So... these are very fun materials, a kind of real-life menger sponges with huge internal surface area.
Some fifteen years ago, as an intern working for a company making desulfurization catalysts (stuff that removes nasty sulfur compounds from crude oil so they don't stink up the gas you put in your car), I prepared a few of the easy-to-handle air stable ones.
Reactions between fluids and a solid catalyst take place on the catalyst surface, so higher surface area = higher reaction rates = better.
I remember everyone's minds at the company being completely blown by the ridiculous surface areas of my attempts at recreating some random MOFs from literature. Got awarded the highest possible grade for no reason other than (badly) following a few procedures and measuring that indeed, their internal surface area was insanely big.
Thanks Yaghi and co. I'll always fondly remember your MOFs.
> ... Got awarded the highest possible grade for no reason other than (badly) following a few procedures and measuring that indeed, their internal surface area was insanely big
It's totally OK to experiment with these things, but wouldn't you then have to worry about these application areas being patented and having to enter into costly licensing deals if you wanted to use them in industry?
In addition to what condensedcrab and mikeyouse wrote, there is a HUGE gap between a commercially viable, patentable product and a freely accessible paper stating "take copper acetate and benzenetricarboxylic acid, stir at pH so and so and remove the volatiles in vacuum".
The resulting blue crunchy mess is NOWHERE near something on a support material that you throw into a fluidized bed reactor for reaction at elevated temperature for months on end. And that's where the proprietary magic happens.
is desulfurization endothermic? one thing I'd worry about when increasing the surface area that much for an industrialized process is making your reaction vat into a bomb
OP was an intern - the potential commercialization of the tech would be left up to the rest of the team. And "costly" is a very relative term.. Exxon earned like $350 billion in revenue last year with over $30 billion in profit. They'd be happy to invest in cutting edge tech if it simplifies their supply chain or removes some steps or units from their refining process.
IANAL, but I suspect that the IP situation is similar to current uses, such as catalytic converters.
New tech and specific applications can be covered for commercialization, but the general "idea" of using MOFs for adsorption is broad enough that you'd probably only get into legal hot water if you tried to introduce a direct competitor to someone in the market.
The story about the "aha!" moment inspires me to find ways to physically play with ideas more:
> When the workshop returned the wooden balls, he tested building some molecules. This was when he had a moment of insight: there was a vast amount of information baked into the holes’ positioning. The model molecules automatically had the correct form and structure, because of where the holes were situated. This insight led to his next idea: what would happen if he utilised the atoms’ inherent properties to link together different types of molecules, rather than individual atoms? Could he design new types of molecular constructions?
In Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman tells the story of how he managed to end a dry spell where he couldn't come up with good research ideas.
He was in a cafeteria, someone slipped, and accidentally threw a plate into the air. Feynman could see it spinning, and could see that it had a wobble that spun, and wondered if he could figure out the ratio between the two.
The piece of mathematics that he worked out had no particular purpose. But having it turned out to be essential later in the work that earned him a Nobel prize.
The article gives a good simplified explanation, here is my shorter explanation: porous materials, like sponges, have a lot of surface area, which is useful for two main reasons: 1) speeding up reaction rates and 2) capturing and releasing molecules (water, CO2, pollutants, etc.) More surface area is more valuable. Before, the most surface area we had was with zeolites, which are aluminosilicate minerals which occur naturally and are also synthetically produced - the synthetics mostly produced by trial and error. MOFs are unique in a few ways; for one, they are rationally designed molecules where we can predict some properties, and two, the surface area is far higher than zeolites. Zeolites range from 10-1700 m2/gram based on how you measure (most are from 20-400) and MOFs range from 1000-7000+.
Unfortunately MOFs are still quite expensive and very much on the cutting edge, so I am forced to use zeolites anytime I want a lot of surface area, but they are getting more accessible (you can now buy them on Amazon!) and I imagine the price will come down for some of the simpler to make MOFs in the near future.
Love MOFs! Did research about MOFs <=> language modeling a couple years ago and I'm excited to see them getting more coverage https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07617
(2) is just a typo but as for (1) “metal–organic” correctly uses an en dash, and this is quite nice to see. They're consistently using the en dash even in their tweets etc, which is lovely.
