4.7 Article

Controlling cellulose feedstock size allows for modification of cellulose-based carbon-based solid acid size

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 2323-2335

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-022-05028-0

关键词

Carbon-based solid acids; Sulfonation; Hydrolysis; Xylan; Size effect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article examines the impact of raw material size on the shape, sulfonation degree, and catalytic activity of carbon-based solid acids. Different sizes of microcrystalline cellulose, cellulose nanocrystals, and cotton fiber pulp were used as carbon sources to synthesize carbon-based solid acids. The results show that the solid acids generated from microcrystalline cellulose have the most homogeneous shape, highest sulfonation degree, and highest catalytic activity.
Carbon-based solid acids (CSA) have grown in popularity in recent years owing to their strong catalytic activity, thermal stability, and reusability. The size effect has a significant influence on the catalytic activity of carbon-based solid acids in heterogeneous catalysts. The impacts of raw material size on the shape, sulfonation degree, and catalytic activity of produced carbon-based solid acids were examined in this article. Various sizes of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs), and cotton fiber pulp (CP) were used as carbon sources in a simple carbon-sulphonation method to synthesize carbon-based solid acids. The produced CSA has a high concentration of sulphonic acid groups, as well as hydroxyl and carboxyl groups, and exhibits remarkable catalytic activity for the conversion of xylan to xylose. The solid acids generated from MCC have the most homogeneous shape, the greatest degree of sulphonation, and the highest catalytic activity. The conversion rate of xylan hydrolysis to xylose was up to 58.8% under ideal reaction conditions (150 degrees C, 4 h), and the catalyst retained almost its initial level of activity after five cycles with no appreciable deactivation. [GRAPHICS] .

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