Deconstruction of Crystalline Networks into Underlying Nets: Relevance for Terminology Guidelines and Crystallographic Databases
Loading...
Date
Authors
Bonneau, Charlotte
O’Keeffe, Michael
Proserpio, Davide M.
Blatov, Vladislav A.
Batten, Stuart
Bourne, Susan
Lah, Myoung Soo
Eon, Jean-Guillaume
Hyde, Stephen
Wiggin, Seth B.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
American Chemical Society
Abstract
This communication briefly reviews why network topology
is an important tool (for understanding, comparing, communicating,
designing, and solving crystal structures from powder diffraction data) and
then discusses the terms of an IUPAC project dealing with various aspects
of network topology. One is the ambiguity in node assignment, and this
question is addressed in more detail. First, we define the most important
approaches: the “all node” deconstruction considering all branch points of
the linkers, the “single node” deconstruction considering only
components mixed, and the ToposPro “standard representation” also
considering linkers as one node but, if present, takes each metal atom as a
separate node. These methods are applied to a number of metal−organic framework structures (MOFs, although this is just one
example of materials this method is applicable on), and it is concluded that the “all node” method potentially yields more
information on the structure in question but cannot be recommended as the only way of reporting the network topology. In
addition, several terms needing definitions are discussed.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Collections
Source
Crystal Growth & Design
Type
Book Title
Entity type
Access Statement
License Rights
Restricted until
2037-12-31
Downloads
File
Description