4.8 Article

Electrostatic Purification of Mixed-Phase Metal-Organic Framework Nanoparticles

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 30, 期 15, 页码 4877-4881

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.8b01164

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Army [W911NF-15-1-0151]
  2. PPG fellowship
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences Program [DE-FG02-08ER155967]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although macroscopic metal-organic framework (MOF) single crystals have been routinely synthesized, undesired impurity phases are sometimes obtained in MOF nanoparticle (NP) syntheses, where purification remains challenging. Herein we report an electrostatic adsorption strategy to separate mixed phases of MOF NPs on the basis of their metal cluster-dependent surface charge differences. As a proof of concept, two groups of mixed-phase MOF NPs were synthesized and subsequently separated on the basis of their different Coulombic attraction to negatively charged magnetic beads (MBs). Different frameworks form on the basis of the conditions used. In the first group, a combination of three possible iron-terephthalate frameworks were evaluated: MIL-53, MIL-88B, and MIL-101 (MIL = Material Institute Lavoisier). In the second group, two zirconium- terephthalate frameworks were separated: MIL-140A and UiO-66 (UiO = University of Oslo). MIL-53 and MIL-140A are not positively charged and do not adsorb onto the MBs. The extraction of adsorbed MIL-88B, MIL 101, and UiO-66 MOF NPs from the MBs was achieved by adding 4-hydroxybenzophosphonate, a surface-capping ligand that neutralizes the charge of the MOF NPs and therefore results in their desorption from the MBs. The phase purities of the isolated NPs were verified by powder X-ray diffraction as well as scanning electron microscopy. This straightforward purification strategy provides quick access to phase-pure MOF NPs, which is important for their use as biological probes, catalysts, and building blocks for colloidal crystal engineering strategies.

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