Figures
Abstract
The increasing financial and environmental cost of many inorganic materials has motivated study into organic and “green” alternatives. However, most organic compounds contain a large number of atoms in the primitive unit cell, posing a significant barrier to high-throughput screening for functional properties. In this work, we attempt to overcome this challenge and identify superconducting candidates among the metal-organic-frameworks in the organic materials database using a recently proposed proxy for the electron-phonon coupling. We then isolate the most promising candidate for in-depth analysis, C9H8Mn2O11, providing evidence for superconductivity below 100mK.
Citation: Tyner A, Balatsky AV (2024) Screening the organic materials database for superconducting metal-organic frameworks. PLoS ONE 19(11): e0310211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310211
Editor: Ruihua He, Westlake University, CHINA
Received: May 16, 2024; Accepted: August 27, 2024; Published: November 8, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Tyner, Balatsky. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and https://omdb.mathub.io/.
Funding: Swedish Research Council, 2022-06725 to A.T. FP7 Ideas: European Research Council ERS-2018-SYG 810451 HERO to A.V.B.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
I. Introduction
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFS) consist of clustered metallic atoms connected to a larger organic framework, often referred to as organic ligands [1–20]. Importantly, it has been shown that MOFS can support the desirable electronic properties of many inorganic systems but with the advantage that, as organic systems, they can often be synthesized more rapidly and at lower cost. This situation has motivated expanded experimental and theoretical studies of MOFS.
While such studies have made significant progress, high-throughput screenings for desirable properties such as magnetism and superconductivity have fallen behind those performed for inorganic systems [21, 22]. This is due in large part to the relatively large number of atoms, often between 20 and 200, contained within the unit cell of a typical MOF. This large number of atoms translates to a soaring computational expense in ab initio simulations [23].
The computational demands of these systems are perhaps greatest when studying the phonon spectra, in particular the electron-phonon coupling [24]. The evaluation of electron-phonon coupling strengths poses a tremendous computational challenge in simple inorganic systems, let alone large organic molecules. Nevertheless, as one of the most common mechanisms for superconductivity its evaluation is of vital importance to determining optimal superconducting candidates [24].
Modern machine learning techniques appear perfectly positioned to overcome the enormous computational expense associated with studying organic compounds [25–27]. However such methods require large datasets to be trained for making accurate predictions which do not currently exist for MOFS.
In this work, we attempt to make progress towards the screening of MOFS for superconductivity by quantifying the electron-phonon coupling, developing a strategy, outlined in Fig 1, to make such a search feasible for the first time. In order to carry out this screening while limiting the computational expense, we utilize a recently proposed proxy for the electron-phonon coupling strength [28], λ. The fundamental idea behind this approach is that,
(1)
where λΓ is the electron-phonon coupling strength at the Γ location and it is shown that f can reasonably be considered constant among a given material family. In this way promising superconducting candidates can be isolated by evaluating the electron-phonon coupling strength at the Γ location alone. We remark that by focusing solely on the Γ location it is possible that superconducting candidates with maximal electron-phonon coupling strength at alternative high-symmetry locations will escape detection. However, due to the low-symmetry of many MOFs focusing on the Γ location is advantageous as it offers a uniform criteria among a diverse dataset. Furthermore, we demonstrate, utilizing a known MOF superconductor studied in Ref. [29], that even when the Γ location does not support the maximal value of electron-phonon coupling, this proxy can continue to be successful.
It is important to emphasize that, despite use of this proxy a large computational expense remains present due to the fact that the MOFS analyzed in this work have between 60 and 100 atoms in the primitive unit cell. To obtain suitable accuracy in ab initio computation of the electron-phonon coupling strength for each phonon mode thus requires ≈ × 104 CPU hours per compound.
In section II we outline the process by which we have filtered candidate MOFS from the organic materials database (OMDB) [30–34]. The OMDB is among the largest existing databases of organic compounds, containing approximately 40000 compounds as well as the corresponding band-structure, magnetization, and other relevant properties as computed via high-throughput density functional theory. We further describe the computational strategy employed to identify isolate the compound most likely to support superconductivity.
In section III, direct computation of λ and the superconducting critical temperature, Tc, for this optimal compound, C9H8Mn2O11 is detailed.
