4.6 Article

Anion Exchange Membrane Electrolyzers as Alternative for Upgrading of Biomass-Derived Molecules

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 8458-8467

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00650

关键词

Electrochemical reduction; Biomass-derived platform molecules; Furfural; Anion exchange membrane

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office
  2. [DE-AC07-05ID14517]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upgrading of biomass-derived platform molecules to fuels or chemicals provides a unique alternative for the substitution of fossil sources with renewables. Electrochemical reduction (ECR) is one of the upgrading technologies, alternative to catalytic reduction, which only requires electricity as the energy input and can be powered by carbon free energy sources. Moreover, ECR does not require external addition of hydrogen, as this can be generated in situ. In this work, an anion exchange membrane (AEM) membrane electrode assembly (MEA) has been tested for the efficient reduction of biomass derived molecules and compared with a cation exchange membrane (CEM) MEA. The cathode electrocatalyst has been modified with the addition of hydrophobicity and anion exchange ionomers and incorporated onto an anion exchange membrane. Electrochemical experiments were performed with a metal free electrocatalyst in the presence and absence of surrogate compounds. The results showed that changes in the catalyst formulation can increase the overpotential for the competing hydrogen evolution reaction (HER), while significantly enhancing the reduction of the organic molecules. Bulk electrolysis experiments demonstrated higher efficiencies for furfural ECR in AEM-MEA vs CEM-MEA, reaching conversions up to 94% at 50 mA cm(-2) and in the absence of a supporting electrolyte. Moreover, AEM-MEA was able to facilitate water management during the reduction process and contribute to the separation of small carboxylic acids.

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