Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 27.
Published in final edited form as: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2020 Feb 28;59(16):6546–6550. doi: 10.1002/anie.201914696

B-MWW Zeolite: The Case Against Single-Site Catalysis

Natalie R Altvater a,, Rick W Dorn b,c,, Melissa C Cendejas d,, William P McDermott d, Brijith Thomas b, Aaron J Rossini b,c, Ive Hermans a,d
PMCID: PMC8157796  NIHMSID: NIHMS1570873  PMID: 32026560

Abstract

Boron-containing materials have recently been identified as highly selective catalysts for the oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) of alkanes to olefins. It has previously been demonstrated by several spectroscopic characterization techniques that the surface of these boron-containing ODH catalysts oxidize and hydrolyze under reaction conditions, forming an amorphous B2(OH)2xO(3 – x) (x = 0 – 3) layer. Yet, the precise nature of the active site(s) remains elusive. In this communication, we provide a detailed characterization of zeolite MCM-22 isomorphously substituted with boron (B-MWW). Using 11B solid-state NMR spectroscopy, we show that the majority of boron species in B-MWW exist as isolated BO3 units, fully incorporated into the zeolite framework. However, this material shows no catalytic activity for ODH of propane to propene. The catalytic inactivity of B-MWW for ODH of propane falsifies the hypothesis that site-isolated BO3 units are the active site in boron-based catalysts. This observation is at odds with other traditionally studied catalysts like vanadium-based catalysts and provides an important piece of the mechanistic puzzle.

Keywords: zeolites, boron, heterogeneous catalysis, oxidative dehydrogenation, solid-state NMR

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1570873-f0004.jpg

Detailed solid-state NMR spectroscopic characterization of hydrothermally synthesized B-MWW reveals that boron is fully incorporated into the zeolite framework as trivalent BO3 units. These isolated sites are inactive for oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) of propane, which refutes the hypothesis that site-isolated boron species are the active site on boron-containing ODH catalysts.


Zeolites, microporous, crystalline materials composed of characteristic SiO4 tetrahedra, are among the most widely used industrial catalysts.[1] The so-called T-sites may be replaced with different atoms via isomorphous substitution to tune the catalytic properties by - for example - altering the Bronsted/Lewis acidity or creating a catalytic center. Isomorphous substitution can be achieved directly via hydrothermal synthesis or post-synthetically by methods, including impregnation and ion-exchange.[2,3] Although widely applied in industry, isomorphously substituted zeolites are still the subject of many ongoing studies.[4]

Boron-containing materials, such as hexagonal boron nitride and boron nitride nanotubes, have been shown to be highly selective catalysts for the transformation of light alkanes to olefins via oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH).[511] Analysis of these materials after catalytic testing for the ODH of propane revealed the formation of an oxidized, amorphous boron phase at the catalyst surface. This layer consists of three-coordinate boron with varying numbers of hydroxyl and bridging oxide groups represented by the general formula B2(OH)2xO(3 – x) (x = 0 – 3).[12] To understand the function of this oxidized boron phase, we recently investigated silica-supported boron oxide (B/SiO2) materials, which showed a similar conversion-selectivity trend and product distribution to the bulk boron-containing catalysts.[13] While these results confirm that the active site is most likely contained in the oxidized boron phase, the precise reaction mechanism and active site structure have not been identified. Magic angle spinning (MAS) 11B solid-state NMR spectroscopy (SSNMR) analysis of the B/SiO2 materials revealed the B2(OH)2xO3-x phase restructures under ODH reaction conditions to give a higher degree of boron agglomeration. The observed restructuring is in line with a recent computational study on h-BN that predicts the formation of a highly dynamic oxidized boron active phase under reaction conditions (~500 °C), in agreement with the low Taman temperature of boron oxides.[14]

The large distribution of boron sites in active materials and their dynamic nature under reaction conditions precludes the precise experimental identification of the active site(s). To understand the requirements for active site formation, the synthesis of a material with more controlled, uniform boron oxide speciation is necessary. In this contribution, we focus on zeolite MCM-22 isomorphously substituted with boron (referred to as B-MWW). MWW is an industrially prepared catalysts used as an additive to ZSM-5 for catalytic cracking, in Mobil’s Badger Cumene process for the alkylation of benzene, the alkylation of toluene, and the liquid phase epoxidation of propylene.[1518] The borosilicate form of MWW (also called ERB-1) is used primarily as an intermediate for creating high Si/Al ratio frameworks and for the post-synthetic incorporation of metals into the structure.[19] Because of its industrial applications, we know that the MWW framework can accommodate propylene molecules and is therefore viable for use as a potential propane ODH catalyst.

B-MWW was hydrothermally synthesized according to an established literature procedure (see Supporting Information).[20] The successful synthesis of the MWW framework was confirmed by powder X-ray diffraction (Figure S1) and N2 physisorption (SBET = 498 m2/g).[20,21] The boron loading was quantified by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to be 1.1 ± 0.1 wt. %. This loading is within the 0.23–2.20 wt. % range for B/SiO2 catalysts made by incipient wetness impregnation that all showed significant conversion under our ODH reaction conditions.[13]

Catalytic testing for the ODH of propane was performed at 500 °C under a flow of C3H8, O2, and N2 with a pretreatment at 525 °C under the same gas composition.[13] Surprisingly, the B-MWW material showed no conversion above the background observed with a blank reactor (i.e. < 0.5% conversion). This result was unexpected since a B/SiO2 catalyst with 0.23 wt. % boron showed 92% total olefin selectivity at 4% propane conversion.[13] The boron content did not change, within the error margin of the experiment, indicating that there was insignificant leaching during reaction. This lack of catalytic activity indicates that the boron species in the zeolite framework are surprisingly not active for propane ODH. As a further control, we performed ODH catalytic testing for a catalyst made by incipient wetness impregnation of boron onto the B-MWW zeolite, denoted B/B-MWW. B/B-MWW was made by a similar procedure as B/SiO2 (see Supporting Information).[13] The B/B-MWW catalyst (1.3 ± 0.1 wt. %) showed similar catalytic activity to the B/SiO2 catalyst, with a 90% total olefin selectivity at 5% propane conversion. We have previously shown that B/SiO2 catalysts contain agglomerated boron species as is likely the case for B/B-MWW. As discussed in detail below, the B-MWW is likely an inactive ODH catalyst because it contains very stable and isolated framework species.

To investigate the source of ODH inactivity in B-MWW, we performed 1H and 11B MAS SSNMR spectroscopy experiments to directly probe the structure and distribution of boron atoms in the zeolite framework. Prior to all SSNMR experiments, the samples were fully dehydrated and further handled in an inert atmosphere. Direct excitation 11B spin echo MAS SSNMR spectra of pristine B-MWW (fresh) and after 12 hours on stream (spent) were recorded at 11.7 T (ν0(1H) = 500 MHz) with a 10 kHz MAS frequency (Figure 1). 11B SSNMR spectra of fresh and spent B-MWW samples were fit to three sites and display near identical quadrupolar powder patterns, suggesting no boron restructuring occurred under the reaction conditions (Table 1). The 11B isotropic chemical shift (δiso), electric field gradient asymmetry parameter (η) and quadrupolar coupling constant (CQ) values are characteristic of trigonal-planar boron species (Figure S2).[12,22,23] The validity of the three site analytical fits in Figure 1 were further confirmed by a 2D 11B triple-quantum multiple-quantum MAS (MQMAS) spectrum of B-MWW fresh, fitting a 9.4 T spin echo 11B SSNMR spectrum (Figure S3) and by performing 2D 1H-11B heteronuclear correlation (HETCOR) experiments (discussed below). On the basis of δiso(11B), the simulated peaks with δiso(11B) = 11 ppm (red fit) and δiso(11B) = 12 ppm (green fit) are assigned to framework B(OSi)3 species substituted into the zeolite.[12,2224] The observed distribution in δiso(11B) is expected because MWW has eight T-sites that boron could occupy, resulting in a distribution in boron sites from the subtle difference in chemical environment.[24,25] Based upon the analytical simulations, B(OSi)3 units make up ca. 90% of the boron incorporated into the framework. The peak with δiso(11B) = 15 ppm and ca. 10% integrated intensity is assigned to a B(OSi)2(OH) species consisting of two bonds to the framework and a terminal hydroxide. All of these assignments are consistent with the findings of Zones and co-workers who previously used 1H, 11B and 29Si SSNMR spectroscopy to characterized boron doped B-β, B-SSZ-33 and B-SSZ-42 zeolites.[24] Their high field (19.6 T) 11B spin echo, 2D 1H→11B CP-HETCOR and 11B MQMAS SSNMR spectra clearly showed that B(OSi)3 and B(OSi)2(OH) incorporated into the framework (δiso(11B) = 10.0 – 14.8 ppm, depending on the zeolite) resonate at a lower δiso(11B) than non-framework boron species (18.0 ppm).[24] The δiso(11B) of B(OSi)3 and B(OSi)2(OH) species measured by Zones et. al. matches our results very well, verifying that B-MWW synthesized here contains primarily framework species.[24]

