| Literature DB >> 28698638 |
Tobias K F Dier1, Daniel Rauber2, Dan Durneata2, Rolf Hempelmann2, Dietrich A Volmer3.
Abstract
Lignin's aromatic building blocks provide a chemical resource that is, in theory, ideal for substitution of aromatic petrochemicals. Moreover, degradation and valorization ofEntities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28698638 PMCID: PMC5505966 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05316-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Abbreviated reaction scheme showing proposed electrochemical/radical mechanisms during lignin degradation. The numbers in parentheses give the equivalents of raw material needed for the reaction. Aromatic core units are defined as follows: (H*) 4-hydroxybenzyl, (G) 3-methoxy-4-hydroxybenzyl, (S) 3,5-dimethoxy-4-hydroxybenzyl.
Figure 2Cyclic voltammograms of pure (blue) and ‘water-contaminated’ (red) electrolytes (a) 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate ([emim][OTf]) and (b) triethylammonium methanesulfonate (TMS) (scan rates, 0.05 V/s).
Sample names and experimental parameters.
| sample name | ionic liquid | applied voltage [V] | additive | temperature [°C] | duration [h] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [emim][OTf]-2.5 | [emim][OTf] | 2.5 | — | 65 | 24 |
| [emim][OTf]-2.5-H2O | [emim][OTf] | 2.5 | H2O | 65 | 24 |
| TMS-2.5-H2O | TMS | 2.5 | H2O | 65 | 24 |
| TMS-2.5-H2O2 | TMS | 2.5 | H2O2 | 65 | 24 |
| TMS-0-H2O2 | TMS | 0 | H2O2 | 65 | 24 |
Figure 3Schematic representation of the electrochemical degradation process including extraction steps.
Elemental analyses, yields (Y) and IL recovery rates (rec IL) for each electrolyte system: UT, lignin control; [emim][OTf]-2.5; [emim][OTf]-2.5-H2O; TMS-2.5-H2O; TMS-0-H2O2; TMS-2.5-H2O2.
| UT | [emim][OTf]-2.5 | [emim][OTf]-2.5-H2O | TMS-2.5-H2O | TMS-0-H2O2 | TMS-2.5-H2O2 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| C | wt. | 58.42 ± 0.20 | 63.99 ± 0.46 | 64.96 ± 1.22 | 55.33 ± 0.97 | 54.45 ± 2.52 | 57.29 ± 0.75 | 56.65 ± 0.27 | 62.67 ± 0.31 | 54.37 ± 0.82 | 58.4 ± 0.96 | 63.35 ± 0.09 | 62.39 ± 2.9 | 57.47 ± 4.1 | 59,88 ± 6.23 | 56,91 ± 8.31 | 50.41 ± 1.01 | 57.72 ± 1.46 | 58.99 ± 4.81 |
| H | 5.01 ± 0.06 | 5.62 ± 0.01 | 6.96 ± 0.05 | 6.09 ± 0.17 | 5.75 ± 0.82 | 6.14 ± 0.13 | 5.25 ± 0.18 | 5.77 ± 0.07 | 5.22 ± 0.27 | 5.68 ± 0.11 | 5.93 ± 0.11 | 6.19 ± 0.73 | 7.5 ± 0.26 | 5,90 ± 0.09 | 7,89 ± 0.14 | 6.16 ± 0.2 | 6.3 ± 0.7 | 6.71 ± 0.11 | |
| N | 0.51 ± 0.12 | 0.4 ± 0.37 | 0.32 ± 0.04 | 1.46 ± 0.43 | 2.49 ± 1.09 | 2.1 ± 0.43 | 1.1 ± 0.09 | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 1.71 ± 1.37 | 0.28 ± 0.05 | 0.5 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.09 | 0.49 ± 0.77 | 1,67 ± 1.07 | 2,07 ± 1.38 | 0.64 ± 0.08 | 1.85 ± 0.74 | 1.26 ± 0.56 | |
| O[a] | 36.06 ± 0.38 | 29.99 ± 0.84 | 27.76 ± 1.31 | 37.12 ± 1.57 | 37.31 ± 4.43 | 34.47 ± 1.31 | 37 ± 0.54 | 30.68 ± 0.4 | 38.7 ± 2.46 | 35.64 ± 1.12 | 30.22 ± 0.22 | 31.2 ± 3.72 | 34.54 ± 5.13 | 32.55 ± 7.39 | 33,13 ± 9.83 | 42.79 ± 1.29 | 34.15 ± 2.9 | 33.04 ± 5.48 | |
| Y | [mg] | 173 ± 5 | 629 ± 3.5 | 163 ± 15 | 610 ± 27 | 320 ± 13 | 17 ± 2 | 241 ± 23 | 495 ± 11 | 200 ± 16 | 145 ± 16 | 593 ± 8 | 199 ± 24 | 102 ± 11 | 518 ± 24 | 180 ± 6 | 2.5 ± 2 | 628 ± 13 | 119 ± 10 |
| Total | 965 ± 23.5 | 947 ± 42 | 936 ± 50 | 937 ± 48 | 800 ± 41 | 749 ± 25 | |||||||||||||
| rec IL | [%] | 99.2 ± 0.4 | 98.2 ± 0.2 | 98.6 ± 0.1 | 99.3 ± 0.2 | 97.9 ± 0.7 | 98.3 ± 0.6 | ||||||||||||
Experiments were performed in duplicate.
[a]: oxygen content was calculated as the residual w eight percentage.
