Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Towards Accurate and Scalable High-throughput MOF Adsorption Screening: Merging Classical Force Fields and Universal Machine Learned Interatomic Potentials

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hybrid screening workflow combining a classical force-field first pass with a universal machine-learned potential reaches near-DFT accuracy for ethylene/water adsorption in MOFs and identifies seven moisture-tolerant ethylene-selective ca

desk verdict Hybrid UFF→u-MLIP screening with a solid 88-MOF DFT benchmark; flexibility claims outpace the validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06719 v1 pith:UGXJVG42 submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Satyanarayana Bonakala , Mohammad Wahiduzzaman , Taku Watanabe , Karim Hamzaoui , Guillaume Maurin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords metal-organicframeworkshigh-throughputcomputationalscreeningmachine-learnedinteratomicpotentialsPFPUFFWidominsertionethylene/waterselectivityguest-inducedflexibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tackles a practical bottleneck in computational materials screening: fast but approximate force fields can scan thousands of frameworks, yet they miss the subtle host–guest interactions that decide which material actually works. The authors propose a two-stage workflow using a generic classical force field, UFF, to preselect hydrophobic, ethylene-selective MOFs from a large database, then re-evaluate the 88 survivors with PFP, a universal machine-learned interatomic potential, benchmarking both against DFT. For most frameworks UFF and PFP agree, but for MOFs with hydrogen-bonding sites or tight confinement pockets UFF deviates by more than 10 kJ/mol, and PFP corrects those rankings. Including framework flexibility shifts ethylene affinity by up to about 20 kJ/mol for a subset of MOFs, so relaxing the unit cell matters. The final list contains seven MOFs with high ethylene affinity (more than 43 kJ/mol) and C2H4/H2O selectivity (greater than 50), proposed for humid ethylene-removal applications such as food packaging.

What carries the argument

The engine is a two-stage Widom-insertion Monte Carlo pipeline. In the first stage, UFF supplies Lennard-Jones parameters and MEPO-ML charges for rigid-framework test-particle insertions, producing Henry constants, infinite-dilution adsorption enthalpies, and ideal selectivity for both ethylene and water. In the second stage, PFP—the PreFerred Potential, an equivariant graph-neural-network interatomic potential trained on a large DFT-derived dataset—evaluates host–guest energies for the same Widom insertions, with a PBE-D3 dispersion correction applied. The second stage also relaxes atomic positions and unit-cell parameters under a single adsorbed guest, converting the screening from rigid-f

What would settle it

Compare the seven top-ranked MOFs' predicted low-coverage heats and Henry selectivities against experimental low-coverage adsorption calorimetry or isotherms measured under humid conditions; a systematic shortfall—several candidates below 43 kJ/mol or below selectivity 50—would falsify the workflow's ranking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that accuracy and scalability in MOF adsorption screening need not be traded off: a generic classical force field (UFF) can serve as a cheap first-pass filter over thousands of frameworks, and a universal machine-learned potential (PFP u-MLIP), validated against PBE-D3 DFT, can refine the top candidates. Comparing UFF and PFP on 88 MOFs shows UFF captures the qualitative hydrophilic/hydrophobic ranking and ethylene affinities within a mean absolute deviation of about 5 kJ/mol, but a small set of outliers—MOFs with μ-OH groups in V-shaped pockets and one water-binding outlier—deviate beyond 10 kJ/mol; PFP captures the short π···OH contacts and confined water arrangements

