4.7 Article

Acidic ionic liquid catalyzed liquefactions of corn cobs and switchgrass in acetone: Analysis of bio-oils using LC-MS and GC-MS

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2019.104752

关键词

Corn cobs; Switchgrass; Acidic ionic liquid; Acetone; Liquefaction

资金

  1. United States National Science Foundation (NSF) [CBET-1704144, HRD-1036593]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) [CBG-2010-38821-21569]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The liquefaction of corn cobs and switchgrass was studied using 1-(3-propylsulfonic)-3-methylimidazolium chloride and 1-(4-butylsulfonic)-3-methylimidazolium chloride Bronsted acidic ionic liquids as catalysts in acetone at 120 degrees C for 5 h. The highest biomass conversions to liquefied bio-oil for corn cobs and switchgrass are 63.4 +/- 0.9 and 56.4 +/- 0.9 % (w/w) respectively. The liquefied products were fractionated to polar and non-polar fractions by solvent extractions and analyzed using liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The weights of polar fraction : non-polar fraction was 2 : 1 for all liquefied bio-oils. Sixteen products were identified from the polar fractions of liquefied bio-oils, whereas nineteen products were identified from methylene chloride soluble non-polar fractions. The compounds formed as a result of cross aldol condensations of biomass derived furans furfural and 5-hydrxymrthylfurfural with one or more acetone molecules were identified in bio-oils. Four lignin derived compounds were also found in nonpolar factions of liquefied bio-oils. Corn cobs with higher hemicellulose content produced higher liquefaction product yields indicating that hemicellulose is more easily liquefied under the conditions used. The two catalysts, 1-(3-propylsulfonic)-3-methylimidazolium chloride and 1-(4-butylsulfonic)-3-methylimidazolium chloride produced practically comparable liquefaction yields, showing that structural effect of one methylene group in the catalyst is not significant.

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

4.7
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