4.5 Article

Kinetic study on the impact of acidity and acid concentration on the formation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), humins, and levulinic acid in the hydrothermal conversion of fructose

期刊

BIOMASS CONVERSION AND BIOREFINERY
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 1155-1170

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13399-019-00507-0

关键词

Kinetic study; HMF; Hydrothermal conversion; Homogenous catalyst; Acidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the impact of acidity on the kinetic parameters of fructose hydrothermal conversion, revealing a non-linear relationship between the dehydration of fructose to HMF and the rehydration of HMF to LA with proton concentration. The formation rate of humins, on the other hand, shows a linear dependence on proton concentration with low sensitivity.
In order to optimize the production of biobased platform chemicals, such as 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and levulinic acid (LA), from biomass and sugars, reaction conditions have to be optimized. This article assesses the impact of acidity on the kinetic parameters of the hydrothermal conversion of fructose at 150 degrees C. The reaction parameters were varied in time (5-180 min), acid (NaHSO4, H3PO4, citric acid, and formic acid), and acid concentration (0.016 to 1.6 mol/l). The experimental data were evaluated with a novel kinetic model that includes the formation of HMF, LA, and humins. While it was expected that the dehydration rate of fructose to HMF and rehydration rate of HMF to levulinic acid depend linearly on the proton concentration, the results show that there is actually an exponential relationship. This can be explained by the participation of the acid rest ion in the dehydration and rehydration reactions. In contrast, the humin formation rate depends linearly on the proton concentration, and also, the sensitivity of this relationship is rather low. This clarifies why high acid concentrations or proton concentrations, respectively, increase the formation of LA to an expense of the humin formation.

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

4.5
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