Load-bearing premise

The screening treats one particular density-functional-theory calculation (PBE-D3) as the correct answer for how strongly ethylene and water bind in every framework; if that reference is biased, the final candidates could be mis-ranked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UFF-based rigid-framework screening remains a defensible first pass for roughly 97–99% of the MOFs tested; only a small minority need higher-fidelity re-evaluation.
  • For MOFs with hydrogen-bonding groups, narrow pores, or confinement pockets, a universal machine-learned potential changes adsorption geometries and energies enough to alter rankings, so the hybrid stage is necessary for identifying the final top candidates.
  • Guest-induced framework flexibility, especially unit-cell relaxation, can change ethylene affinity by up to about 20 kJ/mol; ignoring it can mis-rank flexible MOFs such as layered structures.
  • The seven identified MOFs—with pore sizes around 4.5–6.0 Å, ethylene affinity greater than 43 kJ/mol, and C2H4/H2O selectivity greater than 50—are concrete targets for humid-condition ethylene-removal applications.
  • The same two-stage strategy can be applied to other adsorption separations and to databases of more than 100,000 structures, without being tied to a specific machine-learned potential.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the PFP benchmark is against DFT rather than experiment, the seven candidates' ranking should be checked against measured isotherms; a mismatch would localize the error to the DFT reference rather than to the workflow itself.
  • The observation that unit-cell relaxation changes ethylene affinity by up to 20 kJ/mol implies that other rigid-framework high-throughput screening studies may have systematically mis-ranked flexible MOFs; re-ranking a full database with cell relaxation is a natural next test.
  • The same triage logic—cheap generic model first, more expensive learned potential on the shortlist—could extend to predicting diffusivities, open-metal-site binding, or multicomponent co-adsorption, not just single-component heats.
  • The paper reports only ideal, Henry-regime selectivity; real humid-mixture selectivity could differ, so multicomponent grand-canonical Monte Carlo with PFP on the seven finalists is a direct testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hierarchical screening workflow for MOF adsorbents: a UFF-based Widom-insertion first pass over a curated subset of the CSD MOF database, followed by re-evaluation of 88 top candidates with the PFP universal machine-learned interatomic potential, and a final DFT benchmark. The authors report PFP vs PBE-D3 interaction-energy MADs of 2.4 and 3.0 kJ/mol for C2H4 and H2O over 88 MOFs, identify seven MOFs with high ethylene affinity and C2H4/H2O selectivity, and analyze guest-induced framework flexibility, citing deviations in ethylene affinity up to 20 kJ/mol, including a 35% volume contraction for QAQTEJ.

Significance. If the claims hold, the workflow offers a practical template for combining classical force fields with u-MLIPs for large-scale MOF screening, and the paper provides a useful benchmark dataset and open code (https://github.com/gmaurin-group/MLP-WIDOM-SIM). The DFT validation across 88 chemically diverse MOFs is a genuine strength, and the identification of outlier cases where UFF fails (ZSTU-3, A520, Fe-CFA-6) gives concrete, falsifiable predictions. However, the most distinctive claim—that PFP reliably captures guest-induced flexibility—is not supported at the same level as the rigid-framework energetics, and the final candidate list depends on post hoc thresholds without sensitivity analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.3, §III, Fig. 5] The benchmark in Fig. 3 validates PFP only for rigid frameworks (atomic positions relaxed, cell fixed) and for interaction energies at PFP-selected Widom minima. The full cell-relaxation results in Fig. 5—including the 35% volume contraction and 20 kJ/mol affinity shift for QAQTEJ—are presented without any DFT or experimental check. Given that the value of the u-MLIP stage over UFF is argued to rest substantially on capturing flexibility, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add DFT relaxations (cell + atomic positions) for at least the outlier MOFs and several of the final candidates, or explicitly recast the flexibility discussion as a qualitative, hypothesis-generating result.
  2. [§II.3, Fig. 3] The reference for benchmarking is PBE-D3 DFT, the same level that PFP is trained on. Agreement with PBE-D3 therefore does not establish agreement with experimental adsorption energetics. For a screening study that names seven specific sorbents, a comparison to experimental Henry constants or isotherms for at least a few well-known MOFs (e.g., ZIF-8, A520, or a cyclodextrin MOF) would calibrate the absolute accuracy. Without it, a systematic PBE-D3 bias for hydrogen-bonded or π-conjugated systems could affect the ranking of the final candidates.
  3. [§III (Discussion of Figure 4f), Figure 4f] The final affinity threshold (−ΔH0,ads(C2H4) > 43 kJ/mol) and selectivity threshold S(C2H4/H2O) > 50 are introduced after the u-MLIP results are displayed. There is no sensitivity analysis, and the number of 'seven top performers' is a direct consequence of these choices; small perturbations could add or remove candidates. Please report how many MOFs lie in the neighborhood of the thresholds and provide robustness checks (e.g., varying the affinity threshold by ±3 kJ/mol and S by a factor of 2).
  4. [§II.3 (PFP benchmarking paragraph)] The DFT benchmark geometries are seeded from the lowest-energy configurations found by PFP-based Widom insertion. This tests PFP's accuracy near its own minima but not its transferability to other guest configurations, which is exactly what the cell-relaxation and flexible-framework calculations require. The benchmark set therefore does not constrain the error of the flexibility results. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, include a small set of DFT calculations starting from independent (e.g., random or UFF-derived) guest placements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Inconsistent naming: 'ZSTU-3' appears as 'ZTUS-3' in the text; 'ZSTU-380' and 'ZSTU-38080' are used interchangeably. Please standardize.
  2. [II.2 / III] The abstract and the discussion report the UFF vs PFP MAD for ΔH0,ads(C2H4) as both 5 and 5.1 kJ/mol. Use one value (5.1 kJ/mol) consistently.
  3. [References] Reference 7 has a typo: 'Cundary, T. R.' should be 'Cundari, T. R.'; also 'Gordon, M. S.' is a co-author but the name order and initials should be checked against the original UFF paper.
  4. [Fig. 5 / III] The caption of Fig. 5 and the text discuss QAQTEJ and A520, but it would help to mark which subpanel shows each MOF and to define 'ΔH0,ads' at first use in the figure caption (it is defined in the methodology but not in the caption).
  5. [II.2] For the Widom insertion with PFP, only 50,000 MC cycles are reported. Please state the number of insertions per cycle or the statistical uncertainty of K_H and ΔH0,ads, as the UFF runs are described in more detail.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PFP is a fixed pretrained model benchmarked against external DFT, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The workflow uses UFF as a first-pass filter, then re-evaluates the 88 surviving MOFs with PFP, a universal machine-learned potential that is fixed and pretrained; no parameter is fitted to the 88 MOFs or to the final seven candidates. The final selection applies fixed thresholds (S(C2H4/H2O) > 50 and -ΔH0,ads(C2H4) > 43 kJ/mol) to PFP-computed quantities, so the 'predictions' are screening outputs, not re-statements of fit inputs. The PFP-vs-DFT benchmark (Section II.3, Figure 3) is an external check, although both PFP and the benchmark are rooted in DFT-family data (PFP trained on ~42M DFT calculations; reference is PBE-D3), which limits the benchmark's independence but does not make the central claim definitionally circular. The flexibility analysis (Section III, Figure 5) is not benchmarked against DFT, and the DFT benchmark seeds geometries from PFP's own Widom minima; these are validation limitations, not circular reductions. The self-citations to the PFP development paper and Matlantis platform are minor and not load-bearing, since the present paper's DFT benchmark provides independent support for PFP's use here. Overall, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (that the hybrid workflow is accurate and scalable) depends on the validity of the DFT reference level, the transferability of PFP, the reliability of UFF as a first-pass filter, and the chosen screening thresholds. These are standard domain assumptions for computational screening, but the thresholds are hand-picked and at least two of them (43 kJ/mol, 50) appear to be set after examining the data, which introduces selection sensitivity.

