2018
DOI: 10.1039/c8en00180d
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental and theoretical investigations on Se(iv) and Se(vi) adsorption to UiO-66-based metal–organic frameworks

Abstract: HSeO3−/SeO32− bonds to UiO-66 on Zr mainly through Lewis acid/base complexation and H2SeO3 bonds on Zr–O–C mainly through hydrogen bonding.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
37
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
2
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lewis acid–base complexation (i.e., chemisorption) between the Zr 4+ CUS and the sulfonate headgroup of PFOS was ruled out via the FTIR spectra of the MOFs after adsorption (Figure S3b). No significant changes to the peak heights in the region corresponding to the Zr cluster were observed, consistent with the observations of Sini et al This indicates that no inner-sphere complexation between Zr and PFOS has occurred during the adsorption process …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Lewis acid–base complexation (i.e., chemisorption) between the Zr 4+ CUS and the sulfonate headgroup of PFOS was ruled out via the FTIR spectra of the MOFs after adsorption (Figure S3b). No significant changes to the peak heights in the region corresponding to the Zr cluster were observed, consistent with the observations of Sini et al This indicates that no inner-sphere complexation between Zr and PFOS has occurred during the adsorption process …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No significant changes to the peak heights in the region corresponding to the Zr cluster were observed, consistent with the observations of Sini et al 32 This indicates that no inner-sphere complexation between Zr and PFOS has occurred during the adsorption process. 61 UiO-66-10 showed significantly greater adsorption capacity than UiO-66-25 despite having similar surface area and pore structure. Given that PFOS was likely completely ionized during the adsorption experiments (pK a = −3.27), 50 a contributing factor to the difference in adsorption behavior between UiO-66-10 and UiO-66-25 could be the electrostatic repulsion resulting from increased amounts of Cl − in the nodes and at linker defect sites.…”
Section: ■ Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This indicates that Zr/Hf and Cu in MOF-818-(Zr, Hf) act as Lewis acid sites, accepting epoxide electron pairs, leading to an increase in the surrounding electron cloud density, thereby shifting the binding energy toward a low direction. [46,47] Compared with fresh MOF-818-(Zr, Hf) catalyst, the surface metal content (see Supporting Information Table S2) and binding energy of MOF-818-(Zr, Hf) catalyst washed with acetone did not change significantly. The XPS characterization of MOF-818-(Zr, Hf) before and after the reaction further proved that MOF-818-(Zr, Hf) is stable in the cycloaddition reaction of CO 2 Table 2.…”
Section: Cycloaddition Of Co 2 and Styrene Oxide Under Different Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note that the pH conditions will also affect the UiO-66 surface based on previous studies of UiO-66 p K a s and isoelectric point. The first p K a of the μ3-OH group has been identified to be in the region of 3–3.5, and the isoelectric point of the UiO-66 node is between 4 and 6. ,, This would suggest that at neutral pH some but not all of the μ3-OH groups on the MOF might be deprotonated. Hence, our neutral UiO-66 cluster model is still a good representation of UiO-66 under different pH conditions.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%