Show source-provided references
1. Baklanov M. R. · 2017
4. Wang W. C. · Adv. Mater. · 2004 · 16 · 5457
7. http://www.itrs2.net/ access date June 11th2019.
8. By definition low‐κ; materials are materials with κ; < 4.
11. Sears F. W. · 1982
12. D. M.Smith G. P.Johnston W. C.Ackerman S.‐P.Jeng B. E.Gnade U.S. Pat. 6 437 007 B1 2002.
13. D. M.Smith G. P.Johnston W. C.Ackerman R. A.Stoltz A.Maskara T.Ramos S.‐P.Jeng B. E.Gnade U.S. Pat. 6 645 878 B2 2003.
35. C.Yang M. A.Omary U.S. Pat. 8 715 395 2014.
52. Low J. J. · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 2006 · 131 · 15835
54. Greathouse J. A. · J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 2006 · 128 · 10679
60. Joule J. A. · 2010
68. Materials Studio v. 4.1 Biovia San Diego CA USA.
70. More in detail in the same temperature range thea‐axis is essentially unaffected by temperature increase whereas theb‐ andc‐axis vary by –0.3% and 1.2% with a consequent modification of the aperture of the 1‐D channels.
71. The radius of the circumference inscribed in the rhombic channel increases by ∼1%.
73. A drop of water laid down a pellet of lc‐[Cu(BTB)(DMF)] occupies all the available surface precluding contact angle measurements and suggesting a hydrophilic behaviour.
75. The dielectric constant ofFMOF‐1is higher when pressed at 0.5 kbar than when pressed at 0.7 kbar which is counterintuitive as high pressure reasonably causes a reduction in the air (κ;∼1) volume contained in the pellet which should increase κ;. This is completely correct only when consideringdryair for a material with the same degree of crystallinity as a function of pressure. Despite the nominal superhydrophobic behaviour ofFMOF‐1 ref. [37] has shown byin situvibrational spectroscopy that minute amounts of non‐hydrogen‐bonded water (albeit undetectable by adsorption isotherms [38]nor GCMC simulations thereof [32]) are attached to theFMOF‐1surface. Moreover the phase purity of the material is compromised upon increasing the applied pressure to attain an increased admixture of amorphous material (Figure S19).
76. In the case ofFMOF‐1 to obtain the corrected κ; values the bulk density of the crystalline phase not that of the amorphous one was taken into consideration.
81. Young R. A. · 1981
82. TOPAS‐R version 3.0 Bruker Karlsruhe Germany 2005.
83. For the rigid body describing the ligand the following bond distances and angles have been adopted: C‐N N‐N of the penta‐atomic ring 1.36 Å; C‐C of the hexa‐atomic ring 1.39 Å; exocyclic C‐C refined in the range 1.40–1.50 Å (retrieved from a search for similar fragments within the 2019 update of the Cambridge Structural Database); C‐F refined in the range 1.32–1.38 Å (retrieved from a search for aromatic C‐F bonds within the 2019 update of the Cambridge Structural Database); penta‐atomic ring internal bond angles 108°; penta‐atomic ring external bond angles 126°; hexa‐atomic ring bond angles 120°. For the rigid body describing DMF the following bond distances and angles have been adopted: C‐N 1.40 Å; C‐H 0.95 Å; C‐O 1.25 Å; angles at the N and aldehydic C atoms 120°; angles at the methyl C atoms 109.5°.
88. “ImageJ.” · 2019
89. Ida T. · Adv. Ceram. Res. Center Ann. Rep. · 2013