journal article·2019-01-09

Amine-Functionalized Metal–Organic Frameworks and Covalent Organic Polymers as Potential Sorbents for Removal of Formaldehyde in Aqueous Phase: Experimental Versus Theoretical Study

Kowsalya Vellingiri, Ya-Xin Deng, Ki-Hyun Kim, Jheng-Jie Jiang, Taejin Kim, Jin Shang, Wha-Seung Ahn, Deepak Kukkar, Danil W. Boukhvalov

Publisher page

Abstract

Porous materials have been identified as efficient sorbent media to remove volatile organic compounds. To evaluate their potential as adsorbents, the adsorptive removal of formaldehyde (FA) in aqueous environments was investigated using four materials, two water-stable metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) of UiO-66 (U6) and U6-NH2 (U6N) and two covalent organic polymers (COPs) with amine-functionality, CBAP-1-EDA (CE) and CBAP-1-DETA (CD). U6N exhibited the highest removal capacity of 93% (0.56 mg g–1) of the tested materials [e.g., CE (81.1%, 0.53 mg g–1) > CD (67.2%, 0.43 mg g–1) > U6 (66.9%, 0.42 mg g–1)], which was 2 times higher than that of the reference sorbent, activated carbon (AC: 50%, 0.30 mg g–1). The results of Fourier transform infrared and powder X-ray diffraction analyses confirmed the interactions between FA molecules and the amine components of the materials (U6N, CD, and CE). According to density functional theory calculations, the formation of hydrogen bonds between FA molecules and amine components was apparent and was further verified by FA/amine distance (CD: 2.83, CE: 2.88, and U6N: 2.66 Å) along with enthalpy values (CD: −32.4, CE: −45.5, and U6N: −272 kJ mol–1). In case of U6, the major interactions occurred in the metal–clusters (−19.3 kJ mol–1) via electrostatic interactions (distance: 5.49 Å). Furthermore, the sorption by amine-functionalized materials such as U6N is suggested to be dominated by hydrogen bonding which ultimately led to the formation of imine. If the performance of the tested materials is evaluated in terms of partition coefficient, U6N (1153 mg g–1 mM–1) is found as the outperformer in all tested subjects. Regeneration of spent MOFs/COPs was also plausible in the presence of ethanol to maintain their structural integrity even after 10 adsorption–desorption cycles. Overall, the selected MOFs/COPs were seen to have very high removal capacity for hazardous FA molecules in aqueous phase.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal-Organic Frameworks: Synthesis and Applications · Covalent Organic Framework Applications · Chemical Synthesis and Reactions

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-Ro, Seoul 04763, Korea

Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institution of China, Chengdu 610213, China

Department of Environmental Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 32023, Taiwan

Department of Materials Science and Chemical Engineering, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, United States

School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Inha University, Incheon 402-751, South Korea

Department of Nanotechnology, Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab 140406, India

College of Science, Institute of Materials Physics and Chemistry, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, P. R. China

Theoretical Physics and Applied Mathematics Department, Ural Federal University, Mira Street 19, Yekaterinburg 620002, Russia

Funding

Science and Engineering Research Board · National Research Foundation of Korea · Nano Mission Council, Department of Science and Technology · Ministry of Environment

References (63)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1021/es00118a01210.1021/es00118a012 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.physe.2014.01.01910.1016/j.physe.2014.01.019 ↗
3. 10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00255-x10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00255-x ↗
4. Yu, C.; Shun-sheng, Y.; Zhengjun, G.; Dongmei, W. Study on the Treatment of Formaldehyde Wastewater by Addition Reaction. Challenges in Environmental Science and Computer Engineering (CESCE), 2010 International Conference on IEEE, 2010; pp 293–296.10.1109/CESCE.2010.90 ↗
5. IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety. Formaldehyde Health and Safety Guide No. 57. http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/hsg/hsg057.htm (accessed Nov 19, 2018).
6. NTP National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens, 12th ed. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. Retrieved June 10, 2011. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12, 2011 (accessed Nov 10, 2018).
7. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.07.07810.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.07.078 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.09.05910.1016/j.carbpol.2013.09.059 ↗
9. 10.1021/am400810s10.1021/am400810s ↗
10. 10.3390/ijerph709348910.3390/ijerph7093489 ↗
11. 10.1039/b807080f10.1039/b807080f ↗
12. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.06010.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.060 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.apcata.2009.11.03510.1016/j.apcata.2009.11.035 ↗
14. 10.1080/19443994.2013.85567410.1080/19443994.2013.855674 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jssc.2015.04.01310.1016/j.jssc.2015.04.013 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.04910.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.04.049 ↗
17. 10.1021/es303886q10.1021/es303886q ↗
18. 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.02.05810.1016/j.carbon.2011.02.058 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.desal.2011.07.05210.1016/j.desal.2011.07.052 ↗
20. 10.1021/cr400647310.1021/cr4006473 ↗
21. 10.1039/c8ta00264a10.1039/c8ta00264a ↗
22. 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.05.01710.1016/j.micromeso.2015.05.017 ↗
23. 10.1039/c2ce06491j10.1039/c2ce06491j ↗
24. 10.1016/j.snb.2016.11.01710.1016/j.snb.2016.11.017 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jcat.2015.08.01510.1016/j.jcat.2015.08.015 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.00110.1016/j.cej.2017.03.001 ↗
27. 10.1002/anie.20030061010.1002/anie.200300610 ↗
28. 10.1021/ja902116f10.1021/ja902116f ↗
29. 10.1002/anie.20120217610.1002/anie.201202176 ↗
30. 10.1021/cm400019f10.1021/cm400019f ↗
31. 10.1039/c3cc46105j10.1039/c3cc46105j ↗
32. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.11.10310.1016/j.apsusc.2014.11.103 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.04.01310.1016/j.cej.2018.04.013 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.cej.2012.10.10110.1016/j.cej.2012.10.101 ↗
35. 10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/30210.1088/0953-8984/14/11/302 ↗
36. 10.1039/c4ta02782e10.1039/c4ta02782e ↗
37. 10.1039/c3ta12497e10.1039/c3ta12497e ↗
38. 10.1021/cm102601v10.1021/cm102601v ↗
39. 10.1021/ic402514n10.1021/ic402514n ↗
40. 10.1007/s10934-017-0374-510.1007/s10934-017-0374-5 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.12.02110.1016/j.jiec.2014.12.021 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.09.04310.1016/j.micromeso.2015.09.043 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.01210.1016/j.cej.2016.09.012 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.jcis.2015.08.06110.1016/j.jcis.2015.08.061 ↗
45. 10.1039/c6cs00528d10.1039/c6cs00528d ↗
46. 10.1016/j.mcat.2017.08.00210.1016/j.mcat.2017.08.002 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2008.03.03010.1016/j.colsurfa.2008.03.030 ↗
48. 10.1021/cm010106910.1021/cm0101069 ↗
49. 10.1021/acs.iecr.7b0472410.1021/acs.iecr.7b04724 ↗
50. Patil S. · Int. J. Environ. Sci. · 2011 · 1 · 1116
51. 10.1016/j.cherd.2012.07.00710.1016/j.cherd.2012.07.007 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.10410.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.104 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.01210.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.012 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.powtec.2015.02.05510.1016/j.powtec.2015.02.055 ↗
55. 10.1006/jcis.1999.617610.1006/jcis.1999.6176 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.fluid.2014.07.04010.1016/j.fluid.2014.07.040 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.02210.1016/j.cej.2018.10.022 ↗
58. 10.1021/jz400234510.1021/jz4002345 ↗
59. Scott A. · Chem. Eng. News · 2017 · 9524 · 18
60. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.03.11010.1016/j.jallcom.2018.03.110 ↗
61. Larkin P. · 2017
62. Israelachvili J. N. · 1992
63. 10.1074/jbc.m117.77494310.1074/jbc.m117.774943 ↗