4.6 Article

Catalytic hydrogenation of xylose to xylitol using ruthenium catalyst on NiO modified TiO2 support

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 425, 期 -, 页码 110-116

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2012.03.007

关键词

Hydrogenation; Xylose; Xylitol; Ruthenium; NiO modified TiO2 support

资金

  1. KRICT [SI-1201]
  2. cooperative RD Program [B551179-10-03-00]
  3. Korea Research Council Industrial Science and Technology, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The activity of Ru catalyst on a new class of NiO modified TiO2 support, Ru/(NiO-TiO2), was studied in the liquid phase catalytic hydrogenation of xylose to xylitol. The TiO2 support was modified by simple impregnation method using nickel chloride precursor and subsequent oxidation. Various catalysts with different targeted compositions of Ru (1.0 and 5.0 wt%) and NiO (1.0, 5.0 and 10 wt%) in NiO-TiO2 were prepared. These catalysts were characterized by using energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX/EDS), temperature-programmed reduction (TPR), inductively coupled plasma (ICP) mass spectrometry, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) and CO chemisorption. The novel catalysts are evaluated for selective hydrogenation of xylose and the results compared with those obtained from conventional Raney Ni, Ru/C and Ru/TiO2 catalysts carried out under identical reaction conditions. The effect of NiO additive in the catalyst Ru/(NiO-TiO2), clearly found to enhance the conversion, yield and selectivity to xylitol. Furthermore, the order of catalytic activity may be given as Ru (1.0%)/NiO (5.0%)-TiO2 > Ru (1.0%)/TiO2 > Ru (1.0%)/C> Raney Ni. The effects of Ru and NiO loading, xylose concentration (2.5, 15 and 30 wt%) and temperature (100, 120 and 140 degrees C) were studied. Although at higher temp 140 degrees C, the conversion of xylose was increased to optimum level, xylose to xylitol selectivity decreased due to formation of by-products. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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