10.1002/cctc.202000712
ChemCatChem
FULL PAPER
Characterization. The powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of
fresh catalyst, and the conversion and selectivity were calculated
based on the average of the five-times measurements and
relative error was within 1%.
the samples were obtained on
a D8 Advanced X-ray
diffractometer (Bruker) using with a Cu Kα radiation source (λ =
0.15406 nm) at a voltage of 40 kV and a current of 40 mA. The
morphological and structural details of the samples were
investigated using
a
FEI Talos-S transmission electron
Acknowledgements
microscope (TEM) with an accelerating voltage of 200 kV. The
textural properties of the samples were determined by N2
adsorption−desorption isotherms at -196 °C using a Micromeritics
ASAP 2020 instrument. The H2-TPR and NH3-TPD
measurements of the calcined samples were carried out on a
This work was financially supported by Zhejiang Provincial
Natural Science Foundation of China (LQ17B060001) and
National Natural Science Foundation of China (21706239).
Micromeritics AutoChem 2920 instrument with
a thermal
Keywords: Guaiacol • Selective hydrogenolysis • Phenol • Ni-
Based catalysts • SBA-15
conductivity detector. The solid-state NMR spectra of the samples
were recorded on a Bruker 400 MHZ Ultra-Shield spectrometer
with a resonance frequency of 104.3 MHz for 27Al detection. The
adsorption of pyridine was performed on a Thermo Fisher iS 50
FT-IR spectrometer equipped with a DTGS detector at an optical
resolution of 4 cm-1 by carrying out 64 scans. The surface analysis
of the reduced catalysts was conducted with an X-ray
photoelectron spectrometer (XPS) (ESCALAB 250, Thermo
Fisher) equipped with a monochromatized Al Kα X-ray source (hv
= 1486.6 eV) and a pass energy of 40 eV.
Catalytic Hydrogenolysis. The catalytic reaction was carried out
with a 300 mL batch reactor (Parr 4566, made of Hastelloy)
equipped with a temperature controller (Parr 4848). In a typical
run, 3.00 g of guaiacol, 0.20 g of catalyst, and 100 mL of deionized
water were loaded into the reactor. The reactor was then
evacuated and purged with high-purity nitrogen for five times and
finally pressurized to the desired pressure with hydrogen. The
sealed reactor was then heated to 120 oC with a stirring speed of
700 rpm. After the reaction, the reactor was quenched to ambient
temperature using piping water, and the liquid products were
collected using ethanol as solvent and analyzed by an Agilent
7890B gas chromatography (GC) with a flame ionization detector
and an Agilent 7890-5975 GC−mass spectroscopy (GC−MS).
Sym-trimethylbenzene was used as an internal standard to
calibrate the liquid product concentrations. Two HP-5 MS capillary
columns (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) were used in the two GCs
for the analysis. For the reusability test, after the reaction, the
catalyst was separated from the reaction medium, repeatedly
washed with ethanol twice, and then dried overnight in a vacuum
oven at 80 oC.
[1]
[2]
[3]
a) C. Li, X. Zhao, A. Wang, G. W. Huber, T. Zhang, Chem. Rev. 2015,
115, 11559–11624; b) W. Schutyser, T. Renders, S. V. Van den Bosch,
S.-F. Koelewijn, G. T. Beckham, B. F. Sels, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47,
852–908.
a) E. M. Anderson, R. Katahira, M. Reed, M. G. Resch, E. M. Karp, G. T.
Beckham, Y. Román-Leshkov, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2016, 4,
6940–6950; b) R. Ma, W. Y. Hao, X. L. Ma, Y Tian, Y. D. Li, Chem. Int.
Ed. 2014, 126, 7438-7443.
a) M. V. Bykova, D. Y. Ermakov, V. V. Kaichev, O. A. Bulavchenko, A. A.
Saraev, M. Y. Lebedev, Appl. Catal. B 2012, 113, 296–307; b) L. Jiang,
H. W. Guo, C. Z. Li, P. Zhou, Z. H. Zhang, Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 4458-
4468.
[4]
[5]
a) R. Y. Shu, Y. Xu, L. L. Ma, Q. Zhang, P. R. Chen, T. J. Wang, Catal.
