4.6 Article

Engineering the pore environment of metal-organic framework membranes via modification of the secondary building unit for improved gas separation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 8, 期 26, 页码 13132-13141

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9ta13547b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21501198, 21601205, 21771193, 21571187]
  2. Taishan Scholar Foundation [ts201511019]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [18CX02047A, 18CX07001A, 19CX05001A]
  4. PetroChina Innovation Foundation [2019D-5007-0411]
  5. Key Research and Development Projects of Shandong Province [2019JZZY010331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The designability and adjustability of the pore structure are vital advantages of metal-organic framework (MOF) materials for separation. Their exploration in the field of membrane separation is still inadequate, especially for the regulation of the pore environment based on the inorganic secondary building unit (SBU). In this work, we have studied the effect of the pore environment regulated by the SBU on the gas separation performance of MOF membranes for the first time. The Fe-3(mu(3)-O)(CH3COO)(6)SBU of the parent framework (soc-MOF, a stable microporous Fe-MOF) wasin situmodified with imidazole (IM) molecules to construct thesoc-MOF-IMpolycrystalline membrane. The exact location of the incorporated IM and the narrowed pore size are observed based on the determined crystal structure. The gas solubility, diffusivity and separation performance of the two membranes are evaluated. Compared to thesoc-MOFmembrane with a H-2/CO(2)selectivity of 6, thesoc-MOF-IMpolycrystalline membrane possesses a significantly enhanced H-2/CO(2)selectivity (48), which is mainly attributed to the triggered molecular sieving effect. Thanks to the facile introduction of functional molecules and precise adjustment of the pore environment, SBU modification can be a powerful strategy to improve the separation performance of MOF membranes.

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