free parameters (7)
  • Hydrophobicity threshold, K_H(H2O) < 1e-5 mol/kg/Pa = 1e-5 mol kg-1 Pa-1
    Hand-chosen threshold based on ZIF-8 reference to define hydrophobic MOFs; affects the candidate pool.
  • Ethylene affinity threshold, -ΔH0,ads(C2H4) > 25 kJ/mol = 25 kJ/mol
    Hand-chosen thermodynamic constraint to ensure strong binding; influences the initial shortlist of 110 MOFs.
  • Selectivity threshold, S(C2H4/H2O) > 1 = 1
    Hand-chosen to define ethylene-selective MOFs.
  • Final high-affinity threshold, -ΔH0,ads(C2H4) > 43 kJ/mol = 43 kJ/mol
    Threshold used to identify the seven 'top-performing' MOFs; appears to be selected after inspecting the u-MLIP results, introducing post hoc selection.
  • Final selectivity threshold, S(C2H4/H2O) > 50 = 50
    Threshold used to identify the seven 'top-performing' MOFs; appears to be selected after inspecting the u-MLIP results, introducing post hoc selection.
  • Pore-limiting diameter filter, PLD > 4.1 Å = 4.1 Å
    Geometric cut-off based on ethylene kinetic diameter.
  • Flexibility classification threshold, volume change < 10% = 10%
    Threshold used to classify guest-induced flexibility deviations (MAD 1.5 kJ/mol below this value).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PBE-D3 DFT is an adequate reference for adsorption energetics of C2H4 and H2O in MOFs.
    Used as the ground truth for benchmarking PFP u-MLIP (Section II.3); no absolute experimental benchmark is provided for the 88 MOFs.
  • domain assumption PFP u-MLIP generalizes to unseen MOF/guest combinations at near-DFT accuracy.
    Assumed based on the benchmark against 88 DFT calculations; only tested for neutral MOFs with limited chemical diversity.
  • domain assumption UFF with MEPO-ML charges captures qualitative host-guest trends for screening.
    Basis for the first-pass HTCS; the paper itself shows UFF mispredicts outliers, so this is an acknowledged approximation.
  • domain assumption Widom insertion at infinite dilution is a sufficient descriptor for screening ethylene/water selectivity.
    Used to compute Henry constants and enthalpies; neglects loading effects and competitive co-adsorption.
  • domain assumption CSD MOF structures, after curation and EqV2-ODAC optimization, are representative of experimental frameworks.
    Framework geometry is fixed prior to screening; EqV2-ODAC is another u-MLIP not benchmarked here.
  • domain assumption Single ethylene molecule relaxation in the unit cell captures guest-induced flexibility.
    The flexibility analysis uses one guest per simulation box; cooperative multi-guest effects are not considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Accurate and Scalable High-throughput MOF Adsorption Screening: Merging Classical Force Fields and Universal Machine Learned Interatomic Potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGXJVG42

