1021/ja3059827
    39. 39
      Ding, H.; Li, Y.; Hu, H.; Sun, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Xu, W.; Zhang, D. A Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Electroactive Covalent Organic Framework. Chem.─Eur. J. 2014, 20, 1461414618,  DOI: 10.1002/chem.201405330
    40. 40
      Hisaki, I.; Emilya Affendy, N. Q.; Tohnai, N. Precise Elucidations of Stacking Manners of Hydrogen-Bonded Two-Dimensional Organic Frameworks Composed of X-Shaped π-Conjugated Systems. CrystEngComm 2017, 19, 48924898,  DOI: 10.1039/c7ce00183e
    41. 41
      Gao, X.-Y.; Li, Y.-L.; Liu, T.-F.; Huang, X.-S.; Cao, R. Single-Crystal-to-Single-Crystal Transformation of Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Frameworks. CrystEngComm 2021, 23, 47434747,  DOI: 10.1039/d1ce00519g
    42. 42
      Kirlikovali, K. O.; Goswami, S.; Mian, M. R.; Krzyaniak, M. D.; Wasielewski, M. R.; Hupp, J. T.; Li, P.; Farha, O. K. An Electrically Conductive Tetrathiafulvalene-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework. ACS Mater. Lett. 2022, 4, 128135,  DOI: 10.1021/acsmaterialslett.1c00628
    43. 43
      Yang, W.; Yang, F.; Hu, T.-L.; King, S. C.; Wang, H.; Wu, H.; Zhou, W.; Li, J.-R.; Arman, H. D.; Chen, B. Microporous Diaminotriazine-Decorated Porphyrin-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework: Permanent Porosity and Proton Conduction. Cryst. Growth Des. 2016, 16, 58315835,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.6b00924
    44. 44
      Yang, W.; Li, B.; Wang, H.; Alduhaish, O.; Alfooty, K.; Zayed, M. A.; Li, P.; Arman, H. D.; Chen, B. A Microporous Porphyrin-Based Hydrogen-Bonded Organic Framework for Gas Separation. Cryst. Growth Des. 2015, 15, 20002004,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.cgd.5b00147
    45. 45
      Jackson, H. L.; McCormack, W. B.; Rondestvedt, C. S.; Smeltz, K. C.; Viele, I. E. Control of Peroxidizable Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 1970, 47, A175,  DOI: 10.1021/ed047pa175
    46. 46
      Kelly, R. J. Review of Safety Guidelines for Peroxidizable Organic Chemicals. Chem. Health Saf. 1996, 3, 2836,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chas.8b03515
    47. 47
      Clark, D. E. Peroxides and Peroxide - Forming Compounds, Chemical Health and Safety. Chem. Health Saf. 2001, 8, 1222,  DOI: 10.1016/s1074-9098(01)00247-7
    48. 48

      Note that partial protonation (50% fully protonated TTFTBs in the unit cell) in MUV-20a and MUV-20b leads to a significant change in the electronic band structure of the HOF, with a predicted band gap in the β-channel of 0.51 and 0.52 eV, respectively (see Figures S56–S59).

    49. 49

      Note that there is no TTF•+ polaron in the bare MUV-21; hence, chemical or electrochemical oxidation processes need to be considered for hole-carrier generation in this material.

    50. 50

      The VBM splitting was estimated as the energy difference between the VBM and the VBM-1 divided by 2.

    51. 51
      Zeiser, C.; Moretti, L.; Geiger, T.; Kalix, L.; Valencia, A. M.; Maiuri, M.; Cocchi, C.; Bettinger, H. F.; Cerullo, G.; Broch, K. Permanent Dipole Moments Enhance Electronic Coupling and Singlet Fission in Pentacene. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 74537458,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01805
    52. 52
      Troisi, A. Charge Transport in High Mobility Molecular Semiconductors: Classical Models and New Theories. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 23472358,  DOI: 10.1039/c0cs00198h
    53. 53
      Sun, L.; Park, S. S.; Sheberla, D.; Dincă, M. Measuring and Reporting Electrical Conductivity in Metal-Organic Frameworks: Cd2(TTFTB) as a Case Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 1477214782,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b09345
    54. 54
      Mitamura, Y.; Yorimitsu, H.; Oshima, K.; Osuka, A. Straightforward Access to Aryl-Substituted Tetrathiafulvalenes by Palladium-Catalysed Direct C-H Arylation and Their Photophysical and Electrochemical Properties. Chem. Sci. 2011, 2, 20172021,  DOI: 10.1039/c1sc00372k
    55. 55
      Nowell, H.; Barnett, S. A.; Christensen, K. E.; Teat, S. J.; Allan, D. R. I19, the Small-Molecule Single-Crystal Diffraction Beamline at Diamond Light Source. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 2012, 19, 435441,  DOI: 10.1107/s0909049512008801
    56. 56
      Sheldrick, G. M. Crystal Structure Refinement with SHELXL. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. C: Struct. Chem. 2015, 71, 38,  DOI: 10.1107/s2053229614024218
    57. 57
      Dolomanov, O. V.; Bourhis, L. J.; Gildea, R. J.; Howard, J. A. K.; Puschmann, H. OLEX2: A Complete Structure Solution, Refinement and Analysis Program. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2009, 42, 339341,  DOI: 10.1107/s0021889808042726
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.2c01957.

    • General methods, materials, crystallographic data, computational details, and supporting theoretical data (PDF)

    Accession Codes

    CCDC 21533742153376 contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/data_request/cif, or by emailing [email protected], or by contacting The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: +44 1223 336033.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.