Next Article in Journal
A General State-Space Formulation for Online Scheduling
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers to Target Polyphenols Present in Plant Extracts
Previous Article in Journal
Selected Phenomena of the In-Mold Nodularization Process of Cast Iron That Influence the Quality of Cast Machine Parts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Radical Copolymerization Kinetics of Bio-Renewable Butyrolactone Monomer in Aqueous Solution
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/pr5040070
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Organic Polymers as Porogenic Structure Matrices for Mesoporous Alumina and Magnesia

by
Zimei Chen
1,2,
Christian Weinberger
1,
Michael Tiemann
1,* and
Dirk Kuckling
2,*
1
Department of Chemistry—Inorganic Functional Materials, University of Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
2
Department of Chemistry—Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry, University of Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2017, 5(4), 70; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5040070
Submission received: 10 October 2017 / Revised: 2 November 2017 / Accepted: 6 November 2017 / Published: 8 November 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Soluble Polymers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mesoporous alumina and magnesia were prepared using various polymers, poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), poly(N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide) (PHPMA), and poly(dimethylacrylamide) (PDMAAm), as porogenic structure matrices. Mesoporous alumina exhibits large Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas up to 365 m2 g−1, while mesoporous magnesium oxide possesses BET surface areas around 111 m2 g−1. Variation of the polymers has little impact on the structural properties of the products. The calcination of the polymer/metal oxide composite materials benefits from the fact that the polymer decomposition is catalyzed by the freshly formed metal oxide.

1. Introduction

Mesoporous metal oxides with large specific surface areas and uniform pore sizes have recently attained great interest, particularly regarding potential applications in such areas as catalysis [1], energy conversion and storage [2], and gas sensing [3,4]. By definition, mesopore widths range from 2 to 50 nm [5]. For metal oxides with uniform and ordered mesopores, a variety of synthesis methods have been established, mostly by utilization of porogens; said porogens may be supramolecular entities of amphiphilic species dispersed in liquid media (‘soft templates’ [6]) or solid structure matrices such as porous silica (‘hard templates’) in the so-called ‘nanocasting’ process [6,7,8,9].
Alumina (aluminum oxide, Al2O3) and magnesia (magnesium oxide, MgO) with high surface-to volume ratios play an important role as catalyst/catalyst support materials [10,11,12,13] and as adsorbents [14,15,16]. Both materials can be prepared by nanocasting, which leads to ordered and uniform mesopores. However, unlike for most other metal oxides, mesoporous silica is not suitable as a structure matrix here, because its removal requires chemical etching under strongly basic (e.g., NaOH) or acidic (HF) conditions. Both Al2O3 and MgO are amphoteric oxides that cannot withstand these conditions. Instead, mesoporous carbon materials have been employed as structure matrices for amphoteric oxides such as mesoporous Al2O3 [17,18], MgO [19,20], and ZnO [21,22,23,24], since their removal can be accomplished under milder condition by thermal oxidation [25,26]. Likewise, organic hydrogels have also been shown to be versatile porogenic matrices for porous oxidic materials [27,28,29,30,31]. We have recently described the utilization of photo cross-linked poly(dimethylacrylamide)-based hydrogels [32,33] as matrices for mesoporous alumina [34,35]. Here we report on the utilization of non-cross-linked water-soluble polymers as porogenic species for mesoporous Al2O3 and MgO; the synthesis process is thus simplified.
Polymer chains begin to overlap and form entanglements when the polymer solution is above a critical concentration. Hence, a physical network is formed between different polymer chains in a concentrated solution [36,37]. Therefore, a concentrated polymer solution could also theoretically work as a structure matrix to prepare mesoporous metal oxides. In this paper, we describe the synthesis of mesoporous alumina and magnesium oxide using simple polymers, such as poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), poly(N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide) (PHPMA), and poly(dimethylacrylamide) (PDMAAm), as matrices. The strategy proposed here to prepare porous alumina and magnesium oxide is based on a one-pot synthesis approach using saturated aluminum/magnesium nitrate as precursor solutions and introducing direct polymers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG, Fluka, Darmstadt, Germany, Mn 6000 g mol−1), poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA, Acros, Geel, Belgium, ≥98%, Mn 16,000 g mol−1), aluminum nitrate nonahydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany, ≥98.0%), magnesium nitrate hexahydrate (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany, ≥97%), 1-amino-2-propanol (TCI, Eschborn, Germany, >98%), methacryloyl chloride (Fluka, Darmstadt, Germany, >97%), and 1,2-diaminoethane (Acros, Geel, Belgium, >99%) were used as received. N,N-dimethylacrylamide (DMAAm, TCI, Eschborn, Germany, 99%) was distilled under low pressure. α,α′-Azobisisobutyronitrile (AIBN, Fluka, Darmstadt, Germany, >98%) was recrystallized from methanol. Ammonia solution (Stockmeier, Bielefeld, Germany, 25%), diethyl ether (Hanke + Seidel, Steinhagen, Germany), tetrahydrofuran (THF, BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany), 1,4-dioxane (Carl Roth, Karsruhe, Germany, ≥99.5%) ethyl acetate (Stockmeier, Bielefeld, Germany,), methanol (Stockmeier, Bielefeld, Germany,), magnesium sulfate (Grüssing, Filsum, Germany, 99%), acetone (Stockmeier, Bielefeld, Germany,), and sodium sulfate (Grüssing, Filsum, Germany, 99%) were used as received.

