Citation: Xiaolin Liu, Xiya Yang, Xu Ding, Hailong Wang, Wei Cao, Yucheng Jin, Baoqiu Yu, Jianzhuang Jiang. Covalent organic frameworks with imine proton acceptors for efficient photocatalytic H2 production[J]. Chinese Chemical Letters, ;2023, 34(10): 108148. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.108148 shu

Covalent organic frameworks with imine proton acceptors for efficient photocatalytic H2 production

    * Corresponding authors.
    E-mail addresses: hlwang@ustb.edu.cn (H. Wang), vic_cw@126.com (W. Cao), jianzhuang@ustb.edu.cn (J. Jiang).
    1 These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • Received Date: 29 November 2022
    Revised Date: 24 December 2022
    Accepted Date: 11 January 2023
    Available Online: 13 January 2023

Figures(4)

  • Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are promising crystalline materials for the light-driven hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) due to their tunable chemical structures and energy band gaps. However, deeply understanding corresponding mechanism is still challenging due to the multiple components and complicated electron transfer and reduction paths involved in photocatalytic HER. Here, the photocatalytic HER investigation has been reported based on three COFs catalysts, 13, which are prepared by benzo[1, 2-b: 3, 4-b': 5, 6-b']trithiophene-2, 5, 8-trialdehyde to react with C3 symmetric triamines including tris(4-aminophenyl)amine, 1, 3, 5-tris(4-aminophenyl)benzene, and (1, 3, 5-tris-(4-aminophenyl)triazine, respectively. As the isostructural hexagonal honeycomb-type COF of 2 and 3 reported previously, the crystal structure of 1 has been carefully correlated through the powder X-ray diffraction study with the help of theoretical simulations. 1 shows highly porous framework with Brunauer-Emmett-Teller surface area of 1249 m2/g. Moreover, the introduction of ascorbic acid into the photocatalytic system of COFs achieves the hydrogen evolution rate of 3.75, 12.16 and 20.2 mmol g–1 h–1 for 13, respectively. The important role of ascorbic acid in photocatalysis of HER is disclosed to protonate the imine linkages of these COFs, leading to the obvious absorbance red-shift and the improved charge separation efficiency together with reduced resistance in contrast to pristine materials according to the spectroscopic and electronic characterizations. These innovations of chemical and physical properties for these COFs are responsible for their excellent photocatalytic performance. These results elucidate that tiny modifications of COFs structures is able to greatly tune their band structures as well as catalytic properties, therefore providing an available approach for optimizing COFs functionalities.
  • Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are those crystalline organic materials prepared by covalent-bonded discrete building blocks [13]. The highly porous and functional COFs enable the diverse functionalities including as gas separation and storage [48], electronics [911] and catalysis [1215]. COFs further extend the organic materials scopes into a new class of crystalline two- and three-dimensional (2D, 3D) well-defined porous frameworks [1620]. In particular, those 2D COFs are able to exhibit unique photonic and electronic properties relative to discrete molecular modules and amorphous polymers [2125]. The integration of various aromatic building blocks into polymeric π-conjugated backbones is regarded to generate a new kind of semiconductors with adjustable electronic structures. The unique semiconductive properties of COFs make them as interesting materials for photocatalysis of hydrogen evolution and carbon dioxide reduction reactions [13,22,23].

    Solar-driven hydrogen evolution from water is a promising approach to provide clean energy for the replacement of fossil energy [26,27]. In this direction, efficient photocatalysts are highly desired to have comprehensive characteristics covering light capture, exciton transport, charge separation, and surface redox reaction [28,29]. A large number of active photocatalysts such as oxide semiconductors [3032], metal-organic frameworks [3337] and COFs [3841] have been demonstrated to generate hydrogen under visible light irradiation. Various COFs systems made up of diverse chromophores such as pyrene (Py) [42], thiazolo-[5, 4-d]thiazole (TTz) [43], triazine (Tz) [44,45] and dibenzo[b, d]thiophene sulfone (DBTP) units [46] have been demonstrated to exhibit excellent photocatalytic activity towards hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) with the help of Pt cocatalyst in presence of sacrificial reagents [27,47]. The post-modification of COFs enables the adjustment of their electronic structures for efficient photocatalysis of HER. However, deeply understanding corresponding mechanism is still necessary yet challenging due to the multiple components and complicated electron transfer and reduction path involved in photocatalysis.

