4.6 Article

Synergistic Catalysis of Ionic Liquid-Decorated Covalent Organic Frameworks with Polyoxometalates for CO2 Cycloaddition Reaction under Mild Conditions

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 37, 期 34, 页码 10330-10339

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c01426

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [21805059, 22075060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a highly efficient catalyst for CO2 cycloaddition reaction by covalently modifying ionic liquids to covalent organic frameworks and utilizing the electrostatic interaction between polyoxometalates (POMs) and ionic liquids. The catalyst showed high catalytic activity under mild conditions and retained its performance after multiple uses, attributed to the synergistic effect of ionic liquids, POMs, and COFs.
The cycloaddition of carbon dioxide (CO2) with epoxides to yield highly value-added cyclic carbonates is an effective way to chemically utilize and convert CO2. Here, a heterogeneous catalyst of imidazole ionic liquid-decorated covalent organic framework with polyoxometalates (POM@ImTD-COF) was constructed by the covalent modification of ionic liquids to COFs and the electrostatic interaction between POMs and ionic liquids. The obtained POM@ImTD-COF shows high catalytic activity for CO2 cycloaddition reaction under mild conditions (1 atm and 80 degrees C) in the presence of a co-catalyst, and the catalytic activity of POM@ImTD-COF has no obvious decrease during reusing five times. The excellent catalytic performance is mainly attributed to the synergistic effect of ionic liquids, POMs, and COFs. In the cycloaddition process, ionic liquids and the co-catalyst weaken the C-O bond of epoxides and promote the ring opening of epoxides. POMs as the Lewis acids facilitate the insertion of CO2 to form reaction intermediates. The multiple activation effect of ionic liquids and POMs together with the CO2 adsorption effect and well-dispersed active sites in COFs contribute to the remarkable catalytic performance.

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