2.2. Characterization

1H and 13C NMR spectra were recorded on a Bruker (Billerica, Massachusetts, USA) AV 500 spectrometer at 500 MHz and 125 MHz, respectively. Reference solvent signals at 7.26 and 2.56 ppm were used for spectra in CDCl3 (99.8 atom-% Deuterium) and DMSO-d6 (O=S(CD3)2, 99.9%), respectively.
Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) was performed in chloroform for PEG and PDMAAm at 30 °C and at a flow rate of 0.75 mL min−1 on a Jasco (Groß-Umstadt, Germany) 880-PU Liquid Chromatograph connected to a Shodex (Yokohama, Japan) RI-101 detector. The instrument was equipped with four consecutive columns (PSS-SDV columns filled with 5 μm gel particles with a defined porosity of 106 Å, 105 Å, 103 Å, and 102 Å, respectively), and both samples were calibrated by poly(methyl methacrylate) standards. GPC was performed in hexafluoroisopropanol for PVA at 0 °C and at a flow rate of 1 mL min−1 on a Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) LC-6200 liquid chromatograph connected to a Shodex (Yokohama, Japan) RI-101 detector. The instrument was equipped with a PSS-PFG 103 Å and PSS-PFG 102 Å column, and the sample was calibrated by poly(methyl methacrylate) standards. GPC was performed in N,N-dimethylacetamide for PHPMA at 50 °C and at a flow rate of 0.5 mL min−1 on a Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) LC 655A-11 liquid chromatograph connected to a Waters (Milford, Massachusetts, United States) RI 2410 detector. The instrument was equipped with PSS-GRAM 104 Å, PSS-GRAM 103 Å, and PSS-GRAM 102 Å columns, and the sample was calibrated by poly(methyl methacrylate) standards. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was conducted under synthetic air at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1 using a Mettler Toledo (Columbus, Ohio, USA) TGA/SDTA851. N2 physisorption analysis was performed at 77 K on a Quantachrome (Boynton Beach, Florida, United States) Autosorb 6B instrument; samples were degassed at 120 °C for 12 h prior to measurement. Specific surface areas were assessed via multi-point Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) analysis [38] in the range of 0.1 ≤ p/p0 ≤ 0.3. Pore volumes were calculated at p/p0 = 0.99. Pore size distributions were calculated via Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) analysis [39] from the desorption branches of the isotherms. Powder X-ray diffraction was performed with a Bruker (Billerica, Massachusetts, USA) AXS D8 Advance diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (40 kV, 40 mA) with a step size of 0.02° and a counting time of 3 s per step.

2.3. Monomer Synthesis

N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide (HPMA) was synthesized as described in the literature [40]. 1-Amino-2-propanol (45.5 mL, 589 mmol) and ethyl acetate (450 mL) were added in a 1 L three-neck round-bottom flask equipped with addition funnel. The flask was cooled to 10 °C and purged with argon for 15 min. Methacryloyl chloride (28 mL, 287 mmol) and ethyl acetate (50 mL) were added to the addition funnel and purged with argon for 15 min and left under an argon atmosphere. The methacryloyl chloride/ethyl acetate mixture was then added dropwise to the 1-amino-2-propanol/ethyl acetate mixture. The mixture was reacted in an ice bath for 1 h. Afterwards, the mixture was washed three times with an aqueous sat. sodium sulfate solution (250 mL) in a separatory funnel to remove any excess of reactants and side products. The aqueous phase was discarded and the organic phase was dried over magnesium sulfate and concentrated in vacuo to approximately 50 mL. The concentrate was then allowed to age for 1 h at 10 °C. The product was collected as colorless solid by filtration, dried under vacuum, and stored in the freezer. (11.52 g, 28%) 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3): δ (ppm) = 1.21 (d, J = 6.3 Hz, 3 H, =CCH3), 1.97 (dd, J = 1.5, 1.0 Hz, 3 H, (HO)CCH3), 2.36 (s,1H, OH), 3.18 (ddd, J = 14.0, 7.6, 5.2 Hz, 1 H, CH2), 3.51 (ddd, J = 14.0, 6.5, 3.0 Hz, 1 H, CH2), 3.96 (ddd, J = 7.6, 6.3, 3.0 Hz, 1 H, CH), 5.33–5.37 (m, 1 H, =CH2), 5.69–5.74 (m, 1 H, =CH2), 6.24 (br. s, 1 H, NH). 13C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl3): δ (ppm) = 18.64 (CH3), 21.04 (CH3), 47.17 (NH–CH2), 67.52 (CH–OH), 119.88 (=CH2), 139.77 (=C), 169.39 (C=O).

2.4. Polymer Synthesis

Homopolymer PDMAAm was synthesized by free radical polymerization initiated with AIBN as described in the literature [41]. Monomer DMAAm (5.2 mL, 50.4 mmol) and AIBN (10 mg, 0.06 mmol) were dissolved in 1,4-dioxane (92 mL) and purged with argon for 20 min. The polymerization was carried out at 70 °C for 7 h under an argon atmosphere. Afterwards, the polymer was precipitated in diethyl ether and reprecipitated from THF into diethyl ether for the purification. Finally, the product was obtained by low pressure drying and characterized by NMR spectroscopy and GPC (see Table 1). (3.39 g, 68%) 1H NMR (500 MHz, CDCl3): δ (ppm)= 1.51–1.83 (m, CH2), 2.30–2.74 (m, CH), 2.75–3.22 (m, CH3).
Homopolymer PHPMA was synthesized by free radical polymerization initiated with AIBN as described in the literature [42]. Monomer HPMA (1.5 g, 10.5 mmol) and AIBN (1.7 mg, 0.010 mmol) were dissolved in 1,4-dioxane (20 mL) in a 50 mL nitrogen flask and was degassed three times by freeze/thaw cycles. The HPMA was polymerized at 65 °C for 8 h under an argon atmosphere. The mixture was poured into acetone to get a white solid, which was collected and washed with acetone repeatedly. Further purification was carried out by dissolving the polymer in methanol and precipitating into acetone. The product was collected and dried under vacuum to obtain the homopolymer as a white powder and characterized by NMR spectroscopy and GPC (see Table 1). (1.16 g, 77%) 1H NMR (500 MHz, DMSO): δ (ppm) = 0.70–1.13 (m, CH3), 1.43–2.04 (m, CH2), 2.92 (m, NH–CH2, OH), 3.69 (m, NH–CH2), 4.69 (m, CH), 7.14 (br, NH).

2.5. Preparation of Mesoporous Metal Oxides

One hundred ninety six milligrams of polymer were dissolved in 800 μL of a saturated aqueous solution of aluminum nitrate (1.9 mol L−1) or magnesium nitrate (4.9 mol L−1). The Al(NO3)3-containing solution was treated at 60 °C with a vapor of an aqueous ammonia solution (12.5%) for 3 h to convert Al(NO3)3 to Al(OH)3/AlO(OH); the resulting material was dried overnight at 60 °C and then calcined in a tube furnace for 4 h at 500 °C (heating rate 1 °C min−1) to form Al2O3 and to combust the polymer. The Mg(NO3)2-containing solution was dried overnight at 120 °C; the resulting material was calcined in a tube furnace for 2 h at 300 °C and for 2 h at 500 °C (heating rate 1 °C min−1) to convert Mg(NO3)2 to MgO and to combust the polymer.

