Recent Advancements in MOF/Biomass and Bio-MOF Multifunctional Materials: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read in detail the manuscript ID: sustainability-1698928 “Recent advancement in MOFs/biomass and Bio-MOFs multifunctional materials: A review” submitted to Sustainability MDPI. I think that that the subject of this work is interesting and deals with a current topic and the authors gathered valuable information on synthesis and advance of MOFs/biomass, bio-MOFs and their derivatives and their applications in the field of environmental remediation, energy storage, electromagnetic wave absorption. The document is comprehensive and generally well structured, the discussion is reasonable, but I think this manuscript should be reconsidered after proper changes in major revision for publication in Sustainability. Some of my specific comments are below:
Point 1. I see some errors on English in some areas of the present manuscript. To improve the quality of English used in this manuscript and make sure English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style are correct, further proofreading is needed.
Point 2. Some typos in the paper and authors should read through the whole paper and double-check.
Point 3. Line 34, been created[3]. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly (abc [number] or abc[number]).
Point 4. Line 45, derivatives[19,20]:(1) MOFs. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Point 5. Line 48, MOFs with poor stability is prone to hydrolyze, please change to are prone.
Point 6. Page 2, lines 55-60 ideal templates than biomass, because biomass is an abundant … prepare advanced function materials with excellent performance. Missing references.
Point 7. Page 2, line 63-64, so as to avoid the pollution caused by traditional organic linker with toxic [22–24] ? please add an explanation for this statement.
Point 8. Figure 1 is not cited in the manuscript.
Point 9. Page 2, line 74, To the best of our knowledge, a large number of reviews has been reported about MOFs derivative … Missing references.
Point 10. linkers[26,27], stability[28], weak[33,34]. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Point 11. Line 86 small biomolecules glucose must be read as small glucose biomolecules.
Point 12. Line 87, Cao et al. used ZIF-7/glucose to proposed nitrogen-doped porous. ZIF is used as an abbreviation without defining this term. Consider defining the term earlier.
Point 13. Line 108, Nitrogen absorption experiments showed that the BET surface area, BET is used as an abbreviation without defining this term. Consider defining the term earlier.
Point 14. Line 111, surface area and pore volumes reached 3119 m2/g and 1.93 cm3/g, Add a discussion about the possibilities/implications of these values.
Point 15. Line 113, chemical and mechanical stability is weak. Please add an explanation for this statement. Avoid generalizing.
Point 16. Line 139, (1) physical mixing, please change to Physical mixing.
Point 17. Kadib believed the strategy of preparing? should read as Kadib proposed?
Point 18. Line 192, was 100 and 74 MPa, respectively (Fig.1c, d), demonstrating its huge application potential. Add a discussion about the application potential.
Point 19. Line 243, Although MOFs-derived carbon materials have excellent properties and wide applications, the discontinuity between them cannot form a complete conductive network … please add an explanation for this statement.
Point 20. Figure 4c, x-axis title is missing.
Point 21. Figure 4, e is not defined.
Point 22. (c)Reflection loss curve, space must be added.
Point 23. Table 1, COO-, Please make sure the authors have used Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Point 24. Table 1, Please make sure the authors have used the font format of Sustainability, MDPI correctly.
Point 25. Line 364, Fig,4a please change to Fig. 4a.
Point 26. Conclusion please change to Conclusion.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
I have read in detail the manuscript ID: sustainability-1698928 “Recent advancement in MOFs/biomass and Bio-MOFs multifunctional materials: A review” submitted to Sustainability MDPI. I think that that the subject of this work is interesting and deals with a current topic and the authors gathered valuable information on synthesis and advance of MOFs/biomass, bio-MOFs and their derivatives and their applications in the field of environmental remediation, energy storage, electromagnetic wave absorption. The document is comprehensive and generally well structured, the discussion is reasonable, but I think this manuscript should be reconsidered after proper changes in major revision for publication in Sustainability. Some of my specific comments are below:
Response: We thank the referee for carefully reading our manuscript and noting that the work's impact, importance, and quality are appropriate for Sustainability.
Point 1. I see some errors on English in some areas of the present manuscript. To improve the quality of English used in this manuscript and make sure English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style are correct, further proofreading is needed.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and corrected the typographical and grammatical errors, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 1, line 10:
“has” is revised as “have”.