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

1D 11B MAS SSNMR spectra of (lower) fresh and (upper) spent B-MWW. The solid lines correspond to the experimental spectra and the dashed lines correspond to analytical simulations. The analytical simulations of fresh and spent B-MWW were generated from parameters reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Isotropic chemical shift and electric field gradient tensors for the three site analytical simulations of B-MWW in Figure 1.[a]

Site δiso (ppm) CQ (MHz) η Integration (%)
red 11 2.6 0.0 66
green 12 2.4 0.0 23
blue 15 2.7 0.0 11
[a]

Fresh and spent B-MWW were fit to identical parameters.

In comparison, the 11B spin echo spectrum of the active ODH catalyst B/B-MWW reveals that 57 % of the boron species are framework B(OSi)3 groups (δiso(11B) = 11 ppm) and 43 % are B(OSi)2(OH) species (δiso(11B) = 15 ppm, Figures S4-S5). Clearly, the B(OSi)2(OH) sites now make up a larger fraction of the boron species in B/B-MWW. The 11B spin echo spectrum of B/B-MWW and accompanying NMR parameters are similar to that of catalytically active B/SiO2.[13] While we have assigned the 11B NMR signals of B/B-MWW as framework B(OSi)3 and B(OSi)2(OH) because of the similarity in 11B NMR parameters to B-MWW, some of the 11B NMR signal from B/B-MWW likely arise from clustered boron sites, as discussed below.

To better understand the boron speciation and confirm the assignments of the distinct 11B NMR signals for B-MWW, we performed 1H-11B correlation NMR experiments. Because of the similarity in the 1D 11B SSNMR spectra for fresh and spent B-MWW, we only consider the fresh material for these experiments. 2D 11B→1H dipolar-refocused INEPT (D-RINEPT) spectra were recorded with 0.64 ms (blue) or 2.56 ms (red) of total SR412 1H heteronuclear dipolar recoupling and a 25 kHz MAS frequency (Figure 2a).[26,27] Analysis of the 1D D-RINEPT and 2D11B→1H D-RINEPT spectra clearly illustrates that distinct 1H and 11B resonances can be observed depending on the duration of heteronuclear dipolar recoupling. With 0.64 ms of recoupling (blue trace), only the higher frequency 1H NMR signals (ca. 3.6 ppm) are observed and they show intense correlations to the higher frequency 11B NMR signal (δiso ≈ 15 ppm, Figure 2b and Figure S6). On the basis of the chemical shifts, the 1H NMR signal at 3.6 ppm and 11B NMR signal with δiso = 15 ppm are assigned to framework B(OSi)2(OH) species (Figure 3). The 2D 11B→1H D-RINEPT spectrum recorded with 2.56 ms of dipolar recoupling shows additional strong correlations between the 1H NMR signal at 2.7 ppm and 11B NMR signal with δiso of 12–11 ppm. Notably, the 11B NMR spectrum extracted from this 2D 11B→1H D-RINEPT spectrum is essentially identical in appearance to the 11B spin echo spectrum (Figure 2b and Figure S6), suggesting that all boron atoms within B-MWW are proximate to 1H spins. In contrast, the 11B NMR spectrum of B/B-MWW extracted from the 2D D-RINEPT experiment shows different signal intensities from the corresponding 11B spin echo NMR spectrum (Figure S5). Taken together these observations suggest that some boron spins are distant from protons, likely due to the formation of some boron oxide clusters in B/B-MWW.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