3. Results and Discussion

A variety of four simple water soluble polymers were used as porogenic structure directors for mesoporous Al2O3 and MgO. The polymers possess different hydrophilicity and distinct ability to coordinate to Al3+ and Mg2+ metal cations: (i) poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG; ether groups), (ii) poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA; hydroxyl groups), (iii) poly(dimethylacrylamide) (PDMAAm; tertiary amido groups), and (iv) poly(N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide) (PHPMA; secondary amido with hydroxyl groups). The latter two polymers were synthesized by free-radical polymerization, as shown in Figure 1b,c. Their properties are summarized in Table 2; molecular weights, dispersities, and yields are typical of free-radical polymerization synthesis.
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the polymers on the porosity of the metal oxides. For this purpose, the respective polymer was dissolved in a saturated aqueous solution of aluminum nitrate, followed by treatment in ammonia vapor at 60 °C to convert Al(NO3)3 to Al(OH)3/AlO(OH), as described in the experimental section. After evaporation of the water, the material was then calcined at 500 °C to turn Al(OH)3/AlO(OH) into Al2O3 and simultaneously combust the polymer. For MgO, the same procedure was applied, but without the ammonia treatment step; magnesium nitrate was directly converted to magnesium oxide by calcination. By this procedure, a composite of the metal oxide precursor (Al(OH)3/AlO(OH) or Mg(NO3)2, respectively) and the polymer was formed first, with the polymer being entangled within the inorganic phase. Then, simultaneous conversion of the precursor into the metal oxide and thermal combustion of the polymer led to a mesoporous product.
To study the calcination/polymer combustion step in some detail, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was carried out. As an example, the TGA curves of the Al(OH)3/PDMAAm composite and of the pure PDMAAm polymer were compared and are shown in Figure 2. A mass loss of ca. 72% can be observed for the composite material in the temperature range up to 230 °C, which can be attributed to both the dehydration of Al(OH)3/AlO(OH) (i.e., Al2O3 formation) and the combustion of the polymer. Further mass loss of ca. 14% can be observed between 230 and 570 °C. By comparison, the pure polymer shows an initial mass loss of 6% below 200 °C, probably due to loss of residual water, then a mass loss of about 74% between 300 to 400 °C, followed by another 18% up to ca. 600 °C. Obviously, the presence of the aluminum hydroxide/oxide led to a combustion of the polymer at lower temperature; this effect has already been observed for the combustion of amorphous carbon [18,26] and organic hydrogel matrices [35]. Very similar results were obtained for Al2O3 prepared using the other polymers (see Figures S1–S3).
The porogenic impact of the polymers on the polymer-free metal oxides was confirmed by N2 physisorption analysis. Figure 3 (left) shows the sorption isotherms of four Al2O3 materials prepared with different polymers. All isotherms exhibit a faint type-IV(a) behavior [43] with a more or less well-pronounced hysteresis. This indicates mesopores with an ill-defined shape, but with a fairly uniform size, as confirmed in the BJH pore size distribution curves [41] derived from the isotherms (Figure 3, right). Pore widths from 3 to 8 nm can be observed, with a clear peak occurring at 3.6 nm in all materials. The pore size distribution is somewhat narrower in the two samples prepared with PVA and PEG, respectively. The specific pore volumes and BET surface areas are shown in Table 2, confirming that a reproducible synthesis of porous alumina with a large surface area up to 365 m2 g−1 is possible by the utilization of these polymers as porogens. Comparison of all prepared Al2O3 materials reveals similar mesopore sizes, mesopore volumes, and specific BET areas. The choice of the porogenic polymer matrix has little impact on the porosity. Although polymers with different binding sites were used, the appearance of a polymer rich phase due to physical network formation in concentrated solution can be considered the sole reason for pore formation.
Figure 4 shows the powder X-ray diffraction patterns of the alumina materials. Again, the differences between the materials are rather low. All samples exhibit only a few broad reflections, two of which can be attributed to the cubic defect spinel structure of γ-Al2O3. (JCPDS card number 75-0921). The formation of this phase with low crystallinity is commonly observed for Al2O3 syntheses under these conditions [17,18]. The crystallite sizes calculated by the Scherrer method are between 5 and 6 nm.
Since the choice of polymer turned out not to have any significant impact on the Al2O3 synthesis, only one polymer, PDMAAm, was chosen for the preparation of porous MgO. The TGA curves of the Mg(NO3)2/PDMAAm composite and of the pure PDMAAm polymer are shown in Figure 5. For the composite, the mass loss occurs in two distinct steps: by ca. 54% up to a temperature of 265 °C and by another 32% between 265 and 500 °C. It is fair to assume that the first step is mainly attributable to the conversion of magnesium nitrate into magnesium oxide, while the second step corresponds mostly to the polymer decomposition. This seems likely because the pure polymer starts to combust only above ca. 300 °C (after some initial mass loss of 6% below 200 °C, presumably due to loss of residual water); a steep reduction in mass by ca. 74% occurs between 300 and 400 °C, followed by another 18% between 400 and 600 °C. Again, the presence of the magnesium species results in a polymer decomposition at a slightly lower temperature, although this effect is less pronounced than in the case of the aluminum species.
Figure 6 shows the N2 physisorption data of the porous MgO sample. The isotherm shape is mostly type II, with a slight type-IV character and little hysteresis, indicating a fairly low degree of porosity. Accordingly, the pore size distribution peak is very low in intensity. The specific BET surface area and pore volume are 111 m2 g−1 and 0.37 cm3 g−1, respectively. Obviously, the polymer failed to have a pronounced porogenic impact in the case of MgO, which may be explained by the sintering of MgO particles during calcination upon combustion of the polymer. During the Al2O3 synthesis, by contrast, a solid network of Al(OH)3/AlO(OH) was formed before the combustion of the polymer.
The powder X-ray diffraction diagram of MgO is shown in Figure 7, confirming the cubic rock salt structure of MgO (JCPDS card number 77-2179) with a substantially higher degree of crystallinity than in case of Al2O3. This is consistent with the above-made assumption of strong sintering upon polymer combustion. The crystallite size calculated by the Scherrer method is ca. 12 nm.