    In this study, a new two-dimensional COF, named 1, has been prepared based on the imine-bonded polymerization of benzo[1, 2-b: 3, 4-b': 5, 6-b"]trithiophene-2, 5, 8-tricarbaldehyd (BTT) with tris(4-aminophenyl)amine (TAPA). The photocatalytic performance of 1 has been investigated towards HER, in comparison with COFs analogues 2 and 3 prepared by BTT condensing with 1, 3, 5-tris-(4-aminophenyl)triazine (TAPT) and 1, 3, 5-tris(4-aminophenyl)benzene (TAPB), respectively. It is worth noting that BTT derivatives have drawn considerable attention owing to its adjustable energy levels, optical band gaps, and relatively high hole mobility, which is widely used in the fields of solar cells and organic catalysis [15,48,49]. Certainly, corresponding semiconductor properties could be tuned via the polymerization with different C3 symmetrical building blocks to generate COFs. The protonation effect of imine COFs in the presence of ascorbic acid (Aa) on photocatalysis of HER has been disclosed. The electronic structures and charge separation efficiency of COFs have been tuned, leading to the different photocatalytic behaviors, in terms of hydrogen evolution rate. In particular, 3 has the rapid hydrogen production speed, namely 20.2 mmol g–1 h–1. These results disclose that the electronic structures and properties of active COFs are different from pristine species during photocatalysis, giving a hint to employ the interesting dynamic characteristics of these active catalysts for diverse applications.

    In the present case, 1 with designed hexagonal framework was fabricated through the polymerization of TAPA and BTT under solvothermal condition (Fig. 1a). Its isostructral COFs, 2 and 3, have also been prepared using the reported methods [48,49]. The integration of BTT and complementary monomers with both big conjugation systems into COFs may effectively tune the band gaps of these polymeric materials towards efficient visible light-driven photocatalysis of HER. The excellent crystallinity of the newly prepared COF (1) together with its porous architecture, was disclosed through a series characterization methods including powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), gas sorption, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). PXRD data for 1 had the sharp diffraction signals at 5.38°, 9.34°, 14.23°, 19.30° and 25.83° (Fig. 1b), which come from the reflections of (100), (210), (230), (340) and (001) planes, respectively, in the hexagonal lattice. Referring to the hexagonal architectures of 2 and 3 prepared by two C3 symmetric building blocks [48,49], 1 should be their isostructural analogue. As a result, a structural model with hexagonal system and space group of P6 was proposed for 1, showing an AA stacking according to the density functional tight binding (DFTB) method (Fig. 1e). The PXRD data and structural model of 1 were further checked using the Pawley refinement. The small fitting values of Rwp = 4.20% and Rp = 3.02% directly reflected the good crystallinity and the right structural model for 1. For 2 and 3, their purities were also determined by the PXRD and Pawley refinements (Figs. 1cg).

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (a) Synthesis of 13. (b-d) Experimental, Pawley refined, and simulated PXRD patterns as well as the difference plots for 13. (e-g) Top and side views of the simulated packing structure of 13 (Hydrogen atoms are not shown in these structures).

    The nitrogen (N2) sorption measurements at 77 K were done over 13 activated under the highly degassing conditions at 120 ℃. The adsorption curves of these three COFs follow the good type-I configuration (Fig. 2a), revealing their micropores nature enclosed by two kinds of molecular modules. As shown in Fig. 2b, a narrow pore size distribution of 13 was found at 1.10, 1.27 and 1.27 nm, respectively. These experimental pore sizes of 13 is well matching with corresponding data determined from the structural models. The Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 13 were calculated to be 1249, 1433 and 1387 m2/g, respectively. In comparison with 2 and 3, the smaller BET surface area of 1 is due to the short TAPA building block used.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (a) N2 adsorption (solid) and desorption (hollow) curves of 13 at 77 K. (b) Pore-size distributions of 13. (c) FTIR curves of BTT, TAPB and 1. (d-f) SEM, TEM, and HRTEM image for 1.

    The conversion of reactive amine and aldehyde groups to imine linkage together with chemical structure integrity of framework for 13 were qualitatively examined by Fourier transform infrared spectra (FTIR) and solid-state 13C cross-polarization magic angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance (13C NMR) spectroscopy. The FTIR spectra of 1 and its monomers showed nearly disappearance for C=O stretching signal at 1661 cm−1. It is also true for the amino group signal at 3200–3400 cm−1 for amine and aldehyde compounds (Fig. 2c). The new observation of a band at 1611 cm−1 was assigned to C=N stretching band. These data revealed the conversion of monomers to form imine connection [50]. The formation of imine linkages in 1 was further proven by the appearance of 156 ppm in its 13C NMR spectrum (Fig. S1 in Supporting information). This point was also supported by the signals of imine carbon atoms of 2 and 3 in the 13C NMR spectra (Figs. S2 and S3 in Supporting information). The FTIR and 13C NMR spectra of 2 and 3 are consistent with those characteristic signals previously reported (Figs. S4 and S5 in Supporting information) [48,49]. The morphology of 1 exhibited the layered structure according to SEM and TEM photos (Figs. 2d and e). The high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) picture of 1 was determined (Fig. 2f). The lattice fringes of 1 with the distance of 0.36 nm were clearly observed, consistent with the interlayered separation, namely the (001) plane, in the distance of 0.35 nm. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) photos revealed the carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur elements in 1 (Fig. S8 in Supporting information). Those are also true for 2 and 3 (Figs. S6, S7, S9 and S10 in Supporting information). Thermogravimetric (TG) analysis was performed in nitrogen atmosphere. The TG curves determined the decomposed temperature of 13 in the range of 513–550 ℃ (Fig. S11 in Supporting information), indicating the good thermal stability for these COFs.

