4.7 Review

Catalysts for glycerol hydrogenolysis to 1,3-propanediol: A review of chemical routes and market

期刊

CATALYSIS TODAY
卷 381, 期 -, 页码 243-253

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2020.06.035

关键词

Glycerol; Hydrogenolysis; 1; 3-propanediol; Catalytic routes; Market

资金

  1. RCGI Research Centre for Gas Innovation
  2. FAPESP - the State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation [2014/50279-4]
  3. Shell Brasil
  4. FAPESB - the State of Bahia Research Foundation
  5. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES - Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1,3-Propanediol (1,3-PDO) is obtained from renewable and environmentally friendly glycerol, with high cost genetically modified microorganisms currently used in industrial production. Studies have shown that platinum, iridium, and copper are the most promising metals, with Brønsted sites responsible for higher selectivity and Lewis sites influencing reaction rates.
1,3-propanediol (1,3-PDO) is obtained from renewable and environmentally friendly glycerol. The current industrial production uses high cost genetically modified microorganisms. Researchers have studied heterogeneous catalysts for more efficient processes leading to higher competitiveness in the 1,3-PDO market. In this context, a review of studies involving chemical routes for its production was performed, evaluating process variables and, in particular, the influence of active acid and metallic phases on the activity and selectivity to the desired product. Platinum, iridium, and copper were verified to be the most promising metals. Bronsted sites are responsible for the higher selectivity to 1,3-PDO, while the reaction rate strongly depends on Lewis sites since glycerol adsorption takes place in these sites. Moreover, in order to decrease operating costs, important parameters such as temperature, glycerol concentration in the feed stream and the reactor type must be optimized.

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