@misc{pith2026250906719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Accurate and Scalable High-throughput MOF Adsorption Screening: Merging Classical Force Fields and Universal Machine Learned Interatomic Potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGXJVG42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06719}
}
read the original abstract

High-throughput computational screening (HTCS) of gas adsorption in metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) typically relies on classical generic force fields such as the Universal Force Field (UFF), which are efficient but often fail to capture complex host-guest interactions. Universal machine-learned interatomic potentials (u-MLIPs) offer near-quantum accuracy at far lower cost than density functional theory (DFT), yet their large-scale application in adsorption screening remains limited. Here, we present a hybrid screening strategy that merges Widom insertion Monte Carlo simulations performed with both UFF and the PreFerred Potential (PFP) u-MLIP to evaluate the adsorption performance of a large MOF database, using ethylene capture under humid conditions as a benchmark. From a curated set of MOFs, 88 promising candidates initially identified using UFF-based HTCS were re-evaluated with the PFP u-MLIP, benchmarked against DFT calculations to refine adsorption predictions and assess the role of framework flexibility. We show that PFP u-MLIP is essential to accurately assess the sorption performance of MOFs involving strong hydrogen bonding or confinement pockets within narrow pores, effects poorly captured using UFF. Notably, accounting for framework flexibility through full unit cell relaxation revealed deviations in ethylene affinity of up to 20 kJ mol-1, underscoring the impact of guest-induced structural changes. This HTCS workflow identified seven MOFs with optimal pore sizes, high ethylene affinity, and high C2H4/H2O selectivity, offering moisture-tolerant performance for applications from food packaging to trace ethylene removal. Our findings highlight the importance of accurately capturing host-guest energetics and framework flexibility, and demonstrate the practicality of incorporating u-MLIPs into scalable HTCS for identifying top MOF sorbents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06719 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Initial classical generic FF-based HTCS. (a) S(C2H4/H2O)-negative adsorption enthalpy of ethylene (-∆H0,ads(C2H4)) plot across the dataset of 264 hydrophobic MOFs. The shaded green region highlights 110 MOFs that exhibit both high ethylene affinity (- ∆H0,ads(C2H4) > 25 kJ mol−1 ) and S(C2H4/H2O) > 1, the 88 identified viable MOFs being represented in orange colour; (b) Same plot for this selected sub-set of 88 MOFs… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. PFP u-MLIP–based water and ethylene adsorption characteristics across 88 MOF candidates. (a) Correlation between ΔH0,ads(H2O) values calculated using UFF and PFP u-MLIP. MOFs in the grey region exhibit hydrophobic behaviour with -ΔH0,ads(H2O) < 44 kJ mol−1 ; (b) Crystal structure of the outlier MOF, ZSTU-3, with its pore architecture shown as a yellow surface. The inset shows a top view of the confined pore region w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Impact of MOF framework flexibility on ethylene adsorption energetics. (a) Comparison of -ΔH0,ads (C2H4) computed with PFP u-MLIP for rigid versus geometry￾optimized (atomic positions only) MOFs. The grey region denotes deviations within ±5 kJ mol−1 , while the pink region corresponds to deviations between 5 and 10 kJ mol−1 . (b) Comparison of -ΔH0,ads(C2H4) between rigid and fully optimized MOFs (both atomic positi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Moghadam, P. Z. et al. Development of a Cambridge Structural Database Subset: A Collection of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Past, Present, and Future. Chemistry of Materials 29, 2618– 2625 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    & Shan, G

    Tan, H., Teng, Y. & Shan, G. High throughput computational screening and interpretable machine learning for iodine capture of metal-organic frameworks. NPJ Comput Mater 11, 115 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Zhou, Y. et al. Machine Learning-Assisted High-Throughput Screening of Metal–Organic Frameworks for CO2 Separation from CO2-Rich Natural Gas. Ind Eng Chem Res 63, 16497– 16508 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ercakir, G., Aksu, G. O. & Keskin, S. High-throughput computational screening of MOF adsorbents for efficient propane capture from air and natural gas mixtures. J Chem Phys 160, 084706 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    G., Moosavi, S

