Crystal Structures, Thermal and Luminescent Properties of Gadolinium(III) Trans-1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylate Metal-Organic Frameworks
, Alena A. Vasileva 1,2, Vladimir A. Lazarenko 3, Alexey A. Ryadun 1 and Vladimir P. Fedin 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 35: Change “an” to “and”
Line 90: It is better to avoid using word “dissolved” if a full dissolution was not achieved and instead a suspension was obtained as a result
Line 147: Please clarify what “AA manner” means
In the introduction, the authors claim the synthesis of compounds 1-4 “make it possible to investigate the impact of the metal ion coordination environment on the luminescent properties”. It seems that the authors consider studying the luminescent properties of the compounds as a main goal of this study. Still, there is no detailed discussion of the luminescence spectra, no comparison with other similar compounds, just one paragraph.
Compounds 1-3 are isostructural to their Y, Eu, and Tb counterparts. It makes to provide at least short comparison of their structural and physical properties.
Thermal analysis: In what temperature region the analysis was conducted? For example, authors claim that the decomposition of compound 1 finishes at 570°. At the same time, it is seen from the Figure 3 that the decomposition continues at 600°. Only 0..600° region is shown in this figure, and a reader can see from this curves that the decomposition process is not yet finished at 600° and the mass of the compound still decreases. The same is true for other compounds. Please review the Thermal properties section and redraw the figure to show the whole decomposition process.
Luminescence: Authors found no luminescence activity for compound 1. The short explanation of this fact would be useful. Is it because of the bipy molecule present in this compound as compared to phen in other compounds? Is the picture was observed for isostructural compounds with Y, Eu, and Tb?
Please check references. At least some of them are not correct. For example, refs. 29 (CrysAlisPro), 30 (SHELXT), 31 (SHELXL) in the text are numbered as 31, 32, and 33 in the list of references. It seems that the problem starts at ref. 26 in the text. It should be 28, and [22-25] should actually be [22-27] (line 42).
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents new Gd MOFs with cyclohexanedicarboxylic and phen, bipy ligands. Not many MOFs are known with cyclohexanedicarboxylic and the chemistry of this ligand largely unexplored. Thus, the present work has significant novelty in terms of new structural chemistry. I have a few suggestions/corrections for the authors:
1.The authors report in the introduction: The successful synthesis of a such series with non-photoactive bridging ligand make it possible to investigate the impact of the metal ion coordination environment on the luminescent properties of the corresponding coordination networks.
This sentence does not make any sence. If the ligand does not have significant absorption in UV, there is no antenna effect and no emission from the lanthanide ion. So there is nothing to find out about luminescence of lanthanide compounds if non-photoactive ligands are used.
2.The authors need to provide some discussion about the synthesis. How they have ended up with these synthetic protocols? Have they tried to isolate Gd MOFs with cyclohexane dicarboxylic but without phen, bipy etc? Have they tried to isolate analogues with other lanthanides?
- The author need to provide structural comparisons with known MOFs. Are there other Ln MOFs with cyclohexane-dicarboxylic ligand? Is the building block Gd2Cl2(COO)4 presented in other MOFs?
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Demakov et al. report very interesting results on synthesis and characterization of four new gadolinium(III) metal-organic frameworks with different types of organic linkers. The paper is excellently written and can be easily published in Crystals.
Author Response
Authors are grateful to the Reviewer for such kindly high evaluation of this research. Despite that, considerable changes have been made in the revised manuscript following the suggestions and fairly critical corrections offered by other Reviewers.