Probably written by Swedish persons, we also use -s suffixes in many places but basically never with apostrophes so using them when writing English can be a bit hard to get correct (and vice-versa going back to Swedish it's easy to add them in the wrong places).
1. Very few people these days understand the difference between hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes. And then converting fonts and character sets on the internet adds another layer of error generation. We could settle on using a single '-' for hyphen and en-dash and a ' -- ' for em-dashes in fonts that don't have a ligature, but that hasn't carried down from the typewriter days for some reason. Microsoft Word is probably a big part of why.
This is as cool as it gets for using organic chemistry to design materials: design your own little lego blocks and let them self assemble into a humongous structure.
I'm quite confused by some of the units used in the article. For example:
> A couple of grams of MOF-5 holds an area as big as a football pitch
grams are of course a measure of mass, and a football pitch is presumably a measure of 2d space. Does anyone have any idea how these relate? I can imagine some heavily modified form of this making sense, such as: a couple of grams of MOF-5 is able to contain the amount of gas that would fill a standard football stadium at 1 atmosphere of pressure, but that amount of mangling seems unreasonable.
What if down the line we discover that MOFs can be used for sophisticated drug delivery? Imagine a therapy like this: a patient lies on a magnetic table, and is administered a dose of MOFs containing a specific drug, via bloodstream injection. The metal of choice is the MOF is magnetic. The magnetic table slowly guides the MOFs towards the part of the body that requires the drug, keeping them concentrated there for some period of time while the drug if absorbed by the body. If it is then necessary/ideal to remove the MOFs, the procedure can be performed in reverse. The patient's blood is drawn, and the MOFs are guided to the site of the injection. An external appartus filters the MOFs out of the blood, and returns the filtered blood to the patient (to minimize blood loss).
This therapy could take something like 1-2 hours and could potentially be a drastically more efficient way to administer drugs, because they will primarily affect the target organ/region rather than be necessarily dispersed throughout the whole body, which would result in better intervention outcomes, and less side-effects.
Hmmm. This years' nobel prizes are a bit more boring compared to prior ones. I understand that not all ideas or inventions are created equal, but I prefer more raw epicness.
While quantum-tunneling is quite niche I think it's given to demonstrate something with everyday life application (considering the outsized impact of microprocessors on society).
This MoF thing is quite damn cool though, advancing moisture capturing in arid regions itself is big.
But also being able to separate chemicals in a more controlled manner sounds like something really groundbreaking that will probably impact chemistry for a long time to come.
What do you mean boring? MOFs are a fascinating area of chemistry. Outside of nature, they are most likely our best example of rationally designed nanoscale systems. In chemistry, rational design - that based on rules - is a rare thing. Molecules bump around and stick together in unpredictable ways, but MOFs allow us to create very well defined nanoscale frameworks. They’re famously tricky, though!
Nobel prizes in Physics and Chemistry tend to be awarded long after discovery. It's part of the process in evaluating the impact of a specific discovery.
When you have a yearly prize, you're bound to get off-years. Maybe the Nobels should be structured to only be given out every 4 years, like the Olympics. But that would be a huge blow to the Stockholm hospitality business.
You hit it on the head: comparing the Nobel prizes to the Olympics. Perhaps to some they look too much like the Olympics: periodic, awarded in various categories. I suggest the similarities end there though.
So... these are very fun materials, a kind of real-life menger sponges with huge internal surface area.
Some fifteen years ago, as an intern working for a company making desulfurization catalysts (stuff that removes nasty sulfur compounds from crude oil so they don't stink up the gas you put in your car), I prepared a few of the easy-to-handle air stable ones.
Reactions between fluids and a solid catalyst take place on the catalyst surface, so higher surface area = higher reaction rates = better.
I remember everyone's minds at the company being completely blown by the ridiculous surface areas of my attempts at recreating some random MOFs from literature. Got awarded the highest possible grade for no reason other than (badly) following a few procedures and measuring that indeed, their internal surface area was insanely big.
Thanks Yaghi and co. I'll always fondly remember your MOFs.
> ... Got awarded the highest possible grade for no reason other than (badly) following a few procedures and measuring that indeed, their internal surface area was insanely big
It's totally OK to experiment with these things, but wouldn't you then have to worry about these application areas being patented and having to enter into costly licensing deals if you wanted to use them in industry?