In Page 1, line 18:
“Prepare bio-MOFs” is revised as “Bio-MOFs are prepared”.
In Page 1, line 22:
“step further toward” is revised as “further step towards”.
In Page 1, line 41:
“posse” is revised as “possess”
In Page 1, line 44-45:
“especially during pyrolysis” is revised as “especially in the process of pyrolysis”.
In Page 2, line 51:
“incorporate” is revised as “incorporating”.
In Page 2, line 55-57:
“because biomass is an abundant, cheap, renewable natural materials, is the best potential candidate to replace carbon nanomaterials” is revised as “Biomass, an abundant, cheap, renewable natural materials, is the best potential candidate to replace carbon nanomaterials”.
In Page 2, line 61-63:
“biomolecules, e.g. amino acids, peptides, bases, polysaccharides come from biomass can be used as linkers to replace traditional organic linkers to construct metal-biomolecules frameworks (bio-MOFs)” is revised as “biomolecules collected from biomass, e.g. amino acids, peptides, bases, polysaccharides, can be used as linkers to replace traditional organic linkers to construct met-al-biomolecules frameworks (bio-MOFs)”.
In Page 3, line 85:
“use” is revised as “using”.
In Page 3, line 86:
“source” is revised as “sources”.
In Page 3, line 110:
“inside” is revised as “within”.
In Page 3, line 112:
“was” is added.
In Page 3, line 120:
“shows” is revised as “have shown”.
In Page 3, line 127:
“that” is revised as “and”.
In Page 4, line 130:
“indicated” is revised as “illustrating”.
In Page 4, line 138:
“shows” is revised as “showed”.
In Page 6, line 219:
“formed” is revised as “form”.
In Page 8, line 289:
“derived carbon” is revised as “derivatives”.
In Page 9, line 319:
“high the price” is revised as “the high price”.
In Page 9, line 321-323:
“some organic linkers will produce toxic by-products in the process of synthesizing MOFs, or MOFs will decompose in the process of use due to the weak stability, resulting in the outflow of toxic linkers, which will pollute the environment.” is revised as “toxic organic solvents need to be used in the synthesis of MOFs, or the decomposition of MOFs leads to the outflow of toxic organic ligands, which will cause subtle damage to the environment.”
In Page 9, line 326-327:
“they are not only be used in in separation, detection, catalysis, antimicrobial, but also widely used in the biomedicine, biosensing.” is revised as “they have been successfully applied to separation, detection, catalysis, antimicrobial, biomedicine, biosensing, etc.”
In Page 9, line 334:
“MOFs” is revised as “MOFs-based”.
In Page 10, line 361:
“is” is revised as “was”.
In Page 11, line 383:
“step further” is revised as “further step”.
In Page 11, line 385:
“increases” is revised as “increased”.
In Page 11, line 385:
“resulting” is revised as “which resulted”.
In Page 11, line 394:
“are” is revised as “were”.
Point 2. Some typos in the paper and authors should read through the whole paper and double-check.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and corrected the typographical and grammatical errors, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 4, line 171:
“S-nitrosocysteamine” is revised as “S-nitroso cysteamine”.
Point 3. Line 34, been created[3]. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly (abc [number] or abc[number]).
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 1, line 31-33:
“Thanks to high selectivity of metal ions/clusters and organic linker, since first reported, upwards of 90000 MOFs has been created [3].”
Point 4. Line 45, derivatives[19,20]:(1) MOFs. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 1, line 42-43:
“However, there are two big obstacles for the further development of MOFs and derivatives [19,20]: (1) MOFs and derivatives tend to agglomeration.”
Point 5. Line 48, MOFs with poor stability is prone to hydrolyze, please change to are prone.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 2, line 47-50:
“MOFs with poor stability are prone to hydrolyze in water or acid/alkaline environment due to the weak binding energy between metal ions and organic ligands. At this time, toxic organic ligands will release into the environment, which poses a threat to biological safety.”
Point 6. Page 2, lines 55-60 ideal templates than biomass, because biomass is an abundant … prepare advanced function materials with excellent performance. Missing references.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, corresponding references are added in the revised manuscript as below:
“[25] Zhao, Y.; Shi, J.; Wang, X.; Li, W.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, Z. Biomass@MOF-Derived Carbon Aerogels with a Hierarchically Structured Surface for Treating Organic Pollutants. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 17529–17536, doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.0c01149.
