4.7 Review

Insights into the Structure-Property-Activity Relationship of Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks for Acid-Base Catalysis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054370

关键词

zeolitic imidazolate frameworks; acid-base properties; structural impact; chemical composition impact; particle size effect; catalytic properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the potential of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs) in acid-base catalysis and highlights their unique structural and physicochemical properties that affect their catalytic performance. Spectroscopic methods are employed to analyze the nature of active sites and understand the unusual catalytic behavior of ZIFs. The study examines various reactions, demonstrating the broad range of potentially promising applications of Zn-ZIFs as heterogeneous catalysts.
Zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs) have been extensively examined for their potential in acid-base catalysis. Many studies have demonstrated that ZIFs possess unique structural and physicochemical properties that allow them to demonstrate high activity and yield products with high selectivity. Herein, we highlight the nature of ZIFs in terms of their chemical formulation and the textural, acid-base, and morphological properties that strongly affect their catalytic performance. Our primary focus is the application of spectroscopic methods as instruments for analyzing the nature of active sites because these methods can allow an understanding of unusual catalytic behavior from the perspective of the structure-property-activity relationship. We examine several reactions, such as condensation reactions (the Knoevenagel condensation and Friedlander reactions), the cycloaddition of CO2 to epoxides, the synthesis of propylene glycol methyl ether from propylene oxide and methanol, and the cascade redox condensation of 2-nitroanilines with benzylamines. These examples illustrate the broad range of potentially promising applications of Zn-ZIFs as heterogeneous 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

4.7
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