Next Article in Journal
Perforated and Composite Beam and Arch Design Optimization during Asymmetric Post-Buckling Deformation
Next Article in Special Issue
Block Copolymer-Based Symmetric Membranes for Direct Methanol Fuel Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Stability Analysis of the Solution for the Mixed Integral Equation with Symmetric Kernel in Position and Time with Its Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Selective Reduction of P-Stereogenic Phosphinoylacetic Acid Esters and 3-Phosphorylated Coumarins to Phosphino-Boranes: Discovery of Unexpected 2,3-Dihydrobenzofuran Derivative
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Robust Zn-Hydroxamate Metal–Organic Framework Constructed from an Unsymmetrical Ligand for Iodine Capture

1
School of Chemical Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
2
Sichuan University Pittsburgh Institute, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610207, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2024, 16(8), 1049; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081049
Submission received: 16 July 2024 / Revised: 5 August 2024 / Accepted: 13 August 2024 / Published: 15 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Chemistry)

Abstract

:
To qualify as competent sorbents for airborne contaminants such as iodine vapor, permanent porosity and chemical stability are key criteria for the selection of candidate metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). To ensure these characteristics, in the present study, an unsymmetrical bifunctional ligand incorporating both carboxylic acid and hydroxamic acid groups was employed for MOF [Zn(CBHA)](DMF) [SUM-13; CPHA = 4-carboxyphenylhydroxamate, DMF = N,N-dimethylformamide] design and synthesis. Though coupled with Zn2+, which does not typically yield kinetically robust MOFs with hard acids, the SUM-13 featuring differentiated coordination modes of chelating, bridging and monodentate bonding exhibited exceptional chemical stability and permanent porosity, with a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area of 296.9 m2/g and a total pore volume of 0.1196 cm3/g. Additionally, with porosity and open metal sites at the five-coordinate Zn2+ centers, SUM-13 was demonstrated to be an eligible iodine adsorbent, reaching a maximum uptake of 796 mg/g. These findings underscore the validity and potential of the design strategy in constructing stable metal–organic frameworks.

1. Introduction

As a form of clean energy, nuclear energy plays an essential role to meet global environmental sustainability commitments and ensure global energy security [1,2]. On the other hand, nuclear energy has its own system of waste management and disposal to live up to the “clean” label and minimize environmental impacts [3,4]. For example, iodine isotopes make up approximately 0.69% (by mass) of the fission products from Uranium-235 in the nuclear fuel cycle. This constitutes a significant portion of nuclear waste, especially considering its gaseous nature [5]. During the dissolution of spent nuclear fuel in concentrated HNO3 at reprocessing facilities, a substantial amount of radioactive iodine is released into the dissolver off-gas (DOG) stream. The primary chemical species of concern in the DOG include highly volatile I2 (90–100%) and small amounts of organic iodides (e.g., CH3I) (0–10%) [6,7]. Within these inorganic/organic iodine species, key radioactive isotopes are 129I and 131I, which have half-lives of 1.57 × 107 years and 8.02 days, respectively [5]. Radioactive iodine is highly mobile in the environment and can directly interfere with human metabolic processes, causing acute, chronic, and delayed health issues, given that they can accumulate in the thyroid gland. Therefore, in order to remove radioactive iodine isotopes from DOG and other sources, porous solid materials with accessible internal cavities, such as zeolites, microporous polymers, covalent–organic frameworks, and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have been tested for iodine capture [5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. These solid adsorbents offer clear advantages over traditional liquid scrubbing technique in terms of industrial application [16]. Among the various categories of promising adsorbents, highly crystalline MOFs feature long-range structural order and possess high density of adsorption sites, constituting viable high-capacity candidates as well as facilitating the study of host–guest interactions to advance our understanding of the adsorptive mechanisms [17,18,19]. Hence, continuous iterations of development regarding MOF-based iodine adsorbents provide great opportunities toward industrial implementation and can shed light on other research fronts for MOFs, including guest adsorption in gas and liquid phases. In fact, gas adsorption (including storage and separation) is arguably the most active and fruitful field in MOF research, including toxic and corrosive gases [20,21,22]. MOFs have also been extensively studied toxic waste removal/control, including corrosive gases, and heavy metal recovery/enrichment [23,24,25]. Particularly, MOFs have been shown to adsorb various radionuclides, including uranium and iodine [17,26,27,28]. No matter what the specific research subjects entail, chemical stability is a prerequisite for all MOF materials developed for downstream utilization, as it determines their performance in real scenarios and cycle life [29,30]. Consequently, the design and construction of stable MOFs have garnered significant attention and resources, as underscored by recent review articles [31,32,33,34,35].
To develop MOFs for iodine adsorption or to develop materials that simultaneously possess permanent porosity and robustness, the key chemical handle is to enhance metal–ligand interactions, i.e., coordination bonds. Taking the most common category of MOFs that are constructed from carboxylate ligands as an example, based on the hard–soft acid-base (HSAB) theory, one should employ high-valent metals to increase the coordinative stability [31]. The successful application of the guideline has given us some of the most robust and widely studied MOFs (e.g., MIL-101, UiO-66, PCN-222, MOF-525, NU-1000) [36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The secondary building units (SBUs) in these renowned MOFs are typically connected to multiple carboxylate groups from different linker molecules, further increasing the overall connectivity and stability in the MOF structures. Another promising strategy to improve coordinative strengths in MOFs is using chelating linkers, featuring functional groups like hydroxamic acid [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54] and pyrazole [55,56]. Combined with primary building units (PBUs) or SBUs, these chelating groups/linkers can stabilize the metal–ligand interactions from an entropic perspective, in addition to HSAB principles that are essentially solely enthalpic considerations [57,58,59].
As part of the ongoing research effort in our group, studying and utilizing the coordinative properties of hydroxamic acid linkers in the context of MOFs, here a novel bifunctional ligand with both carboxylic acid and hydroxamic acid groups is proposed. Common linkers utilized in MOF synthesis are usually symmetrical in terms of positioning of coordinating groups, for example terephthalic acid and benzene-1,4-dihydroxamic acid. In concept, the design of the proposed unsymmetrical bifunctional ligand could introduce distinct coordination modes in the same MOF structure, thereby differentiating the decomposition conditions at different coordination sites. We hypothesize that this strategy may improve the structural stability of the MOF from a kinetic perspective. Given that the combination of Zn2+ and hard acid linkers (e.g., carboxylic acid) typically yields MOFs with poor kinetic stability [60,61], here we were able to prepare a robust Zn-MOF with permanent porosity by using bifunctional linker 4-carboxyphenylhydroxamic acid. Further, the MOF was demonstrated as a promising adsorbent for iodine vapor capture.