(a) 2D 11B→1H D-RINEPT spectra of B-MWW fresh acquired with 0.64 ms (blue) and 2.56 ms (red) of total SR412 heteronuclear dipolar recoupling. (b) (black) Comparison of 1D 11B spin echo NMR spectrum and projections from the 2D 11B→1H D-RINEPT spectra acquired with 0.64 ms (blue) and 2.56 ms (red) of total heteronuclear dipolar recoupling. (c, d) 11B→1H D-RINEPT dipolar recoupling buildup curves for the 1H slice at (c) 3.6 ppm and (d) 2.7 ppm (dashed black lines in Figure 2a, Figure S8). The black diamonds represent experimental data points and the solid lines correspond to numerical simulations (SIMPSON) for heteronuclear dipolar couplings corresponding to the indicated 1H-11B inter-nuclear distances. The numerically simulated curve with the lowest RMSD is shown, and curves for other coupling strengths are shown in Figure S7. All spectra were recorded at 9.4 T (ν0(1H) = 400 MHz) with 25 kHz MAS.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Simplified illustration of the two different 1H-11B interactions observed in the 2D 11B→1H D-RINEPT spectra and molecular structures of framework boron sites.

To estimate the 1H-11B inter-nuclear distance for each pair of 1H-11B NMR signals and thus provide a more detailed structure of boron incorporation into the zeolite framework, we recorded 1H-11B dipolar recoupling build-up curves using the 11B→1H D-RINEPT sequence. In this experiment, the 11B→1H D-RINEPT 1H NMR signal intensity is recorded as a function of the heteronuclear dipolar recoupling duration (Figure 2c and 2d). The dipolar coupling constant (Dij) between two spins is proportional to the inverse of the distance cubed (Dij ∝ rij−3). By comparing the experimental build-up curves to numerical SIMPSON simulations for different 1H-11B dipolar coupling constants, 1H-11B inter-nuclear distances can be estimated.[28,29] The D-RINEPT signal build-up for the 1H NMR signal at 3.6 ppm fits best to a simulated curve with a dipolar coupling constant of ca. 3.6 kHz, corresponding to a 1H-11B inter-nuclear distance of ca. 2.2 Å (Figure 2c and Figure S7a). It is important to keep in mind that an H atom in an isolated B-OH group may experience some degree of rotation. Rotation will partially average the 1H-11B dipolar coupling constant, resulting in measurement of lower dipolar coupling constants and longer than expected inter-nuclear distances. The D-RINEPT signal build-up for the 1H NMR signal at 2.7 ppm fits best to a simulated curve with a 1H-11B dipolar coupling constant of ca. 1.6 kHz, corresponding to a 2.9 Å 1H-11B inter-nuclear distance (Figure 2d and Figure S7b). Taking into account the 11B δiso of 11 ppm and the relatively large 1H-11B inter-nuclear distance, this 1H signal is assigned to a framework B(OSi)3 species that is adjacent to a framework silanol (Figure 3), in agreement with previous models of boron substituted zeolites.[24] A proton detected 1H{29Si} cross polarization MAS (CPMAS) spectrum of fresh B-MWW confirms that the 1H NMR signals at ca. 2.7 ppm results from a silanol defect adjacent to boron (Figure S9).[21,24,30,31] Note that 1H{29Si} CPMAS spectrum of B-MWW fresh required ca. 10 hours of signal averaging, confirming the majority of the zeolite framework is pristine. Infrared spectroscopy of the dehydrated B-MWW confirms that B-OH as well as silanol defect sites are present in the fresh and spent sample (Figure S10).[32]

