4.5 Article

Comparative study of catalytic activity of tetrameric lanthanide-substituted polyoxotungstates [(Ln2XW10O38)4(W3O8)(OH)4(H2O)2]n- (X = SiIV, GeIV & PV and n=26 or 25) for the oxidation of alcohols

期刊

INORGANICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 536, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.ica.2022.120893

关键词

Polyoxometalates; Catalysis; Alcohol oxidation; Tungsten; Lanthanides

资金

  1. University of Delhi, SERB-DST [EMR/2016/002812, IoE/2021/12/FRP-96]
  2. CSIR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The catalytic activity of tetrameric lanthanide-substituted phospho, germano, and silicotungstate compounds was investigated for the oxidation of alcohol derivatives. The study found that the lanthanide-substituted phosphotungstates exhibited better catalytic activity compared to the silico and germanotungstate analogues. The reaction was carried out in an environmentally friendly solvent (water) in the presence of a green oxidant (H2O2). The recovered catalysts were characterized using FT-IR spectroscopy and powder X-ray diffraction. The catalysts showed stability and could be reused with only a slight decrease in catalytic activity after five consecutive cycles.
The catalytic activity of tetrameric lanthanide-substituted phospho, germano and silicotungstate with the formula [(Ln(2)XW(10)O(38))(4)(W3O8)(OH)(4)(H2O)(2)](n-) (X = Si-IV, Ge-IV & P-V and n = 26 or 25) {Ln(8)X(4)W(40)} = (X = Si-IV, Ge-IV or P-V) has been investigated for the oxidation of alcohol derivatives in homogeneous medium. The comparative study shows that the lanthanide-substituted phosphotungstates possesses better catalytic activity over the silico and germanotungstate analogues. The reaction was carried out in eco-friendly solvent (water) in presence of green oxidant (H2O2). The recovered catalysts were characterized by FT-IR spectroscopy and powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD). The catalysts are stable and can be recovered even after five consecutive cycles of reaction with only a slight loss in its catalytic activity.

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