2. Materials and Methods

Monomethyl terephthalate (>98%), oxalyl chloride (>98%), tetrahydrofuran (THF, 99.9%), N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, >99%), sodium bicarbonate (>99%), hydroxylamine hydrochloride (>99%), sodium hydroxide (>99%), and Zn(NO3)2·6H2O (>99%) were purchased from Adamas Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China) and used without further treatment unless otherwise noted. Ultrapure water was obtained from a Millipak® Express 40 system (Merk-Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany). The synthetic route for 4-carboxyl-phenylhydroxamic acid is illustrated in Scheme S1 in the Supporting Information file.

2.1. Synthesis of Methyl 4-(Chlorocarbonyl)benzoate

Monomethyl terephthalate (5.00 g, 27.75 mmol) was added to a 250 mL round-bottom flask containing dry THF (100 mL) and a catalytic amount of DMF. The mixture was cooled to 0 °C and stirred for 5 min. Then, oxalyl chloride (7 mL, 3 equiv.) was added dropwise to the mixture, and stirring was continued at room temperature for 4 h. The resulting mixture was concentrated under reduced pressure to quantitatively afford methyl 4-(chlorocarbonyl)benzoate, which was used directly without further purification for the subsequent step.

2.2. Synthesis of 4-Methoxycarbonylphenylhydroxamic Acid

Sodium bicarbonate (9.32 g, 111 mmol) and water (50 mL) were added to a 250 mL round-bottom flask, followed by the addition of hydroxylamine hydrochloride (3.90 g, 55.5 mmol). The mixture was stirred for 10 min under N2 protection. Then, the acyl chloride from Section 2.1 was added to the mixture, and the resulting solution was stirred at room temperature for 20 h, during which time a precipitate formed. The precipitate was filtered and washed with water to obtain a white solid, which was used directly without further purification for the subsequent reaction. 1H NMR (DMSO-d6):  δ 3.85 (s, 3 H), 7.96 (d broad, 2 H), 7.98 (d, 2 H), 9.16 (s, 1 H), 11.38 (s, 1 H).

2.3. Synthesis of 4-Carboxyphenylhydroxamic Acid

4-Methoxycarbonylphenylhydroxamic acid (3.90 g, 20 mmol) was refluxed with 30 mL of 4 M aqueous sodium hydroxide solution for 1 h. While still hot, the mixture was acidified with concentrated hydrochloric acid solution to precipitate 4-carboxybenzohydroxamic acid. The suspension was cooled to room temperature, and the colorless solid was filtered off. The crude product was then dried under reduced pressure in a desiccator to obtain a light pink powder (yield 95%). 1H NMR (DMSO-d6):  7.80 (d broad, 2 H), 7.96 (d, 2 H), 10.24 (s, 1 H), 11.33 (s, 1 H).

2.4. Synthesis of SUM-13

4-carboxyphenylhydroxamic acid (5.43 mg, 0.03 mmol) and Zn(NO3)2·6H2O (17.85 mg, 0.06 mmol) were mixed with DMF (1 mL) and ethanol (EtOH) (0.250 mL) in a 4 mL glass vial, which was then tightly capped and briefly sonicated. The mixture was heated at 80 °C in an isothermal oven for 24 h. Before being dried in air, the crystals were washed with dry DMF (3 × 20 mL) and then with acetone (3 × 20 mL).

