4.5 Article

Effect of different supports for copper as catalysts on glycerol hydrogenolysis to 1,2-propanediol

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101417

关键词

Copper; Comparison support; Acidity; Hydrogenolysis; 1; 2-PDO

资金

  1. Universiti Putra Malaysia for Geran Inisiatif Putra Siswazah [GP-IPS/2018/9619500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several copper supported catalysts were prepared and tested in the hydrogenolysis of glycerol, with Cu/Dol catalyst displaying superior performance due to the mutual interaction between copper and dolomite species. The presence of copper species enriched on dolomite grain surfaces, enhanced redox and acidic properties, and small catalyst size contributed to high glycerol conversion and 1,2-PDO selectivity.
In this work, several copper supported catalysts, Cu/Dol, Cu/Al2O3, Cu/Bent, Cu/Mont, and Cu/Talc were prepared using wet impregnation route and characterized using BET, BJH, XRD, H2-TPR, NH3-TPD, and SEM analytical techniques and subsequently tested in hydrogenolysis of glycerol to 1,2-propanediol (1,2-PDO). The nature of support was found to determine the activation of the catalysts. Among the tested catalysts, dolomite supported copper catalyst (Cu/Dol) exhibited superior performance due to the copper and dolomite species mutual interaction. The findings from the various characterization tests showed that the presence of copper species were essentially enriched on the dolomite grain surfaces, the redox properties, and acidic property of the catalyst enhanced, as well as the formation of the small size of the catalyst (Cu/Dol) contributed to the high conversion of glycerol (78.5%) and high 1,2-PDO selectivity (79%) with low methanol production as the by-product at 200 degrees C, 4 MPa H2 and 10 h reaction conditions. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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