4.8 Article

Tunable Electrochemistry of Electrosynthesized Copper Metal-Organic Frameworks

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 28, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201706961

关键词

metal-organic frameworks; morphology; organic ligands; reductive electrosynthesis; tunable electrochemistry

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21775050]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2015CB352100]
  3. Hubei Provincial Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [2016CFA039]
  4. German Research Foundation [YA344/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) synthesized using different organic ligands are expected to have varied morphology and properties. Herein, three copper MOFs (Cu-MOFs) are electrosynthesized using a simple and direct reduction approach and three organic ligands: 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid, 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid, and 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic acid. The as-synthesized Cu-MOFs exhibit varied morphology. Their electrochemistry is further explored via investigating the natures of their capacitive, faradaic, and electrocatalytic behavior. The stability of these Cu-MOFs is also checked during the course of electrochemical measurements. The secondary built units of organic ligands with copper ions are found theoretically and experimentally to determine both the morphology and active sites of Cu-MOFs. Namely the electrochemistry of Cu-MOFs is dependent on the used organic ligands. Cu-MOF synthesized using 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid owns better electrochemistry than that using 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid or 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic acid. These MOFs keep their compositions and crystallinity unchanged in short times but loss them for long electrochemical running times. Therefore, the properties and applications of MOFs are designable and can be optimized during the course of reduction electrosynthesis processes via selecting organic ligands and metal ions.

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