4.7 Article

Mixed solvents for cellulose derivatization under homogeneous conditions: kinetic, spectroscopic, and theoretical studies on the acetylation of the biopolymer in binary mixtures of an ionic liquid and molecular solvents

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 1193-1204

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-014-0184-8

关键词

Kinetics of Cellulose acetylation; Ionic liquids; Mixtures of ionic liquids with molecular solvents; 1-Allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride; N,N-dimethylacetamide; Acetonitrile; Molecular dynamics simulation of cellulose dissolution

资金

  1. TWAS (The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World)
  2. CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Research)
  3. FAPESP (Sao Paulo research Foundation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rate constants for the acetylation of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), by ethanoic anhydride in the presence of increasing concentrations of the ionic liquid (IL), 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride in dipolar aprotic solvents (DAS), N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAC), and acetonitrile (MeCN), have been calculated from conductivity data. The third order rate constants showed a linear dependence on [IL]. We explain this result by assuming that the reacting cellulose is hydrogen-bonded to the IL. This is corroborated by kinetic data of the acetylation of cyclohexylmethanol, FTIR of the latter compound and of cellobiose in mixtures of IL/DAS, and conductivity of the binary solvent mixtures in absence, and presence of MCC. Cellulose acetylation is faster in IL/DMAC than in IL/MeCN; this difference is explained based on solvatochromic data (empirical polarity and basicity) and molecular dynamics simulations. Results of the latter indicate hydrogen-bond formation between the hydroxyl groups of the anhydroglucose unit of MCC, (Cl-) of the IL, and the dipole of the DMAC. Under identical experimental conditions, acetylation in IL/DMAC is faster than that in LiCl/DMAC (2.7-8 times), due to differences in the enthalpies and entropies of activation.

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

4.7
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