4.2 Article

Selective Hydrogenation of Maleic Anhydride to Succinic Anhydride over Nickel Catalyst Supported on Carbon Microspheres

出版社

CHINA PETROLEUM PROCESSING & PETROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY PRESS

关键词

carbon microsphere; nickel catalyst; hydrogenation; maleic anhydride; succinic anhydride

资金

  1. Project of Research and Development Fund of Nanchong City [19YFZJ0107, 18YFZJ0041]
  2. Meritocracy Research Funds of China West Normal University [17YC041]
  3. Undergraduate Training Program for Innovation of China West Normal University [cxcy2020186]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The colloidal carbon microspheres (CMS) were prepared using the hydrothermal method, and nickel catalysts supported on carbon microspheres (Ni/CMS) were further studied. The Ni/CMS catalyst, prepared with glucose as the carbon source, exhibited the best performance in selectively hydrogenating maleic anhydride to succinic anhydride under mild conditions.
The colloidal carbon microspheres (CMS) were prepared by the hydrothermal method. The nickel catalysts supported on carbon microspheres (Ni/CMS) were further prepared and were characterized by the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), the X-ray diffraction (XRD), the scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and the N-2 adsorption technique. The selective hydrogenation of maleic anhydride (MA) to succinic anhydride (SA) over the Ni/CMS catalysts was investigated. The results indicated that the Ni/CMS catalyst, which was prepared with glucose as carbon source and calcined at 500 degrees C, exhibited the best performance. The hydrogen pressure. reaction temperature, and reaction time could significantly affect the conversion of maleic anhydride during the hydrogenation reaction. A 98.4% conversion of MA and an 100% selectivity to SA were achieved over the Ni/CMS catalyst in acetic anhydride solvent under mild conditions covering a temperature of 90 degrees C, a H-2 pressure of 1.0 MPa, and a reaction time of 3 h.

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

4.2
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