4.2 Article

Densification of biorefinery schemes by H-transfer with Raney Ni and 2-propanol: A case study of a potential avenue for valorization of alkyl levulinates to alkyl γ-hydroxypentanoates and γ-valerolactone

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR CATALYSIS A-CHEMICAL
卷 388, 期 -, 页码 106-115

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.molcata.2013.11.031

关键词

gamma-Valerolactone; Alkyl gamma-hydroxypentanoates; Raney Ni; Transfer hydrogenation; One-pot synthesis

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. CNPq
  3. Brazilian Federal Government
  4. Excellence Initiative by the German Federal and State Governments to promote science and research at German universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alkyl gamma-hydroxypentanoates and gamma-valerolactone are promising platform chemicals that can be produced from alkyl levulinates in the lignocellulosic biorefinery. Accordingly, this report aims to provide in-depth insight into the molecular aspects involved in the conversion of alkyl levulinates by H-transfer catalyzed by Raney Ni and using 2-propanol as an H-donor and solvent. We demonstrate this methodology as a highly flexible approach in regard to the high degree of control over the product selectivity. In fact, up to 90% yield of alkyl gamma-hydroxypentanoates is obtained at temperatures as low as 298 K. In turn, 94% yield of gamma-valerolactone is achieved at 393 K. In order to shed light on the fundamental aspects of this chemical route, we address: (1) the energetics of the transfer vs. conventional hydrogenation of methyl levulinate, (2) the thermal stability of methyl gamma-hydroxypentanoate in the absence and in the presence of solid catalyst, and (3) the stability of Raney Ni in the conversion of several alkyl levulinates. Lastly, a process concept based on the current results is also proposed. This concept provides a comprehensive overview of the practical possibilities of this process as part of the lignocellulose-based biorefineries. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.2
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