In addition to what condensedcrab and mikeyouse wrote, there is a HUGE gap between a commercially viable, patentable product and a freely accessible paper stating "take copper acetate and benzenetricarboxylic acid, stir at pH so and so and remove the volatiles in vacuum".
The resulting blue crunchy mess is NOWHERE near something on a support material that you throw into a fluidized bed reactor for reaction at elevated temperature for months on end. And that's where the proprietary magic happens.
is desulfurization endothermic? one thing I'd worry about when increasing the surface area that much for an industrialized process is making your reaction vat into a bomb
OP was an intern - the potential commercialization of the tech would be left up to the rest of the team. And "costly" is a very relative term.. Exxon earned like $350 billion in revenue last year with over $30 billion in profit. They'd be happy to invest in cutting edge tech if it simplifies their supply chain or removes some steps or units from their refining process.
IANAL, but I suspect that the IP situation is similar to current uses, such as catalytic converters.
New tech and specific applications can be covered for commercialization, but the general "idea" of using MOFs for adsorption is broad enough that you'd probably only get into legal hot water if you tried to introduce a direct competitor to someone in the market.
The story about the "aha!" moment inspires me to find ways to physically play with ideas more:
> When the workshop returned the wooden balls, he tested building some molecules. This was when he had a moment of insight: there was a vast amount of information baked into the holes’ positioning. The model molecules automatically had the correct form and structure, because of where the holes were situated. This insight led to his next idea: what would happen if he utilised the atoms’ inherent properties to link together different types of molecules, rather than individual atoms? Could he design new types of molecular constructions?
In Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman tells the story of how he managed to end a dry spell where he couldn't come up with good research ideas.
He was in a cafeteria, someone slipped, and accidentally threw a plate into the air. Feynman could see it spinning, and could see that it had a wobble that spun, and wondered if he could figure out the ratio between the two.
The piece of mathematics that he worked out had no particular purpose. But having it turned out to be essential later in the work that earned him a Nobel prize.
Never underestimate the value of play!
>Never underestimate the value of play!
I don't. It's my boss who doesn't see the value :(
Congratulations to the laureates! Well deserved.
The article gives a good simplified explanation, here is my shorter explanation: porous materials, like sponges, have a lot of surface area, which is useful for two main reasons: 1) speeding up reaction rates and 2) capturing and releasing molecules (water, CO2, pollutants, etc.) More surface area is more valuable. Before, the most surface area we had was with zeolites, which are aluminosilicate minerals which occur naturally and are also synthetically produced - the synthetics mostly produced by trial and error. MOFs are unique in a few ways; for one, they are rationally designed molecules where we can predict some properties, and two, the surface area is far higher than zeolites. Zeolites range from 10-1700 m2/gram based on how you measure (most are from 20-400) and MOFs range from 1000-7000+.
Unfortunately MOFs are still quite expensive and very much on the cutting edge, so I am forced to use zeolites anytime I want a lot of surface area, but they are getting more accessible (you can now buy them on Amazon!) and I imagine the price will come down for some of the simpler to make MOFs in the near future.
Love MOFs! Did research about MOFs <=> language modeling a couple years ago and I'm excited to see them getting more coverage https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07617
Very well-written description. Unfortunately, my brain stumbled over a few annoyances:
1. In the phrase "metal–organic": that's not a hyphen in the text.
2. What's with the dropped apostrophe: "the ions and molecules inherent attraction to each other mattered"
Sorry, I know I'm not supposed to comment on such things, but they're distracting in otherwise good copy.
(2) is just a typo but as for (1) “metal–organic” correctly uses an en dash, and this is quite nice to see. They're consistently using the en dash even in their tweets etc, which is lovely.
(Wikipedia gives examples like “Boston–Hartford route” and “Bose–Einstein statistics”. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dash&oldid=131217... )
Thank you! TIL that the term is analogous to Boston-Hartford route. (I failed to type the en-dash here on my mobile)
Probably written by Swedish persons, we also use -s suffixes in many places but basically never with apostrophes so using them when writing English can be a bit hard to get correct (and vice-versa going back to Swedish it's easy to add them in the wrong places).
