Table 1 Operando/in-situ electrochemical techniques for MOF electrocatalysts
From: Harnessing the structural evolution of metal–organic frameworks under electrocatalytic conditions
Target Information | Technique | Operando/In-Situ Capability | Lab-Based or Synchrotron | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metal oxidation states and coordination information105 | XAS (XANES/EXAFSa) | Yes (widely used) | Lab & Synchrotron | Element-specific, quantitative; ideal for monitoring metal sites; operando cells available | Requires synchrotron for high resolution; MOF model-dependent data fitting |
XRD, PDFb | Limited operando setups | Lab & Synchrotron | Tracks long-range structural evolution; ideal for bulk structural changes | Poor sensitivity to local or amorphous features | |
TEM/HR-TEM/EDc | Rare in-situ; mostly ex-situ | Lab & Advanced Centers | High spatial resolution; ideal for visualizing nanoscale evolution | In-situ liquid-cell TEM is complex and beam-sensitive for MOF; interpretation nontrivial | |
Functional group, M–L bond changes and reaction intermediates82,109 | Raman/SERS, FTIR/SEIRASd | Yes (widely used) | Lab | Real-time tracking of ligand dissociation/adsorption; Sensitive to electrochemical adsorbates; useful for mechanistic insights | Interference in Raman; limited detection of symmetric/weakly IR-active species; Requires enhanced surface signal; overlaps common |
Optoelectronic structure26 | UV-vis, PL, UPSe | Some in-situ studies | Lab | Tracks changes in optical absorption and electronic structure; fast and simple | Cannot directly provide structural information; PL sensitive to defects and quenching |
EISf, UV-vis | Yes | Lab | Evaluates ionic/electronic conductivity and interface behavior | Indirect structural info; needs complementary techniques |