In summary, the 11B chemical shifts suggest that in B-MWW nearly all boron atoms are incorporated into the framework. The SSNMR data also suggests that these sites are also well separated (> 3–4 Å apart) from one another, for the reasons given below. In the 2D 11B→1H DRINEPT spectrum of B-MWW recorded with 2.56 ms of recoupling only weak correlations are observed between the B(OSi)2(OH) 1H NMR signal at 3.6 ppm and the B(OSi)3 11B NMR signals, suggesting these sites are well separated within the zeolite. This interpretation is confirmed by a 2D 1H-1H dipolar double quantum-single quantum (DQ-SQ) homonuclear correlation spectrum of B-MWW which shows that the 1H NMR signals at 2.7 ppm, assigned to silanol adjacent to B(OSi)3, do not give rise to any appreciable DQ signal intensity (Figure S11). In comparison, these silanol groups give rise to an observable 1H DQ NMR signal in B/B-MWW, consistent with more extensive aggregation of boron sites in this material. Finally, 1D 11B-11B DQ-SQ experiments show that the DQ-filtered 11B NMR signal for B-MWW is about three times less than that of B/B-MWW (Figure S12).[3335] Notably, the DQ-filtered 11B solid-state NMR spectra of B-MWW and B/B-MWW both show signals with more positive chemical shifts as compared to the SQ 11B spin echo spectra. The more positive shifts suggest that aggregation preferentially occurs for hydroxylated or oxide-like boron sites, both of which are much more common in B/B-MWW as shown by quantitative 11B spin echo experiments above. All of these observations confirm the hypothesis that catalytically inactive B-MWW consist of predominately isolated boron sites incorporated into the zeolite framework, while the active ODH catalyst B/B-MWW contains some partially aggregated boron sites.

In this work, we successfully synthesized stable, isolated framework B(OSi)3 (major, ca. 90 %) and B(OSi)2(OH) (minor, ca. 10 %) species in zeolite MWW framework and catalytically tested them for the ODH of propane. The detailed characterization of B-MWW by multi-dimensional 1H and 11B SSNMR spectroscopy showed that boron exists predominantly as isolated B(OSi)3 units that are adjacent to a silanol group. Although B-MWW has a boron loading sufficient for catalytic activity, testing determined that it did not exhibit any ODH conversion of propane over background levels. As was shown here and in our prior work, catalytically active B/B-MWW, B/SiO2 and boron nitride ODH catalysts contain aggregated boron sites that restructure under reaction conditions, whereas B-MWW is stable under reaction conditions and shows no restructuring of the boron atoms.[12,13] The difference in boron sites in B-MWW and these other boron materials leads us to the important conclusion that the boron-catalyzed ODH of propane does not proceed over an isolated BO3 site. Rather, active boron-based ODH catalysts likely requires boron species with some degree of B-O-B connectivity. This study advances the understanding of boron species involved in the propane ODH mechanism and will direct future work in understanding the molecular origins of highly selective ODH catalysts. Further investigations are underway to determine the surface mobility and understand precisely which types of boron-boron interactions are required to form active ODH catalysts.

Supplementary Material

supp info

Acknowledgements

Materials synthesis and characterization was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET-1916809. Catalytic testing was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-SC0017918. A.J.R. also thanks the Ames Laboratory Royalty Account and Iowa State University for additional funding. The Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. DOE by Iowa State University under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358. This study made use of the National Magnetic Resonance Facility at Madison, which is supported by NIH grants P41 GM103399 (NIGMS) and P41GM66326 (NIGMS). Additional equipment was purchased with funds from the University of Wisconsin, the NIH (RR02781, RR08438), the NSF (DMB-8415048, OIA-9977486, BIR-9214394), and the USDA. We thank Prof. Aaron Sadow (ISU and Ames lab) for access to a glovebox to pack and store rotors.

Footnotes

Supporting Information: Additional characterization and experimental details are available in the Supporting Information. doi: 10.1002/anie.201914696

