4.7 Article

Study on the esterification for ethylene glycol diacetate using supported ionic liquids as catalyst: Catalysts preparation, characterization, and reaction kinetics, process

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 280, 期 -, 页码 147-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.096

关键词

Supported ionic liquids; Ethylene glycol diacetate; Pseudo-homogeneous kinetic model; Esterification; Reactive distillation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21306025, 21176049]
  2. International S&T Cooperation Program of China [2013DFR90540]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2014Y0066, 2012J01034]
  4. Department of Education of Fujian Province [JA14338]
  5. Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Fujian [2014J06004]
  6. New Century Excellent Talents in Fujian Province University [JA12014]
  7. Science and Technology Development Fund of Fuzhou University [2012-XQ-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three supported ionic liquids (SILs) were synthesized and characterized. And the catalytic activity for the preparation of ethylene glycol diacetate (EGDA) via the esterification of ethylene glycol (EG) and acetic acid were studied. Among them, [Silica-Ps-im]HSO4 performed best and was chosen as catalyst for further study. The reaction kinetics experiments were carried out to correlate the parameters in a pseudo-homogeneous second order kinetic model. It has been found that there is good agreement between the calculated values and experimental data. In order to enhance the conversion of EG and yield of EGDA, a batch reactive distillation experimental apparatus was set up. A high conversion of EG of 100% and yield of EGDA of 99.14% were obtained under the optimal reaction conditions. The reusability test shows that [Silica-Ps-im]HSO4 catalyst has excellent utility for repeated use, the ease of its isolation from reaction mixture by simple filtration is beneficial from an economical point of view. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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