4.8 Article

Metal-Organic Frameworks for Cultural Heritage Preservation: The Case of Acetic Acid Removal

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 10, 期 16, 页码 13886-13894

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b02930

关键词

metal-organic frameworks; selective adsorption; acetic acid; cultural heritage; hydrophobicity

资金

  1. FCT/MEC [UID/MULTI/00612/2013, UID/ECI/04028/2013]
  2. Investigador FCT program [IF/00993/2012/CP0172/CT0013]
  3. Investissement d'avenir Labex Patrima [ANR-10-LABX-0094-01]
  4. Institut Universitaire de France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The removal of low concentrations of acetic acid from indoor air at museums poses serious preservation problems that the current adsorbents cannot easily address owing to their poor affinity for acetic acid and/or their low adsorption selectivity versus water. In this context, a series of topical water-stable metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) with different pore sizes, topologies, hydrophobic characters, and functional groups was explored through a joint experimental-computational exploration. We demonstrate how a subtle combination of sufficient hydrophobicity and optimized host-guest interactions allows one to overcome the challenge of capturing traces of this very polar volatile organic compound in the presence of humidity. The optimal capture of acetic acid was accomplished with MOFs that do not show polar groups in the inorganic node or have lipophilic but polar (e.g., perfluoro) groups functionalized to the organic linkers, that is, the best candidates from the list of explored MOFs are MIL-140B and UiO-66-2CF(3). These two MOFs present the appropriate pore size to favor a high degree of confinement, together with organic spacers that allow an enhancement of the van der Waals interactions with the acetic acid. We establish in this work that MOFs can be a viable solution to this highly challenging problem in cultural heritage protection, which is a new field of application for this type of hybrid 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