[26] Bian, W.; Chen, J.; Chen, Y.; Xu, W.; Jia, J. A Novel Waste Paper Cellulose-Based Cu-MOF Hybrid Material Threaded by PSS for Lithium Extraction with High Adsorption Capacity and Selectivity. Cellulose 2021, 28, 3041–3054, doi:10.1007/s10570-021-03707-y.
[27] Sun, P.-P.; Li, Y.-M.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Shi, H.; Shi, F.-N. Preparation and Application of Ce-Cu Based Metal Organic Framework/Biomass Carbon Composites in Energy Storage. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 896, 163081, doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2021.163081. ”
Point 7. Page 2, line 63-64, so as to avoid the pollution caused by traditional organic linker with toxic [22–24] ? please add an explanation for this statement.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, corresponding statements are added in the revised manuscript as below:
In Page 2, line 64-66:
“For example, p-phthalic acid, the organic linkers of MOF-5, is harmful to organisms, when exposed to humid air, MOF-5 with poor stability tends to decompose and dissolve into water [31].”
Point 8. Figure 1 is not cited in the manuscript.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and we are very sorry for the carelessness. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, corresponding statements are added in the revised manuscript as below:
In Page 3, line 78-79:
“In order to highlight the advantages of MOFs/biomass, bio-MOFs and their derivatives (Fig. 1).”
Point 9. Page 2, line 74, To the best of our knowledge, a large number of reviews has been reported about MOFs derivative Missing references.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, corresponding references are added in the revised manuscript as below:
“[33] Zhang, R.; Lu, L.; Chang, Y.; Liu, M. Gas Sensing Based on Metal-Organic Frameworks: Concepts, Functions, and Developments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 429, 128321, doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128321.
[34] He, B.; Zhang, Q.; Pan, Z.; Li, L.; Li, C.; Ling, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chen, M.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y.; et al. Freestanding Metal–Organic Frameworks and Their Derivatives: An Emerging Platform for Electrochemical Energy Storage and Conversion. Chem. Rev. 2022, doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00978.
[35] Xu, B.; Zhang, H.; Mei, H.; Sun, D. Recent Progress in Metal-Organic Framework-Based Supercapacitor Electrode Materials. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2020, 420, 213438, doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2020.213438.
Point 10. linkers[26,27], stability[28], weak[33,34]. Please make sure the authors have used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 88:
“but also offset the lack of carbon content of organic linkers [36-38].”
In Page 3, line 92:
“which represented high electrocatalytic activity and excellent stability [39].”
In Page 3, line 117-118:
“chitosan has been widely used for environmental remediation because of biodegradable, water soluble and nontoxic [44,45].”
Point 11. Line 86 small biomolecules glucose must be read as small glucose biomolecules.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 89:
“small biomolecules glucose” is revised as “small glucose biomolecules”.
Point 12. Line 87, Cao et al. used ZIF-7/glucose to proposed nitrogen-doped porous. ZIF is used as an abbreviation without defining this term. Consider defining the term earlier.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 90:
“ZIF-7/glucose” is revised as “ZIF (Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks)-7/glucose”.
Point 13. Line 108, Nitrogen absorption experiments showed that the BET surface area, BET is used as an abbreviation without defining this term. Consider defining the term earlier.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 98:
“BET surface area” is revised as “specific surface area (SSA)”.
Point 14. Line 111, surface area and pore volumes reached 3119 m2/g and 1.93 cm3/g, Add a discussion about the possibilities/implications of these values.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 113-116:
“By this time, an encouraging gas storage capacity was obtained, which attributed to 3119 m2/g of the highest SSA and 1.93 cm3/g of pore volumes. The experimental results supported that the NPCs could capture 5.1 wt% H2 and 64 wt% CO2 at most under different condition.”
Point 15. Line 113, chemical and mechanical stability is weak. Please add an explanation for this statement. Avoid generalizing.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 118-120:
“However, this substance exhibits poor chemical and mechanical stability, because it will completely dissolve in acid solutions or form gel in alkaline solutions [46].”
[46] Saheed, I.O.; Oh, W.D.; Suah, F.B.M. Chitosan Modifications for Adsorption of Pollutants – A Review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 408, 124889, doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124889.
Point 16. Line 139, (1) physical mixing, please change to Physical mixing.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 4, line 144:
“physical mixing” is revised as “Physical mixing”.
