| Literature DB >> 35068021 |
Abdul Khayum Mohammed1, Ayesha A Al Khoori2,3, Matthew A Addicoat4, Sabu Varghese5, Israa Othman1, Maguy Abi Jaoude1,3, Kyriaki Polychronopoulou2,3, Maria Baias5, Mohammad Abu Haija1,3, Dinesh Shetty1,3.
Abstract
The ordered open organic frameworks membranes are attractive candidates for flow-assisted molecular separations. The physicochemical properties of such membranes mostly depend on their selectively chosen functional building blocks. In this work, we have introduced a novel concept of functional switchability of three-dimensional covalent organic framework (3D-COF) membranes through a simple solvent-influenced fragmentation method. This room-temperature interfacial synthesis provides free-standing 3D-COF membranes with distinct physicochemical properties from the same building monomers. Notably, the change of solvent from chloroform to ethyl acetate switches the membrane property from hydrophilic (water contact angle 60°) to hydrophobic (water contact angle 142°) nature. The hydrophobic 3D-COF membrane selectively passes oil molecules from an oil-water emulsion with a gravitational flux of 1536 L m-2 h-1 .Entities:
Keywords: Covalent Organic Framework; Halogen Bond; Hydrophobicity; Membranes; Oil-Water Separation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35068021 PMCID: PMC9303774 DOI: 10.1002/anie.202200905
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl ISSN: 1433-7851 Impact factor: 16.823
Figure 1a) Graphical representations of the interfacial synthesis of Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2. b) The scheme of reaction and 3D structural representation. c) The PXRD profiles of Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2 in comparison with the simulated profile (dia‐c‐5). d) The digital photographs of mechanically stable, free‐standing i) Tam Dbta‐1 and ii) Tam Dbta‐2 membranes. e) i, ii) The graphical representation of defects distributions in the frameworks. iii) Free aldehyde oxygen atoms in a representative DFT model, and iv) schematic representation of free aldehydes in 3D framework.
Figure 2a) Solid‐state 13C‐CP MAS NMR of Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2 highlighting the difference in intensity of C=O. b) Chem‐Draw image of Tam Dbta highlighting the representative atoms (coloured and labelled) for both NMR and FT‐IR. c) FT‐IR profiles of Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2 show the difference in intensity of C=O and C=N bonds. d) CO2 adsorption isotherm at 273 K (482 and 748 μmol g−1 for Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2 respectively).
Figure 3a) i–iii) SEM images of Tam Dbta‐1 showing finger‐like and super‐spherical morphologies; iv–vi) SEM images of Tam Dbta‐2 showing planar and spherical morphologies. b) Graphical representation of Tam Dbta‐1 and Tam Dbta‐2 2D sheetswith surface variations. c) TEM image of i) Tam Dbta‐1 and ii) Tam Dbta‐2. d) i–iii) 2D; 3D AFM images; and AFM height profile of Tam Dbta‐1 and iv–vi) 2D; 3D AFM images; and AFM height profile of Tam Dbta‐2.
Figure 4a) Water contact angle of i) Tam Dbta‐2 and ii) Tam Dbta‐1, and iii) digital photograph of water drop on Tam Dbta‐1 membrane. b) Electrostatic potential mapping of the molecular fragment of Tam Dbta‐1. c) Graphical representation of water–oil separation.
Figure 5a) Solvent flux analysis of Tam Dbta‐1 showing high flux for non‐polar solvents. b) Solvent flux analysis of Tam Dbta‐2. c) Oil–water demulsification flux of Tam Dbta‐1. d) Recyclability analysis of oil–water demulsification by using Tam Dbta‐1. e) The optical microscopic analysis of oil–water mixture i) before and ii) after demulsification. f) The digital photographs of i) oil–water emulsion and ii) demulsified oil.