    Boyd, P. G., Moosavi, S. M., Witman, M. & Smit, B. Force-Field Prediction of Materials Properties in Metal-Organic Frameworks. J Phys Chem Lett 8, 357–363 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Ozcan, A. et al. Artificial Intelligence Paradigms for Next-Generation Metal–Organic Framework Research. J Am Chem Soc 147, 23367–23380 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Cundary, T. R. & Gordon, M. S. UFF, a Full Periodic Table Force Field for Molecular Mechanics and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Am. Chem. Soc vol. 114 https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines (1992). 20

    1992

  8. [8]

    L., Olafson, B

    Mayo, S. L., Olafson, B. D. & Iii, W. A. G. DREIDING: A Generic Force Field for Molecular Simulations. J. Phys. Chem vol. 94 https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines (1990)

    1990

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    & Düren, T

    Chen, L., Grajciar, L., Nachtigall, P. & Düren, T. Accurate Prediction of Methane Adsorption in a Metal–Organic Framework with Unsaturated Metal Sites by Direct Implementation of an ab Initio Derived Potential Energy Surface in GCMC Simulation. The Journal of Physical Chemistr...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Fischer, M., Gomes, J. R. B., Fröba, M. & Jorge, M. Modeling Adsorption in Metal–Organic Frameworks with Open Metal Sites: Propane/Propylene Separations. Langmuir 28, 8537–8549 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Leem, A. Y. & and Chen, H. Simulating water adsorption in metal–organic frameworks with open metal sites using the 12-6-4 Lennard–Jones potential. Mol Simul 49, 1135–1142 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Lin, L.-C., Lee, K., Gagliardi, L., Neaton, J. B. & Smit, B. Force-Field Development from Electronic Structure Calculations with Periodic Boundary Conditions: Applications to Gaseous Adsorption and Transport in Metal–Organic Frameworks. J Chem Theory Comput 10, 1477– 1488 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Dzubak, A. L. et al. Ab initio carbon capture in open-site metal–organic frameworks. Nat Chem 4, 810–816 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Kulkarni, A. R. & Sholl, D. S. Screening of Copper Open Metal Site MOFs for Olefin/Paraffin Separations Using DFT-Derived Force Fields. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120, 23044–23054 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Yoon, J. W. et al. Selective nitrogen capture by porous hybrid materials containing accessible transition metal ion sites. Nat Mater 16, 526–531 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Martínez-Ahumada, E. et al. Capture and detection of SO2 using a chemically stable Mg(ii)– MOF. J Mater Chem A Mater 10, 18636–18643 (2022)

    2022

  9. [18]

    Zheng, B. et al. Quantum Informed Machine-Learning Potentials for Molecular Dynamics Simulations of CO2’s Chemisorption and Diffusion in Mg-MOF-74. ACS Nano 17, 5579–5587 (2023)

    2023

  10. [19]

    Zheng, B. et al. Simulating CO2 diffusivity in rigid and flexible Mg-MOF-74 with machine- learning force fields. APL Machine Learning 2, 026115 (2024)

    2024

  11. [20]

    & Verstraelen, T

    Goeminne, R., Vanduyfhuys, L., Van Speybroeck, V. & Verstraelen, T. DFT-Quality Adsorption Simulations in Metal–Organic Frameworks Enabled by Machine Learning Potentials. J Chem Theory Comput 19, 6313–6325 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    & Kim, J

    Lim, Y., Park, H., Walsh, A. & Kim, J. Accelerating CO₂ Direct Air Capture Screening for Metal-Organic Frameworks with a Transferable Machine Learning Force Field. (2024) doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-7w6g6. 21

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    & Van Speybroeck, V

    Goeminne, R. & Van Speybroeck, V. Ab Initio Predictions of Adsorption in Flexible Metal– Organic Frameworks for Water Harvesting Applications. J Am Chem Soc 147, 3615–3630 (2025)

    2025

  14. [23]

    Yang, C.-T. et al. Deep learning neural network potential for simulating gaseous adsorption in metal–organic frameworks. Mater Adv 3, 5299–5303 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    M., Medford, A

    Brabson, L. M., Medford, A. J. & Sholl, D. S. Comparing classical and machine learning force fields for modeling deformation of solid sorbents relevant for direct air capture. (2025) doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09256

