Although such a qualitative, visual analysis of the match between adsorbed CBZ molecule and pore outline can deliver useful insights for systems with one-dimensional channels, it is not straightforwardly adaptable to zeolites with two-or three-dimensional pore systems. To this end, it would be highly desirable to have a more quantitative measure to determine whether there is a good fit between guest molecule and zeolite host. In previous work, which employed FF-based simulations to study adsorption of different organic contaminants in MOR and FAU, it was shown that the interaction strength was correlated with the number of framework-guest distances in the distance range of strongest van der Waals interactions (roughly between ~3.4 and 4.2 Å as estimated from the parameters of the DREIDING FF ). For a given guest molecule, contacts within this distance range were much more numerous for MOR in comparison to FAU due to the narrower pores of the former system. Taking this previous observation as a starting point, it appears worthwhile to analyse the distance distributions between non-hydrogen atoms of CBZ and zeolite framework atoms in the lowest-energy configurations of CBZ. These distributions are plotted for all zeolites except MOR and BEA (where framework distortions are prominent, see above) in Figure , with the individual panels ordered according to the adsorption energy. When looking at extreme cases, there are indeed a much larger number of contacts in the distance range of interest for IFR or AFI in comparison to FAU, a fact that is clearly related to the much larger pore dimensions (and, in connection, the lower framework density) of FAU. On the other hand, it is also clear that one would struggle to predict which of the zeolites affords the strongest interaction on the basis of the information provided in Figure 4. CFI, for example, exhibits the largest number of distances in all 0.2 Å intervals between 3.4 and 4.2 Å, however, the interaction is about 18 kJ mol -1 weaker than in IFR. Taking a second example, the fairly similar distance distributions of AFI and ISV would not provide an indication that the adsorption energies differ by about 24 kJ mol -1 . Altogether, it appears that the distance distribution explored here is not a particularly suitable measure to characterize the fit between CBZ and the zeolite pores, although its usefulness might be enhanced by combining it with other quantities.