| Literature DB >> 31847223 |
Alemayehu Kidanemariam1, Jiwon Lee1, Juhyun Park1.
Abstract
The accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollutants in the atmosphere begets global warming, forcing us to face tangible catastrophes worldwide. Environmental affability, affordability, and efficient CO2 metamorphotic capacity are critical factors for photocatalysts; metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are one of the best candidates. MOFs, as hybrid organic ligand and inorganic nodal metal with tailorable morphological texture and adaptable electronic structure, are contemporary artificial photocatalysts. The semiconducting nature and porous topology of MOFs, respectively, assists with photogenerated multi-exciton injection and adsorption of substrate proximate to void cavities, thereby converting CO2. The vitality of the employment of MOFs in CO2 photolytic reaction has emerged from the fact that they are not only an inherently eco-friendly weapon for pollutant extermination, but also a potential tool for alleviating foreseeable fuel crises. The excellent synergistic interaction between the central metal and organic linker allows decisive implementation for the design, integration, and application of the catalytic bundle. In this review, we presented recent MOF headway focusing on reports of the last three years, exhaustively categorized based on central metal-type, and novel discussion, from material preparation to photocatalytic, simulated performance recordings of respective as-synthesized materials. The selective CO2 reduction capacities into syngas or formate of standalone or composite MOFs with definite photocatalytic reaction conditions was considered and compared.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 reduction; CO2 transformation; composite MOFs; heterogeneous photocatalyst; heterostructure quantum dot-MOFs assembly; metal ion doping; metal-organic frameworks; photosensitizer integrated MOFs
Year: 2019 PMID: 31847223 PMCID: PMC6960843 DOI: 10.3390/polym11122090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Yearly average surface temperature comparison (1850–2018). The background is an image of Earth from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s DSCOVR satellite (August 3, 2018). The average surface temperature for 1981–2010 is taken from four analysis groups, i.e., NOAA (red), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (tan), the University of East Anglia (pink), and the Japan Meteorological Agency (orange). Adopted from the State of Climate in 2018 report from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) with permission [21]. Copyright 2018 NOAA.
Reduction potential (E) vs. normal hydrogen electrode (NHE) of different intermediate products during metal-organic frameworks (MOF)-driven CO2 photolytic reduction coincident with H2O oxidation to O2.
| Reactant Protonation and Electron Inoculation | Product | E (V vs. NHE, at pH = 7) |
|---|---|---|
| CO2 + 2H+ + 2e− | HCOOH | −0.61 |
| CO2 + 2H+ + 2e− | CO + H2O | −0.53 |
| CO2 + 4H+ + 4e− | HCHO + H2O | −0.48 |
| CO2 + 6H+ + 6e− | CH3OH + H2O | −0.38 |
| CO2 + 8H+ + 4e− | CH4 + 2H2O | −0.24 |
| 2H+ + 2e− | H2 | −0.41 |
| H2O + 2h+ | 1/2O2 + 2H+ | +0.41 |
Figure 2Diagrammatic representation of HOMO/LUMO band of exciton interaction over MOF photocatalyst for CO2 conversion upon irradiation (S = substrate, S·+ = oxidized substrate). HOMO: highly occupied molecular orbital; LUMO: lowest unoccupied molecular orbital; MOF: metal-organic framework; VB: valance bands; CB: conduction band.
The photocatalytic performance of MOFs converting CO2 to CO, CH4, H2, and HCOO− with specified reaction conditions.