Commun. 2017, 91, 1-5; b) A. Bjelić, M. Grilc, S. Gyergyek, A. Kocjan, D.
Makovec, B. Likozar, Catalysts 2018, 8, 425.
a) C. A. Teles, P. M. de Souza, R. C. Rabelo-Neto, M. B. Griffin, C.
Mukarakate, K. A. Orton, D. E. Resasco, F. B. Noronha, Appl. Catal. B
2018, 238, 38–50; b) H. Shafaghat, I. G. Lee, J. Jae, S. C. Jung, Y. K.
Park, Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 377, 119986; c) J. B. Mao, J. X. Zhou, Z. Xia,
Z. G. Wang, Z. W. Xu, W. J. Xu, P. F.Yan, K. R. Liu, X. W. Guo, Z. Zhang,
ACS Catal. 2017, 7, 695−705. d) C. Alvarez, K. Cruces, R. Garcia, C.
Sepulveda, J. L. G. Fierro, I. T. Ghampson, N. Escalon, Appl. Catal., A
2017, 547, 256-264; e) M. H. Lu, H. Du, B. Wei, J. Zhu, M. S. Li, Y. H.
Shan,, J. Y. Shen, C. S. Song, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 12070-
12079; f) M. Tymchyshyna, Z. S. Yuan, Y. S. Zhang, C. C. Xu, Fuel 2019,
254, 115664; g) W. Jin, J. L. Santos, L. P. Perez, S. Gu, M. A. Centeno,
T. R. Reina, ChemCatChem 2019, 11, 1-9; h) X. Wang, R. Rinaldi,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 11499–11503.
[6]
[7]
a) X. W. Xu, E. C. Jiang, Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 2855−2864; b) X. H.
Liu, W. D. Jia, G. Y. Xu, Y. Zhang, Y. Fu, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.
2017, 5, 8594−8601; c) L. Yang, K. Seshan, Y. D. Li, Catal. Today 2017,
298, 276-297.
Equations (2) and (3) were used to calculate the conversion
of guaiacol and the selectivities for the products, respectively. The
carbon balances were typically within ±5%, calculated by
comparing the total mole of carbon in the reactant with the one in
the products. Hence, the selectivities were calculated, based on
the GC observable products.
a) T. Prasomsri, M. Shetty, K. Murugappan, Y. Roman-Leshkov, Energy
Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 2660-2669; b) R. Ma, K. Cui, L. Yang, X. L. Ma, Y.
D. Li, Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 10299-10301; c) C.-C. Tran, Y. L. Han,
M. Garcia-Perezb, S. Kaliaguine, Catal. Sci. Technol. 2019, 9, 1387–
1397; d) F. G. Baddour, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 11433–
11439.
[8]
[9]
a) Z. C. Luo, Z. X. Zheng, L. Li, Y.-T. Cui, C. Zhao, ACS Catal. 2017, 7,
8304−8313; b) Y. H. Hu, G. C. Jiang, G. Q. Xu, X. D. Mu, Mol. Catal.
2018, 445, 316–326; d) M. B. Griffin, F. G. Baddour, S. E. Habas, C. P.
Nash, D. A. Ruddy, J. A. Schaidle, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2017, 7, 2954-
2966.
n0GUA - nGUA
Conversion of guaiacol: Conv. GUA
=
×100% (2)
n0GUA
M. H. Zhou, J. Ye, P. Liu, J. M. Xu, J. C. Jiang, ACS Sustainable Chem.
Eng. 2017, 5, 8824−8835.
ni
Selectivity for product: Sel.=
×100%
(3)
n0GUA - nGUA
[10] F. Broglia, L. Rimoldi, D. Meroni, S. De Vecchi, M. Morbidelli, S.
Ardizzone, Fuel 2019, 243, 501–508.
[11] D. Zhao, Q. Huo, J. Feng, B. F. Chmelka, G. D. Stucky, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1998, 120, 6024−6036.
where n0GUA and nGUA depict the carbon moles of guaiacol before
and after the reaction, respectively, and ni is the mole number of
product i. All the experiments were repeated five times for each
[12] a) X. Q. Chang, W. S. Wang, B. S. Liu, L. Z. Huang, F. Subhan,
Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2018, 268, 276–284; b) S. Lin, L. Shi,
8
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.