Point 17. Kadib believed the strategy of preparing? should read as Kadib proposed?
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 4, line 142:
“Kadib believed the strategy” is revised as “Kadib proposed the strategy”.
Point 18. Line 192, was 100 and 74 MPa, respectively (Fig.1c, d), demonstrating its huge application potential. Add a discussion about the application potential.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 5, line 196-202:
“Moreover, the adsorption and separation of gases is usually carried out under pressurized conditions, so good mechanical properties are the basis for ensuring stable operation and high reusability of composites system. ZIF-8/beech exhibited outstanding mechanical strength, the compressive strength and ultimate tensile stress was up to 100 MPa and 74 MPa, respectively (Fig. 3c, d), demonstrating wood support template has more significant improvement on mechanical properties of MOFs involved composites in comparison with polymer template [70,71].”
[70] Ma, S.; Zhang, M.; Nie, J.; Tan, J.; Yang, B.; Song, S. Design of Double-Component Metal–Organic Framework Air Filters with PM2.5 Capture, Gas Adsorption and Antibacterial Capacities. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 203, 415–422, doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.09.039.
[71] Zhao, H.; Miao, Q.; Huang, L.; Zhou, X.; Chen, L. Preparation of long bamboo fiber and its reinforced polypropylene membrane composites. Journal of Forestry Engineering 2021, 6, 96–103, doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.202101020.
Point 19. Line 243, Although MOFs-derived carbon materials have excellent properties and wide applications, the discontinuity between them cannot form a complete conductive network … please add an explanation for this statement.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 7, line 253-258:
“MOFs-derived carbon materials have excellent properties and wide applications, but organic ligands are mostly heterocyclic molecules, which leads to the fact that MOFs derived carbon is mostly amorphous carbon with poor conductivity, greatly weaken their electrochemical performance [84,85]. Consequently, there is a need to introduce a material that not only improves the electrical conductivity but also acts as a bridge to facilitate the transport of electrons between mutually independent MOFs derivatives particles.”.
“[84] Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Guo, X.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, M.; Li, R.; Peng, Z.; Xie, H.; Zhao, Y. Graphene-Carbon Nanotube @ Cobalt Derivatives from ZIF-67 for All-Solid-State Asymmetric Supercapacitor. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 568, 150929, doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.150929.”
Point 20. Figure 4c, x-axis title is missing.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, x-axis title in Figure 4c was added.
Point 21. Figure 4, e is not defined.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 8, line 284:
“On the one hand, three-dimensional hollow structure of loofahs provided a channel for the conduction of electrons and heat energy, enhanced conductivity loss; on the other hand, rich interface and defects of Ni/NC/C composites improved polarization probability (Fig. 4e).”
Point 22. (c)Reflection loss curve, space must be added.
Response: We thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and we are very sorry for the carelessness. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, corresponding statements are added in the revised manuscript as below:
In Page 9, line 310:
“(c) Reflection loss curve”
Point 23. Table 1, COO-, Please make sure the authors have used Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Point 24. Table 1, Please make sure the authors have used the font format of Sustainability, MDPI correctly.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript and used the Sustainability, MDPI format correctly.
Point 25. Line 364, Fig,4a please change to Fig. 4a.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 7, line 270:
“Fig,4a” is revised as “Fig. 4a”.
Point 26. conclusion please changes to Conclusion.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 12, line 422:
“conclusion” is revised as “Conclusion”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment:
This review summarized the state-of-art advances of MOFs/biomass, bio-MOFs and their derivatives,which could endow MOFs with additional unique advantage, such as improved biocompatibility and mechanical strength, ideal reusability and stability, lower production costs. In addition, the challenges and prospects of MOFs/biomass and bio-MOFs were also discussed. This review is well structured and well written, only has some minor comments as listed below.
- There are quite a number of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript and the authors should ask someone with better English proficiency to proofread it.
- There are some problems about mixing singular and plural forms in the article.
- I think the corresponding metal ions and references of bio-MOFs should be added in Table 1.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
This review summarized the state-of-art advances of MOFs/biomass, bio-MOFs and their derivatives, which could endow MOFs with additional unique advantage, such as improved biocompatibility and mechanical strength, ideal reusability and stability, lower production costs. In addition, the challenges and prospects of MOFs/biomass and bio-MOFs were also discussed. This review is well structured and well written, only has some minor comments as listed below.