II. Candidate selection and evaluation
We select MOFS from the organic materials database (OMDB). This database is extremely useful as it allows for searches to be performed based on keywords and band gap. These functionalities allow for immediate isolation of 150 MOFS, of which we select 30 with a vanishing band gap at the Fermi energy and less than 120 atoms in the primitive unit cell. The band-gap criteria is set as the goal of the project is to identify superconducting candidates which require a Fermi surface. The criteria for number of atoms is imposed due to considerations surrounding the computational expense of relaxation and computing phonon modes.
Once the initial 30 candidates have been selected, the atomic positions are relaxed. In this work, all first principles calculations based on density-functional theory (DFT) are carried out using the Quantum Espresso software package [35–37]. Exchange-correlation potentials use the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) parameterization of the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) [38]. In each case the initial atomic positions and lattice parameters are taken from the OMDB. The atomic positions are relaxed until the maximum force on each atom is less than 1 × 10−4Ry/Bohr. A 6 x 6 x 6 Monkhorst-Pack grid of k-points is utilized as well as a plane wave cutoff of 520 eV. We have neglected inclusion of a Hubbard U in these computations, which can impact the computed values and should be a subject of future work.
The formation energy of each compound, computed as Ecompound − ∑AtomsEA, is plotted in Fig 2. After relaxation we proceed with computation of the electron-phonon coupling at the Γ location. This computation is performed utilizing density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) as offered through the Quantum Espresso package. It is important to utilize DFPT in computing the phonon modes as the size of the primitive unit cell makes computation of the phonon modes via packages such as Phonopy [39] which utilize supercells, computationally prohibitive.
From the initial 30 compounds, the resulting phonon modes at the Γ location are converged for 15 candidates. This result does not necessarily indicate that the remaining compounds are unstable, rather it is likely that the relaxation criteria for these compounds must be made more strict to achieve convergence. A common feature among those systems which do not show convergence is a large number of hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms can impede the relaxation process due to their small atomic weight as incremental changes in their positions can push the system into local energetic minima.
Due to the computational expense associated with a subsequent round of relaxation and computation of phonon modes, we discard these compounds. The resulting electron-phonon coupling strength at the Γ location for the 15 converged compounds and Cu-BHT is shown in Fig 3. We include Cu-BHT as it is a known MOF superconductor. The results thus demonstrate that the method utilized in this work would successfully identify this material as a superconducting candidate. In addition, in Ref. [29] it is shown that for Cu-BHT, λ is not maximal at Γ, underscoring the effectiveness of this proxy among a variety of materials despite individual microscopic details.
Compounds with non-zero values are potential superconducting candidates.
We observe that the majority of screened compounds yield a near-vanishing electron-phonon coupling strength at the Γ location, indicating that they not likely superconductor candidates. Three compounds appear to support λΓ > 0.05, with one compound, C9H8Mn2O11 yielding λΓ ≈ 0.28. This value is in-line with the electron-phonon coupling strength of other three-dimensional organic superconductors [29] and is thus a promising candidate warranting further investigation in the following section.
III. Analysis of C9H8Mn2O11
Due to the large electron-phonon coupling strength at the Γ location relative to other candidate MOFs, we isolate C9H8Mn2O11 for further investigation. This compound belongs to symmetry class P1 and has been experimentally synthesized with the details given in Ref. [40]. As stated previously, we utilize the atomic positions as listed in the OMDB and perform a subsequent relaxation. In order to directly investigate whether this compound is a superconducting candidate we compute the dynamical matrices within density-functional perturbation theory on an irreducible 2 × 2 × 2 grid off q-points in the Brillouin zone using DFPT as implemented in Quantum Espresso.
To subsequently extract the superconducting properties of the system, we implement Migdal-Eliashberg theory via the Electron-Phonon Wannier (EPW) code [41–43]. This is an advantageous approach as the EPW code uses Wannier interpolation to access significantly denser k and q point grids in computation of the electron-phonon matrix elements. The Wannier interpolation is performed using a 8 × 8 × 8 grid of k points. To achieve optimal selection of atomic orbitals, we implement the SCDM method [44, 45]. We subsequently utilize 10 × 10 × 10 k and q point grids for computation of the electron-phonon matrix elements.
