4.7 Article

Progress in synthesis of highly crystalline covalent organic frameworks and their crystallinity enhancement strategies

期刊

CHINESE CHEMICAL LETTERS
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 2856-2866

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cclet.2022.02.065

关键词

Covalent organic frameworks; Crystallization mechanism; Dynamic chemistry; Layer stacking; Linkage exchange; Monomer exchange

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China [ZR2021QB070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the recent progress in the construction of crystalline covalent organic frameworks (COFs) to gain insight into the crystallization process and understand the factors affecting COFs crystallinity. The types and crystallization process of COFs are summarized, followed by a detailed discussion on the factors influencing crystallinity and measures for improvement. The review concludes with perspectives on the future development of COFs.
Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) have been attracting growing concerns since the first report in 2005. With the well-defined and ordered structures, COFs express big potential in mass transport, storage/separation and energy conversion applications. From the perspective of both theory and application, the construction of crystalline COFs with high quality and variety is highly worth to be devoted to. To give insight into the crystalline process of COFs and deeply understand the factors of COFs crystallization, this review was concentrated on the recent progress in construction of crystalline COFs. Accordingly, the types and crystallization process of COFs were summarized firstly. And then the factors on crystallinity and the measures for improving the crystallinity of COFs were classified and discussed in detail. Finally, the perspectives for the development of COFs in further was given at the end of this review. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Chemical Society and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

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

4.7
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