2.5. Iodine Vapor Adsorption Measurement

An open vial (4 mL) with 50 mg of the MOF sample was placed in a 150 mL glass vessel which contained 1 g of iodine. The glass vessel was sealed and subsequently placed in an 80 °C isothermal oven. The vial containing the iodine adsorbed sample was weighed periodically until the mass of it remained unchanged [62,63,64].

3. Results

As described in Section 2.4, the solvothermal reaction of Zn(NO3)2·6H2O and 4-carboxyphenylhydroxamic acid (CPHA) in DMF and EtOH yielded large block-shaped single crystals (Figure 1a). The crystal structure was determined to be a MOF by single-crystal X-ray diffraction (SC-XRD), hereafter denoted as SUM-13 (SUM = Sichuan University Materials; CCDC depository number 2368077), with refinement details provided in the Supporting Information (Table S1). SUM-13 crystallizes in the hexagonal P65 space group, and the asymmetric unit consists of one Zn2+, one ligand, and one uncoordinated DMF molecule (Figure S3). As shown in Figure 1b, every Zn2+ is coordinated to five oxygen atoms, adopting a square pyramidal configuration, including two O atoms of a chelating hydroxamate group, two O atoms from two separate monodentate carboxylate groups, and one O atom from an adjacent hydroxamate. Within the polyhedron, the Zn–O bond lengths range from 1.985 Å to 2.0687 Å, which are fairly large values compared to typical Zn-O bonds in corresponding MOFs [65,66,67]. The phase purity of SUM-13 samples was confirmed via powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD) by comparing the experimental diffractogram of as-synthesized crystals with the simulated pattern from the SC-XRD structure (Figure 1c). The square-pyramidal Zn2+ cations then form one-dimensional (1D) chains by sharing the aforementioned hydroxamate O atoms and bridging carboxylate groups. Overall, SUM-13 is constructed based on these parallel 1D SBU chains being linked together by bifunctional ligand molecules, generating a 3D network with channels running in the [001] and [100] directions (Figure 1d,e). To visualize the channels in SUM-13, a Connolly representation using a virtual N2 probe with a radius of 1.86 Å is depicted in Figure 1f,g. The estimated surface area was 336.6 m2/g. To the best of our knowledge, SUM-13 is the first example of Zn-based MOFs constructed using carboxylate/hydroxamate bifunctional ligands.
As previously established in the literature [68,69,70,71,72], coordination bond lengths were closely related to the binding strengths and the robustness of the overall MOF structure. However, in the case of SUM-13, the relatively long bonds did not compromise the MOF’s chemical stability, possibly due to the chelating nature of hydroxamate groups and the high degrees of connectivity of 1D SBUs with differentiated coordinating modes (vide supra). Specifically, PXRD analysis confirmed that SUM-13 not only showed excellent stability in various organic solvents (Figure 2a) but also maintained its crystallinity when exposed to a wide pH range (2–11) of aqueous solutions, after soaking in respective media for 24 h. Though in the latter case, most peaks on the diffractogram corresponding to the as-synthesized sample shifted when exposed to aqueous solutions, indicating that the SUM-13 structure (unit cell) was swollen in water, while retaining the overall crystalline order. We reiterate that the almost unusual chemical robustness of this Zn-MOF could be attributed to the differentiated coordinating modes of carboxylates and hydroxamates which co-exist in the structure. Compared to conventional carboxylate-based MOFs, the use of an unsymmetrical ligand introduces a second coordinating group, providing structural restraints and stabilizing the bond dissociation and repair processes for SUM-13 under harsh chemical environments.
As shown in the SC-XRD structure, SUM-13’s internal cavities were occupied by solvent molecules. Therefore, to activate the porous structure for porosity test, a solvent exchange procedure (with acetone) was necessary. Consequently, N2 sorption experiments for SUM-13 were conducted at 77 K. Based on the isotherms (Figure 3a), the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area and total pore volume of SUM-13 was calculated to be 296.9 m2/g and 0.1196 cm3/g, respectively. Furthermore, the pore size distribution was modelled using non-local density functional theory (NLDFT), showing the presence of micropores with a diameter of 0.61 nm (Figure 3b), consistent with the crystal structure determined by SC-XRD (vide supra). Additionally, as shown in Figure 3c, SUM-13 maintained excellent crystallinity after activation and N2 sorption, further demonstrating its structural robustness. On the other hand, the thermal decomposition profile of solvent-exchanged SUM-13 was determined by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). As shown in Figure 3d, the TGA curve indicated a two-stage weight loss profile of SUM-13. The initial decomposition temperature was approximately 190 °C, corresponding to the thermal decomposition of hydroxamate-based ligands, similar to what was observed in previously reported hydroxamate-based MOFs [47,52,53]. The second weight loss phase started at approximately 404 °C, indicating the continuous decomposition of remaining organic compounds in the sample.
Finally, considering its surface area and accessible pores large enough for I2 molecules (diameter = circa. 0.42 nm) [73], we investigated the iodine vapor adsorption capacity of SUM-13. Based on our previous findings analyzing MOF big data for I2 capture [27], SUM-13 indeed possess several characteristics favorable for this purpose, for example, the high density of accessible aromatic rings and the ubiquitous presence of coordinatively unsaturated Zn2+ sites. The experiments were conducted by exposing SUM-13 to iodine vapor at 80 °C [62,63,64]. Iodine uptake data were obtained by weighing the samples at different time intervals, as shown in Figure 4. The amount of iodine adsorption gradually increased over time, reaching a maximum capacity of 796 mg/g after 72 h. Therefore, SUM-13 exhibits an impressive iodine vapor adsorption capacity among reported MOFs [17].