The resulting Eliashberg spectral function is shown in Fig 4b as well as the resulting electron-phonon coupling strength,
(2)
(a) Relaxed crystal structure of C9H8Mn2O11 for a single primitive unit cell. (b) Spectral function and electron-phonon coupling, λ = ∫α2F(ω)/(2ω)dω. (c) Electron-phonon coupling on the Fermi surface of C9H8Mn2O11. The low-symmetry of the crystal leads to a complex Fermi surface structure. (d) Superconducting critical temperature as a function of the effective coulomb repulsion strength, μ*.
We find that λ saturates to maximum value of λ ≈ 0.19. We further demonstrate a plot of λ on the Fermi surface in Fig 4c. This plot underscores the low-symmetry which is common among organic systems. We further estimate the superconducting critical temperature (Tc) by self-consistently solving the isotropic Migdal-Eliashberg equations for multiple effective coulomb repulsion values with the results shown in Fig 4d.
The estimated values of Tc imply that, while posing a non-trivial challenge, the superconducting state can be accessed experimentally. It should be emphasized that we have neglected to include both spin-orbit coupling and a Hubbard U in this computation. Due to the presence of Mn both should effect the results of the realistic system and magnetic pairing mechanism cannot be ruled out [46]. We further point out that recent studies have identified significant changes in the critical temperature when approaching the two-dimensional limit in MOFs [29]. It is possible that such a dependence can be identified in C9H8Mn2O11. Investigation of these effects to future works.
IV. Summary and outlook
Our work validates the utility of the method proposed in Ref. [28] in organic compounds and demonstrates an effective route to screening organic compounds for superconducting candidates. With the necessary computing resources this approach can be scaled up to screen all known MOFs and identify optimal candidates. In future works it will be important to pursue the inclusion of spin-orbit coupling and correlation effects, however accounting for these details significantly increases the computational expense. For this the reason they have been reserved for future studies. Furthermore, inclusion of correlation effects in phonon computations is a topic requiring further independent software development. To complement the data presented in this study, analysis of λ using the rigid-muffin-tin (RMT) method [47] should also be pursued. While the RMT method has been shown to be computationally efficient for many systems, it has been reserved for future study as it requires phonon modes to be recomputed using alternative first-principles software. Furthermore, RMT generally requires phonon-modes computed at all high-symmetry locations in Brillouin zone, increasing the computational expense for studying MOFs admitting a large number of atoms in the unit cell. Despite such approximations and limitations, this work represents an important step forward given the current environmental and financial cost of known superconductors composed of rare earth metals. Our work further puts forward a novel, stable organic superconductor, C9H8Mn2O11 motivating future experimental studies.
Acknowledgments
We thank Sinéad M. Griffin for stimulating discussions and drawing our attention to Ref. [28].
References
- 1. Kitagawa S. et al, Chemical Society Reviews 43, 5415 (2014).
- 2. Furukawa H., Cordova K. E., O’Keeffe M., and Yaghi O. M., Science 341, 1230444 (2013).
- 3. Czaja A. U., Trukhan N., and Müller U., Chemical Society Reviews 38, 1284 (2009). pmid:19384438
- 4.
H.-C. Zhou, J. R. Long, and O. M. Yaghi, “Introduction to metal–organic frameworks,” (2012).
- 5. Schneemann A., Bon V., Schwedler I., Senkovska I., Kaskel S., and Fischer R. A., Chemical Society Reviews 43, 6062 (2014).
- 6. Kuppler R. J., Timmons D. J., Fang Q.-R., Li J.-R., Makal T. A., Young M. D., et al, Coordination Chemistry Reviews 253, 3042 (2009). pmid:19384449
- 7. Mueller U., Schubert M., Teich F., Puetter H., Schierle-Arndt K., and Pastre J., Journal of Materials Chemistry 16, 626 (2006).
- 8. Cui Y., Li B., He H., Zhou W., Chen B., Qian G., Accounts of chemical research 49, 483 (2016). pmid:26878085
- 9. James S. L., Chemical Society Reviews 32, 276 (2003). pmid:14518181
- 10. Kreno L. E., Leong K., Farha O. K., Allendorf M., Van Duyne R. P., and Hupp J. T., Chemical reviews 112, 1105 (2012). pmid:22070233
- 11. Lee J., Farha O. K., Roberts J., Scheidt K. A., Nguyen S. T., and Hupp J. T., Chemical Society Reviews 38, 1450 (2009).
- 12. Long J. R. and Yaghi O. M., Chemical Society Reviews 38, 1213 (2009). pmid:19384431
- 13. Wang Z. and Cohen S. M., Chemical Society Reviews 38, 1315 (2009).