4. Conclusions

Mesoporous γ-Al2O3 and mesoporous MgO with large specific BET surface areas were successfully synthesized using simple polymers (PEG, PVA, PDMAAm, and PHPMA) as porogenic matrices under relatively mild conditions. The polymers were mixed with a metal nitrate solution. The polymer matrices were removed by thermal combustion, while the metal oxides were formed at the same time. The mesoporous alumina products exhibit mesopore sizes in the range from 3.6 to 6.4 nm, large specific BET surface areas up to 365 m2 g−1, and specific pore volumes up to 0.54 cm3 g−1. Variation of the polymer has little impact on the structural properties of the products. The mesoporous magnesium oxide product has a mesopore size of 3.6 nm, a specific BET surface area of 111 m2 g−1, and a specific pore volume of 0.37 cm3 g−1. The calcination of the polymer/metal oxides composite materials benefits from the fact that polymer decomposition is catalyzed by the freshly formed metal oxides.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/5/4/70/s1. Figure S1: TGA of the Al(OH)3-PVA composite and of the pure polymer PVA; Figure S2: TGA of the Al(OH)3-PHPMA composite and of the pure polymer PHPMA; Figure S3: TGA of the Al(OH)3-PEG composite and of the pure PEG.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Manuel Traut for help with the TGA measurements.