    2025 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    & Zojer, E

    Wieser, S. & Zojer, E. Machine learned force-fields for an Ab-initio quality description of metal-organic frameworks. NPJ Comput Mater 10, 18 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    Liu, S. et al. Machine learning potential for modelling H2 adsorption/diffusion in MOFs with open metal sites. Chem Sci 15, 5294–5302 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    Rosen, A. S. et al. Machine learning the quantum-chemical properties of metal–organic frameworks for accelerated materials discovery. Matter 4, 1578–1597 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    P., Simm, G

    Batatia, I., Kovács, D. P., Simm, G. N. C., Ortner, C. & Csányi, G. MACE: Higher Order Equivariant Message Passing Neural Networks for Fast and Accurate Force Fields. (2023) doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07697

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    & Ong, S

    Chen, C. & Ong, S. P. A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table. Nat Comput Sci 2, 718–728 (2022)

    2022

  21. [30]

    Jain, A. et al. Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Mater 1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  22. [31]

    Deng, B. et al. CHGNet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling. Nat Mach Intell 5, 1031–1041 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Sriram, A. et al. The Open DAC 2025 Dataset for Sorbent Discovery in Direct Air Capture. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03162 (2025)

    2025

  24. [33]

    Sriram, A. et al. The Open DAC 2023 Dataset and Challenges for Sorbent Discovery in Direct Air Capture. ACS Cent Sci 10, 923–941 (2024)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Batatia, I. et al. A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. (2024) doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.00096

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Fu, X. et al. Learning Smooth and Expressive Interatomic Potentials for Physical Property Prediction. (2025) doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.12147

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    & Kim, J

    Lim, Y., Park, H., Walsh, A. & Kim, J. Accelerating CO2 direct air capture screening for metal-organic frameworks with a transferable machine learning force field. Matter 8, 102203 (2025)

    2025

  28. [37]

    & Moosavi, S

    Kraß, H., Huang, J. & Moosavi, S. M. MOFSimBench: Evaluating Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials In Metal–Organic Framework Molecular Modeling. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11806 (2025). 22

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Barry, C. S. & Giovannoni, J. J. Ethylene and Fruit Ripening. J Plant Growth Regul 26, 143– 159 (2007)

    2007

  30. [39]

    Y., Watkins, C

    State, N. Y., Watkins, C. B., Nock, J. F. & Reid, J. Production Guide for 2012 Production Guide for Storage of Organic Fruits and Vegetables Funded through a Grant from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. www.nysipm.cornell.edu/organic_guide

    2012

  31. [40]

    & Meybeck, A

    Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R. & Meybeck, A. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Preprint at (2011)

    2011

  32. [41]

    & Brecht, J

    Chang, L.-Y. & Brecht, J. K. Responses of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP)−treated banana fruit to pre− and post−treatment ethylene exposure. Sci Hortic 309, 111636 (2023)

    2023

  33. [42]

    Li, X. et al. Combination of 1-MCP and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) maintains banana fruit quality under high temperature storage by improving antioxidant system and cell wall structure. Postharvest Biol Technol 198, 112265 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    Lv, J. et al. Effects of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on the expression of genes involved in the chlorophyll degradation pathway of apple fruit during storage. Food Chem 308, 125707 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    & Ajji, A

    Wang, C. & Ajji, A. Ethylene scavenging film based on low-density polyethylene incorporating pumice and potassium permanganate and its application to preserve avocados. LWT 172, 114200 (2022)

    2022

  36. [45]

    Shin, D. U. et al. Potassium permanganate-based ethylene gas indicator of kiwifruit ripeness. Postharvest Biol Technol 200, 112330 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    H., Martínez-Hernández, G

    Álvarez-Hernández, M. H., Martínez-Hernández, G. B., Avalos-Belmontes, F., Miranda- Molina, F. D. & Artés-Hernández, F. Postharvest quality retention of apricots by using a novel sepiolite–loaded potassium permanganate ethylene scavenger. Postharvest Biol Technol 160, 111061 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    Li, H. et al. Effect of nano-packing on preservation quality of Chinese jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill. var. inermis (Bunge) Rehd). Food Chem 114, 547–552 (2009)

    2009

  39. [48]

    Shenoy, S. et al. Impact of relative humidity on ethylene removal kinetics of different scavenging materials for fresh produce industry. Postharvest Biol Technol 188, 111881 (2022)

    2022

  40. [49]

    & Siperstein, F

    Xiang, H., Ameen, A., Gorgojo, P. & Siperstein, F. R. Selective adsorption of ethane over ethylene on M(bdc)(ted)₀.₅ (M = Co, Cu, Ni, Zn) metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 292, 109724 (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    & others

