4.6 Article

Synthetic Factors Affecting the Scalable Production of Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 3632-3646

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b05436

关键词

ZIF-8; Crystallization processes; Morphology; Crystal size; Reaction rate

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21825802, 21436005, 21576095]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017PY004]
  3. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou [201804020009]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper Engineering [2017ZD04, 2018TS03]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2016A050502004, 2017A030312005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zeolite imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs), as an important part of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), have received great attention in many application fields, such as gas adsorption, separation, and catalysis. It was found that the performances of these applications largely depend on ZIFs' properties, such as particle size distribution, pore size, and specific surface area, which are essentially controlled by different synthetic methods. Among all the disclosed ZIF-type structures, researches on ZIF-8 are growing since it has high chemical and thermal stability and a flexible structure. Therefore, ZIF-8 was chosen as an example in this review to illustrate how synthetic factors affect the final properties of ZIF materials. We summarize the evolution process of ZIF-8 which is divided into three stages: super saturation, nucleation, and particles. Emphasis is placed on the discussion of the influences of various factors on the formation of ZIF-8. The factors are classified into several types such as various salt sources, concentration of reactants, solvents, temperature, and so on. The challenges, prospects, and outlook of ZIF-8 in the future are presented last. This perspective aims to provide necessary information for industrial synthesis of MOF and other porous materials in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据