“…Both MOF-808(Zr) and MOF-808(Hf) exhibited moderate methane uptake capacities of 0.39 and 0.29 mmol g –1 (Figure b, Table S3), respectively, at 1 bar and 298 K, which are comparable to those of Zr-based MOFs with similar surface areas (0.3–0.6 mmol g –1 ). ,, Because of having a higher surface area, MOF-808(Zr) has a higher CO 2 uptake capacity (1.61 mmol g –1 ) than that of MOF-808(Hf) (1.45 mmol g –1 , Figure c, Table S3). The CO 2 uptake capacity is much higher than polymeric ionic liquid PAPIL-2 (0.15 mmol g –1 ) and PIM-1 (1.66 mmol g –1 ) but fairly lower than NDPC-700 (3.8 mmol g –1 ), SIFSIX-2-Cu-i (∼2.39 mmol g –1 ), Mg 2 (dobdc)-(N 2 H 4 ) 2 (∼5.18 mmol g –1 ), and Mg 2 (dobdc) (∼5.91 mmol g –1 ) . However, MOF-808(Zr) shows a comparable CO 2 uptake capacity to that of UiO-66(Zr) (1.79 mmol g –1 ) despite its higher BET surface area, indicating its weaker interactions due to the enlarged pore size unfavorable for low-pressure gas storage applications. ,, …”