4.6 Review

Low-Dimensional Metal-Organic Frameworks and their Diverse Functional Roles in Catalysis

期刊

CHEMCATCHEM
卷 11, 期 14, 页码 3138-3165

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cctc.201900191

关键词

Metal-organic framework; heterogeneous catalysis; nanostructures; synthetic architecture; nanocomposites

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Singapore
  2. National University of Singapore
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF), Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have gained tremendous attention as an emerging class of functional materials for the field of heterogeneous catalysis. In particular, low-dimensionality of these material-platforms can be singled out as an important structural parameter that endows unique or new functionalities and thus enables improved catalytic performance. Herein, firstly, this Review summarizes important development of the synthetic preparation strategies of low-dimensional MOFs and their related composites. Next, effects of dimensionality on different catalytic roles of MOF platforms are highlighted and discussed. For instance, MOFs have been employed directly as heterogeneous catalysts, in which catalytic reactions take place within their pristine or deliberately created pores. Exploiting on the ordered pore structures, MOFs have also been integrated into reactor-like catalysts to act as a membrane for selective catalysis. MOFs have also demonstrated to be unique support materials for other catalyst components, of which enhancement in stability and catalytic performance have been addressed. Lastly, MOFs have also been extensively utilized as a sacrificial template to derive highly porous and catalytic active nanomaterials. On the basis of our personal perspectives, some future research directions are suggested in this review in order to further advance this class of emerging catalysts.

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