| Photocatalyst | Active Metal Cluster | Organic Metal Linker | BET (m2/g) | Photocatalytic Reaction Condition [Catalyst Loading, Solvent, Power, Sacrificial Agent, Irradiation, Time (h)] | Throughput (µmol/g) | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO | CH4 | H2 | HCOO− | ||||||
| ZrPP-1-Co | Zr/Co | THPP | 852.3 | (20 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon lamp (λ > 420 nm), TEOA, 15 h | 210 | 7.5 | [ | ||
| Pbz-MOF-1 | Zr-O | HCBB | ≈1768 | (20 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W xenon arc lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), TIPA, 12 h | 176.5 | [ | |||
| PCN-136 | Zr-O | HCHC | 1768 | 526 | |||||
| CsPbBr3 QDs (15%)/UiO-66(NH2) | Zr-O | H4L | 465.68 | (10 mg), H2O/ethyl acetate, 300-W xenon arc lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), H2O, 12 h | 98.57 | 3.08 | [ | ||
| MOF-253-Re-(CO)3Cl | Re-O | dcbpy | (5 mg), DMF/H2O, (400 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 4 h | 446 | 22 | 1900 | [ | ||
| NH2-rGO (5 wt.%)/Al-PMOF | Zr-O | TCPP | 1180 | (50 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 125-W mercury lamp, TEOA, 6 h | 4113.6 | [ | |||
| NH2-MIL-101(Fe) | Fe-O | H4L | (2 mg), Solvent-Free, 300-W xenon arc lamp (400 < λ < 780 nm), TEOA, 5 h | 87.6 | [ | ||||
| NH2-MIL-53(Fe) | Fe-O | H4L | 15.7 | ||||||
| AUBM-4 | Zr-O | cptpy | 50 | (20 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 150-W (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 6 h | 2196 | [ | |||
| PCN-222 | Zr-O | TCPP | 1728 | (20 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 6 h | 2197 | [ | |||
| Eu-Ru(phen)3-MOF | Eu-O | H3L | 2205 | [ | |||||
| NH2-MIL-53(Fe) | Fe-O | BDC | 2199 | [ | |||||
| 253-Ru(5,5′-dcbpy)(CO)2Cl2 | Ru-O | dcbpy | 2200 | [ | |||||
| MIL-101(Fe) | Fe-O | ATA | 2201 | [ | |||||
| Zr-SDCA-NH2 | Zr-O | H2L1 | 2546 | 2202 | [ | ||||
| NNU-28 | Zr-O | H2L | 1490 | 2203 | [ | ||||
| Ir-CP | Ir-ligand | dcbpy | (20 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 500-W (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 6 h | 2204 | [ | ||||
| NH2-UiO-66(Zr) | Zr-O | BPDC | 778 | 2198 | [ | ||||
| Zr-SDCA-NH2 | Zr-O | H2L1 | 2546 | (40 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon lamp (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 12 h | 470 | [ | |||
| co-cat. ZIF-67 | Zn-O | TCPP | 445 | (10 mg), MeCN/MeOH/TEOA, 300-W xenon lamp (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 6 h | 2120 | 209 | [ | ||
| ZnMn2O4, nanoparticle | Zn-O | 2.7 | (100 mg), H2O, 500-W Xenon arc lamp (λ = 400 nm), TEOA, 8 h | 94.7 | [ | ||||
| ZMO-350 | Zn-O | PTCDA | 24.7 | 159.9 | |||||
| ZMO-450 | Zn-O | PTCDA | 45.8 | 191.9 | |||||
| ZMO-550 | Zn-O | PTCDA | 109.1 | 126.6 | |||||
| ZMO-650 | Zn-O | PTCDA | 8.4 | 106.9 | |||||
| Co6-MOF | Co-O | NTB | 1957.5 | (3 mg), MeCN/H2O, 150-W xenon lamp (420 ≤ λ ≤ 780), TEOA,3 h, | 13.120 | 9376.7 | [ | ||
| QS-Co3O4HoMSs (ZIF-67) | Co-O | 2-mIM | (5 mg), H2O, 200-W xenon lamp (AM 1.5 filter), 5 h | 231.5 | [ | ||||
| BIF-101 | Co-O | NBDC | 328.1 | (10 mg), MeCN/H2O, (λ > 420 nm), 10 h, | 58.300 | 11.000 | [ | ||
| MOF-74 | Zn-O | DHBDC | (30 mg), H2O, 500-W xenon lamp, 5 h | 7.42 | [ | ||||
| Pt/MOF-74 | Zn-O | DHBDC | 8.85 | 9.04 | |||||
| Au@Pd@MOF-74 | Zn-O | DHBDC | 12.31 | ||||||
| Pt/Au@Pd@MOF-74 | Zn-O | DHBDC | 2.42 | 12.35 | |||||
| Co1.11Te2⊂C | Co-/Te-O | 2-mIM | 107 | (1 mg), MeCN/TEOA/H2O, 200-W white LEDs lamp, TEOA, 3 h, | 34.200 | 73.4 | 12.394 | [ | |
| Ni MOLs (Pure CO2) | Ni-O | BDC | 48.9 | (1 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 5-W white LED light (400 nm ≤ λ ≤ 800 nm), TEOA, 2 h, | 12.500 | 280 | [ | ||
| Ni MOLs (10% dilute CO2) | Ni-O | BDC | 12.5 | 0.38 | |||||