    Luo, J. & others. A critical review on VOCs adsorption by different porous materials. J Hazard Mater 389, 122102 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    Rajkumar, T., Kukkar, D., Kim, K.-H., Sohn, J. R. & Deep, A. Cyclodextrin-metal–organic framework (CD-MOF): From synthesis to applications. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 72, 50–66 (2019). 23

    2019

  43. [52]

    Kathuria, A., El Badawy, A., Al-Ghamdi, S., Hamachi, L. S. & Kivy, M. B. Environmentally benign bioderived, biocompatible, thermally stable MOFs suitable for food contact applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 138, 323–338 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Zhang, Z. et al. Development of multifunctional metal-organic frameworks (MOFs)-based nanofiller materials in food packaging: A comprehensive review. Trends Food Sci Technol 154, 104771 (2024)

    2024

  45. [54]

    Li, H. et al. Metal–Organic Framework Based on α-Cyclodextrin Gives High Ethylene Gas Adsorption Capacity and Storage Stability. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 12, 34095–34104 (2020)

    2020

  46. [55]

    R., Bruno, I

    Groom, C. R., Bruno, I. J., Lightfoot, M. P. & Ward, S. C. The Cambridge Structural Database. Acta Crystallographica Section B 72, 171–179 (2016)

    2016

  47. [56]

    Takamoto, S. et al. Towards universal neural network potential for material discovery applicable to arbitrary combination of 45 elements. Nat Commun 13, 2991 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    M., Moubarak, E., Li, Y

    Jin, X., Jablonka, K. M., Moubarak, E., Li, Y. & Smit, B. MOFChecker: a package for validating and correcting metal–organic framework (MOF) structures. Digital Discovery 4, 1560–1569 (2025)

    2025

  49. [58]

    Rosen, A. S. et al. Machine learning the quantum-chemical properties of metal&#x2013;organic frameworks for accelerated materials discovery. Matter 4, 1578–1597 (2021)

    2021

  50. [60]

    & Woo, T

    Gibaldi, M., Kapeliukha, A., White, A. & Woo, T. K. Incorporation of Ligand Charge and Metal Oxidation State Considerations into the Computational Solvent Removal and Activation of Experimental Crystal Structures Preceding Molecular Simulation. J Chem Inf Model 65, 275–287 (2025)

    2025

  51. [61]

    Gibaldi, M. et al. MOSAEC-DB: a comprehensive database of experimental metal–organic frameworks with verified chemical accuracy suitable for molecular simulations. Chem Sci 16, 4085–4100 (2025)

    2025

  52. [62]

    Hjorth Larsen, A. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 273002 (2017)

    2017

  53. [63]

    & Smit, B

    Frenkel, D. & Smit, B. Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications. vol. 1 (Academic Press, San Diego, 2002)

    2002

  54. [64]

    Ewald, P. P. Die Berechnung optischer und elektrostatischer Gitterpotentiale. Ann Phys 369, 253–287 (1921)

    1921

  55. [65]

    Luo, J. et al. MEPO-ML: a robust graph attention network model for rapid generation of partial atomic charges in metal-organic frameworks. NPJ Comput Mater 10, 224 (2024). 24

    2024

  56. [66]

    & Fröba, M

    Fischer, M., Hoffmann, F. & Fröba, M. New Microporous Materials for Acetylene Storage and C2H2/CO2 Separation: Insights from Molecular Simulations. ChemPhysChem 11, 2220–2229 (2010)

    2010

  57. [67]

    Vega, C., Abascal, J. L. F. & Nezbeda, I. Vapor-liquid equilibria from the triple point up to the critical point for the new generation of TIP4P-like models: TIP4P/Ew, TIP4P/2005, and TIP4P/ice. J Chem Phys 125, 034503 (2006)

    2005

  58. [68]

    & Zhong, C

    Yang, Q. & Zhong, C. Molecular Simulation of Carbon Dioxide/Methane/Hydrogen Mixture Adsorption in Metal−Organic Frameworks. J Phys Chem B 110, 17776–17783 (2006)

    2006

  59. [69]

    & Krieg, H

    Grimme, S., Antony, J., Ehrlich, S. & Krieg, H. A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu. J Chem Phys 132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  60. [70]

    & Goerigk, L

    Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S. & Goerigk, L. Effect of the damping function in dispersion corrected density functional theory. J Comput Chem 32, 1456–1465 (2011)

    2011

  61. [71]

    & Masulli, F

    Battiti, R. & Masulli, F. BFGS Optimization for Faster and Automated Supervised Learning. in International Neural Network Conference: July 9–13, 1990 Palais Des Congres — Paris — France 757–760 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1990). doi:10.1007/978-94-009-0643-3_68

