4.6 Article

Structural Defects, Lewis Acidity, and Catalysis Properties of Mesostructured WO3/SBA-15 Nanocatalysts

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 121, 期 43, 页码 23988-23999

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06373

关键词

-

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technologia de Mexico (CONACyT-Mexico)
  2. Mexican Petroleum Institute
  3. [SIP-20161182]
  4. [SIP-20161343]
  5. [SIP-20171266]
  6. [SIP-20170628]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the first time, creation of oxygen defects in the crystalline structure of WO3/SBA-15 catalysts and its correlation with Lewis acidity and catalytic activity in the oxidation of 4,6-dimethyldibenzothiophene (4,6-DMDBT) in a model diesel were reported. All the WO3/SBA-15 catalysts predominantly contained Lewis acid sites and some oxygen defects in the crystalline structure of WO3. The oxygen defect concentration increased from 1.67% to 16.66% per lattice cell unit, and the number of Lewis acid sites varied from 92 to 458 mu tmol/g as the WO3 content increased from 5 to 25 wt %. The 4,6-DMDBT conversion was almost proportional to both the number of Lewis acid sites and oxygen defects. Formic acid addition led to formation of peroxyformic acid which coordinated with surface W6+ to generate reactive oxygen species like peroxometallic complex, improving oxidant stability and 4,6-DMDBT oxidation efficiency. More than 99% of 4,6-DMDBT was removed with the best 25 wt % WO3/SBA-15 catalyst within 15 min of reaction under the optimal condition. A reaction mechanism involving peroxometallic complexes formation, 4,6-DMDBT molecules adsorption, and surface oxidation reaction on structural defects and vanadia nanoparticles was proposed. This biphasic reaction system consisting of a catalyst bearing Lewis acid site, a green oxidant, an oxidant promoter, and a polar solvent would simultaneously perform the oxidation and separation of polyaromatic sulfur compounds in one operation which was very practical for ultralow sulfur diesel production.

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