| Co MOLs (Pure CO2) | Co-O | BDC | 44.6 | 4.61 | 2.34 | ||||
| Co MOLs (10% dilute CO2) | Co-O | BDC | 0.44 | 4.15 | |||||
| Zn2GeO4 | 56.4 | (20 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W | 1.8 | [ | |||||
| Zn2GeO4/Mg-MOF-74 | Zn-O | H4DOBDC | 406.7 | 12.94 | |||||
| PCN-138 | Zr-O | TCPP | 1261 | (10 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W xenon lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), TIPA, 12 h | 2021 | [ | |||
| Co-cat. Ni3(HITP)2 | Ni-N4/Ni2+ | HATP | 630 | (2 mg), MeCN/H2O/TEOA, 100-W LED light (λ = 420 nm), TEOA, 3 h, | 103.50 | 3745 | [ | ||
| O-ZnO/UiO-66-NH2 | Zr/Zn-O | ATA | (100 mg), NaHCO3 aq., 300-W xenon lamp (λ > 420 nm), 6 h | 29.6 | [ | ||||
| O-ZnO/rGO/UiO-66-NH2 | Zr/Zn-O | ATA | 877.3 | 38.5 | |||||
| TiO2 | 42 | (3 mg), 150-W xenon lamp (λ > 325 nm), H2, 6 h | 17.1 | [ | |||||
| NH2-UiO-66 | Zr-O | BPDC | 871 | 9 | |||||
| 1-TiMOF | Zr/Ti-O | BPDC | 173 | 22.44 | |||||
| 2-TiMOF | Zr/Ti-O | BPDC | 202 | 25.44 | |||||
| 3-TiMOF | Zr/Ti-O | BPDC | 268 | 20.22 | |||||
| 4-TiMOF | Zr/Ti-O | BPDC | 284 | 17.1 | |||||
| MOF-525 | Zr-O | TCPP | 2127.7 | (2 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon arc lamp (400 nm < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 6 h | 384.12 | 37.2 | [ | ||
| MOF-525-Co | Zr-O | TCPP | 1317.8 | 1203.6 | 220.56 | ||||
| MOF-525-Zn | Zr-O | TCPP | 1264.2 | 670.2 | 69.81 | ||||
| C-Cu2−xS@g-C3N4 | Cu-O | TAA | 95.1 | (1 mg), H2O, (300 nm < λ < 800 nm), H2O, 12 h | 1062.6 | 26.42 | [ | ||
| QS-Co3O4HoMSs(ZIF-67) | Co-O | 2-mIM | (1 mg), H2O, 200-W xenon lamp, H2O, 5 h | 231.5 | [ | ||||
| g-C3N4 | 34.55 | (20 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon arc lamp, TEOA, 6 h | 32.442 | 9.294 | [ | ||||
| BIF-20@g-C3N4, (10% g-C3N4) | Zn-O | BH-(mim)3− | 378.83 | 170.85 | 56.1 | ||||
| BIF-20@g-C3N4, (15% g-C3N4) | Zn-O | BH-(mim)3- | 283.67 | 242.75 | 72.7 | ||||
| BIF-20@g-C3N4, (20% g-C3N4) | Zn-O | BH-(mim)3- | 1276.01 | 305.85 | 88.15 | ||||
| BIF-20@g-C3N4, (25% g-C3N4) | Zn-O | BH-(mim)3- | 1177.77 | 257 | 75.35 | ||||
| AD-MOF-1 | Co-O | HAD/BA | (5 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W xenon lamp (420 < λ < 800 nm), TIPA, 4h | 716 | [ | ||||
| AD-MOF-2 | Co-O | HAD/IA | (5 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W xenon lamp (420 < λ < 800 nm), TIPA, 5 h | 1773 | |||||
| MIL-101-EN | Cr-O | TPA | 839.7 | (5 mg), H2O/TEOA, light-intensity-controlled xenon lamp, TEOA, 10 h | 472 | 17.12 | [ | ||
| MIL-101-SO3H | Cr-O | TPA | 1936.9 | 217 | 13 | ||||
| MIL-101-Cr | Cr-O | TPA | 3126.5 | 83 | 17 | ||||
| NNU-29 | Zn-O | L | (10 mg), H2O/TEOA, 300-W xenon arc lamp (420 < λ < 800 nm), TEOA, 16 h, | 18 | 58 | 3520 | [ | ||
| MOF-Cu | Cu-O | TCA | (5 mg), MeCN/H2O, 300-W xenon lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), TIPA, 12 h, | 344 | 1162 | [ | |||
| MOF-Co | Co-O | TCA | 4564 | 5062 | |||||
| MOF-Ni | Ni-O | TCA | 4472 | 104 | |||||
| TiO2 | 138.07 | (10 mg), H2O, 300-W xenon lamp (λ > 300 nm), 8 h | 6.56 | [ | |||||
| PCN-224(Cu) | Zr-O | TCPP | 2285 | 29.76 | 10.86 | ||||
| 15% PCN-224(Cu)/TiO2 | Zr-O | TCPP | 178.05 | 297.68 | 1.69 | ||||
| (Co/Ru)2.4-UiO-67(bpydc) | Co-O | bpydc | 103.3 | (1 mg), MeCN/H2O, 450 nm LED light, TEOA, 16 h, | 4520.4 | 9121.5 | [ | ||
| 36% CdS/MIL-101(Cr) | Cr-O | TPA | 0.1324 | (10 mg), H2SO4 + NaHCO3, (λ ≥ 400 nm), 3.33 h | 54.5 | [ | |||
| CdS | (10 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), TEOA, 10 h | 230 | 2480 | ||||||
| CdS/UiO-bpy | Zr-O | bpydc | 52.6 | (10 mg), MeCN/TEOA, 300-W xenon lamp (λ ≥ 420 nm), TEOA, 10 h | 2750 | [ | |||
| CdS/UiO-bpy/Co | Zr-O | bpydc | 25.5 | 2350 | 410 | ||||
| CsPbBr3@ZIF-8 | Zn-O | 2-mIM | (4.5 mg), H2O, 100-W xenon lamp AM 1.5G filter, H2O, 3 h | 1.515 | 5.434 | [ | |||