    1990 doi

  62. [72]

    Matlantis

    Preferred Computational Chemistry Inc. Matlantis. Preprint at https://matlantis.com/

  63. [73]

    & VandeVondele, J

    Hutter, J., Iannuzzi, M., Schiffmann, F. & VandeVondele, J. cp2k: atomistic simulations of condensed matter systems. WIREs Computational Molecular Science 4, 15–25 (2014)

    2014

  64. [74]

    P., Burke, K

    Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys Rev Lett 77, 3865–3868 (1996)

    1996

  65. [75]

    & Hutter, J

    VandeVondele, J. & Hutter, J. Gaussian basis sets for accurate calculations on molecular systems in gas and condensed phases. J Chem Phys 127, 114105 (2007)

    2007

  66. [76]

    & Hutter, J

    Goedecker, S., Teter, M. & Hutter, J. Separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials. Phys Rev B 54, 1703–1710 (1996)

    1996

  67. [77]

    O., Altintas, C

    Ercakir, G., Aksu, G. O., Altintas, C. & Keskin, S. Hierarchical Computational Screening of Quantum Metal–Organic Framework Database to Identify Metal–Organic Frameworks for Volatile Organic-Compound Capture from Air. ACS Engineering Au 3, 488–497 (2023)

    2023

  68. [78]

    Stephenson, R. M. & Malanowski, S. Handbook of the Thermodynamics of Organic Compounds. (Springer Dordrecht, 1987). doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3173-2

    1987 doi

  69. [79]

    Bucior, B. J. et al. Identification Schemes for Metal–Organic Frameworks To Enable Rapid Search and Cheminformatics Analysis. Cryst Growth Des 19, 6682–6697 (2019)

    2019

  70. [80]

    Li, C. et al. Tunable titanium metal–organic frameworks with infinite 1D Ti–O rods for efficient visible-light-driven photocatalytic H2 evolution. J Mater Chem A Mater 7, 11928– 11933 (2019)

    2019

  71. [81]

    Shen, J. et al. Engineered Nanoporous Frameworks for Adsorption Cooling Applications. Chem Rev 124, 7619–7673 (2024). 25

    2024

  72. [83]

    Spirkl, S. et al. Fe/Ga-CFA-6 – metal organic frameworks featuring trivalent metal centers and the 4,4′-bipyrazolyl ligand. CrystEngComm 17, 313–322 (2015)

    2015

  73. [84]

    Wang, Y., Jiang, Z.-J., Wang, D.-R., Lu, W. & Li, D. Machine Learning-Assisted Discovery of Propane-Selective Metal–Organic Frameworks. J Am Chem Soc 146, 6955–6961 (2024)

    2024

  74. [85]

    Castillo-Blas, C. et al. Addressed realization of multication complex arrangements in metal- organic frameworks. Sci Adv 3, e1700773 (2025)

    2025

  75. [86]

    & Hong, M.-C

    Xu, Y., Wang, R.-H., Lou, B.-Y., Han, L. & Hong, M.-C. Poly[iron(II)-di-μ-imidazole-4,5- dicarboxylato-κ 3 N 3, O 4: O 5]. Acta Crystallographica Section C 60, m296–m298 (2004)

    2004

  76. [87]

    Alvarez, E. et al. The Structure of the Aluminum Fumarate Metal–Organic Framework A520. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54, 3664–3668 (2015)

    2015

  77. [88]

    Wu, C.-Y. et al. Evaluation of structural transformation in 2D metal–organic frameworks based on a 4,4′-sulfonyldibenzoate linker: microwave-assisted solvothermal synthesis, characterization and applications. CrystEngComm 16, 9308–9319 (2014)

    2014

  78. [89]

    Armaghan, M. et al. Metal–Organic Frameworks via Emissive Metal-Carboxylate Zwitterion Intermediates. Chempluschem 80, 1231–1234 (2015)

    2015

  79. [90]

    Liu, X.-G. et al. A new luminescent metal–organic framework based on dicarboxyl-substituted tetraphenylethene for efficient detection of nitro-containing explosives and antibiotics in aqueous media. J Mater Chem C Mater 6, 2983–2988 (2018)

    2018

  80. [91]

    J., Muñoz, M

    Adams, C. J., Muñoz, M. C., Waddington, R. E. & Real, J. A. Cooperative Spin Transition in the Two-Dimensional Coordination Polymer [Fe(4,4′-bipyridine)2(NCX)2]·4CHCl3 (X = S, Se). Inorg Chem 50, 10633–10642 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.