4.6 Article

High yield production of HMF from carbohydrates over silica-alumina composite catalysts

期刊

CATALYSIS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 20, 页码 7586-7596

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6cy01628f

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91545103, 21273071, 21403065]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [13JC1401902, 10dz2220500]
  3. Rhone-Alpes area

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An efficient and selective production of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) from carbohydrates is achieved in the presence of mesoporous AlSiO catalysts in a THF/H2O-NaCl biphasic system. These mesoporous AlSiO catalysts are prepared by a facile sol-gel method and have tunable acidity. Their acidic sites are characterized and quantified by NH3-TPD, microcalorimetry of NH3 adsorption and Py-FTIR, then correlated with the catalytic isomerization and dehydration of glucose to HMF. The detailed studies show that the AlSiO-20 catalyst with a Si/Al ratio of 18 is favorable for HMF production due to its inherently high surface area, high amounts of acid sites and a suitable Bronsted/Lewis acid ratio. Over the AlSiO-20 catalyst, an HMF yield of 63.1% is obtained at 160 degrees C for 1.5 h in the biphasic THF/H2O-NaCl medium with 10 wt% glucose in water. Further conducting the amplification experiment 30 times, the HMF yield still reaches 60.2% and the yield has no obvious decline after four catalytic cycles; this is the best result for an amplification experiment of HMF from glucose over a heterogeneous catalyst so far. After separation, HMF can be used for the production of 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) and as high as 95% FDCA yield is obtained over the Pt/C catalyst. Furthermore, the AlSiO catalyst demonstrates excellent activity in the conversion of disaccharides, polysaccharides and even lignocellulosic biomass, indicating it would be a promising catalyst for the conversion of glucose and glucose-based carbohydrates to HMF in industry applications.

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

4.6
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