References

  • [1].Yilmaz B, Müller U, in Top. Catal, 2009, pp. 888–895. [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Sachtler WMH, Zhang Z, Adv. Catal 1993, 39, 129–220. [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Wolf P, Valla M, Rossini AJ, Comas-Vives A, Núñez-Zarur F, Malaman B, Lesage A, Emsley L, Copéret C, Hermans I, Angew. Chemie - Int. Ed 2014, 53, 10179–10183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Shamzhy M, Opanasenko M, Concepción P, Martínez A, Chem. Soc. Rev 2019, 48, 1095–1149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Grant JT, Carrero CA, Goeltl F, Venegas J, Mueller P, Burt SP, Specht SE, McDermott WP, Chieregato A, Hermans I, Science. 2016, 354, 1570–1573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Guo F, Yang P, Pan Z, Cao XN, Xie Z, Wang X, Angew. Chemie - Int. Ed 2017, 56, 8231–8235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Huang R, Zhang B, Wang J, Wu KH, Shi W, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Zheng A, Schlögl R, Su DS, ChemCatChem 2017, 9, 3293–3297. [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Shi L, Wang D, Song W, Shao D, Zhang WP, Lu AH, ChemCatChem 2017, 9, 1720. [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Shi L, Yan B, Shao D, Jiang F, Wang D, Lu AH, Cuihua Xuebao/Chinese J. Catal 2017, 38, 389–395. [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Venegas JM, Grant JT, McDermott WP, Burt SP, Micka J, Carrero CA, Hermans I, ChemCatChem 2017, 9, 2118–2127. [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Grant JT, McDermott WP, Venegas JM, Burt SP, Micka J, Phivilay SP, Carrero CA, Hermans I, ChemCatChem 2017, 9, 3622. [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Love AM, Thomas B, Specht SE, Hanrahan MP, Venegas JM, Burt SP, Grant JT, Cendejas MC, McDermott WP, Rossini AJ, et al. , J. Am. Chem. Soc 2019, 141, 182–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Love AM, Cendejas MC, Thomas B, McDermott WP, Uchupalanun P, Kruszynski C, Burt SP, Agbi T, Rossini AJ, Hermans I, J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, acs.jpcc.9b07429. [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Zhang Z, Jimenez-Izal E, Hermans I, Alexandrova AN, J. Phys. Chem. Lett 2019, 10, 20–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Corma A, Martínez-Triguero J, J. Catal 1997, 165, 102–120. [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Cheng JC, Fung AS, Klocke DJ, L.S. L, Lissy DN, Roth WJ, Smith CM, Walsh DE, US5453554A, 2011, 585/467.
  • [17].Rigoreau J, Laforge S, Gnep NS, Guisnet M, J. Catal 2005, 236, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Song F, Liu Y, Wang L, Zhang H, He M, Wu P, in Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal, Elsevier Inc., 2007, pp. 1236–1243. [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Liu L, Cheng M, Ma D, Hu G, Pan X, Bao X, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2006, 94, 304–312. [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Ren L, Guo Q, Orazov M, Xu D, Politi D, Kumar P, Alhassan SM, Mkhoyan KA, Sidiras D, Davis ME, et al. , ChemCatChem 2016, 8, 1274–1278. [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Chen J, Liang T, Li J, Wang S, Qin Z, Wang P, Huang L, Fan W, Wang J, ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 2299–2313. [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Kroeker S, Stebbins JF, Inorg. Chem 2001, 40, 6239–6246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Angel Wong YT, Bryce DL, in Annu. Reports NMR Spectrosc, 2018, 93, 213–279. [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Hwang SJ, Chen CY, Zones SI, J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 18535–18546. [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Leonowicz ME, Lawton JA, Lawton SL, Rubin MK, Science, 1994, 264, 1910–1913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Trebosc J, Hu B, Amoureux JP, Gan Z, J. Magn. Reson 2007, 186, 220–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Venkatesh A, Hanrahan MP, Rossini AJ, Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson 2017, 84, 171–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Tošner Z, Andersen R, Stevensson B, Edén M, Nielsen NC, Vosegaard T, J. Magn. Reson 2014, 246, 79–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Bak M, Rasmussen JT, Nielsen NC, J. Magn. Reson 2000, 147, 296–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Scholle KFMGJ, Veeman WS, Zeolites 1985, 5, 118–122. [Google Scholar]
  • [31].de Ruiter R, Kentgens APM, Grootendorst J, Jansen JC, van Bekkum H, Zeolites 1993, 13, 128–138. [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Robson H, “Verified Synthesis of Zeolitic Materials: Second Edition,” 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Edén M, Zhou D, Yu J, Chem. Phys. Lett 2006, 431, 397–403. [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Wang Q, Hu B, Lafon O, Trébosc J, Deng F, Amoureux JP, J. Magn. Reson 2009, 200, 251–260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Mali G, Fink G, Taulelle F, J. Chem. Phys 2004, 120, 2835–2845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

supp info

RESOURCES