Experimental study demonstrates high reverse water-gas shift activity using core-shell Zn-Co framework-derived catalysts, indicating that metallic cobalt cores drive carbon dioxide conversion.
The reverse water–gas shift (RWGS) reaction is a promising route for converting CO2 into CO, an important feedstock for synthetic fuels and chemicals. In this study, Zn–Co zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs), including ZIF-8, ZIF-67, ZIF-67-8, and the core–shell structures ZIF-8@67 and ZIF-67@8, were synthesized as catalyst precursors and thermally activated prior to catalytic testing. Transmission electron microscopy and elemental mapping confirmed the formation of well-defined core–shell architectures, while synchrotron X-ray diffraction verified the characteristic sodalite-type framework. Thermogravimetric analysis revealed substantial framework decomposition during activation at 700 °C. In situ time-resolved X-ray absorption spectroscopy (TR-XAS) showed that Zn remained predominantly in the Zn2+ state throughout heating, whereas Co2+ underwent progressive reduction to metallic Co0 at temperatures approaching 600 °C. Ex situ X-ray absorption spectroscopy confirmed the presence of Zn2+ species and metallic cobalt after activation. Catalytic testing of the activated ZIF-derived materials showed that Co-containing catalysts exhibited significantly higher RWGS activity than Zn-only ZIF-8-derived catalyst. Among the investigated samples, ZIF-67@8_C-500 achieved the highest performance, producing 2.50 μmol CO (equivalent to 50 μmol g−1 catalyst) at 600 °C with a H2/CO2 ratio of 2:1. The strong dependence of activity on ZIF-67 core loading indicates that metallic cobalt generated from the Co-rich core plays a dominant role in CO2 conversion. Thermal activation transformed the highly porous ZIF precursors into metallic Co-containing carbonaceous catalysts. The resulting structural evolution, rather than retention of the original porous MOF framework, governed the catalytic performance in the RWGS reaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deekamwong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: