**3. The correlation between the reaction solvent and the product**

Mn [EMI][Mn(BTC)] Di-nuclear WEYQAU

[PMI][Mn(BTC)] Di-nuclear WEYQEY

[PMI][Mn(BTC)] Di-nuclear WEYPUN

In the previous section, we have explored through the chemical trend observable in nickel, manganese, and cadmium-BTC systems. Some basic explanations have been provided by relating the size of the ionic species to the pore size

of each structure. However, many questions still remain to be answered. For example, why does the topology shift has to occur right there, not anywhere else? If even larger cations were used, will the topology remain unchanged or will a new one appear? In order to answer this question, we have to get a deeper knowledge about the structures and the ions of the solvent. Qualitative analyses were simple, but it becomes necessary to add numbers to our logics to advance further.

## **3.1 Trends to predict future outcomes**

In the nickel-BTC system we first examined, increasing the cation size caused the topology to shift from the more condensed A-class to the B-class with a larger cavity volume. In **Table 1**, data have been provided from [EMI] to [PEMI] only. Suppose we are interested in the results for a new [HMI] column; the cation alkyl side chain increased by a carbon. The simplest way to predict the outcome is to analyse the cavity of the B-class topology and test if it is capable of housing the elongated [HMI] cations. In addition, taking a deeper look into the A-class topology might also strengthen our previous reasoning.

In the A-class topology, we can see that the cavities are not so well connected with each other [1, 7]. On the other hand, the B-class topology has cavities connected to their neighbours to create a linear channel-shaped pore as illustrated in **Figure 3**. The maximum length of the cation that can fit into the A-class topology is limited, but it is not so in the B-class topology. After looking at how the structures actually look like, we can now more confidently say that elongating the cation by a carbon is unlikely to exert enough pressure on the framework to give rise to a new topology.

The next step is to test whether the predictions are correct. When a completely new material is synthesised and its structure is to be determined, advanced tools like single-crystal X-ray diffractions must be used to resolve all positions of the atoms in the unit cell. However, when we have a reference material with a known structure, simpler techniques like powder X-ray diffractions (PXRD) are enough to tell whether the new material has the same structure to the reference. Therefore, the common step is to obtain the PXRD graph and compare it to the graph of some suspected structures. It is only when the new graph is different enough, the new material is subjected to complete structure analysis. Since our expectation was that the entries for the [HMI] column will have the same topology to the [BMI] column, we took the PXRD data for two and compared as in **Figure 4**. To assure the topological identity, several different combinations have been selected. All major peaks occur at the same angles, and our prediction by extrapolation has been proven valid [7]. We have now seen that correlations are valuable in that they may be used to predict future outcomes. This is the moment where prediction is no more but only an extrapolation.

#### **Figure 3.**

*Diagrams depicting the pores of (a) the A-class topology and (b) the B-class topology at Ni-BTC system. The linear shaped channels of the B-class topology become evident [7].*

**93**

**Figure 4.**

*Ionothermal Synthesis of Metal-Organic Framework DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79156*

**3.2 The effect of the final framework on the solvent properties**

extrapolations may not give accurate results.

*the positions of the main peaks coincide [7].*

The trend extrapolation introduced above was a success, but by no means is a guarantee that similar arguments will always hold true. All scientific explanations are based on reductive models where many details in reality must have been missed. However, discussions until now have only focused on how the variance in solvent properties, namely size, give rise to another variance in the product framework, but never vice versa. Chemistry is a study of interactions, and the term 'interactions' imply that there may always be bidirectional influence. It surely is the solvent that was in the reaction system first and then frameworks were built on top of the influence of the solvent, and thus, its influence on the product is more pronounced and also more important. However, the ionic species residing in different structures are in fact different even if they were in the same bottle before being deployed to the reaction. We would now like to guide your attention to an interesting system where the framework exerts a strong pressure to the cation to alter its shape. In such cases,

*PXRD data presented in pairs or triplets to illustrate the similarity and difference of the topologies occurring in the Ni-BTC system. (a) Structures synthesised from [PEMI]Cl, [PEMI]Br, and [PEMI]I show that all three in the [PEMI] row belong to the same topology group. (b) Three structures from [HMI] row show that they belong to the same topology group similarly to (a). (c) Two structures from the Cl column show that the topology groups of [HMI] row and [PEMI] row are identical. (d) The structure synthesised from [HMI]Cl is compared to that from [BMI]Br and shows that each two belong to the same class. The magnitude may be different, but* 

**Table 6** shows three reported entries in the not-so-extensively-studied cobalt-BTC system. Nevertheless, simplicity is not to be confused with incompleteness. While it may be true that the entire trend may not be fully described, deeper

analysis may follow in a more complete manner for the part that has been, or at least

The bromide column is never an exception to the systems we have been through. The α-class topology has pore volume smaller than the β-class, and it is

it reduces the burden to describe so many entries in full details.

*Ionothermal Synthesis of Metal-Organic Framework DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79156*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Recent Advancements in the Metallurgical Engineering and Electrodeposition*

of each structure. However, many questions still remain to be answered. For example, why does the topology shift has to occur right there, not anywhere else? If even larger cations were used, will the topology remain unchanged or will a new one appear? In order to answer this question, we have to get a deeper knowledge about the structures and the ions of the solvent. Qualitative analyses were simple, but it becomes necessary to add numbers to our logics to advance

In the nickel-BTC system we first examined, increasing the cation size caused the topology to shift from the more condensed A-class to the B-class with a larger cavity volume. In **Table 1**, data have been provided from [EMI] to [PEMI] only. Suppose we are interested in the results for a new [HMI] column; the cation alkyl side chain increased by a carbon. The simplest way to predict the outcome is to analyse the cavity of the B-class topology and test if it is capable of housing the elongated [HMI] cations. In addition, taking a deeper look into the A-class topology

In the A-class topology, we can see that the cavities are not so well connected with each other [1, 7]. On the other hand, the B-class topology has cavities connected to their neighbours to create a linear channel-shaped pore as illustrated in **Figure 3**. The maximum length of the cation that can fit into the A-class topology is limited, but it is not so in the B-class topology. After looking at how the structures actually look like, we can now more confidently say that elongating the cation by a carbon is unlikely to exert enough pressure on the framework to give rise to a

The next step is to test whether the predictions are correct. When a completely new material is synthesised and its structure is to be determined, advanced tools like single-crystal X-ray diffractions must be used to resolve all positions of the atoms in the unit cell. However, when we have a reference material with a known structure, simpler techniques like powder X-ray diffractions (PXRD) are enough to tell whether the new material has the same structure to the reference. Therefore, the common step is to obtain the PXRD graph and compare it to the graph of some suspected structures. It is only when the new graph is different enough, the new material is subjected to complete structure analysis. Since our expectation was that the entries for the [HMI] column will have the same topology to the [BMI] column, we took the PXRD data for two and compared as in **Figure 4**. To assure the topological identity, several different combinations have been selected. All major peaks occur at the same angles, and our prediction by extrapolation has been proven valid [7]. We have now seen that correlations are valuable in that they may be used to predict future outcomes. This is the moment where prediction is no more but only

*Diagrams depicting the pores of (a) the A-class topology and (b) the B-class topology at Ni-BTC system. The* 

*linear shaped channels of the B-class topology become evident [7].*

**92**

**Figure 3.**

further.

new topology.

an extrapolation.

**3.1 Trends to predict future outcomes**

might also strengthen our previous reasoning.

*PXRD data presented in pairs or triplets to illustrate the similarity and difference of the topologies occurring in the Ni-BTC system. (a) Structures synthesised from [PEMI]Cl, [PEMI]Br, and [PEMI]I show that all three in the [PEMI] row belong to the same topology group. (b) Three structures from [HMI] row show that they belong to the same topology group similarly to (a). (c) Two structures from the Cl column show that the topology groups of [HMI] row and [PEMI] row are identical. (d) The structure synthesised from [HMI]Cl is compared to that from [BMI]Br and shows that each two belong to the same class. The magnitude may be different, but the positions of the main peaks coincide [7].*

#### **3.2 The effect of the final framework on the solvent properties**

The trend extrapolation introduced above was a success, but by no means is a guarantee that similar arguments will always hold true. All scientific explanations are based on reductive models where many details in reality must have been missed. However, discussions until now have only focused on how the variance in solvent properties, namely size, give rise to another variance in the product framework, but never vice versa. Chemistry is a study of interactions, and the term 'interactions' imply that there may always be bidirectional influence. It surely is the solvent that was in the reaction system first and then frameworks were built on top of the influence of the solvent, and thus, its influence on the product is more pronounced and also more important. However, the ionic species residing in different structures are in fact different even if they were in the same bottle before being deployed to the reaction. We would now like to guide your attention to an interesting system where the framework exerts a strong pressure to the cation to alter its shape. In such cases, extrapolations may not give accurate results.

**Table 6** shows three reported entries in the not-so-extensively-studied cobalt-BTC system. Nevertheless, simplicity is not to be confused with incompleteness. While it may be true that the entire trend may not be fully described, deeper analysis may follow in a more complete manner for the part that has been, or at least it reduces the burden to describe so many entries in full details.

The bromide column is never an exception to the systems we have been through. The α-class topology has pore volume smaller than the β-class, and it is


**Table 6.**

*A table for the system of framework synthesised with cadmium-BTC system arranged similarly to Table 1.*

the increase in the cation size that caused it. However, a question that never has been addressed in previous systems was, is the difference between [EMI] to [PMI] the same as that between [PMI] and [BMI]? In other words, they are gradual, but are they in scale? They both differ by a carbon, and carbon–carbon bond length is nearly universally conserved. It seems they should differ only by an iota, if they were even different after all.

The *in situ* conformations of the guest cations were taken and subjected to computational analysis [31]. The difference in volume between [EMI] and [PMI] was calculated to be 21.8 Å3 , which is significantly larger than 14.9 Å3 , the difference between [PMI] and [BMI]. It is apparent that this difference arose from the bent conformation of the butyl chain of [BMI] cation; the distance between the terminal carbon to the first carbon in the chain was 2.918°A in compound β2, exceeding 2.567°A of compound β1 only by a small difference. The carbon–carbon bond is free to rotate about each other, but the β-class framework is stable enough to fix the conformation severely bent as they appear; a remarkable example of the framework influencing the property of the solvent. Moreover, just because it appears as the same one step on the table does not mean the actual size difference between the ionic species is the same.

Even though β1 and β2 structures belong to the same topology class, they may have minor differences like the ones described in the manganese system. Even by a small bit, [BMI] is still larger than [PMI] and is expected to exert pressure on the framework towards retaining a larger void volume. However, this straightforward prediction is actually far from the truth. The β-topology framework is so rigid that the void volume and the framework volume stay nearly unchanged for [PMI] and [BMI].

It also deserves some attention that the β-topology occurs very rare in other metal systems, suggesting that it is not so chemically favoured in many other environments [31]. While the rigidity of the framework can also be viewed as how favoured it is over other possible outcomes, it is interesting that this rare topology is so strongly preferred in the system and in cobalt system only. Also, attempts to synthesise crystalline frameworks with [PEMI]Br and [HMI]Br in the system all failed but only acquired amorphous solids. This further supports the absence of any other stable framework possible in the cobalt system. Additional studies must follow to provide explanations for the strikingly different preference of framework in the cobalt system.
