**1. Introduction**

Over the past 50 decades, porous materials, from zeolites, coordination polymers to metal organic frameworks (MOFs), have gained considerable attention. The interesting feature is their porosity that allows the diffusion of guest molecules into the bulk structure. The shape and size of pores govern the shape and size selectivity of the guests to be incorporated. MOFs as defined by Yaghi et al. are porous structures constructed from the coordinative bonding between metal ions and organic linkers or bridging ligands (**Figure 1**) [1]. MOFs are formed by anchoring metal‐containing units or secondary‐building units (SBUs) with organic linkers, by coordination, yielding open frameworks that show exceptional feature of permanent porosity, stable framework, enormous surface area, and pore volume. The porosity is a consequence of long organic linkers that confer large storage space and numerous adsorp‐ tion sites within MOFs. They also bear the ability to systematically vary and functionalize their pore structure [2, 3]. In the history of MOFs, a benchmark was represented by the synthesis of MOF‐5 (Zn4O(bdc)3, bdc = terephthalate) and HKUST‐1 (Cu3(btc)2, btc = 1,3,5‐benzenetri‐ carboxylate) with high porosity and low pressure gas sorption, followed by the develop‐ ment of chromium(III) terephthalate (MIL‐101) with high chemical stability, MOF‐74 (Zn2(dhbdc), dhbdc = 2,5‐dihydroxy‐1,4‐benzenedicarboxylate) with low pressure adsorp‐ tion of CO2, and several isostructural analogs of Mg‐MOF‐74 termed as IRMOF‐74‐I to IRMOF‐ 74‐XI, with large pore apertures to accommodate protein, NU‐110E with acetylene‐ expanded hexatopic linker, having material highest experimental Brunauer‐Emmett‐Teller (BET) surface area of any porous material reported to date (7140 m<sup>2</sup>  g-1) Some examples of MOFs and their applications are given in **Table 1** [1–15].

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Figure 1.** Structure of MOF.



**Table 1.** Some examples of MOFs and their applications.

#### **2. Chemistry**

**Figure 1.** Structure of MOF.

4 Metal-Organic Frameworks

Methane Storage

Adsorption and storage

Adsorption and storage

Adsorption and storage

Drug delivery

Drug delivery MIL‐101 [Cr3O(OH,F,H2O)3(1,4‐bdc)<sup>3</sup> and MIL‐100

Cu2(H2O)2(CO2)<sup>4</sup>

(DAU)

HKUST( Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)‐1

– (In) MIL‐68‐NH2 or IHM‐2 In bdc‐NH2: 2‐

metal–organic Zn(bix) spheres with encapsulated DOX [DOX/Zn(bix)], SN‐38 [SN‐38/Zn(bix)], CPT [CPT/ Zn(bix)] and DAU [DAU/Zn(bix)] Doxorubicin (DOX), SN‐38,

camptothecin (CPT) and daunomycin

**Application MOF Metal Ligand Year Author Rf**

IRMOF‐9 Zn4O(bpdc)<sup>3</sup> Zn 4,4′‐biphenyldicarboxylate

MOF‐74, Zn2(C8H2O6) Zn 2,5‐dihydroxybenzene‐1,4‐

MOF‐5 Zn4(1,4‐bdc)<sup>3</sup> Zn bdc 2002 Li and

(bpdc)

dicarboxylic acid

aminoterephthalates

Zn Bix: 1,4-bis(imidazol-1 ylmethyl)benzene

Cr 1,4‐benzenedicarboxylate moieties (bdc) or H3btc: Benzene‐1,3,5‐tricarboxylate

Cu H3btc 2006 Rowsell and

2006 Patricia

[4]

[5, 6]

Yaghi [7]

2006 Rowsell and Yaghi [7]

2006 Rowsell and Yaghi [7]

2011 Savonnet and Farrusseng [8]

2010 Inhar Imaz et al. [9]

Horcajada et al.

Eddaoudi, et al.

