| Literature DB >> 26419805 |
Vijay S Vyas1, Frederik Haase1,2, Linus Stegbauer1,2, Gökcen Savasci2, Filip Podjaski1, Christian Ochsenfeld2,3, Bettina V Lotsch1,2,4.
Abstract
Hydrogen evolution from photocatalytic reduction ofEntities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26419805 PMCID: PMC4598847 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Design and synthesis of the N–COFs.
(a) A tunable triphenylarene platform for photocatalytic hydrogen evolution. Replacement of ‘C–H' by ‘nitrogen atoms' at the green dots changes the angle between central aryl and peripheral phenyl rings, which leads to varied planarity in the platform. (b) Synthesis of N–COFs from N–aldehydes and hydrazine.
DFT geometry optimizations of precursor aldehydes at the PBE0–D3/Def2–SVP level.
Figure 213C cross-polarization magic angle spinning solid-state NMR of the N–COFs.
The azine C=N peak (marked a) appears at ≈160 p.p.m. while the phenyl peaks (marked b) and characteristic central aryl peaks (marked c,d,e) show minimal changes with respect to their precursor aldehydes.
Figure 3Structure and stacking analysis of the N–COFs.
(a) PXRD patterns of the N–COFs compared with the simulated pattern calculated for the representative N3–COF. (b) View of extended stacks of N–COFs in space filling model along the stacking direction (nitrogen, blue; carbon, grey; hydrogen, white). Note that an eclipsed stacking arrangement was assumed for simplicity.
Figure 4SEM and TEM images of N–COFs.
(a) SEM images of N0–COF, (b) N1–COF, (c) N2–COF and (d) N3–COF indicating morphological variation along the series. (e) TEM image of N2–COF showing hexagonal pores, with fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the marked area (red circle) in the inset. (f) TEM image of N3–COF with enlarged Fourier-filtered image (upper inset) of the marked area and representative selected area electron diffraction pattern (lower inset). Scale bars, 5 μm (a,b,c,d); 50 nm (e and f); 20 nm (f, upper inset).
Figure 5Optical and photocatalytic properties of N–COFs.
(a) Diffuse reflectance spectra of N–Alds and N–COFs recorded in the solid state. (b) Absorption spectra of precursor aldehydes N–Alds in dichloromethane at 22 °C. (c) Hydrogen production monitored over 8 h using N–COFs as photocatalyst in the presence of triethanolamine as sacrificial electron donor. (d) Photonic efficiency (PE) measured with four different band-pass filters with central wavelengths (CWLs) at 400, 450, 500 and 550 nm.
Figure 6General structure of the model systems used for theoretical calculations.
N0–: X=Y=Z=C–H. N1–: X=Y=C–H; Z=N. N2–: X=C–H; Y=Z=N. N3–: X=Y=Z=N.
Figure 7Kohn-Sham HOMO and LUMO energies of different model systems with N central core.
(a) N–Ald and N–PhAz; (b) hexagons with hydrazone (N–HxHz) and aldehyde terminations (N–HxAl); and (c) stacked hexagon layers of N3–COF with hydrazone (N3–HxHz) and aldehyde terminations (N3–HxAl).
Figure 8Schematic representation of two possible pathways after photoexcitation of N–COFs.
Quenching the hole on the COF by the sacrificial electron donor leads to a radical anionic state for the COF (radical anion pathway, red arrow). The opposite order leads to the radical cationic pathway (dotted black arrows). Energies in red depict calculated vertical electron affinities as differences in total energies between radical anionic and neutral states of N–HxHz model systems at PBE0–D3/Def2–SVP level. Asterisk (*) denotes the excited state.