4.8 Article

Hybridization of MOFs and ionic POFs: a new strategy for the construction of bifunctional catalysts for CO2 cycloaddition

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 1766-1771

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0gc04425c

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21601103, 21701097]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China [ZR2020QB035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new strategy has been developed to construct a bifunctional catalyst for CO2 cycloaddition by post-synthetically modifying CUS-based metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with ionic porous organic frameworks (POFs) to form MOF@iPOF core-shell hybrid materials. The newly synthesized Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TB-Br- and Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TM-Br- exhibit excellent catalytic performance for CO2 cycloaddition under mild conditions and maintain the porosity of hybrid materials for improving mass transfer rate and catalytic efficiency.
A new strategy toward constructing a bifunctional catalyst for CO2 cycloaddition has been developed based on post-synthetic modification of CUS-based metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with ionic porous organic frameworks (POFs) to form MOF@iPOF core-shell hybrid materials. Based on this strategy, two new MOF@iPOF core-shell hybrid materials, Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TB-Br- and Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TM-Br-, are synthesized for the first time by feasible encapsulation of a Cu-3(BTC)(2) core within an ionic POF shell. Because of the synergetic role of dual functional sites including CUS as a Lewis acid in the MOFs and the Br- anion as the nucleophile in the ionic POFs, Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TB-Br- and Cu-3(BTC)(2)@iPOF-TM-Br- demonstrate excellent catalytic performance for the CO2 cycloaddition under co-catalyst free mild conditions (60 degrees C, 0.5 MPa CO2, 24 h). Moreover, these core-shell bifunctional catalysts can not only realize the synergy of two functional sites, but also maintain the porosity of hybrid materials for improving the mass transfer rate and catalytic efficiency.

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