Figure 4(A) Total intensities for relevant lignin degradation products. (mass concentration, β = 100 μg/ mL) (B) Percent distributions of chemical classes for fraction 2. (C) Percent distributions of classes for fraction 3. Distributions were restricted to m/z ≤ 450, unless otherwise specified. Alkali lignin was used for all experiments.
Figure 5FTIR spectra of precursor alkali lignin (top) and Organosolv lignin (bottom). (Scan range: 500–4000 cm−1). The indicated absorbance bands were adapted from the literature[79] (characteristic softwood absorbance bands are highlighted in green; characteristic hardwood absorbance bands are highlighted in red color).
Compound distribution within fraction 3 for each electrolyte system using GC-MS. Main components (relative abundance >10%) are highlighted (bold-face).
| compound | UT | [emim][OTF]-2.5-H2O | TMS-2.5-H2O | TMS-0-H2O2 | TMS-2.5-H2O2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| relative abundance (%) |
| relative abundance (%) |
| relative abundance (%) |
| relative abundance (%) |
| relative abundance (%) | |
| 2,2-dimethoxypropane | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.52 | 0.13 |
| guaiacol | 4.56 | 0.13 | 4.57 | 0.82 | — | — | 4.55 | 0.07 | — | — |
| 2-ethyl-2-methyl-1,3-cyclopentandione | — | — | 5.31 | 0.24 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 4-ethylguaiacol | 7.08 | 0.07 | 7.09 | 0.33 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol | 7.68 | 0.4 | 7.69 | 1.62 | 7.69 | 1.83 | 7.67 | 1.16 | 7.64 | 0.8 |
| 2-methoxy-4-allylphenol | 8.16 | 0.11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| syringol | 8.39 | 0.11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1,2-benzenediol | — | — | 8.56 | 3.69 | 8.75 | 4.47 | — | — | — | — |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9.42 | 2.78 | 9.37 | 1.00 |
| isoeugenol | — | — | — | — | — | — | 10.04 | 0.27 | 10.05 | 0.11 |
| 4-propylguaiacol | 10.17 | 0.17 | 10.18 | 0.37 | 10.17 | 0.48 | 10.19 | 0.50 | 10.19 | 0.31 |
|
| 10.35 | 7.75 |
|
| 10.32 | 1.88 | 10.34 | 0.91 | — | — |
| 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde | 10.66 | 0.64 | — | 10.64 | 1.58 | — | — | — | — | |
| homovanillyl alcohol | — | — | 11.04 | 1.52 | 11.05 | 2.11 | — | — | — | — |
| 4-ethoxy-3-anisaldehyde | 11.28 | 0.83 | 11.31 | 1.27 | 11.27 | 0.65 | — | — | — | — |
| 2,4-dihydroxy-3′-methoxyacetophenone | 11.5 | 0.87 | 11.53 | 1.03 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 7-hydroxy-6-methoxy-1-benzofuran-3(2 H)-one | — | — | — | — | — | — | 11.57 | 1.06 | — | — |
| 2-methoxyhydroquinone | — | — | — | — | 11.61 | 1.93 | — | — | — | — |
| dibenzyl ether | 11.71 | 0.8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)-phenol | — | — | — | — | 12.47 | 0.37 | — | — | — | — |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | 13.13 | 6.09 |
|
| 13.11 | 0.67 | 13.11 | 1.49 |
| 3-methoxycinnamic acid | 13.61 | 0.57 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2,4-dimethoxyphenol | — | — | — | — | 14.49 | 5.61 | — | — | — | — |
| n-undecanoic acid | — | — | — | — | — | — | 14.77 | 3.54 | 14.76 | 4.46 |
|
| — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — |
| 4a-methyl-1,2,3,4,4a,9,10,10a-octahydro-1-phenanthrenol | 15.8 | 0.44 | 15.83 | 0.71 | 15.81 | 1.31 | — | — | — | — |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
|
|
|
|
| 6-ethoxy-1,4-dimethoxynaphthalene | — | — | 16.62 | 1.23 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| tetradecanoic acid | — | — | — | — | — | — | 16.67 | 2.45 | 16.66 | 3.22 |
| 4-hydroxymandelic acid | — | — | — | — | 17.15 | 2 | — | — | — | — |
| 2-hydroxy-3-(3-methyl-2-butenyl)-3-cyclopenten-1-one | — | — | — | — | 17.68 | 1.75 | — | — | — | — |
| a-ethyl-p-methoxybenzyl alcohol | — | — | — | 18.03 | 0.92 | — | — | — | — | |
| 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylacetylformic acid | — | — | 18.1 | 0.01 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| abietic Acid | 18.51 | 0.85 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2,2′methylenebis[5-methyl-6-(2-methyl-2-propanyl)phenol] | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 18.89 | 2.49 |
| ethyl homovanillate | — | — | — | — | 18.99 | 5.48 | — | — | — | — |
| palustric Acid | 19.08 | 1.24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 4′-methoxy-2-hydroxystilbene | — | — | 19.08 | 1.17 | — | — | 19.05 | 7.62 | — | — |
|
| 19.45 | 4.98 | 19.43 | 1.62 | 19.45 | 4.75 |
|
|
|
|
| neopregnenolone | 20.27 | 1.11 | 20.28 | 1.08 | 20.22 | 0.57 | — | — | — | — |
| secoisolariciresinol | — | — | — | — | — | — | 20.52 | 8.95 | — | — |