- 14. Kurmoo M., Chemical Society Reviews 38, 1353 (2009).
- 15. Cohen S. M., Chemical reviews 112, 970 (2012). pmid:21916418
- 16. Wang H., Zhu Q.-L., Zou R., and Xu Q., Chem 2, 52 (2017).
- 17. Corma A., Garcia H., and Llabrés i Xamena F., Chemical reviews 110, 4606 (2010).
- 18. Dang S., Zhu Q.-L., and Xu Q., Nature Reviews Materials 3, 1 (2017).
- 19. Jiao L., Wang Y., Jiang H.-L., and Xu Q., Advanced Materials 30, 1703663 (2018).
- 20. Yuan S., Feng L., Wang K., Pang J., Bosch M., Lollar C., et al, Advanced Materials 30, 1704303 (2018).
- 21. Saal J. E., Kirklin S., Aykol M., Meredig B., and Wolverton C., Jom 65, 1501 (2013).
- 22. Jain A., Ong S. P., Hautier G., Chen W., Richards W. D., Dacek S., et al, APL materials 1 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323.
- 23. Rosen A. S., Fung V., Huck P., O’Donnell C. T., Horton M. K., Truhlar D. G., et al, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 1 (2022).
- 24. Giustino F., Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015003 (2017).
- 25. Xie T. and Grossman J. C., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 145301 (2018).
- 26. Park C. W. and Wolverton C., Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 063801 (2020).
- 27. Schmidt J., Marques M. R., Botti S., Marques M. A., npj computational materials 5, 83 (2019).
- 28. Sun Y., Zhang F. Wang C.-Z., Ho K.-M., Mazin I. I., and Antropov V., Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 074801 (2022).
- 29. Zhang X., Zhou Y., Cui B., Zhao M., and Liu F., Nano letters 17, 6166 (2017).
- 30. Borysov S. S., Geilhufe R. M., and Balatsky A. V., PLoS one 12, e0171501 (2017). pmid:28182744
- 31. Geilhufe R. M., Olsthoorn B., and Balatsky A. V., Nat. Phys. 17, 152 (2021).
- 32. Olsthoorn B., Geilhufe R. M., Borysov S. S., and Balatsky A. V., Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1900023 (2019).
- 33. Geilhufe R. M., Bouhon A., Borysov S. S., and Balatsky A. V., Phys. Rev. B 95, 041103 (2017).
- 34. Geilhufe R. M., Borysov S. S., Kalpakchi D., and Balatsky A. V., Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 024802 (2018). pmid:30278741
- 35. Giannozzi P., Baroni S., Bonini N., Calandra M., Car R., Cavazzoni C., et al. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (19pp) (2009). pmid:21832390
- 36. Giannozzi P., Andreussi O., Brumme T., Bunau O., Nardelli M. B., Calandra M., et al. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 465901 (2017). pmid:29064822
- 37. Giannozzi P., Baseggio O., Bonfà P., Brunato D., Car R., Carnimeo I., et al., J. Chem. Phys. 152, 154105 (2020).
- 38. Perdew J. P., Burke K., and Ernzerhof M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). pmid:10062328
- 39. Togo A., Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 92, 012001 (2023).
- 40. Mahata P., Prabu M., and Natarajan S., Inorg. chem. 47, 8451 (2008).
- 41. Lee H., Poncé S., Bushick K., Hajinazar S., Lafuente-Bartolome J., Leveillee J., et al, npj Comput. Mater. 9, 156 (2023).
- 42. Giustino F., Cohen M. L., and Louie S. G., Phys. Rev. B 76, 165108 (2007). pmid:25214923
- 43. Margine E. R. and Giustino F., Phys. Rev. B 87, 024505 (2013).
- 44. Vitale V., Pizzi G., Marrazzo A., Yates J. R., Marzari N., and Mostofi A. A., npj Comput. Mater. 6, 1 (2020).
- 45. Pizzi G., Vitale V., Arita R., Blugel S., Freimuth F., Géranton G., et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 32, 165902 (2020). pmid:31658458
- 46. Monthoux P., Pines D., and Lonzarich G., Nature 450, 1177 (2007).
- 47. Gaspari G. D. and Gyorffy B. L., Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 801 (1972). pmid:5038743