4.6 Review

Mixed-metal or mixed-linker metal organic frameworks as heterogeneous catalysts

期刊

CATALYSIS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 14, 页码 5238-5261

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6cy00695g

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi under Faculty Recharge Programme
  2. Department of Science and Technology, India through Fast Track project [SB/FT/CS-166/2013]
  3. Generalidad Valenciana at Valencia through the Prometeo programme
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [CTQ-2015-69153-C2-1-R]
  5. Generalidad Valenciana (Prometeo) [2012-014]
  6. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme [228862]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal organic frameworks (MOFs) are among the most studied heterogeneous catalysts that have been applied to promote a wide range of reactions. Most of the initial studies on the catalytic activity of MOFs were based on the use of materials containing a single metal and a single linker. However, the most recent trend in the field is to exploit the synthetic flexibility offered by MOFs to obtain new MOFs possessing two different metals in their structure, or the same metal in different oxidation states (mixed metals) or different linkers (mixed linkers), resulting in materials with a superior catalytic activity over the corresponding single metal or single linker MOFs. This review is aimed to address the possible advantages of the use of mixed metal or mixed linker strategies to increase the activity of MOFs in some selected reactions. After some general sections introducing the structural features of MOFs, the nature of possible active sites, different ways to characterize mixed-metal or mixed-ligand MOFs and good practices, the main body of the review describes the current state of the art in the use of this type of MOF as heterogeneous catalysts, classified depending on the presence of more than one metal or more than one ligand. The final concluding remarks include some future targets in the area.

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