CaveatSupport assessment: High
Fe-MOF formula, selected unit-cell parameters, temperature, and oxidation-state wording are inconsistent between the abstract/results text, Table 1, CIF/checkCIF report, and CCDC summary.
Caveat: Use source-specific provenance rather than merging the Fe-MOF structural values silently.
1 · Datablock exp_12385 · checkCIF/PLATON report · Linked to 7 structured results
CaveatSupport assessment: High
The paper does not report direct electrical-transport or thermoelectric measurements for either MOF; conductive relevance is peripheral and tied to HER electrocatalysis.
Caveat: No conductivity, Seebeck coefficient, Hall, mobility, I-V, or four-probe data were found in the main text, CIFs, or SI text layers.
5 · 3.3 Electrochemical HER performance · Fig. 6-Fig. 8 · Linked to 4 structured results
Phase AssignmentSupport assessment: High
Experimental powder XRD patterns agree with simulated patterns, supporting pure-phase Cu-MOF and Fe-MOF products.
Caveat: No quantitative phase fraction or Rietveld refinement is reported.
4 · 3.2 X-ray diffraction (XRD) · Fig. 4 · Linked to 2 structured results
Structure Property LinkSupport assessment: Medium
The authors attribute Cu-MOF's slightly better HER performance to its 3D structure facilitating electron transport and mass transfer.
Caveat: No direct electrical-conductivity measurement is reported, so electron-transport facilitation is an author interpretation rather than a measured transport result.
1 · Abstract · Linked to 5 structured results
Structure Property LinkSupport assessment: High
Fe-MOF has higher BET surface area, larger pore metrics, higher Cdl, and lower fitted Rct than Cu-MOF, but Cu-MOF still shows lower HER overpotential and Tafel slope.
Caveat: Cdl and Tafel values are figure-only printed labels; no calculated ECSA numeric result is reported.
6 · 3.3 Electrochemical HER performance · Fig. 7; Fig. 8 · Linked to 10 structured results