4.8 Article

Synthesis of 2D Imine-Linked Covalent Organic Frameworks through Formal Transimination Reactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 139, 期 37, 页码 12911-12914

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b06913

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office for a Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURI) award [W911NF-15-1-0447]
  2. Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation through a Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award
  3. Soft and Hybrid Nanotechnology Experimental (SHyNE) Resource [NSF NNCI-1542205, NSF ECCS-1542205]
  4. State of Illinois
  5. International Institute for Nanotechnology (IIN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are crystalline, permanently porous, two-dimensional or three-dimensional polymers with tunable topology and functionality. COFs linked with imines or beta-ketoenamines are more chemically stable than their boron-linked counterparts, making them more promising for a broad range of applications, including energy storage devices, proton-conductive membranes, and catalyst supports. We report a general and scalable method for synthesizing imine- and beta-ketoenamine-linked COFs based on the formal transimination of N-aryl benzophenone imines. These substrates are often the synthetic precursors of traditional polyfunctional aryl amine monomers and are more stable, soluble, and easy to handle and purify. The imine- and beta-ketoenamine-linked COFs obtained from this approach show excellent materials quality, as characterized by X-ray diffraction and surface area analysis. The most optimized COF exhibited a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface area (>2600 m(2)/g) very close to its theoretical value (2830 m(2)/g). This method is amenable to both conventional solvothermal conditions and microwave heating, providing similar or even improved materials quality with shorter reaction times. The high materials quality, scalability, and availability of benzophenone imine monomers are all attractive features of this approach.

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