K. Shanmugapriya et al. / Journal of Catalysis 224 (2004) 347–357
357
investigation involves the use of mesoporous materials, the
acetic acid formed in the vapor state easily diffuses out, and
hence its tendency to promote coke formation is not as great
as that of microporous zeolites.
Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government
of India, New Delhi.
To compare the activity of isopropyl acetate and isopropyl
alcohol in the isopropylation of m-cresol, the reaction was
also studied with the latter at 300 ◦C with a feed ratio of
1:3 and a flow rate of 1.5 ml/h. m-Cresol conversion is
found to be 51% at 1 h, which is about 29% less than that
of isopropyl acetate. This observation proves that isopropyl
acetate is a better alkylating agent than isopropyl alcohol.
As discussed previously the ease of adsorption at the steric
free carbonyl group of the ester might be the reason for
the enhanced conversion. The effect of time-on-stream with
isopropyl alcohol was also studied, and the results are illus-
trated in Fig. 8b. Conversion decreases with stream in the
first 3 h and remains almost constant thereafter, whereas the
time-on-stream study with isopropyl acetate indicates a rapid
decrease in conversion in the first 3 h on stream, followed by
a slow decrease afterward. Although the conversion is better
with isopropyl acetate than isopropyl alcohol, the selectiv-
ity to thymol is better with isopropyl alcohol than isopropyl
acetate. At the end of 3 h on stream, 100% selectivity to
thymol is obtained with 25% m-cresol conversion with iso-
propyl alcohol. But isopropyl acetate gives 85.9% selectivity
to thymol with 51.3% m-cresol conversion. Though there is
a marginally higher selectivity to thymol with isopropyl al-
cohol, the conversion of m-cresol is more than doubled with
isopropyl acetate. The major component that increases thy-
mol selectivity with isopropyl alcohol is due to the formation
of by-product water, which may deactivate the Brønsted acid
sites of the catalysts, thus preventing isomerization of thy-
mol to isothymol.
References
[1] M. Nitta, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 47 (1974) 2360.
[2] R. Stroh, R. Seydel, W. Hahn, in: W. Forest (Ed.), Newer Methods
of Preparative Organic Chemistry, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York,
1963, p. 337.
[3] V. Umamaheswari, M. Palanichamy, V. Murugesan, J. Catal. 210
(2002) 367.
[4] J.C. Leffingwell, R.E. Shackelford, Cosmet. Perfumery 89 (6) (1974)
69.
[5] R. Hopp, Recent Adv. Tobacco Sci. 19 (1993) 46.
[6] P.L. Teissedre, A.L. Waterhouse, J. Agric. Food Chem. 48 (2000)
3801.
[7] E.L. Krause, W. Ternes, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 209 (1999) 140.
[8] N.V. Yanishlieva, E.M. Marinova, M.H. Gordon, V.G. Raneva, Food
Chem. 64 (1999) 59.
[9] M. Milos, J. Mastelic, I. Jerkovic, Food Chem. 71 (2000) 79.
[10] H. Grabowska, J. Wrzyszcz, Res. Chem. Intermed. 27 (2001) 281.
[11] S. Velu, S. Sivasanker, Res. Chem. Intermed. 24 (1998) 657.
[12] T. Yamanaka, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 49 (1976) 2669.
[13] H.G. Franc, J.W. Stadelhofer, in: Industrial Aromatic Chemistry,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1998, p. 168.
[14] W. Biedarmann, H. Koller, K. Wedemeyer, US patent 4086283 (1978).
[15] P. Wimmer, H.J. Buysch, L. Puppe, US patent 5030770 (1991).
[16] A. Klein, K. Wedemeyer, Bayer DE-OS 2242628 (1972).
[17] V. Umamaheswari, M. Palanichamy, Arabindoo Banumathi, V. Mu-
rugesan, Indian J. Chem. A 39 (2000) 1241.
[18] J.S. Beck, J.C. Vartuli, W.J. Roth, M.E. Lernowicz, C.T. Kresge, K.D.
Schmitt, C.T.W. Chu, D.H. Olson, E.W. Sheppard, S.B. McCullen, J.B.
Higgins, J.C. Schlenker, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121 (1992) 10834.
[19] J.H. Kin, M. Tanabe, M. Niwa, Micropor. Mater. 10 (1997) 85.
[20] M.L. Ocelli, S. Biz, A. Auroux, G.J. Ray, Micropor. Mesopor.
Mater. 26 (1998) 193.
[21] S.J. Greggand, K.S.W. Sing, in: Adsorption, Surface Area and Poros-
ity, 2nd edition, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
[22] T.R. Pauly, Y. Liu, T.J. Pinnavaia, S.J.L. Billinge, T.P. Rieler, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 121 (1992) 8835.
4. Conclusion
[23] C.Y. Chen, H.X. Li, M.E. Davis, Micropor. Mater. 2 (1993) 17.
[24] S. Biz, M.L. Occelli, Catal. Rev. Sci. Eng. 40 (1998) 329.
[25] L. Wang, S. Velu, S. Tomura, F. Ohashi, K. Suzuki, M. Okazaki, T. Os-
aki, M. Maeda, J. Mater. Sci. 37 (2002) 801.
[26] A. Corma, Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 4 (1997) 249.
[27] Y. Sun, Y. Yue, Z. Gao, Appl. Catal. A 161 (1997) 121.
[28] A. Matsumoto, H. Chen, K. Tsutsumi, M. Grun, K. Unger, Micropor.
Mesopor. Mater. 32 (1999) 55.
[29] K.M. Reddy, C. Song, Catal. Today 31 (1996) 137.
[30] B. Chakraborty, B. Viswanathan, Catal. Today 49 (1999) 253.
[31] M. Busio, J. Janchen, J.H.C. Van Hooff, Micropor. Mater. 37 (2002)
801.
[32] M.J. Climent, A. Corma, S. Iborra, S. Miquel, J. Primo, F. Rey,
J. Catal. 183 (1999) 76.
The reaction results allow us to conclude that conversion
and selectivity to thymol are greater at higher temperatures.
Moderate and strong acid sites promote alkylation, while
weak acid sites and silanol defects favor O-acylation. Al-
though acetic acid is one of the by-products, it is not as
reactive as ester for acylation. The reaction depends not
only on the acid sites of the catalysts; their hydrophilic and
hydrophobic properties also play an important role. Al,Zn-
MCM-41(52), with a greater density of acid sites than Al-
MCM-41(55), is less active due to its more hydrophilic na-
ture. The study reveals that isopropyl acetate can be used as a
convenient alkylating agent in the isopropylation of m-cresol
in the vapor phase over Al-MCM-41 molecular sieves.
[33] C.A. Emies, J. Catal. 141 (1993) 347.
[34] D.R. Taylor, K.H. Ludlum, J. Phys. Chem. 76 (1972) 2882.
[35] A. Sakthivel, S.K. Badamali, P. Selvam, Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 39
(2000) 457.
[36] P. Botella, A. Corma, J.M. Lopez-Nieto, S. Valencia, R. Jacquot,
J. Catal. 195 (2000) 79.
Acknowledgment
The authors express their sincere thanks for the generous
financial support in the form of a project sponsored by the
[37] B. Rajesh, M. Palanichamy, V. Kazansky, V. Murugesan, J. Mol. Catal.
A 187 (2002) 259.