4.6 Article

Reduction of CO2 on a Tricarbonyl Rhenium(I) Complex: Modeling a Catalytic Cycle

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 115, 期 13, 页码 2877-2881

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp111342r

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation through the Nanoscale Science & Engineering Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (NSF EEC) [0832785]
  2. Nanomanufacturing Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Lowell [CHE-0910826]
  3. NCSA [TG-CHE100045, TG-CHE100068]
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Engineering Education and Centers [832785] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Chemistry
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0910826] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tricarbonyl rhenium(I) complexes, such as Re(bpy)(CO)(3)Cl where bpy = 2,2'-bipyridyl, have demonstrated superior activity in catalyzing CO2 reduction in the presence of sacrificial electron donors. We have utilized density functional theory (DFT) to investigate a potential pathway for formate production via a rhenium hydride insertion mechanism in the presence of triethylamine (TEA). On the basis of prior studies, we re-examined the role of TEA and studied a catalytic cycle for CO2 reduction in which TEA functions as both the hydrogen atom and the electron donor for reducing CO2 into formate. The catalytic cycle is found to be exothermic with inclusion of solvation and may be viewed as a two-electron reduction of CO2 because the net result is a transfer of hydride from TEA to CO2. In addition, we have identified structures of key intermediates in the CO2-reduction process and found that the insertion step has a very modest barrier in acetonitrile. These findings provide a molecular-level understanding to formate production via CO2 reduction mediated by transition-metal complexes. A theoretical investigation is underway to elucidate the formation of carbon monoxide, another common product in Re-catalyzed CO2 reduction.

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

4.6
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