| CsPbBr3@ZIF-67 | Co-O | 2-Mim | 2.301 | 10.537 | |||||
The data in this table conscript recent MOFs’ CO2 conversion capacities in yield with detailed reaction conditions for respective selectivities and references; some data are modified from originally reported units to ensure dimensional homogeneity (µmol per gram of catalyst). PS ([Ru(bpy)3]Cl2·6H2O) stands for PSPS, which was discussed in the main body. Selectivity calculation: S = [nco/(nco + nCH4 + nH2 + nHCOOH)] × 100%, where nco = yield of CO, nCH4 = yield of CH4, nH2 = yield of H2, and nHCOOH = yield of formate.
Figure 3(a) UV−vis spectra of pbz-MOF-1 and PCN-136; insets are the optical pictures of pbz-MOF-1 (left) and PCN-136 (right), (b) Transient photocurrent responses of pbz-MOF-1 and PCN-136 in 0.5 M Na2SO4 aqueous solution under visible-light irradiation. The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) curves from room temperature to 800 °C at the heating rate of 10 °C·min−1 of (c) PCN-136 and (d) pbz-MOF-1. Reproduced with permission [140]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Scheme 1The illustration of Zr-based MOF (AUBM-4) photolytic CO2 reduction mechanism upon light illumination, (a) Incident irradiation, (b) Exciton generation and transmission of Ru-to-cptpy MLCT, (c) Ru-reducing via protonation from TEOA sacrificial agent, (d) cptpy•− radical will provide electron to neighboring CO2 molecule for conversion. Color coding (excluding hydrogen): Ru(gold), Zr(green), C(gray), O(red), N(blue). Reproduced with permission [145]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Scheme 2Structure of PNC-137; (a) BTB, (b) TCPP, (c) 3D structure formation, (d) (3,4,7)-connected topology of PNC-137, (e) 7-connected Zn4O cluster on each cage. Reproduced and modified with permission [163]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Scheme 3Structure of PCN-138; (a) TBTB, (b) TCPP, (c) 3D structure formation, (d) (3,4,12)-connected topology of PCN-138, (e) 12-connected Zr6 cluster. Reproduced and modified with permission [163]. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Figure 4(a) Ni3(HITP)2 CO and H2 evolution vs. illumination time capacity, containing Ru(bpy)3Cl2·6H2O under 80 kPa and CO2 atmosphere at 4 °C, b) The recyclability tests of Ni3(HITP)2 under the same experimental conditions. Reproduced with permission [164]. Copyright 2018 Elsevier.
Figure 5FJI-H14 harsh condition stability. (a) PXRD in different acid/base environments under boiling water and (b) temperature-dependent PXRD patterns. Reproduced with permission [219]. Copyright 2017 Nature Communications.
Figure 6Morphological structure of TiO2NT pre- and post-assembly with ZIF-8; (A) FEG/SEM image of pure TiO2 nanotubes, (B,C) FEG/SEM images of NPs of ZIF-8 incorporated into Ti/TiO2NT, at two different magnifications, (D) SEM-EDS spectrum of Ti/TiO2NT-ZIF-8, (E) TEM of Ti/TiO2 nanotube, (F) TEM of Ti/TiO2NT-ZIF-8. Adopted and edited with permission [238]. Copyright 2007 Elsevier.
Figure 7Contrastive illustration of ZIF-8 composite and pristine photolytic activity. (a) Effects of membrane composition on formation capacity and durability, (b) Effects of dopant NP concentration on product yield. Reproduced with permission [246]. Copyright 2017 American Chemical Society.
Figure 8(a) 3D network of Zr-SDCA-NH2 with void space (yellow spheres), exhibiting two kinds of cages [Color coding (excluding H atom and disordered C and N atoms): Zr(blue), O(red), N(green), and C(black)], (b) Yield of HCOO− as a function of irradiation time under altered reaction condition of photocatalyst, sacrificial agent, and light. Reproduced and modified with permission [150]. Copyright 2018, The Royal Society of Chemistry.