4.8 Review

Metal-organic frameworks: Synthetic methods for industrial production

期刊

NANO RESEARCH
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TSINGHUA UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s12274-023-5441-4

关键词

metal-organic frameworks; synthetic methods; crystallization mechanisms; scale-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have shown great potential in various applications. More than 20,000 MOFs have been reported, most of which are synthesized using hydrothermal or solvothermal methods. However, these methods have limitations in terms of harsh synthesis conditions and difficulty in scale-up. This review aims to understand the crystallization mechanisms of MOFs, explore large scale synthesis routes, and discuss the prospects of MOF shaping and processing for industrial application.
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), which are constructed by metal ions or clusters with organic ligands, have shown great potential in gas storage and separation, luminescence, catalysis, drug delivery, sensing, and so on. More than 20,000 MOFs have been reported by adjusting the composition and reaction conditions, and most of them were synthesized by hydrothermal or solvothermal methods. The conventional solvothermal methods are favorable for the slow crystallization of MOFs to obtain single crystals or highly crystalline powders, which are suitable for the structure analysis. However, their harsh synthesis conditions, long reaction time, and difficulty in continuous synthesis limit their scale-up in industrial production and application. Meanwhile, shaping or processing is also required to bring MOF crystals and powders into the market. Therefore, this review demonstrates the crystallization mechanisms of MOFs to understand how the synthetic parameters affect the final products. Additionally, a variety of promising synthetic routes which can be used for large scale synthesis were reviewed in details. Lastly, the prospects of MOF shaping and processing are provided to promote their industrial application.

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