    The UV–vis diffuse reflectance spectra (DRS) of 13 displayed a broad harvesting scope with maximum peaks at 540, 468 and 462 nm respectively, in the visible region (Fig. 3a). The optical band gaps (Eg) values of 13 were inferred to 1.92, 2.18 and 2.18 eV, respectively. This clearly discloses the semiconductor characteristic of those COFs, also illustrating the narrower band gap for 1 relative to those of 2 and 3 (Fig. 3b). This is supported by the observation of carmine power of 1 sample, orange and bronze power for 2 and 3, respectively. To deeply disclose the electronic structures of the three COFs, Mott-Schottky curves of three COFs were collected under three different frequencies to determine their conduction band (CB) potentials. The positive Mott-Schottky fitting plots for all 13 showed the positive slopes values, indicating the n-type semiconductor attribution for these three compounds. The CB potential of 1 was estimated to be −1.22 V vs. NHE. Instead of C3 building block TAPA in 1, the introduction of TAPT and TAPB into 2 and 3 rose the COFs CB potentials to −1.29 and −1.27 V (Fig. 3c, Figs. S12 and S13 in Supporting information), respectively. Furthermore, on the basis of equation ECB = EVB - Eg, the valence band (VB) potentials of 13 was determined to be 0.70, 0.89 and 0.90 V vs. NHE (Fig. 3d), Obviously, those COFs should have much more negative CB potentials than the water reduction potential (0 V vs. NHE), thermodynamically enabling the proton reduction from water [51].

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (a) UV–vis diffuse reflectance spectra and (b) Tauc plots of 13. (c) Mott-Schottky plots of 3 in 0.1 mol/L Na2SO4 aqueous solution at frequency of 1000, 1500 and 2000 Hz. (d) Band structure diagram and (e) photocatalytic H2 evolution activities of 13. (f) Recyclability test of 3. Photocatalysis system: 5.0 mg COF, H2PtCl6 (8.0 wt% Pt based on COF mass), 0.1 mol/L Aa, 20.0 mL of H2O, light λ ≥ 420 nm.

    The visible light-driven HER activities of three COFs were explored with the help of sacrificial reagent and Pt cocatalyst upon λ ≥ 420 nm light irradiation. Significantly, 1 was able to exhibit the H2 evolution speed of 3.75 mmol g–1 h–1 in the presence of Aa during 4 h photocatalysis. Under the same conditions, 2 and 3 showed the much higher HER rate of 12.16 and 22.02 mmol g–1 h–1 (Fig. 3e), respectively. Notably, the hydrogen evolution rate for 3 is comparable to those for excellent COF photocatalysts (Table S1 in Supporting information) [22,30,46,52]. Subsequently, a long-term photocatalytic activity of 3 for H2 production was studied using the above system. As displayed in Fig. 3f, a tiny attenuation was observed in lasting six-time cycling photocatalytic H2 production tests for 3. The recycled COF was subjected to the characterizations again including FTIR spectra, TEM, and EDS mapping, Fig. S14 and S15, illustrating there were none remarkable changes in compositions and morphologies of COF sample before and after the cycling photocatalysis. In contrast to Aa, the employment of triethanolamine and sodium ascorbate as sacrificial reagents only led to the trace amount of hydrogen under the similar HER conditions, indicating the important role of sacrificial reagents in the present photocatalysis.

    It is worth noting that the color of 13 samples are significantly changed during photocatalytic process, implying the fact that the active working COFs are different from the pristine species (Figs. S16 and S17 in Supporting information). Comparative study in COFs samples, 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa, immersed in Aa aqueous solution used in photocatalytic system and as-prepared samples were explored, and their remarkable activity for HER associated with the introduction of Aa (Fig. S18 in Supporting information). 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa showed the changed color, supporting the hypothesis about the protonation of imine units in these COFs. To provide a clear insight to protonation effect on COFs, a series of measurements were performed on 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa in the comparison with as-prepared COFs. UV–vis diffuse reflectance spectroscopic results of 1 and 1-Aa confirmed the broaden visible light absorption scope for the latter sample (Fig. S19a in Supporting information). The similar phenomena were also observed in the study in 2 vs. 2-Aa and 3 vs. 3-Aa, Figs. S20a and S21a. These results, compared with the electronic absorption of Aa in the UV region, further indicated the change of above visible light absorption scopes for COFs associated with the immersion in Aa (Fig. S22 in Supporting information) [53]. Furthermore, the band gaps of 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa derived from Tauc plots were 1.38, 2.01 and 1.86 eV (Fig. 4a, Figs. S19b and S20b in Supporting information), respectively, smaller than those for 13. According to the above mentioned methods, CB and VB values of 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa were determined as −1.29 & 0.09, −1.34 & 0.67, and −1.38 & 0.48 V vs. NHE (Fig. S23 in Supporting information), respectively. It has been demonstrated that the narrow band gap is beneficial for the broader absorption of in the solar spectrum as well as the decrease of the electron-hole recombination rate [54,55], thus improving the catalytic performance [56]. In addition, the most negative CB potential vs. NHE of 3-Aa among three catalysts should be favorable for its highest H2 evolution activity [57].

