4.8 Article

Carbon Support Surface Effects in the Gold-Catalyzed Oxidation of 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural

期刊

ACS CATALYSIS
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 4581-4591

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acscatal.7b00829

关键词

selective oxidation; gold nanoparticles; carbon; surface functionalization; 5-hydroxymethylfurfural

资金

  1. European Commission [703861]
  2. NWO Vici [16.130.344]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [703861] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural into 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid is an important transformation for the production of bio-based polymers. Carbon-supported gold catalysts hold great promise for this transformation. Here we demonstrate that the activity, selectivity, and stability of the carbon-supported gold nanoparticles in the oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural strongly depend on the surface properties of the carbon support. Gold nanoparticles supported on basic carbon materials with a low density of functional groups demonstrate higher activity in 5-hydroxymethylfurfural oxidation (TOFAu up to 1195 h(-1)), higher selectivity to 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid, and better stability in comparison to gold nanoparticles supported on carbon materials with acidic surface groups. Surface groups of basic carbon supports that are positively charged under the reaction conditions result in a higher adsorption and local concentration of hydroxyl ions, which act as cocatalysts for gold and enhance gold-catalyzed dehydrogenation. Negatively charged surface groups of acidic carbons repel hydroxyls and the intermediate monoacid anions, which leads to lower reaction rates and a high selectivity toward 2,5-hydroxymethylfurancarboxylic acid. Understanding the role of support surface charge and local hydroxyl anion concentration provides a basis for the rational design of the optimal carbon support surface chemistry for highly active, selective, and stable catalysts for the oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and related reactions.

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

4.8
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