reamofpap

[reamofpap]

Ultramicroporous? No thanks.

So, I just came across this tweet from the popular bot @ChemistryNews on Twitter:

and the first things I was thinking was: how ridicuolous are they to flex such teenagers?

Since the inception of the definition of nanoporous material, there have always been three levels of porosity:

microporosity, where the pore size is, by convention, less than 2 nm;

mesoporosity, where the pore size is bigger than 2 nm, but lower than 50 nm; and,

macroporosity, for everything bigger than that (note, even the sponge you use to clen your dishes is macroporous).

Now, these guys here from the University of Singapore, which is supposed to be one of the top academic places in Asia, if not in the world, came out inventing a new term of microporosity, such as ULTRAmicroporosity. These guys maybe have no clue that less than 2 nm we are startin' to go at the atomic, or even at the gluonic, scale. I wonder how can they measure such ultramicroporosity? PALS? No way, let's do a good old BET!

I mean, this is not even cutting edge science, they just did a standard MOF with a pyridinedicarboxylic acid instead of an isophthalic acid, of course the nitrogen gives that extra binding site to avoid making a MOP, but, really? Who were those geniuses of reviewers that let pass such horrendous term? On Nature Communications too? Ok, to publish there one just pay, but the level of ridicolousness here is touching the sky.

I would tell you out loud so you may understand better:

THERE IS NO NEED TO DEFINE ANOTHER, SMALLER, LEVEL OF MICROPOROSITY!

That Ultra-thing you better leave to Ultraman and other comics, otherwise it's an ultra-insult to Feynman.

By the way, this Dan Zhao is also the same guy that will organize MOF 2024! Good luck, given that the website is not out yet. I hope at least that would be ULTRAfunctioning otherwise it woudl be an ULTRAshame.

Stay tuned for other paps in the Ream of MOFs.

[reamofpap]

Test