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (a) Tauc plots of 3 and 3-Aa. (b) I-t diagrams (λ ≥ 420 nm) and (c) EIS of 3 and 3-Aa. (d) The PL spectra of 3 and 3-Aa in water.

    Furthermore, the charge separation efficiency was investigated. In contrast to 1, the protonated 1-Aa had a bigger photocurrent (Fig. S24 in Supporting information), indicating the enhanced charge separation efficiency for the latter species. The similar phenomena were also observed in the photocurrent response curves for 2, 3, 2-Aa and 3-Aa (Fig. 4b and Fig. S25 in Supporting information). In addition, the electrochemical impedance spectra (Fig. 4c, Figs. S26 and S27 in Supporting information) show that 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa have smaller semicircle radius relative to corresponding pristine COFs, proving their lower charge transfer resistance after protonation. The photocurrent diagram reveals the best charge separation efficiency for 3-Aa at the first 5-circle test (Fig. S28 in Supporting information). In addition, 3-Aa shows the slightly smaller resistance than the other species according to electrochemical impedance results (Fig. S29 in Supporting information). These results are responsible for the superior photocatalytic HER property for 3 in the presence Aa. After protonation of 13, their emission was completely quenched for the formed 1-Aa, 2-Aa and 3-Aa (Fig. 4d and Fig. S30 in Supporting information), also implying the enhanced charge separation and transfer.

    Density functional theory (DFT) calculations based on cluster models have been conducted on 3 and 3-Aa with the most excellent photocatalysis behaviours, in order to give an additional theoretical evidence. The corresponding models were denoted as 3(M) and 3-Aa(M) (details in Figs. S31 and S32 in Supporting information) [53]. Using PBE0 [58], protonated imine groups on the framework of 3(M) to form 3-Aa(M) significantly decreases the HOMO-LUMO gap from 3.68 eV to 0.55 eV. The transition energy levels and probabilities were simulated by time-dependent DFT, to pursue the rational explanation for changed UV–vis data. The smallest excitation energy of 3(M) displayed the non-vanishing oscillator strength of 3.02 eV, leading to the electronic absorption of 411 nm. In contrast, the protonated 3-Aa(M) had a reduced lowest excitation energy of 2.14 eV (corresponding to 580 nm) (Fig. S33 in Supporting information). The well consistency between the theoretical and observed red-shift conclusions further illustrate the protonation effect of imine COFs.

    In summary, the photocatalytic activities of three COFs analogues towards HER have been explored, exhibiting the excellent hydrogen evolution rate. The imine units of these COFs are able to accept protons to generate protonated species, tuning the intrinsic electronic structures and charge separation efficiency. This study not only provides the new HER photocatalysts, but also elucidates the electronic structures change of working COFs photocatalysts during the photocatalysis, different from pristine materials. The related results are helpful for the field of COF catalysis.

    The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

    This work was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 22235001, 22175020, 22131005 and 21631003), Xiaomi Young Scholars Program, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and University of Science and Technology Beijing.


    1. [1]

      A.P. Côté, A.I. Benin, N.W. Ockwig, et al., Science 310 (2005) 1166–1170.  doi: 10.1126/science.1120411

    2. [2]

      C.S. Diercks, O.M. Yaghi, Science 355 (2017) eaal1585.  doi: 10.1126/science.aal1585

    3. [3]

      K. Geng, T. He, R. Liu, et al., Chem. Rev. 120 (2020) 8814–8933.  doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00550

    4. [4]

      Y. Han, Q. Zhang, N. Hu, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 28 (2017) 2269–2273.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2017.10.024

    5. [5]

      F. Jin, E. Lin, T. Wang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 5643–5652.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c01058

    6. [6]

      X.H. Han, K. Gong, X. Huang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202202912.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202202912

    7. [7]

      M. Liu, Y.J. Chen, X. Huang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202115308.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202115308

    8. [8]

      Z. Wang, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 708–735.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00827F

    9. [9]

      X. Liu, D. Huang, C. Lai, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 48 (2019) 5266–5302.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00299E

    10. [10]

      S. Li, Y. Liu, L. Dai, et al., Energy Storage Mater. 48 (2022) 439–446.  doi: 10.1016/j.ensm.2022.03.033

    11. [11]

      A. Halder, M. Ghosh, A. Khayum M, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 10941–10945.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b06460

    12. [12]

      H.C. Ma, G.J. Chen, F. Huang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142 (2020) 12574–12578.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c04722