4. Conclusions

In summary, as part of the continuing effort to create and diversify hydroxamate-based MOF structures in our group, starting from an unsymmetrical bifunctional CPHA ligand with both carboxylate and hydroxamate groups and Zn2+, a novel 3D MOF was prepared, namely SUM-13. In the MOF structure, the differentiated coordination modes of monodentate, bidentate, and bridging were responsible for the overall kinetic stability and structural robustness of SUM-13 whose crystallinity persists across a wide pH range of 2–11 and in various organic solvents. The successfully activated SUM-13 has a BET surface area of 296.9 m2/g and total pore volume of 0.1196 cm3/g, constituting a promising porous matrix that provides numerous adsorption sites for iodine. Experimentally, the porous SUM-13 showed an I2 uptake of 796 mg/g at 72 h. These findings represent yet another avenue to design and construct metal–organic framework materials with desirable stability, which is the cornerstone for downstream applications.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/sym16081049/s1, Scheme S1: Synthesis of 4-carboxybenzohydroxamic acid; Figure S1: 1H NMR spectrum of 3 in DMSO-d6; Figure S2: 1H NMR spectrum of 4 in DMSO-d6; Table S1: Crystal data and structure refinement details for SUM-13; Figure S3: ORTEP diagram of the asymmetric unit of SUM-13. Crystallographic information file (CIF): SUM-13.cif.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S. and C.L.; methodology, T.S., Y.Z. and Z.L.; formal analysis, T.S., Y.Z., Z.L., Z.M., Z.-W.S. and C.L.; investigation, T.S., Y.Z. and Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, T.S., Z.M. and Z.-W.S.; writing—review and editing, T.S., Z.-W.S. and C.L.; visualization, T.S. and Z.-W.S.; supervision, C.L.; funding acquisition, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province, China (no. 2023NSFSC0114 to C.L.). Additionally, this research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 22176135 to C.L.).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Yuqing Qiu for the helpful discussion regarding the MOF’s porosity.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Parsons, J.; Buongiorno, J.; Corradini, M.; Petti, D. A fresh look at nuclear energy. Science 2019, 363, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sovacool, B.K.; Schmid, P.; Stirling, A.; Walter, G.; MacKerron, G. Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power. Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 928–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rodríguez-Penalonga, L.; Moratilla Soria, B.Y. A Review of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategies and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Technologies. Energies 2017, 10, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Park, S.; Ewing, R.C. US Legal and Regulatory Framework for Nuclear Waste from Present and Future Reactors and Their Fuel Cycles. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2023, 48, 713–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Riley, B.J.; Vienna, J.D.; Strachan, D.M.; McCloy, J.S.; Jerden, J.L. Materials and processes for the effective capture and immobilization of radioiodine: A review. J. Nucl. Mater. 2016, 470, 307–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hertzsch, T.; Gervais, C.; Hulliger, J.; Jaeckel, B.; Guentay, S.; Bruchertseifer, H.; Neels, A. Open-Pore Organic Material for Retaining Radioactive I2 and CH3I. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2006, 16, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vienna, J.D.; Collins, E.D.; Crum, J.V.; Ebert, W.L.; Frank, S.M.; Garn, T.G.; Gombert, D.; Jones, R.; Jubin, R.T.; Maio, V.C.; et al. Closed Fuel Cycle Waste Treatment Strategy; Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL): Richland, WA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Geng, T.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Wang, Y. A nitrogen-rich fluorescent conjugated microporous polymer with triazine and triphenylamine units for high iodine capture and nitro aromatic compound detection. J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 7612–7617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yin, Z.-J.; Xu, S.-Q.; Zhan, T.-G.; Qi, Q.-Y.; Wu, Z.-Q.; Zhao, X. Ultrahigh volatile iodine uptake by hollow microspheres formed from a heteropore covalent organic framework. Chem. Commun. 2017, 53, 7266–7269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huve, J.; Ryzhikov, A.; Nouali, H.; Lalia, V.; Augé, G.; Daou, T.J. Porous sorbents for the capture of radioactive iodine compounds: A review. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 29248–29273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haefner, D. Methods of Gas Phase Capture of Iodine from Fuel Reprocessing Off-Gas: A Literature Survey; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2007.
