4.8 Article

Recycling Nanoparticle Catalysts without Separation Based on a Pickering Emulsion/Organic Biphasic System

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 1888-1900

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201400142

关键词

heterogeneous catalysis; hydrogenation; nanoparticles; Pickering emulsions; water chemistry

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [20903064, 21173137]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NECT-12-1030]
  3. Program for the Top Young Academic Leaders of Higher Learning Institutions of Shanxi [2011002]
  4. Middle-Aged Innovative Talents of Higher Learning Institutions of Shanxi [20120202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A conceptually novel methodology is explored for in situ recycling of nanoparticle catalysts based on transforming a conventional organic/aqueous biphasic system into a Pickering emulsion/organic biphasic system (PEOBS). The suggested PEOBS exists as two phases, with the nanoparticle catalyst anchored in the Pickering emulsion phase, but is continuous between the organic phase and the continuous phase of the Pickering emulsion. Aqueous hydrogenations are used to evaluate the reaction performances of PEOBS, and the underlying principles of PEOBS are preliminarily elaborated. The unique properties of PEOBS lead to many intriguing findings, which are unlikely to be achieved in the reported biphasic systems. PEOBS exhibits more than a fourfold enhancement in catalysis efficiency in comparison with a conventional biphasic system. Impressively, PEOBS enables the organic product to be facilely isolated through simple decantation and the nanoparticle catalyst can be recycled in situ without the need for separation. Its recycling effectiveness is justified by ten reaction cycles without significant catalyst loss. The simple protocol, in conjunction with the stability to simultaneously achieve high catalysis efficiency and excellent catalyst recyclability, makes PEOBS a promising methodology to develop more sustainable nanocatalysis.

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