Green Chemistry
Paper
one hour. The liquid products were extracted with diethyl
ether and analyzed using a was a Varian CP-3800 gas
chromatograph coupled with a Varian Saturn 2200 mass
spectrometer (GC/MS/MS) (please see ESI† for details). The
weight of solid residue was determined after drying in an oven
at 105 °C and for the experiments involving Pd/C, temperature
programmed oxidation (TPO) method was used to determine
the amount of solid residue produced.
4.1. Analysis of products
4.1.1. Gas analysis. On cooling, the gas samples (especially
when formic acid had been used) were sampled for offline ana-
lysis. The analytical protocol used for gas products analysis
has been widely published.27,28 Briefly, the gas samples were
analysed using three packed column gas chromatographs. The
permanent gases, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon
monoxide, were separated on a molecular sieve column and
analysed using a Varian CP-3380 gas chromatograph with a
Thermal Conductivity Detector (GC/TCD). Hydrocarbon gases,
C1 to C4, were separated on a Haysesp column and analysed
using a second Varian CP-3380 gas chromatograph with a
Flame Ionisation Detector (GC/FID). Carbon dioxide was ana-
lysed using a third gas chromatograph fitted with a TCD. The
results obtained from the GCs were given as a volume percent
and were converted into masses of each gas using the ideal gas
equation.
After gas analysis, the reactor was opened to sample the
contents (liquid and solids) into a beaker and weighed. The
reactor contents were transferred into a clean glass bottle,
followed by rinsing with 30 ml of diethyl ether as solvent and
re-weighed. The mixtures were filtered under vacuum to
separate the solids from the liquids. The solids retained on the
filter paper were dried in an oven at 105 °C for 2 h and
weighed. The weight of solid residue was subtracted from the
weight of the reactor contents to obtain the weight of the
liquid products (less weight of solvent used).
Fig. 8 Picture showing the different fractions of the liquid products;
(a) extracted aqueous phase, (b) clear ether extract and, (c) water-
soluble semi-solid fraction from ether phase.
(GC/MS/MS) fitted with a 30 m DB-5 equivalent column. For
the GC/MS/MS analysis, 2 μl of the diethyl ether extract were
injected into the GC injector port at a temperature of 290 °C;
the oven programme temperature was 35 °C for 8 min, then
ramped to 120 °C at 5 °C min−1 heating rate, held for 1 min
and ramped at 4 °C min−1 to 210 °C and finally ramped at
20 °C min−1 to 280 °C (total analysis time of 55.5 min). The
transfer temperature line was at 280 °C, manifold at 120 °C
and the ion trap temperature was held at 200 °C. The ion trap
was initially switched off for 8 min to allow the elution of the
solvent prior to data acquisition to safeguard the life of the
trap. The compounds present in the extracts were quantified
by internal standard method with 2-hydroxyacetophenone as
internal standard (IS). List of compounds and the properties
used for their quantitative analysis are shown in the ESI.†
References
In all cases, the liquid products were partitioned by liquid–
liquid extraction technique in a separating funnel with the
organic layer separated into diethyl ether. The addition of two
drops of hydrochloric acid (1.0 M) helped to ensure complete
separation of the distinctive phases. The aqueous phases were
subsequently extracted twice more with 15 ml of diethyl ether.
For extended reaction times, the aqueous phases were largely
clear while the ether phases were unclear and required cen-
trifugation to separate the clear liquid from a dark brown
semi-solid product, most of which dissolved when shaken with
water. Fig. 8 shows the typical phases of the liquid products;
(a) the extracted aqueous phase, (b) the clear ether extract, and
(c) water-soluble semi-solid fraction from ether phase. The
clear ether (oil) portion had a colour range between light
yellow to brown. The weight of the oil fractions were deter-
mined after vacuum evaporation. The ether extracts were com-
bined and dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate prior to
analysis by GC/MS/MS.
1 M. Kleinert and T. Barth, Chem. Eng. Technol., 2008, 31(5),
736–745.
2 M. Kleinert, J. R. Gasson and T. Barth, J. Anal. Appl. Pyro-
lysis, 2009, 85, 108–117.
3 C. A. Mullen and A. A. Boateng, Fuel Process. Technol., 2010,
91, 1446–1458.
4 D. J. Nowakowski, A. V. Bridgwater, D. C. Elliott, D. Meier
and P. Wild, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2010, 88, 53–72.
5 R. J. A. Gosselink, W. Teunissen, J. E. G. van Dam, et al.,
Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 106, 173–177.
6 H. Pińkowska, P. Wolak and A. Złocińska, Chem. Eng. J.,
2012, 187, 410–414.
7 Q. Song, F. Wang and J. Xu, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48(56),
7019–77021.
8 A. Toledano, L. Serrano and J. Labidi, Fuel, 2014, 116, 617–
624.
9 B. J. Cox and J. G. Ekerdt, Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 118,
584–588.
The equipment used was a Varian CP-3800 gas chromato- 10 V. M. Roberts, V. Stein, T. Reiner, A. Lemonidou, X. Li and
graph coupled with a Varian Saturn 2200 mass spectrometer
J. A. Lercher, Chem. – Eur. J., 2011, 17, 5939–5948.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2014
Green Chem., 2014, 16, 4740–4748 | 4747