Response: We thank the referee for carefully reading our manuscript and noting that the work's impact, importance, and quality are appropriate for Sustainability.
Point 1: There are quite a number of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript and the authors should ask someone with better English proficiency to proofread it.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 3, line 95:
“would” is deleted.
In Page 4, line 138:
“in the field environmental remediation” is revised as “in the field of environmental remediation”.
In Page 4, line 143:
“be divided” is revised as “be divided to”.
In Page 4, line 148:
“realized” is revised as “realize”.
In Page 4, line 154:
“including” is revised as “includes”.
In Page 4, line 159:
“add” is revised as “added”.
In Page 11, line 382:
“promotes” is revised as “promoted”.
Point 2: There are some problems about mixing singular and plural forms in the article.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 1, line 17:
“MOF” is revised as “MOFs”.
In Page 4, line 170:
“MOF” is revised as “MOFs”.
In Page 7, line 249:
“MOF” is revised as “MOFs”.
In Page 9, line 334:
“MOF” is revised as “MOFs”.
In Page 9, line 334:
“catalyst” is revised as “catalysts”.
In Page 13, line 427:
“MOF” is revised as “MOFs”.
Point 3: I think the corresponding metal ions and references of bio-MOFs should be added in Table 1.
Response: We thank the referee for their comment. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript, and the details are listed as below:
In Page 10-11:
|
Bioligands |
Characteristics |
Representative molecules |
Metal ion |
case |
|
|
Amino acids |
― Metal binding sites containing carboxylic (COO-) and amino(H3N+) groups ― Chains with hydrophobic (nonpolar) and hydrophilic (polar) ends ― Inherent chirality ― Low dimensionality (additional organic ligands or bridging anions usually required to increase dimensionality) |
― L-Glutamic Acid ― 1,3-benzene dicarboxylate ― L-aspartate Acid ― L-Tryptophan |
Zn2+ Co2+ |
[98,99] |
|
|
Peptides |
― Short amino acid chains with reactive groups ― Inherent chirality ― React appropriately with metal ions, are flexible, and exhibit dynamic responses for guest diffusion ― Can covalently bond with linkers through different coordination configurations ― Flexible |
― Carnosine ― Gly-L-Phe ― Fmoc-His-Asp-Gly-Arg |
Zn2+ |
[109,110] |
|
|
Nucleobases |
― Key constituents of nucleic acids ― Self-assembling capability Include purines and pyrimidines ― Accessible lone electron pairs on nitrogen and oxygen atoms to act as multidentate ligands ― Sometimes coupled with auxiliary ligands, e. g., carboxylic acid ― Diverse interactions (π-π stacking, coordinate bonding, and hydrogen bonding) |
― Adenine ― Guanine |
Zn2+ Ni+ Cu2+ |
[111,112] |
|
|
Saccharides |
― Include monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides ― Still rare; become the binding modes of bio-MOFS ― Present in many fruits, vegetables and mammals |
― α-Cyclodextrin ― β-Cyclodextrin ― γ-Cyclodextrin |
K+ Na+ |
[113,114] |
|
|
Porphyrins |
― Four modified subunits connected by α-carbons ― Some metal ions, such as Al (â…¢), Fe (â…¡), Zn (â…¡), Co (â…¡) and Cd (â…¡) have been constructed with this ligand |
― Dipyridyl porphyrin ― Tetrakis (4-carboxylphenyl) porphyrin |
Fe3+ Zn2+ |
[115,116] |
|
|
Proteins |
― Long amino acid sequences ― Complex, flexible, difficult to control ― Bind to metal ions at specific positions ― Chemically and structurally diverse |
― Fluorescent protein ― Catalase |
In3+ Zn2+ |
[117,118] |
|
corresponding references are added in the revised manuscript as below:
“[98] Kathalikkattil, A.C.; Babu, R.; Roshan, R.K.; Lee, H.; Kim, H.; Tharun, J.; Suresh, E.; Park, D.-W. An Lcy-Topology Amino Acid MOF as Eco-Friendly Catalyst for Cyclic Carbonate Synthesis from CO2 : Structure-DFT Corroborated Study. J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 22636–22647, doi:10.1039/C5TA05688H.
