4.5 Article

Basic ionic liquid anchored on UiO-66-NH2 metal-organic framework: a stable and efficient heterogeneous catalyst for synthesis of xanthenes

期刊

RESEARCH ON CHEMICAL INTERMEDIATES
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 2881-2899

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11164-021-04439-1

关键词

Heterogeneous catalyst; Metal-organic framework; Ionic-liquid; Guanidine; Xanthene

资金

  1. Razi University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study modified the Zr-based metal-organic framework UiO-66-NH2 with an ionic liquid to support an organocatalyst of guanidine, resulting in a stable heterogeneous catalyst UiO-66-NH2-ILPF6--guanidine. This catalyst showed high catalytic performance in the synthesis of xanthene derivatives and could be recycled for at least four times without significant reduction in activity. The stability of the catalyst was confirmed through various characterization techniques such as XRD, FTIR, SEM/elemental mapping, and leaching test.
In this study, the Zr-based metal-organic framework, UiO-66-NH2, was modified with ionic liquid (dibutylimidazolium bromide) to generate a platform for supporting an organocatalyst of guanidine. After an anion exchange, the prepared hybrid system was denoted as UiO-66-NH2-ILPF6--guanidine. The catalyst was characterized by different techniques such as PXRD, FTIR, TEM, SEM-EDS, TGA, and BET. The basic heterogeneous catalyst was then utilized for the synthesis of xanthene derivatives via a reaction of aldehydes with dimedone. Various types of aromatic aldehydes were employed for the synthesis with medium to high yield. The study of catalytic activities showed that the heterogenization of guanidine significantly promotes catalytic performance in comparison with guanidine in a homogeneous form. The heterogeneous catalyst is stable in the reaction medium and can be recycled for at least four times without significant reduction in activity. The stability of the catalyst was also investigated by XRD, FTIR, SEM/elemental mapping, and leaching test.

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

4.5
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