(Fig. 4); the reason behind this phenomenon remains unclear. The same enhancement strategy was
further extended onto semiconducting MOF-5 and mesoporous (inorganic) zeolite MCM-41, but both systems exhibited reduced H2 production compared with the MIL-101/CdS system.3 Since MOF-5 is not water stable, its nanoporous framework structure is susceptible to degradation and collapse during processing and testing, thus resulting in reduced photocatalytic performance.
While inorganic zeolites are expected to be thermally and chemically more superior, the reduced performance in MCM-41 was thought to be linked to its specific surface area (y940 m2 g21), which is considerably lower than that of MIL-101-Cr (y4200 m2 g-1). Here we note that the enormous internal surface area of a nanoporous MOF can be immediately exploited to enhance its functional
performance, for which signifies a clear advantage over any other state-of-the-art photoactive materials.
(Fig. 4); the reason behind this phenomenon remains unclear. The same enhancement strategy was
further extended onto semiconducting MOF-5 and mesoporous (inorganic) zeolite MCM-41, but both systems exhibited reduced H2 production compared with the MIL-101/CdS system.3 Since MOF-5 is not water stable, its nanoporous framework structure is susceptible to degradation and collapse during processing and testing, thus resulting in reduced photocatalytic performance.
While inorganic zeolites are expected to be thermally and chemically more superior, the reduced performance in MCM-41 was thought to be linked to its specific surface area (y940 m2 g21), which is considerably lower than that of MIL-101-Cr (y4200 m2 g-1). Here we note that the enormous internal surface area of a nanoporous MOF can be immediately exploited to enhance its functional
performance, for which signifies a clear advantage over any other state-of-the-art photoactive materials.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
