4.6 Article

Acidic ionic liquid based UiO-67 type MOFs: a stable and efficient heterogeneous catalyst for esterification

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 18, 页码 10009-10016

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8ra01119b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0601303]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21676278]
  3. Instrument Developing Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [YZ201624]
  4. Science and Technology Open Cooperation Project of Henan Province [172106000066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A facile strategy for the synthesis of acidic ionic liquid based UiO-67 type MOFs was developed in this study. Bronsted acids (H2SO4, CF3SO3H and hifpOSO(3)H (hexafluoroisopropyl sulfuric acid)) were introduced into UiO-67-bpy (bpy = 2,2'-bipyridine-5,5'-dicarboxylic acid) frameworks by reacting with bipyridyl nitrogen to introduce the properties of an acidic ionic liquid into the frameworks. The prepared catalysts, denoted as UiO-67-HSO4, UiO-67-CF3SO3 and UiO-67-hifpOSO(3), were characterized by XRD, SEM, FT-IR, EA, TGA and N-2 adsorption-desorption studies. The relatively high surface area was still maintained and acidic active groups were uniformly dispersed in the frameworks. The catalytic performance of UiO-67-HSO4, UiO-67-CF3SO3 and UiO-67-hifpOSO(3) was evaluated by the esterification of acetic acid with isooctyl alcohol. The prepared catalysts showed good catalytic activities in the esterification, of which UiO-67-CF3SO3 gave the maximum isooctyl alcohol conversion of 98.6% under optimized conditions. The catalyst could be reused five times without a significant decrease in the conversion of isooctyl alcohol, and almost no active species were leached, indicating the excellent stability and reusability of the catalyst. Our study provides one effective way to synthesize heterogeneous acidic ionic liquid catalysts consisting of isolated, well defined acidic groups that will probably attract interest in acid catalyst chemistry.

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