4.8 Review

Bridging the Chemical and Biological Catalysis Gap: Challenges and Outlooks for Producing Sustainable Chemicals

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 2060-2069

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/cs500364y

关键词

heterogeneous catalysis; biocatalysis; biomass; biogenic impurities; catalyst stability; active site design; biorenewable chemicals

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EEC-0813570]
  2. Institute for Atom-efficient Chemical Transformations (IACT)
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  4. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program [DGE-1256259]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in metabolic engineering have allowed for the production of a wide array of molecules via biocatalytic routes. The high selectivity of biocatalysis to remove functionality from biomass can be used to produce platform molecules that are suitable for subsequent upgrading over heterogeneous catalysts. Accordingly, the more robust continuous processing allowed by chemical catalysis could be leveraged to upgrade biologically derived platform molecules to produce direct or functional replacements for petroleum products. Herein, we highlight recent results that utilize a combination of chemical and biological catalysis, and using the perspective of heterogeneous chemical catalysis, we identify challenges that need to be addressed to bridge the gap between the two catalytic approaches. Specifically, studies are required to address the effects on catalyst performance of impurities that originate during bioprocessing. In addition, new generations of heterogeneous catalysts are required for stable operation under liquid phase reaction conditions in the presence of biogenic impurities. Finally, the design and syntheses of new catalysts are required to tailor the active sites and the environment around these sites to achieve selective conversion of the functional groups present in biologically derived platform molecules.

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