4.8 Article

Chromium(II) Metal-Organic Polyhedra as Highly Porous Materials

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 9, 期 33, 页码 28064-28068

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b09339

关键词

metal-organic polyhedra (MOPs); chromium(II) paddlewheel; chromium(II) porous materials; air-stable MOPs; oxygen adsorption

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korean government [NRF-2016R1C1B2009987, NRF-2016M2B2A9912217]
  2. Division of Chemistry (CHE), National Science Foundation [NSF/CHE-1346572]
  3. U.S. DOE [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  4. Center for Gas Separations Relevant to Clean Energy Technologies, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001015]
  5. Division of Materials Research (DMR), National Science Foundation [NSF/CHE-1346572]
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Chemistry [1346572] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016M2B2A9912217] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Herein we report for the first time the synthesis of Cr(II)-based metal organic polyhedra (MOPs) and the characterization of their porosities. Unlike the isostructural Cu(II)- or Mo(II)-based MOPs, Cr(II)-based MOPs show unusually high gas uptakes and surface areas. The combination of comparatively robust dichromium paddlewheel units (Cr, units), cage symmetries, and packing motifs enable these materials to achieve Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface areas of up to 1000 m(2)/g. Reducing the aggregation of the Cr(II)-based MOPs upon activation makes their pores more accessible than their Cu(II) or Mo(II) counterparts. Further comparisons of surface areas on a molar (m(2)/mol cage) rather than gravimetric (m(2)/g) basis is proposed as a rational method of comparing members of a family of related molecular materials.

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