  12. Nandanwar, S.U.; Coldsnow, K.; Utgikar, V.; Sabharwall, P.; Eric Aston, D. Capture of harmful radioactive contaminants from off-gas stream using porous solid sorbents for clean environment—A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 306, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kalaj, M.; Cohen, S.M. Postsynthetic Modification: An Enabling Technology for the Advancement of Metal–Organic Frameworks. ACS Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 1046–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pourebrahimi, S.; Pirooz, M. Reversible iodine vapor capture using bipyridine-based covalent triazine framework: Experimental and computational investigations. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2021, 8, 100150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pourebrahimi, S.; Pirooz, M.; De Visscher, A.; Peslherbe, G.H. Highly efficient and reversible iodine capture utilizing amorphous conjugated covalent triazine-based porous polymers: Experimental and computational studies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. He, L.; Chen, L.; Dong, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, M.; Dai, X.; Liu, X.; Lin, P.; Li, K.; Chen, C.; et al. A nitrogen-rich covalent organic framework for simultaneous dynamic capture of iodine and methyl iodide. Chem 2021, 7, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, X.; Maddock, J.; Nenoff, T.M.; Denecke, M.A.; Yang, S.; Schröder, M. Adsorption of iodine in metal–organic framework materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022, 51, 3243–3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xie, W.; Cui, D.; Zhang, S.-R.; Xu, Y.-H.; Jiang, D.-L. Iodine capture in porous organic polymers and metal–organic frameworks materials. Mater. Horiz. 2019, 6, 1571–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zia, H.; Arham Shamim, M.; Zeeshan, M.; Yasir Khan, M.; Shahid, M. Metal organic frameworks as a versatile platform for the radioactive iodine capture: State of the art developments and future prospects. Inorganica Chim. Acta 2022, 539, 121026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, H.; Li, L.; Lin, R.-B.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, S.; Chen, B. Porous metal-organic frameworks for gas storage and separation: Status and challenges. EnergyChem 2019, 1, 100006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Islamoglu, T.; Chen, Z.; Wasson, M.C.; Buru, C.T.; Kirlikovali, K.O.; Afrin, U.; Mian, M.R.; Farha, O.K. Metal–Organic Frameworks against Toxic Chemicals. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 8130–8160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, J.; Gao, M.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, M.; Wang, Z.; Xu, L.; Wang, X.; Shen, B. Advances in the adsorption and degradation of chemical warfare agents and simulants by Metal-organic frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2023, 493, 215289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rani, L.; Kaushal, J.; Srivastav, A.L.; Mahajan, P. A critical review on recent developments in MOF adsorbents for the elimination of toxic heavy metals from aqueous solutions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 44771–44796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, M.; Cheng, Q.; Wang, C.; Li, H.; Han, X.; Fan, Z.; Su, G.; Pan, D.; Li, Z. Research progress of adsorption and removal of heavy metals by chitosan and its derivatives: A review. Chemosphere 2021, 279, 130927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rieth, A.J.; Wright, A.M.; Dincă, M. Kinetic stability of metal–organic frameworks for corrosive and coordinating gas capture. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2019, 4, 708–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mei, D.; Liu, L.; Yan, B. Adsorption of uranium (VI) by metal-organic frameworks and covalent-organic frameworks from water. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2023, 475, 214917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cheng, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, S.; Bi, K.; Hu, K.-q.; Dai, Z.; Dai, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhou, L.; Ji, X.; et al. A large-scale screening of metal-organic frameworks for iodine capture combining molecular simulation and machine learning. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2023, 17, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, R.; Wang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Pei, Y.; Wang, J. Highly efficient triiodide ion adsorption from water by ionic liquid hybrid metal–organic frameworks. J. Mol. Liq. 2023, 370, 121009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, D.; Yadav, A.; Zhou, H.; Roy, K.; Thanasekaran, P.; Lee, C. Advances and Applications of Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) in Emerging Technologies: A Comprehensive Review. Glob. Chall. 2024, 8, 2300244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Freund, R.; Zaremba, O.; Arnauts, G.; Ameloot, R.; Skorupskii, G.; Dincă, M.; Bavykina, A.; Gascon, J.; Ejsmont, A.; Goscianska, J.; et al. The Current Status of MOF and COF Applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60, 23975–24001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ding, M.; Cai, X.; Jiang, H.-L. Improving MOF stability: Approaches and applications. Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 10209–10230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yuan, S.; Feng, L.; Wang, K.; Pang, J.; Bosch, M.; Lollar, C.; Sun, Y.; Qin, J.; Yang, X.; Zhang, P.; et al. Stable Metal–Organic Frameworks: Design, Synthesis, and Applications. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1704303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, K.; Li, Y.; Xie, L.-H.; Li, X.; Li, J.-R. Construction and application of base-stable MOFs: A critical review. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2022, 51, 6417–6441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, X.; Wang, B.; Alsalme, A.; Xiang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, B. Design and applications of water-stable metal-organic frameworks: Status and challenges. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2020, 423, 213507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. He, T.; Kong, X.-J.; Li, J.-R. Chemically Stable Metal–Organic Frameworks: Rational Construction and Application Expansion. Acc. Chem. Res. 2021, 54, 3083–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Férey, G.; Mellot-Draznieks, C.; Serre, C.; Millange, F.; Dutour, J.; Surblé, S.; Margiolaki, I. A Chromium Terephthalate-Based Solid with Unusually Large Pore Volumes and Surface Area. Science 2005, 309, 2040–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cavka, J.H.; Jakobsen, S.; Olsbye, U.; Guillou, N.; Lamberti, C.; Bordiga, S.; Lillerud, K.P. A New Zirconium Inorganic Building Brick Forming Metal Organic Frameworks with Exceptional Stability. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 13850–13851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feng, D.; Gu, Z.-Y.; Li, J.-R.; Jiang, H.-L.; Wei, Z.; Zhou, H.-C. Zirconium-Metalloporphyrin PCN-222: Mesoporous Metal–Organic Frameworks with Ultrahigh Stability as Biomimetic Catalysts. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 10307–10310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morris, W.; Volosskiy, B.; Demir, S.; Gándara, F.; McGrier, P.L.; Furukawa, H.; Cascio, D.; Stoddart, J.F.; Yaghi, O.M. Synthesis, Structure, and Metalation of Two New Highly Porous Zirconium Metal–Organic Frameworks. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 51, 6443–6445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mondloch, J.E.; Bury, W.; Fairen-Jimenez, D.; Kwon, S.; DeMarco, E.J.; Weston, M.H.; Sarjeant, A.A.; Nguyen, S.T.; Stair, P.C.; Snurr, R.Q.; et al. Vapor-Phase Metalation by Atomic Layer Deposition in a Metal–Organic Framework. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 10294–10297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Z.-J.; Ju, Y.; Yu, B.; Wu, X.; Lu, H.; Li, Y.; Zhou, J.; Guo, X.; Zhang, Z.-H.; Lin, J.; et al. Modulated synthesis and isoreticular expansion of Th-MOFs with record high pore volume and surface area for iodine adsorption. Chem. Commun. 2020, 56, 6715–6718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Song, T.; Tang, W.; Bao, C.; Lai, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Feng, X.; Liu, C. An fcu Th-MOF Constructed from In Situ Coupling of Monovalent Ligands. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chiong, J.A.; Zhu, J.; Bailey, J.B.; Kalaj, M.; Subramanian, R.H.; Xu, W.; Cohen, S.M.; Tezcan, F.A. An Exceptionally Stable Metal–Organic Framework Constructed from Chelate-Based Metal–Organic Polyhedra. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 6907–6912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Padial, N.M.; Castells-Gil, J.; Almora-Barrios, N.; Romero-Angel, M.; da Silva, I.; Barawi, M.; García-Sánchez, A.; de la Peña O’Shea, V.A.; Martí-Gastaldo, C. Hydroxamate Titanium–Organic Frameworks and the Effect of Siderophore-Type Linkers over Their Photocatalytic Activity. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 13124–13133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lai, Q.; Chu, Z.-Q.; Xiao, X.; Dai, D.; Song, T.; Luo, T.-Y.; Tang, W.; Feng, X.; Zhang, Z.; Li, T.; et al. Two-dimensional Zr/Hf-hydroxamate metal–organic frameworks. Chem. Commun. 2022, 58, 3601–3604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Feng, X.; Qin, Z.; Lai, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Shao, Z.-W.; Tang, W.; Wu, W.; Dai, Z.; Liu, C. Mixed-matrix membranes based on novel hydroxamate metal–organic frameworks with two-dimensional layers for CO2/N2 separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2023, 305, 122476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Feng, X.; Li, W.; Yang, L.; Song, T.; Xia, Z.; Lai, Q.; Zhou, X.; Xiao, H.; Liu, C. Ce-hydroxamate metal–organic frameworks for photocatalytic H2 generation. Chem. Commun. 2022, 58, 13503–13506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tang, W.; Shao, Z.-W.; Xiong, L.; Zhang, Z.; Tan, K.; Feng, X.; Wu, W.; Liu, C. A siderophore-inspired two-dimensional Fe–hydroxamate metal–organic framework. CrystEngComm 2023, 25, 1462–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, W.; Tang, W.; Shao, Z.