[99] Stylianou, K.C.; Gómez, L.; Imaz, I.; Verdugo-Escamilla, C.; Ribas, X.; Maspoch, D. Engineering Homochiral Metal-Organic Frameworks by Spatially Separating 1D Chiral Metal-Peptide Ladders: Tuning the Pore Size for Enantioselective Adsorption. Chem. Eur. J. 2015, 21, 9964–9969, doi:10.1002/chem.201501315.
[109] Keykhaee, M.; Razaghi, M.; Dalvand, A.; Salehian, F.; Soleimani, H.; Samzadeh-Kermani, A.; Shamsollahi, H.R.; Foroumadi, A.; Ramazani, A.; Khoobi, M.; et al. Magnetic Carnosine-Based Metal-Organic Framework Nanoparticles: Fabrication, Characterization and Application as Arsenic Adsorbent. J Environ Health Sci Engineer 2020, 18, 1163–1174, doi:10.1007/s40201-020-00535-3.
[110] Mugaka, B.P.; Zhang, S.; Li, R.-Q.; Ma, Y.; Wang, B.; Hong, J.; Hu, Y.-H.; Ding, Y.; Xia, X.-H. One-Pot Preparation of Peptide-Doped Metal–Amino Acid Framework for General Encapsulation and Targeted Delivery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 11195–11204, doi:10.1021/acsami.0c22194.
[111] Huang, C.; You, C.; Xiong, R.; Wang, F. Research progress of natural polysaccharide in the application of biomedical materials. Journal of Forestry Engineering 2021, 6, 1–8, doi:10.13360/j.issn.2096-1359.202008008. [112] Li, N.; Liu, J.; Liu, J.; Dong, L.; Xin, Z.; Teng, Y.; Lan, Y. Adenine Components in Biomimetic Metal–Organic Frameworks for Efficient CO 2 Photoconversion. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 5226–5231, doi:10.1002/anie.201814729.
[113] He, Y.; Hou, X.; Guo, J.; He, Z.; Guo, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Feng, N. Activation of a Gamma–Cyclodextrin–Based Metal–Organic Framework Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide for High–Efficient Delivery of Honokiol. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 235, 115935, doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115935.
[114] Hajra, S.; Sahu, M.; Padhan, A.M.; Lee, I.S.; Yi, D.K.; Alagarsamy, P.; Nanda, S.S.; Kim, H.J. A Green Metal–Organic Framework-Cyclodextrin MOF: A Novel Multifunctional Material Based Triboelectric Nanogenerator for Highly Efficient Mechanical Energy Harvesting. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2101829, doi:10.1002/adfm.202101829.
[115] Son, H.-J.; Jin, S.; Patwardhan, S.; Wezenberg, S.J.; Jeong, N.C.; So, M.; Wilmer, C.E.; Sarjeant, A.A.; Schatz, G.C.; Snurr, R.Q.; et al. Light-Harvesting and Ultrafast Energy Migration in Porphyrin-Based Metal–Organic Frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 862–869, doi:10.1021/ja310596a.
[116] Zhou, Z.; Mukherjee, S.; Warnan, J.; Li, W.; Wannapaiboon, S.; Hou, S.; Rodewald, K.; Rieger, B.; Weidler, P.G.; Wöll, C.; et al. Porphyrin Based Metal–Organic Framework Films: Nucleation and Growth. J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 25941–25950, doi:10.1039/D0TA06052F.
[117] Li, N.; Liu, J.; Liu, J.; Dong, L.; Xin, Z.; Teng, Y.; Lan, Y. Adenine Components in Biomimetic Metal–Organic Frameworks for Efficient CO 2 Photoconversion. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 5226–5231, doi:10.1002/anie.201814729.
[118] He, Y.; Hou, X.; Guo, J.; He, Z.; Guo, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Feng, N. Activation of a Gamma–Cyclodextrin–Based Metal–Organic Framework Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide for High–Efficient Delivery of Honokiol. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 235, 115935, doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.115935.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I reviewed the modified version of the manuscript ““Recent advancement in MOFs/biomass and Bio-MOFs multifunctional materials: A review”. I consider that this manuscript deals with an interesting topic appropriate for publication in Sustainability MDPI.
I think that the authors made most of the reviewer´s proposed modifications for the document and those main issues/comments have been reasonably addressed. Therefore, the manuscript enhanced significantly. Thus, in view of all these observations I support the publication of this contribution.
