Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adsorptive denitrogenation (ADN) was carried out by adsorption of indole (IND) and quinoline (QUI) over metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) including acidic UiO-66—SO 3 H for the first time. The adsorbed amount of IND increased with increasing content of —SO 3 H in UiO-66. The favorable effect of the —SO 3 H group on the adsorptive removal of IND could be explained by hydrogen bonding between the O of —SO 3 H and the H of IND, which was firmly supported by the adsorption of pyrrole and methylpyrrole and by theoretical calculations. The application of an —SO 3 H group in the adsorptive removal of neutral IND is meaningful since neutral nitrogen-containing compounds are not easy to remove and since UiO-66—SO 3 H is reusable after simple washing with ethanol. The expected increase in QUI adsorption (due to acid–base interaction) with acidic —SO 3 H was observed when QUI was present at low concentrations (<∼400 ppmw). This favorable contribution of acidic —SO 3 H to the adsorption of basic QUI was also supported by calculations for the adsorption of one QUI molecule on the —SO 3 H group of UiO-66. Interestingly, the adsorbed amount of QUI decreased with increasing content of —SO 3 H in UiO-66 when the QUI concentration was high (initial concentration of 1000 ppmw). One of the reasons for the negative effect of acidic —SO 3 H on QUI adsorption might be the presence of only one H atom in —SO 3 H or steric hindrance (due to decreased pore space), although detailed works are needed to support this.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: