Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Eco‐Friendly, Tunable and Scalable Method for Producing Porous Functional Nanomaterials Designed Using Molecular Interactions

Manning, Joseph R. H., Yip, Thomas W. S., Centi, Alessia, Jorge, Miguel, Patwardhan, Siddharth V.·2017·ChemSusChem
DOI 10.1002/cssc.201700027PMC PMC5434938
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite significant improvements in the synthesis of templated silica materials, post‐synthesis purification remains highly expensive and renders the materials industrially unviable. In this study this issue is addressed for porous bioinspired silica by developing a rapid room‐temperature solution method for complete extraction of organic additives. Using elemental analysis and N 2 and CO 2 adsorption, the ability to both purify and controllably tailor the composition, porosity and surface chemistry of bioinspired silica in a single step is demonstrated. For the first time the extraction is modelled using molecular dynamics, revealing that the removal mechanism is dominated by surface‐charge interactions. This is extended to other additive chemistry, leading to a wider applicability of the method to other materials. Finally the environmental benefits of the new method are estimated and compared with previous purification techniques, demonstrating significant improvements in sustainability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cssc.201700027

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Graph of additive concentration in silica versus acidification pH value determined by elemental analysis for both PEHA and DETA.
Figure 1 Graph of additive concentration in silica versus acidification pH value determined by elemental analysis for both PEHA and DETA.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Total and microporous surface area of silica produced using PEHA as measured by t‐plot (microporous data offset for clarity), with overlay lines at 30 and 300 m2 g−1.
Figure 2 Total and microporous surface area of silica produced using PEHA as measured by t‐plot (microporous data offset for clarity), with overlay lines at 30 and 300 m2 g−1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 SEM images of PEHA‐silica before (top) and after (bottom) acid treatment, showing no observable change in morphology. Scale bars are 500 nm.
Figure 3 SEM images of PEHA‐silica before (top) and after (bottom) acid treatment, showing no observable change in morphology. Scale bars are 500 nm.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Calculated additive volume removed (squares) and measured micropore volume created from additive removal (circles) against treatment pH value.
Figure 4 Calculated additive volume removed (squares) and measured micropore volume created from additive removal (circles) against treatment pH value.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effect of treatment method on surface area: U=untreated; WR=water reflux; C=calcined; A=acid treated; A+C=acid treated then calcined.
Figure 5 Effect of treatment method on surface area: U=untreated; WR=water reflux; C=calcined; A=acid treated; A+C=acid treated then calcined.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 MD simulations depicting (a) interaction between one PEHA amine group and a surface siloxide ion at pH≈7, (b) PEHA desorption after surface neutralisation at pH≈2 and (c) continued adsorption of methyl‐substituted PEHA to silica at pH 2 owing to strong hydrophobic interactions.
Figure 6 MD simulations depicting (a) interaction between one PEHA amine group and a surface siloxide ion at pH≈7, (b) PEHA desorption after surface neutralisation at pH≈2 and (c) continued adsorption of methyl‐substituted PEHA to silica at pH 2 owing to strong hydrophobic interactions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Comparison of additive removal effectiveness between poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) and methyl‐substituted poly(ethyleneimine) (QPEI), showing 25 % decrease in effectiveness when using QPEI.
Figure 7 Comparison of additive removal effectiveness between poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) and methyl‐substituted poly(ethyleneimine) (QPEI), showing 25 % decrease in effectiveness when using QPEI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Simulated PEHA–siloxide ion interaction strengths, normalised against availability of precursor ions.
Figure 8 Simulated PEHA–siloxide ion interaction strengths, normalised against availability of precursor ions.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Proposed distribution of additive molecules (red lines) within secondary particles of bioinspired silica (dotted lines), which are composed of primary particles (grey circles). (a) Untreated silica composites contain additives adsorbed to both the particle surface and inside. (b) After partial treatment to pH 5, only the surface‐adsorbed additive molecules are released. (c) After treatment at pH 2, all additive molecules are released.
Figure 9 Proposed distribution of additive molecules (red lines) within secondary particles of bioinspired silica (dotted lines), which are composed of primary particles (grey circles). (a) Untreated silica composites contain additives adsorbed to both the particle surface and inside. (b) After partial treatment to pH 5, only the surface‐adsorbed additive molecules are released. (c) After treatment at pH 2, all additive molecules are released.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 (a) Partial uptake curves at 100 mbar CO2 for bioinspired silica treated at different pH values. Data collected prior to pressure stabilisation have been omitted for clarity. (b) Comparison of CO2 adsorption half‐times (circles) and equilibrium adsorbed amount (squares) estimated from kinetic‐modelling results.
Figure 10 (a) Partial uptake curves at 100 mbar CO2 for bioinspired silica treated at different pH values. Data collected prior to pressure stabilisation have been omitted for clarity. (b) Comparison of CO2 adsorption half‐times (circles) and equilibrium adsorbed amount (squares) estimated from kinetic‐modelling results.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1007/978-1-4899-2070-6 · DOI

Cited by

See all 29

Metadata

Authors
Manning, J. R. H., Yip, T. W. S., Centi, A., Jorge, M., & Patwardhan, S. V.
Venue
ChemSusChem
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-29
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
1683-1691
ISSN
  • 1864-5631
  • 1864-564X
DOI
10.1002/cssc.201700027
PMC
PMC5434938
Cited by
29
References
46
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L014297/1, EP/L017059/1, EP/J019704/2, EP/K031260/1, EP/K000586/1)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Eco‐Friendly, Tunable and Scalable Method for Producing Porous Functional Nanomaterials Designed Using Molecular Interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cssc.201700027
The paper
Manning, J. R. H., Yip, T. W. S., Centi, A., Jorge, M., & Patwardhan, S. V. (2017). An Eco‐Friendly, Tunable and Scalable Method for Producing Porous Functional Nanomaterials Designed Using Molecular Interactions. ChemSusChem. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201700027

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.