Author Contributions

M.T. and D.K. conceived and designed the experiments; Z.C. performed the experiments; Z.C. and C.W. analyzed the data; Z.C., M.T. and D.K. wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tüysüz, H.; Schüth, F. Ordered Mesoporous Materials as Catalysts. Adv. Catal. 2012, 55, 127–239. [Google Scholar]
  2. Li, W.; Liu, J.; Zhao, D. Mesoporous materials for energy conversion and storage devices. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tiemann, M. Porous metal oxides as gas sensors. Chem. Eur. J. 2007, 13, 8376–8388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wagner, T.; Haffer, S.; Weinberger, C.; Klaus, D.; Tiemann, M. Mesoporous materials as gas sensors. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 4036–4053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sing, K.S.W.; Everett, D.H.; Haul, R.A.W.; Moscou, L.; Pierotti, R.A.; Rouquérol, J.; Siemieniewska, T. Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity. Pure Appl. Chem. 1985, 57, 603–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gu, D.; Schüth, F. Synthesis of non-siliceous mesoporous oxides. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 313–344. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Tiemann, M. Repeated templating. Chem. Mater. 2007, 20, 961–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, Y.; Ma, Z.; Bruce, P.G. Ordered mesoporous metal oxides: Synthesis and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 4909–4927. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Deng, X.; Chen, K.; Tüysüz, H. Protocol for the nanocasting method: Preparation of ordered mesoporous metal oxides. Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
  10. Čejka, J. Organized mesoporous alumina: Synthesis, structure and potential in catalysis. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2003, 254, 327–338. [Google Scholar]
  11. Choudary, B.M.; Mulukutla, R.S.; Klabunde, K.J. Benzylation of aromatic compounds with different crystallites of MgO. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 2020–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Trueba, M.; Trasatti, S.P. γ-Alumina as a support for catalysts: A review of fundamental aspects. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2005, 17, 3393–3403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morris, S.M.; Fulvio, P.F.; Jaroniec, M. Ordered mesoporous alumina-supported metal oxides. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 15210–15216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rajagopalan, S.; Koper, O.; Decker, S.; Klabunde, K.J. Nanocrystalline metal oxides as destructive adsorbents for organophosphorus compounds at ambient temperatures. Chem. Eur. J. 2002, 8, 2602–2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, L.; Wen, X.; Fu, X.; Wang, F.; Zhao, N.; Xiao, F.; Wie, W.; Sun, Y. MgO/Al2O3 Sorbent for CO2 Capture. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 5773–5780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wie, J.; Ren, Y.; Luo, W.; Sun, Z.; Cheng, X.; Li, Y.; Deng, Y.; Elzatahry, A.A.; Al-Dahyan, D.; Zhao, D. Ordered mesoporous alumina with ultra-large pores as an efficient absorbent for selective bioenrichment. Chem. Mater. 2017, 29, 2211–2217. [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, Q.; Wang, A.; Wang, X.; Zhang, T. Ordered crystalline alumina molecular sieves synthesized via a nanocasting route. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 5153–5155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Haffer, S.; Weinberger, C.; Tiemann, M. Mesoporous Al2O3 by nanocasting: Relationship between crystallinity and mesoscopic order. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2012, 2012, 3283–3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roggenbuck, J.; Tiemann, M. Ordered mesoporous magnesium oxide with high thermal stability synthesized by exotemplating using CMK-3 carbon. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 1096–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Roggenbuck, J.; Koch, G.; Tiemann, M. Synthesis of mesoporous magnesium oxide by CMK-3 carbon structure replication. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 4151–4156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Waitz, T.; Tiemann, M.; Klar, P.J.; Sann, J.; Stehr, J.; Meyer, B.K. Crystalline ZnO with an enhanced surface area obtained by nanocasting. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 123108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wagner, T.; Waitz, T.; Roggenbuck, J.; Fröba, M.; Kohl, C.-D.; Tiemann, M. Ordered mesoporous ZnO for gas sensing. Thin Solid Films 2007, 515, 8360–8363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chernikov, A.; Horst, S.; Waitz, T.; Tiemann, M.; Chatterjee, S. Photoluminescence properties of ordered mesoporous ZnO. J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 1375–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Polarz, S.; Orlov, A.V.; Schüth, F.; Lu, A.-H. Preparation of High-Surface-Area Zinc Oxide with Ordered Porosity, Different Pore Sizes, and Nanocrystalline Walls. Chem. Eur. J. 2007, 13, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Roggenbuck, J.; Waitz, T.; Tiemann, M. Synthesis of Mesoporous Metal Oxides by Structure Replication: Strategies of Impregnating Porous Matrices with Metal Salts. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2008, 113, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Weinberger, C.; Roggenbuck, J.; Hanss, J.; Tiemann, M. Synthesis of Mesoporous Metal Oxides by Structure Replication: Thermal Analysis of Metal Nitrates in Porous Carbon Matrices. Nanomaterials 2015, 5, 1431–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Llusar, M.; Pidol, L.; Roux, C.; Pozzo, J.L.; Sanchez, C. Templated Growth of Alumina-Based Fibers through the Use of Anthracenic Organogelators. Chem. Mater. 2002, 14, 5124–5133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jiu, J.; Kurumada, K.; Tanigaki, M. Preparation of oxide with nano-scaled pore diameters using gel template. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2003, 325, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kurumada, K.; Suzuki, A.; Baba, S.; Otsuka, E. Relationship between polarity of template hydrogel and nanoporous structure replicated in sol–gel-derived silica matrix. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2009, 114, 4085–4090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cui, X.; Tang, S.; Zhou, H. Mesoporous alumina materials synthesized in different gel templates. Mater. Lett. 2013, 98, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, R.; Zhu, H.-Y.; Chen, H.-H.; Yao, J.; Fu, Y.-Q.; Zhang, Z.-Y.; Xu, Y.-M. Effect of calcination temperature on physical parameters and photocatalytic activity of mesoporous titania spheres using chitosan/poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel beads as a template. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 319, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kuckling, D.; Hoffmann, J.; Plötner, M.; Ferse, D.; Kretschmer, K.; Adler, H.-J.P.; Arndt, K.-F.; Reichelt, R. Photo cross-linkable poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) copolymers III: micro-fabricated temperature responsive hydrogels. Polymer 2003, 44, 4455–4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Döring, A.; Birnbaum, W.; Kuckling, D. Responsive hydrogels—structurally and dimensionally optimized smart frameworks for applications in catalysis, micro-system technology and material science. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 40, 7391–7420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Birnbaum, W.; Weinberger, C.; Schill, V.; Haffer, S.; Tiemann, M.; Kuckling, D. Synthesis of mesoporous alumina through photo cross-linked poly(dimethylacrylamide) hydrogels. Colloid Polym. Sci. 2014, 292, 3055–3060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Weinberger, C.; Chen, Z.; Birnbaum, W.; Kuckling, D.; Tiemann, M. Photo-cross-linked polydimethylacrylamide hydrogels as porogens for mesoporous alumina. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2017, 2017, 1026–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cottet, H.; Gareil, P. Electrophoretic behavior of fully sulfonated polystyrenes in capillaries filled with entangled polymer solutions. J. Chromatogr. Coruña 1997, 772, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Daoud, M.; Stanley, H.E.; Stauffer, D. Scaling, Exponents, and Fractal Dimensions. In Physical Properties of Polymers Handbook, 2nd ed.; Mark, J.E., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 83–92. [Google Scholar]
  38. Brunauer, S.; Emmett, P.H.; Teller, E. Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1938, 60, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barrett, E.P.; Joyner, L.G.; Halenda, P.P. The determination of pore volume and area distributions in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1951, 73, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rowe, M.D.; Chang, C.C.; Thamm, D.H.; Kraft, S.L.; Harmon, J.F.; Vogt, A.P.; Sumerlin, B.S.; Boyes, S.G. Tuning the magnetic resonance imaging properties of positive contrast agent nanoparticles by surface modification with RAFT polymers. Langmuir 2009, 25, 9487–9499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kuckling, D.; Harmon, M.E.; Frank, C.W. Photo-cross-linkable PNIPAAm copolymers. 1. Synthesis and characterization of constrained temperature-responsive hydrogel layers. Macromolecules 2002, 35, 6377–6383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Javadi, A. Synthesis of Thin Hydrogel Layers Based on Photo-Cross-Linkable Polymers. Ph.D. Thesis, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran, May 2012. [Google Scholar]
  43. Thommes, M.; Kaneko, K.; Neimark, A.V.; Olivier, J.P.; Rodriguez-Reinoso, F.; Rouquerol, J.; Sing, K.S.W. Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the evaluation of surface area and pore size distribution (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 2015, 87, 1051–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 05 00070 g001 550
Figure 1. Synthesis of (a) monomer N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide (HPMA) and homopolymers (b) PDMAAm and (c) PHPMA.
Figure 1. Synthesis of (a) monomer N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide (HPMA) and homopolymers (b) PDMAAm and (c) PHPMA.
Processes 05 00070 g001
Processes 05 00070 g002 550
Figure 2. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of the Al(OH)3-polymer composite and of the pure polymer PDMAAm.
Figure 2. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of the Al(OH)3-polymer composite and of the pure polymer PDMAAm.
Processes 05 00070 g002
Processes 05 00070 g003 550
Figure 3. N2 physisorption isotherm (left) and pore size distribution (right) of mesoporous γ-Al2O3 prepared using various polymers as the porogenic structure matrices as indicated. (Data are vertically shifted for clarity).
Figure 3. N2 physisorption isotherm (left) and pore size distribution (right) of mesoporous γ-Al2O3 prepared using various polymers as the porogenic structure matrices as indicated. (Data are vertically shifted for clarity).
Processes 05 00070 g003
Processes 05 00070 g004 550
Figure 4. Powder XRD patterns of mesoporous γ-Al2O3 prepared using various polymers as the porogenic structure matrices as indicated. (Data are vertically shifted for clarity).
Figure 4. Powder XRD patterns of mesoporous γ-Al2O3 prepared using various polymers as the porogenic structure matrices as indicated. (Data are vertically shifted for clarity).
Processes 05 00070 g004
Processes 05 00070 g005 550
Figure 5. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of the Mg(NO3)2-polymer composite and of the pure PDMAAm polymer.
Figure 5. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of the Mg(NO3)2-polymer composite and of the pure PDMAAm polymer.
Processes 05 00070 g005
Processes 05 00070 g006 550
Figure 6. N2 physisorption isotherm (left) and pore size distribution (right) of MgO prepared using PDMAAm polymer as the porogenic structure matrix.
Figure 6. N2 physisorption isotherm (left) and pore size distribution (right) of MgO prepared using PDMAAm polymer as the porogenic structure matrix.
Processes 05 00070 g006
Processes 05 00070 g007 550
Figure 7. Powder XRD pattern of MgO prepared by using PDMAAm polymer as the porogenic structure matrix.
Figure 7. Powder XRD pattern of MgO prepared by using PDMAAm polymer as the porogenic structure matrix.
Processes 05 00070 g007
Table
Table 1. Characterization of the used homopolymers.
Table 1. Characterization of the used homopolymers.
PolymerMn/(g mol−1)DYield/%
PEG 112,0001.1-
PVA 123,0002.4-
PDMAAm 126,0002.868
PHPMA 143,0006.377
1 Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) and poly(dimethylacrylamide) (PDMAAm) determined by gel permeation chromatography (GPC) in CHCl3, poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) determined in hexafluoroisopropanol, and poly(N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide) (PHPMA) determined in N,N-dimethylacetamide, all of which were calibrated by poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) standards.
Table
Table 2. Specific Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas ABET, pore volumes V, and mean pore widths r obtained from N2 physisorption of mesoporous alumina synthesized using various polymers.
Table 2. Specific Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas ABET, pore volumes V, and mean pore widths r obtained from N2 physisorption of mesoporous alumina synthesized using various polymers.
Polymer UsedABET/m2 g−1V/cm3 g−1r/nm
PDMAAm3650.513.6
PHPMA3120.543.6
PEG3250.443.6
PVA3430.483.6

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, Z.; Weinberger, C.; Tiemann, M.; Kuckling, D. Organic Polymers as Porogenic Structure Matrices for Mesoporous Alumina and Magnesia. Processes 2017, 5, 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5040070

AMA Style

Chen Z, Weinberger C, Tiemann M, Kuckling D. Organic Polymers as Porogenic Structure Matrices for Mesoporous Alumina and Magnesia. Processes. 2017; 5(4):70. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5040070

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Zimei, Christian Weinberger, Michael Tiemann, and Dirk Kuckling. 2017. "Organic Polymers as Porogenic Structure Matrices for Mesoporous Alumina and Magnesia" Processes 5, no. 4: 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5040070

APA Style

Chen, Z., Weinberger, C., Tiemann, M., & Kuckling, D. (2017). Organic Polymers as Porogenic Structure Matrices for Mesoporous Alumina and Magnesia. Processes, 5(4), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5040070

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