    13. [13]

      Y.R. Wang, H.M. Ding, X.Y. Ma, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202114648.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202114648

    14. [14]

      B. Han, X. Ding, B. Yu, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 (2021) 7104–7113.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c02145

    15. [15]

      J. Jeon, Y.J. Kim, S.H. Joo, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62 (2023) e202217416.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202217416

    16. [16]

      X. Guan, F. Chen, Q. Fang, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 1357–1384.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00911F

    17. [17]

      X. Liu, Y. Jin, H. Wang, et al., Adv. Mater. (2022) 2203605.

    18. [18]

      H. Ding, J. Li, G. Xie, et al., Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 5234.  doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07670-4

    19. [19]

      Z. Shan, M. Wu, D. Zhu, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 5728–5733.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c01037

    20. [20]

      R. Sun, X. Wang, X. Wang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202117668.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202117668

    21. [21]

      Y. Zhi, Z. Wang, H.L. Zhang, et al., Small 16 (2020) 2001070.  doi: 10.1002/smll.202001070

    22. [22]

      W. Li, X. Ding, B. Yu, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. (2022) 2207394.

    23. [23]

      L. Sun, M. Lu, Z. Yang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202204326.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202204326

    24. [24]

      S. Yang, R. Sa, H. Zhong, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (2022) 2110694.  doi: 10.1002/adfm.202110694

    25. [25]

      B. Zhao, X. Lu, Q. Wang, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 31 (2022) 831–835.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2019.06.009

    26. [26]

      L. Chen, M. Huang, B. Chen, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 33 (2022) 2867–2882.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2021.10.060

    27. [27]

      B. Xu, S. Qi, M. Jin, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 30 (2019) 2053–2064.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2019.10.028

    28. [28]

      H. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Wang, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 4135–4165.  doi: 10.1039/D0CS00278J

    29. [29]

      Q. Wang, K. Domen, Chem. Rev. 120 (2020) 919–985.  doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00201

    30. [30]

      C.C. Li, M.Y. Gao, X.J. Sun, et al., Appl. Catal. B 266 (2020) 118586.  doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118586

    31. [31]

      S. Ida, K. Sato, T. Nagata, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 9073–9077.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201803214

    32. [32]

      Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, C. Guo, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 12 (2022) 4535–4543.  doi: 10.1039/D2CY00674J

    33. [33]

      W. Wang, X. Xu, W. Zhou, et al., Adv. Sci. 4 (2017) 1600371.  doi: 10.1002/advs.201600371

    34. [34]

      H. Liu, C. Xu, D. Li, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 5379–5383.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201800320

    35. [35]

      G. Lan, Y.Y. Zhu, S.S. Veroneau, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 5326–5329.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b01601

    36. [36]

      Y. Lu, H. Zhong, J. Li, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2022) e202208163.

    37. [37]

      R.B. Lin, Z. Zhang, B. Chen, Acc. Chem. Res. 54 (2021) 3362–3376.  doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00328

    38. [38]

      Z. Mi, T. Zhou, W. Weng, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 9642–9649.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202016618

    39. [39]

      C. Li, S. Cao, J. Lutzki, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 3083–3090.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c11689

    40. [40]

      S. Zhang, G. Cheng, L. Guo, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 59 (2020) 6007–6014.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201914424

    41. [41]

      C. Lin, C. Han, L. Gong, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 11 (2021) 2616–2621.  doi: 10.1039/D0CY02330B

    42. [42]

      W. Li, X. Huang, T. Zeng, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 1869–1874.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202014408

    43. [43]

      L. Guo, Y. Niu, S. Razzaque, et al., ACS Catal. 9 (2019) 9438–9445.  doi: 10.1021/acscatal.9b01951

    44. [44]

      L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Huang, et al., Chem. Sci. 13 (2022) 8074–8079.  doi: 10.1039/D2SC02638D

    45. [45]

      S. Li, M.F. Wu, T. Guo, et al., Appl. Catal. B 272 (2020) 118989.  doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118989

    46. [46]

      X. Wang, L. Chen, S.Y. Chong, et al., Nat. Chem. 10 (2018) 1180–1189.  doi: 10.1038/s41557-018-0141-5

    47. [47]

      R.J. Katz, M.J. Theibault, N.E. Kirchner-Hall, et al., Adv. Energy Mater. (2022) 2201869.

    48. [48]

      H. Wei, J. Ning, X. Cao, X. Li, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 11618–11622.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b08282

    49. [49]

      Z. Li, Z. Zhang, R. Nie, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (2022) 2112553.  doi: 10.1002/adfm.202112553

    50. [50]

      S. Kandambeth, V. Venkatesh, D.B. Shinde, et al., Nat. Commun. 6 (2015) 6786.  doi: 10.1038/ncomms7786

    51. [51]

      S. Wei, F. Zhang, W. Zhang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141 (2019) 14272–14279.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b06219

    52. [52]

      R. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, et al., Nat. Commun. 12 (2021) 1354.  doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21527-3

    53. [53]

      J. Yang, A. Acharjya, M.Y. Ye, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 19797–19803.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202104870

    54. [54]

      C. Tian, Y. Liang, W. Chen, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22 (2020) 1841–1846.  doi: 10.1039/C9CP05904K

    55. [55]

      M.S. Seyed Dorraji, M.H. Rasoulifard, Z. Aghamoradi, et al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. A 394 (2020) 112486.  doi: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2020.112486

    56. [56]

      S. Bolar, S. Shit, N.C. Murmu, et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13 (2021) 765–780.  doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c20500

    57. [57]

      Z. Zhao, X. Chen, B. Li, et al., Adv. Sci. 9 (2022) 2203832.  doi: 10.1002/advs.202203832

    58. [58]

      C. Adamo, V. Barone, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (1999) 6158–6170.  doi: 10.1063/1.478522

    1. [1]

      A.P. Côté, A.I. Benin, N.W. Ockwig, et al., Science 310 (2005) 1166–1170.  doi: 10.1126/science.1120411

    2. [2]

      C.S. Diercks, O.M. Yaghi, Science 355 (2017) eaal1585.  doi: 10.1126/science.aal1585

    3. [3]

      K. Geng, T. He, R. Liu, et al., Chem. Rev. 120 (2020) 8814–8933.  doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00550

    4. [4]

      Y. Han, Q. Zhang, N. Hu, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 28 (2017) 2269–2273.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2017.10.024

    5. [5]

      F. Jin, E. Lin, T. Wang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 5643–5652.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c01058

    6. [6]

      X.H. Han, K. Gong, X. Huang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202202912.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202202912

    7. [7]

      M. Liu, Y.J. Chen, X. Huang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202115308.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202115308

    8. [8]

      Z. Wang, S. Zhang, Y. Chen, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 708–735.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00827F

    9. [9]

      X. Liu, D. Huang, C. Lai, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 48 (2019) 5266–5302.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00299E

    10. [10]

      S. Li, Y. Liu, L. Dai, et al., Energy Storage Mater. 48 (2022) 439–446.  doi: 10.1016/j.ensm.2022.03.033

    11. [11]

      A. Halder, M. Ghosh, A. Khayum M, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 10941–10945.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b06460

    12. [12]

      H.C. Ma, G.J. Chen, F. Huang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142 (2020) 12574–12578.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c04722

    13. [13]

      Y.R. Wang, H.M. Ding, X.Y. Ma, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202114648.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202114648

    14. [14]

      B. Han, X. Ding, B. Yu, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143 (2021) 7104–7113.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c02145

    15. [15]

      J. Jeon, Y.J. Kim, S.H. Joo, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62 (2023) e202217416.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202217416

    16. [16]

      X. Guan, F. Chen, Q. Fang, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 1357–1384.  doi: 10.1039/C9CS00911F

    17. [17]

      X. Liu, Y. Jin, H. Wang, et al., Adv. Mater. (2022) 2203605.

    18. [18]

      H. Ding, J. Li, G. Xie, et al., Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 5234.  doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07670-4

    19. [19]

      Z. Shan, M. Wu, D. Zhu, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 5728–5733.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c01037

    20. [20]

      R. Sun, X. Wang, X. Wang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202117668.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202117668

    21. [21]

      Y. Zhi, Z. Wang, H.L. Zhang, et al., Small 16 (2020) 2001070.  doi: 10.1002/smll.202001070

    22. [22]

      W. Li, X. Ding, B. Yu, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. (2022) 2207394.

    23. [23]

      L. Sun, M. Lu, Z. Yang, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61 (2022) e202204326.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202204326

    24. [24]

      S. Yang, R. Sa, H. Zhong, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (2022) 2110694.  doi: 10.1002/adfm.202110694

    25. [25]

      B. Zhao, X. Lu, Q. Wang, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 31 (2022) 831–835.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2019.06.009

    26. [26]

      L. Chen, M. Huang, B. Chen, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 33 (2022) 2867–2882.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2021.10.060

    27. [27]

      B. Xu, S. Qi, M. Jin, et al., Chin. Chem. Lett. 30 (2019) 2053–2064.  doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2019.10.028

    28. [28]

      H. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Wang, et al., Chem. Soc. Rev. 49 (2020) 4135–4165.  doi: 10.1039/D0CS00278J

    29. [29]

      Q. Wang, K. Domen, Chem. Rev. 120 (2020) 919–985.  doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00201

    30. [30]

      C.C. Li, M.Y. Gao, X.J. Sun, et al., Appl. Catal. B 266 (2020) 118586.  doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118586

    31. [31]

      S. Ida, K. Sato, T. Nagata, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 9073–9077.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201803214

    32. [32]

      Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, C. Guo, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 12 (2022) 4535–4543.  doi: 10.1039/D2CY00674J

    33. [33]

      W. Wang, X. Xu, W. Zhou, et al., Adv. Sci. 4 (2017) 1600371.  doi: 10.1002/advs.201600371

    34. [34]

      H. Liu, C. Xu, D. Li, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57 (2018) 5379–5383.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201800320

    35. [35]

      G. Lan, Y.Y. Zhu, S.S. Veroneau, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 5326–5329.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b01601

    36. [36]

      Y. Lu, H. Zhong, J. Li, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. (2022) e202208163.

    37. [37]

      R.B. Lin, Z. Zhang, B. Chen, Acc. Chem. Res. 54 (2021) 3362–3376.  doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00328

    38. [38]

      Z. Mi, T. Zhou, W. Weng, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 9642–9649.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202016618

    39. [39]

      C. Li, S. Cao, J. Lutzki, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 (2022) 3083–3090.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.1c11689

    40. [40]

      S. Zhang, G. Cheng, L. Guo, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 59 (2020) 6007–6014.  doi: 10.1002/anie.201914424

    41. [41]

      C. Lin, C. Han, L. Gong, et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. 11 (2021) 2616–2621.  doi: 10.1039/D0CY02330B

    42. [42]

      W. Li, X. Huang, T. Zeng, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 1869–1874.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202014408

    43. [43]

      L. Guo, Y. Niu, S. Razzaque, et al., ACS Catal. 9 (2019) 9438–9445.  doi: 10.1021/acscatal.9b01951

    44. [44]

      L. Zhang, Y. Zhang, X. Huang, et al., Chem. Sci. 13 (2022) 8074–8079.  doi: 10.1039/D2SC02638D

    45. [45]

      S. Li, M.F. Wu, T. Guo, et al., Appl. Catal. B 272 (2020) 118989.  doi: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118989

    46. [46]

      X. Wang, L. Chen, S.Y. Chong, et al., Nat. Chem. 10 (2018) 1180–1189.  doi: 10.1038/s41557-018-0141-5

    47. [47]

      R.J. Katz, M.J. Theibault, N.E. Kirchner-Hall, et al., Adv. Energy Mater. (2022) 2201869.

    48. [48]

      H. Wei, J. Ning, X. Cao, X. Li, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140 (2018) 11618–11622.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.8b08282

    49. [49]

      Z. Li, Z. Zhang, R. Nie, et al., Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (2022) 2112553.  doi: 10.1002/adfm.202112553

    50. [50]

      S. Kandambeth, V. Venkatesh, D.B. Shinde, et al., Nat. Commun. 6 (2015) 6786.  doi: 10.1038/ncomms7786

    51. [51]

      S. Wei, F. Zhang, W. Zhang, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141 (2019) 14272–14279.  doi: 10.1021/jacs.9b06219

    52. [52]

      R. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Ma, et al., Nat. Commun. 12 (2021) 1354.  doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21527-3

    53. [53]

      J. Yang, A. Acharjya, M.Y. Ye, et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60 (2021) 19797–19803.  doi: 10.1002/anie.202104870

    54. [54]

      C. Tian, Y. Liang, W. Chen, et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22 (2020) 1841–1846.  doi: 10.1039/C9CP05904K

    55. [55]

      M.S. Seyed Dorraji, M.H. Rasoulifard, Z. Aghamoradi, et al., J. Photochem. Photobiol. A 394 (2020) 112486.  doi: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2020.112486

    56. [56]

      S. Bolar, S. Shit, N.C. Murmu, et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13 (2021) 765–780.  doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c20500

    57. [57]

      Z. Zhao, X. Chen, B. Li, et al., Adv. Sci. 9 (2022) 2203832.  doi: 10.1002/advs.202203832

    58. [58]

      C. Adamo, V. Barone, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (1999) 6158–6170.  doi: 10.1063/1.478522

  • 加载中
    1. [1]

      Jiangqi Ning Junhan Huang Yuhang Liu Yanlei Chen Qing Niu Qingqing Lin Yajun He Zheyuan Liu Yan Yu Liuyi Li . Alkyl-linked TiO2@COF heterostructure facilitating photocatalytic CO2 reduction by targeted electron transport. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(12): 100453-100453. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100453

    2. [2]

      Xiangyuan Zhao Jinjin Wang Jinzhao Kang Xiaomei Wang Hong Yu Cheng-Feng Du . Ni nanoparticles anchoring on vacuum treated Mo2TiC2Tx MXene for enhanced hydrogen evolution activity. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2023, 42(10): 100159-100159. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100159

    3. [3]

      Haibin Yang Duowen Ma Yang Li Qinghe Zhao Feng Pan Shisheng Zheng Zirui Lou . Mo doped Ru-based cluster to promote alkaline hydrogen evolution with ultra-low Ru loading. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2023, 42(11): 100031-100031. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100031

    4. [4]

      Jiaqi Ma Lan Li Yiming Zhang Jinjie Qian Xusheng Wang . Covalent organic frameworks: Synthesis, structures, characterizations and progress of photocatalytic reduction of CO2. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(12): 100466-100466. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100466

    5. [5]

      Weixu Li Yuexin Wang Lin Li Xinyi Huang Mengdi Liu Bo Gui Xianjun Lang Cheng Wang . Promoting energy transfer pathway in porphyrin-based sp2 carbon-conjugated covalent organic frameworks for selective photocatalytic oxidation of sulfide. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(7): 100299-100299. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100299

    6. [6]

      Guixu Pan Zhiling Xia Ning Wang Hejia Sun Zhaoqi Guo Yunfeng Li Xin Li . Preparation of high-efficient donor-π-acceptor system with crystalline g-C3N4 as charge transfer module for enhanced photocatalytic hydrogen evolution. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(12): 100463-100463. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100463

    7. [7]

      Tianhao Li Wenguang Tu Zhigang Zou . In situ photocatalytically enhanced thermogalvanic cells for electricity and hydrogen production. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(1): 100195-100195. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100195

    8. [8]

      Mengjun Zhao Yuhao Guo Na Li Tingjiang Yan . Deciphering the structural evolution and real active ingredients of iron oxides in photocatalytic CO2 hydrogenation. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(8): 100348-100348. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100348

    9. [9]

      Yanghanbin Zhang Dongxiao Wen Wei Sun Jiahe Peng Dezhong Yu Xin Li Yang Qu Jizhou Jiang . State-of-the-art evolution of g-C3N4-based photocatalytic applications: A critical review. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(12): 100469-100469. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100469

    10. [10]

      Zhen Shi Wei Jin Yuhang Sun Xu Li Liang Mao Xiaoyan Cai Zaizhu Lou . Interface charge separation in Cu2CoSnS4/ZnIn2S4 heterojunction for boosting photocatalytic hydrogen production. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2023, 42(12): 100201-100201. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2023.100201

    11. [11]

      Jia-Cheng HouWei CaiHong-Tao JiLi-Juan OuWei-Min He . Recent advances in semi-heterogenous photocatalysis in organic synthesis. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2025, 36(2): 110469-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2024.110469

    12. [12]

      Ting WangXin YuYaqiang Xie . Unlocking stability: Preserving activity of biomimetic catalysts with covalent organic framework cladding. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(6): 109320-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.109320

    13. [13]

      Yinyin XuYuanyuan LiJingbo FengChen WangYan ZhangYukun WangXiuwen Cheng . Covalent organic frameworks doped with manganese-metal organic framework for peroxymonosulfate activation. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(4): 108838-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.108838

    14. [14]

      Chao LiuChao JiaShi-Xian GanQiao-Yan QiGuo-Fang JiangXin Zhao . A luminescent one-dimensional covalent organic framework for organic arsenic sensing in water. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(11): 109750-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2024.109750

    15. [15]

      Rui Deng Wenjie Jiang Tianqi Yu Jiali Lu Boyao Feng Panagiotis Tsiakaras Shibin Yin . Cycad-leaf-like crystalline-amorphous heterostructures for efficient urea oxidation-assisted water splitting. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2024, 43(7): 100290-100290. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2024.100290

    16. [16]

      Wenjie Jiang Zhixiang Zhai Xiaoyan Zhuo Jia Wu Boyao Feng Tianqi Yu Huan Wen Shibin Yin . Revealing the reactant adsorption role of high-valence WO3 for boosting urea-assisted water splitting. Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry, 2025, 44(3): 100519-100519. doi: 10.1016/j.cjsc.2025.100519

    17. [17]

      Guoliang GaoGuangzhen ZhaoGuang ZhuBowen SunZixu SunShunli LiYa-Qian Lan . Recent advancements in noble-metal electrocatalysts for alkaline hydrogen evolution reaction. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2025, 36(1): 109557-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2024.109557

    18. [18]

      Yunyu ZhaoChuntao YangYingjian Yu . A review on covalent organic frameworks for rechargeable zinc-ion batteries. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(7): 108865-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.108865

    19. [19]

      Jing CaoDezheng ZhangBianqing RenPing SongWeilin Xu . Mn incorporated RuO2 nanocrystals as an efficient and stable bifunctional electrocatalyst for oxygen evolution reaction and hydrogen evolution reaction in acid and alkaline. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(10): 109863-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2024.109863

    20. [20]

      Xinyi CaoYucheng JinHailong WangXu DingXiaolin LiuBaoqiu YuXiaoning ZhanJianzhuang Jiang . A tetraaldehyde-derived porous organic cage and covalent organic frameworks: Syntheses, structures, and iodine vapor capture. Chinese Chemical Letters, 2024, 35(9): 109201-. doi: 10.1016/j.cclet.2023.109201

Metrics
  • PDF Downloads(5)
  • Abstract views(541)
  • HTML views(19)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
Address:Zhongguancun North First Street 2,100190 Beijing, PR China Tel: +86-010-82449177-888
Powered By info@rhhz.net

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return