1. Very few people these days understand the difference between hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes. And then converting fonts and character sets on the internet adds another layer of error generation. We could settle on using a single '-' for hyphen and en-dash and a ' -- ' for em-dashes in fonts that don't have a ligature, but that hasn't carried down from the typewriter days for some reason. Microsoft Word is probably a big part of why.
2. No excuse for this.
MOFs have been the "hot thing" in chemistry for about the past decade so this certainly isn't a surprise. Congrats to the laureates!
This is as cool as it gets for using organic chemistry to design materials: design your own little lego blocks and let them self assemble into a humongous structure.
Nature figured that out a half billion years ago :-)
I'm quite confused by some of the units used in the article. For example:
> A couple of grams of MOF-5 holds an area as big as a football pitch
grams are of course a measure of mass, and a football pitch is presumably a measure of 2d space. Does anyone have any idea how these relate? I can imagine some heavily modified form of this making sense, such as: a couple of grams of MOF-5 is able to contain the amount of gas that would fill a standard football stadium at 1 atmosphere of pressure, but that amount of mangling seems unreasonable.
It's the internal surface area. Like saying 10 grams of Swiss cheese has X surface area in its holes on average.
Imagine a very very thin blanket the size of a football pitch scrunched into a very small ball.
There's a running joke about MOFs in the physical and inorganic chemistry worlds - their only real-world application is producing JACS papers.
Bit of a disappointing prize, but hey, at least it went to chemists this year!
What if down the line we discover that MOFs can be used for sophisticated drug delivery? Imagine a therapy like this: a patient lies on a magnetic table, and is administered a dose of MOFs containing a specific drug, via bloodstream injection. The metal of choice is the MOF is magnetic. The magnetic table slowly guides the MOFs towards the part of the body that requires the drug, keeping them concentrated there for some period of time while the drug if absorbed by the body. If it is then necessary/ideal to remove the MOFs, the procedure can be performed in reverse. The patient's blood is drawn, and the MOFs are guided to the site of the injection. An external appartus filters the MOFs out of the blood, and returns the filtered blood to the patient (to minimize blood loss).
This therapy could take something like 1-2 hours and could potentially be a drastically more efficient way to administer drugs, because they will primarily affect the target organ/region rather than be necessarily dispersed throughout the whole body, which would result in better intervention outcomes, and less side-effects.
Amazing stuff
Hmmm. This years' nobel prizes are a bit more boring compared to prior ones. I understand that not all ideas or inventions are created equal, but I prefer more raw epicness.
The Nobel prizes are not there to produce good sounding opeds and "epic" news to entertain the general public.
It’s a prize given to scientists to highlight and encourage valuable research according to a jury of pairs.
While quantum-tunneling is quite niche I think it's given to demonstrate something with everyday life application (considering the outsized impact of microprocessors on society).
This MoF thing is quite damn cool though, advancing moisture capturing in arid regions itself is big.
But also being able to separate chemicals in a more controlled manner sounds like something really groundbreaking that will probably impact chemistry for a long time to come.
Quantum tunneling has been productized for decades.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Fairview-Microwave/FMMT...
What do you mean boring? MOFs are a fascinating area of chemistry. Outside of nature, they are most likely our best example of rationally designed nanoscale systems. In chemistry, rational design - that based on rules - is a rare thing. Molecules bump around and stick together in unpredictable ways, but MOFs allow us to create very well defined nanoscale frameworks. They’re famously tricky, though!
You'll have to wait for the Nobel Peace Prize announcement if you want to see some "epicness" this year.
This seems pretty epic to me- an entirely new material primitive with novel real world properties
Nobel prizes in Physics and Chemistry tend to be awarded long after discovery. It's part of the process in evaluating the impact of a specific discovery.
That being said, you get stuff like high Tc superconductors that are awarded the following year: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1987/press-release...
Rather than scoff at the selection, maybe use the opportunity to recalibrate and expand what one considers “interesting”?
How about the Ig Nobel Prize? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
You can't discover cold fusion every year.
Aaaay! (Ouch)
When you have a yearly prize, you're bound to get off-years. Maybe the Nobels should be structured to only be given out every 4 years, like the Olympics. But that would be a huge blow to the Stockholm hospitality business.
You hit it on the head: comparing the Nobel prizes to the Olympics. Perhaps to some they look too much like the Olympics: periodic, awarded in various categories. I suggest the similarities end there though.