MOFs consist of both inorganic and organic units. The organic units (linkers/bridging ligands) consist of carboxylates, or anions, such as phosphonate, sulfonate, and heterocyclic com‐ pounds (**Figures 2** and **3**). The inorganic units are the metal ions or clusters termed as SBUs. Its geometry is determined by the coordination number, coordination geometry of the metal ions, and the nature of the functional groups. A variety of SBU geometries with different number of points of extension such as octahedron (six points), trigonal prism (six points), square paddle‐wheel (four points), and triangle (three points) have been observed in MOF structures (**Figure 4**). In principle, a bridging ligand (ditopic, tritopic, tetratopic, or multitop‐ ic linkers) reacts with a metal ion with more than one vacant or labile site. The final frame‐ work topology of MOF is governed by both SBU connectors and organic ligand linkers. Depending upon the nature of the system used, infinite‐extended polymeric or discrete‐closed oligomeric structures can arise (**Figure 4**). Metal‐containing units and organic linkers can be varied resulting in a variety of MOFs, tailored for different applications [3]. MOFs with large spaces may result in the formation of interpenetrating structures. Thus, it is very important to inhibit interpenetration by carefully choosing the organic linkers. The pore size is allowed to be tuned and spatial cavity arrangement be controlled, by judicious selection of metal centers

and organic ligands and also by adjusting their conditions of synthesis. The large porosity allows their applications in adsorption and separation of gaseous molecules, catalysis, microelectronics, optics, sensing applications, bioreactors, drug delivery, and others. MOFs have pore openings up to 2‐nm size, which can accommodate small molecules. However, the pore openings rarely allow the inclusion of large molecules (e.g., proteins and enzymes). Attempts have been taken to increase the pore size to mesopore regime (pore size of 2–50 nm) and to decrease the crystal size to the nanometer scale. The large pore aperture benefits surface modification with a number of functionalities, without sacrificing the porosity of MOFs, also allowing the encapsulation of large molecule MOFs. The synthesis of MOFs involves reac‐ tion conditions and simple methods such as solvothermal, ionothermal, diffusion, micro‐ wave methods, ultrasound‐assisted, template‐directed syntheses, and others [2, 3].

An interesting and significant advancement in the field is to combine MOFs with functional nanoparticles, yielding new nanocomposite materials with unparalleled properties and performance. Nano‐MOFs are advantageous over conventional nanomedicines owing to their structural and chemical diversity, high loading capacity, and biodegradability. The final properties are dependent on the particle composition, size, and morphology. These can be obtained as either crystalline or amorphous materials. As soft porous crystals, framework flexibility (triggered by an external stimulus, e.g., mechanical stress, temperature, light interactions) may be shown by MOFs, also in the absence of guests or with no involvement of adsorption and desorption [1–3, 16].

**Figure 2.** Some examples of organic ligands with carboxylic functionality used for the preparation of MOFs.

and organic ligands and also by adjusting their conditions of synthesis. The large porosity allows their applications in adsorption and separation of gaseous molecules, catalysis, microelectronics, optics, sensing applications, bioreactors, drug delivery, and others. MOFs have pore openings up to 2‐nm size, which can accommodate small molecules. However, the pore openings rarely allow the inclusion of large molecules (e.g., proteins and enzymes). Attempts have been taken to increase the pore size to mesopore regime (pore size of 2–50 nm) and to decrease the crystal size to the nanometer scale. The large pore aperture benefits surface modification with a number of functionalities, without sacrificing the porosity of MOFs, also allowing the encapsulation of large molecule MOFs. The synthesis of MOFs involves reac‐ tion conditions and simple methods such as solvothermal, ionothermal, diffusion, micro‐

wave methods, ultrasound‐assisted, template‐directed syntheses, and others [2, 3].

**Figure 2.** Some examples of organic ligands with carboxylic functionality used for the preparation of MOFs.

adsorption and desorption [1–3, 16].

6 Metal-Organic Frameworks

An interesting and significant advancement in the field is to combine MOFs with functional nanoparticles, yielding new nanocomposite materials with unparalleled properties and performance. Nano‐MOFs are advantageous over conventional nanomedicines owing to their structural and chemical diversity, high loading capacity, and biodegradability. The final properties are dependent on the particle composition, size, and morphology. These can be obtained as either crystalline or amorphous materials. As soft porous crystals, framework flexibility (triggered by an external stimulus, e.g., mechanical stress, temperature, light interactions) may be shown by MOFs, also in the absence of guests or with no involvement of

**Figure 3.** Some examples of ligands containing nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorous and heterocycles used for the prepara‐ tion of MOFs.

**Figure 4.** MOFs resulting from different metal nodes and bridging ligands.