-W.; Feng, X.; Xiong, L.; Xiong, C.; Lai, Q.; Liu, C. Sacrificial-Hydroxamate-Enabled Sizable Crystallization of Scandium Carboxylate Metal–Organic Frameworks. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 1720–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wu, W.; Qin, Z.; Duan, X.; Qiu, Y.; Tang, W.; Xiong, C.; Shao, Z.-W.; Xiong, L.; Dai, Z.; Liu, C. Structural Diversity in Ga/In-Hydroxamate Metal–Organic Materials. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 10414–10422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sugamata, K.; Takagi, C.; Awano, K.; Iihama, T.; Minoura, M. Structural analysis of and selective CO2 adsorption in mixed-ligand hydroxamate-based metal–organic frameworks. Dalton Trans. 2020, 49, 9948–9952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Zheng, Z.; Rong, Z.; Iu-Fan Chen, O.; Yaghi, O.M. Metal-Organic Frameworks with Rod Yttrium Secondary Building Units. Isr. J. Chem. 2023, 63, e202300017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yan, Y.; Zhang, N.-N.; Fuhrmann, D.; Merker, S.; Krautscheid, H. A stable lanthanum hydroxamate metal–organic framework with radical character and electrical conductivity. Dalton Trans. 2022, 51, 15946–15953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sugamata, K.; Zhang, Y.; Amanokura, N.; Shirai, A.; Minoura, M. Alkoxy-Functionalized Hydroxamate/Zinc Metal–Organic Frameworks and the Effects of Substituents and Acid Addition on Their Structures. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 2454–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Parshad, M.; Kumar, D.; Verma, V. A mini review on applications of pyrazole ligands in coordination compounds and metal organic frameworks. Inorganica Chim. Acta 2024, 560, 121789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, K.; Lv, X.-L.; Feng, D.; Li, J.; Chen, S.; Sun, J.; Song, L.; Xie, Y.; Li, J.-R.; Zhou, H.-C. Pyrazolate-Based Porphyrinic Metal–Organic Framework with Extraordinary Base-Resistance. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 914–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sun, J.; Huang, T.; Yin, Q.; Li, L.; Liu, T.-F.; Huang, X.-S.; Cao, R. Tuning the Structure and Hydrolysis Stability of Calcium Metal–Organic Frameworks through Integrating Carboxylic/Phosphinic/Phosphonic Groups in Building Blocks. Cryst. Growth Des. 2020, 20, 8021–8027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, D.-M.; Zhang, N.-N.; Tian, J.-Y.; Liu, C.-S.; Du, M. Pore modulation of metal–organic frameworks towards enhanced hydrothermal stability and acetylene uptake via incorporation of different functional brackets. J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 4861–4867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xu, H.; Cao, C.-S.; Hu, H.-S.; Wang, S.-B.; Liu, J.-C.; Cheng, P.; Kaltsoyannis, N.; Li, J.; Zhao, B. High Uptake of ReO4 and CO2 Conversion by a Radiation-Resistant Thorium–Nickle [Th48Ni6] Nanocage-Based Metal–Organic Framework. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 6022–6027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rosi, N.L.; Eckert, J.; Eddaoudi, M.; Vodak, D.T.; Kim, J.; O’Keeffe, M.; Yaghi, O.M. Hydrogen Storage in Microporous Metal-Organic Frameworks. Science 2003, 300, 1127–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Moharramnejad, M.; Ehsani, A.; salmani, S.; shahi, M.; Malekshah, R.E.; Robatjazi, Z.S.; Parsimehr, H. Zinc-based metal-organic frameworks: Synthesis and recent progress in biomedical application. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2022, 32, 3339–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fu, J.; Liu, J.-Y.; Zhang, G.-H.; Zhu, Q.-H.; Wang, S.-L.; Qin, S.; He, L.; Tao, G.-H. Boost of Gas Adsorption Kinetics of Covalent Organic Frameworks via Ionic Liquid Solution Process. Small 2023, 19, 2302570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Guo, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Cao, K.; Tian, Y.; Qi, Y.; Li, S.; Li, K.; Yu, X.; Ma, L. Colyliform Crystalline 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks (COFs) with Quasi-3D Topologies for Rapid I2 Adsorption. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 22697–22705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, J.-Y.; Zhang, L.; Fu, J.; Wang, S.-L.; Zhou, Y.-R.; Wang, Y.-H.; Qin, S.; Tao, G.-H.; He, L. Mobile hydrogen-bonding donor in covalent organic framework for efficient iodine capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2024, 331, 125664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, H.; Eddaoudi, M.; O’Keeffe, M.; Yaghi, O.M. Design and synthesis of an exceptionally stable and highly porous metal-organic framework. Nature 1999, 402, 276–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shang, C.; Gautier, R.; Jiang, T.; Faulques, E.; Latouche, C.; Paris, M.; Cario, L.; Bujoli-Doeuff, M.; Jobic, S. A p-Type Zinc-Based Metal–Organic Framework. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 56, 6208–6213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Omkaramurthy, B.M.; Krishnamurthy, G. Synthesis, characterization, crystal structure, and electrochemical study of zinc(II) metal-organic framework. Inorg. Nano-Met. Chem. 2019, 49, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gordy, W. Dependence of Bond Order and of Bond Energy Upon Bond Length. J. Chem. Phys. 1947, 15, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nimmermark, A.; Öhrström, L.; Reedijk, J. Metal-ligand bond lengths and strengths: Are they correlated? A detailed CSD analysis. Z. Für Krist. Cryst. Mater. 2013, 228, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, Z.; Cheng, M.; Xiao, X.; Bi, K.; Song, T.; Hu, K.-q.; Dai, Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, C.; Ji, X.; et al. Machine-Learning-Guided Identification of Coordination Polymer Ligands for Crystallizing Separation of Cs/Sr. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 33076–33084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, B.; Zhang, Z.; Dong, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Ren, J.; Bi, K.; Ji, X.; Liu, C.; Zhou, L.; Dai, Y. Machine-Learning-Enabled Ligand Screening for Cs/Sr Crystallizing Separation. Inorg. Chem. 2023, 62, 13293–13303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zhang, Z.; Dong, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Bi, K.; Hu, K.-Q.; Dai, Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, C.; Ji, X.; Shi, W.-Q. Deep-Learning-Guided High-Throughput Evaluation of Ligands for Selective Sr/Cs Coordination. J. Nucl. Radiochem. 2023, 45, 456–465. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang, D.; Guo, W.; Hu, J.; Liu, F.; Chen, L.; Du, S.; Tang, Z. Estimating Atomic Sizes with Raman Spectroscopy. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Synthesis (left) and optical microscope photograph (right) of SUM-13 MOF. (b) Coordination environment of Zn2+ in SUM-13. Color codes: Zn: orange spheres; C: gray spheres; N: blue spheres; O: red spheres; H: white spheres. (c) PXRD patterns comparing the simulated (black) and experimental (red). Crystal structure of SUM-13, viewed along the [001] direction (d) and [100] direction (e). Connolly representation of SUM-13, viewed along the [001] direction (f) and [100] direction (g), the inner surfaces of the channels are shown in blue, while the outer surfaces are represented in grey.
Figure 1. (a) Synthesis (left) and optical microscope photograph (right) of SUM-13 MOF. (b) Coordination environment of Zn2+ in SUM-13. Color codes: Zn: orange spheres; C: gray spheres; N: blue spheres; O: red spheres; H: white spheres. (c) PXRD patterns comparing the simulated (black) and experimental (red). Crystal structure of SUM-13, viewed along the [001] direction (d) and [100] direction (e). Connolly representation of SUM-13, viewed along the [001] direction (f) and [100] direction (g), the inner surfaces of the channels are shown in blue, while the outer surfaces are represented in grey.
Symmetry 16 01049 g001
Figure 2. (a) PXRD patterns of SUM-13 crystals after soaking in various organic solvents for 24 h, in comparison to that of the as-synthesized sample (black). (b) PXRD patterns of SUM-13 crystals after exposure to aqueous solutions of various pH values for 24 h, compared to that of the as-synthesized sample (black).
Figure 2. (a) PXRD patterns of SUM-13 crystals after soaking in various organic solvents for 24 h, in comparison to that of the as-synthesized sample (black). (b) PXRD patterns of SUM-13 crystals after exposure to aqueous solutions of various pH values for 24 h, compared to that of the as-synthesized sample (black).
Symmetry 16 01049 g002
Figure 3. (a) N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms of SUM-13 (adsorption: filled circles; desorption: open circles). (b) Pore size distribution plot of SUM-13. (c) PXRD patterns comparing the samples before (black) and after (red) N2 sorption experiment. (d) TGA profile of SUM-13.
Figure 3. (a) N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms of SUM-13 (adsorption: filled circles; desorption: open circles). (b) Pore size distribution plot of SUM-13. (c) PXRD patterns comparing the samples before (black) and after (red) N2 sorption experiment. (d) TGA profile of SUM-13.
Symmetry 16 01049 g003
Figure 4. Iodine uptake curve of SUM-13 at 353.15 K.
Figure 4. Iodine uptake curve of SUM-13 at 353.15 K.
Symmetry 16 01049 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Song, T.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Z.; Mei, Z.; Shao, Z.-W.; Liu, C. A Robust Zn-Hydroxamate Metal–Organic Framework Constructed from an Unsymmetrical Ligand for Iodine Capture. Symmetry 2024, 16, 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081049

AMA Style

Song T, Zhu Y, Li Z, Mei Z, Shao Z-W, Liu C. A Robust Zn-Hydroxamate Metal–Organic Framework Constructed from an Unsymmetrical Ligand for Iodine Capture. Symmetry. 2024; 16(8):1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Song, Ting, Yinning Zhu, Zhehao Li, Zhewei Mei, Zhen-Wu Shao, and Chong Liu. 2024. "A Robust Zn-Hydroxamate Metal–Organic Framework Constructed from an Unsymmetrical Ligand for Iodine Capture" Symmetry 16, no. 8: 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16081049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop