In this work, a new metal–organic framework nanocatalyst (Cu@UIO‐66‐AST) has been prepared from UiO‐66‐NH 2 through a post‐synthesis modification process. The Cu (II)@UIO‐66‐AST nanocatalyst formation was confirmed from TGA, FT‐IR, TEM, XRD, BET, CHN, ICP, SEM, EDS, and elemental analyses. The catalytic efficiency of the synthesized MOF (Cu@UIO‐66‐AST), as an acid Lewis, was investigated in the four‐component reaction of isatin, malononitrile, hydrazine, and dimethyl acetylene dicarboxylate and compared to UiO‐66‐NH 2 (as a basic catalyst) and Cu (OAc) 2 (as an acidic heterogeneous catalyst). The obtained results clearly show that Cu@UIO‐66‐AST has a higher catalytic activity (93%) than UiO‐66‐NH 2 (13%) and Cu (OAc) 2 (43%). It could be due to the increase of dispersibility of Cu 2+ by the formation of several stable complexes between Cu 2+ ions and functional groups of ligand AST (OH, C=N, NH, and C‐S) on the surface of the nanocatalyst. Also, the catalyst can be recycled and reused for up to eight subsequent runs without significant loss of activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghasempour et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: