4.8 Article

Host-Guest Pore Space Partition in a Boron Imidazolate Framework for Ethylene Separation

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 307-313

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.1c03620

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21935010, 21773242]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFA0208600]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB20000000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel microporous boron imidazolate framework (BIF-108-Zn) has been reported for efficient separation of ethylene and ethane by integrating organic ligands and extra-framework species as pore partition agents. The structure features high pore volume, reduced pore size, and functionalized pore surface for preferential binding of ethane. Dynamic breakthrough measurements show that BIF-108-Zn can produce polymer-grade ethylene with good regenerability and high stability.
Separation of ethylene (C2H4) from ethane (C2H6) through one step is desirable but challenging in view of their similar sizes and physical properties. Introduction of pore partition agents into metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) endows materials with multivariate porous environments for gas adsorption and separation. Here, we report a novel microporous boron imidazolate framework (BIF-108-Zn) that integrates both organic ligands and extra-framework species as pore partition agents to divide the interconnected channels into isolated cages. This structure possesses a high pore volume with a reduced pore size and a functionalized pore surface to realize preferential binding of C2H6 over C2H4. Dynamic breakthrough measurements demonstrated that BIF-108-Zn can directly produce polymer-grade C2H4 with a productivity of 0.69 mmol/g at 298 K and 1 bar from a binary mixture of C2H6/C2H4. Furthermore, the relatively low isosteric enthalpy value endows it with good regenerability and high stability, as verified by multiple adsorption separation tests.

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

4.8
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