4.8 Article

Catalytic performance and stability of (V) MIL-47 and (Ti) MIL-125 in the oxidative desulfurization of heterocyclic aromatic sulfur compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 305, 期 -, 页码 217-226

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2013.05.021

关键词

MOFs; Heterogeneous; Catalysis; Desulfurization; Oxidation; MIL-47; MIL-125; Stability

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-1125145]
  2. Sustainable Energy Initiative, Center for Sustainable Energy (cSEND) at the University of Notre Dame
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1125145] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Ti-based metal organic framework (MOF), MIL-125 (MIL stands for Material from Institut Lavoisier), and a V-based MOF, MIL-47, were synthesized and tested for their catalytic activity in the oxidation of three heterocyclic sulfur compounds (dibenzothiophene, benzothiophene, and thiophene). Dibenzothiophene (DBT) oxidation studies were used to determine kinetic parameters, and activation energies for MIL-47 and MIL-125 were found to be 51 kJ/mol and 75 kJ/mol, respectively. Benzothiophene and thiophene oxidation studies were used to show that the greater catalytic activity of MIL-47 was not simply due to the limited accessibility to the active sites of MIL-125 in the pores but rather was also a function of the type of metal center. MIL-125 had faster reaction rates in the oxidation of thiophene than DBT, which indicated that catalysis occurs on the surface of the catalyst as well as in the pores. Without DBT, however, MIL-47 degraded first into MIL-47as and then eventually 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (BDC) and vanadium oxide in the presence of tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP) alone. This degradation occurred even at lower temperatures in the presence of TBHP for 0.5 h. MIL-125, however, was stable in the presence of TBHP even under harsh reaction conditions (24 h at 100 degrees C) (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据