4.6 Article

The biomimetic engineering of metal-organic frameworks with single-chiral-site precision for asymmetric hydrogenation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 6463-6469

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1ta08319h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22103055]
  2. Science and Technology Plans of Tianjin [21ZYJDJC00050]
  3. Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award [DE220100676]
  4. FH Loxton Fellowship of the USYD
  5. Australian Research Council [DE220100676] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asymmetric hydrogenation using heterogeneous metal nanoparticles has high efficiency, but faces challenges like leaching of expensive chiral ligands. Chiral metal-organic frameworks have been proposed as supports and inducers for metal nanoparticles, showing impressive enantioselectivity and recyclability.
Asymmetric hydrogenation based on heterogeneous metal nanoparticles (NPs) has attracted extensive attention for the production of chiral chemicals due to its high conversion efficiency, simple product separation, and convenient catalyst regeneration. Nevertheless, its further practical application is still impeded by the leaching of expensive chiral ligands and by the associated extra purification costs that are caused by the weak absorption of the chiral ligands on the metal NPs. In contrast, chiral metal-organic frameworks (CMOFs) have been proposed to serve as metal NP supports and chirality inducers via biomimicry of the configuration of privileged natural cinchona alkaloids on the single-chiral-site level. Among the presented engineered isoreticular valine (Val)-, serine (Ser)-, and threonine (Thr)-derived CMOFs, the Thr-MOF-supported Pt nanoparticles (NPs) exhibit impressive enantioselectivity in the asymmetric hydrogenation of ethyl pyruvate (EP) in addition to inherently robust catalytic recyclability without the need to add either fresh chiral ligands or Pt NPs.

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