Jenny N M Tan-Soetedjo1,2, Henk H van de Bovenkamp2, Ria M Abdilla2, Carolus B Rasrendra3, Jacob van Ginkel2, Hero J Heeres2. 1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Parahyangan University, Ciumbuleuit 94, Bandung, 40141, Indonesia. 2. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Ganesha 10, Bandung, 40132, Indonesia.
Abstract
We here report experimental and kinetic modeling studies on the conversion of sucrose to levulinic acid (LA) and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst. Both compounds are versatile building blocks for the synthesis of various biobased (bulk) chemicals. A total of 24 experiments were performed in a temperature window of 80-180 °C, a sulfuric acid concentration between 0.005 and 0.5 M, and an initial sucrose concentration between 0.05 and 0.5 M. Glucose, fructose, and HMF were detected as the intermediate products. The maximum LA yield was 61 mol %, obtained at 160 °C, an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M, and an acid concentration of 0.2 M. The maximum HMF yield (22 mol %) was found for an acid concentration of 0.05 M, an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M, and a temperature of 140 °C. The experimental data were modeled using a number of possible reaction networks. The best model was obtained when using a first order approach in substrates (except for the reversion of glucose) and agreement between experiment and model was satisfactorily. The implication of the model regarding batch optimization is also discussed.
We here report experimental and kinetic modeling studies on the conversion of sucrose to levulinic acid (LA) and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst. Both compounds are versatile building blocks for the synthesis of various biobased (bulk) chemicals. A total of 24 experiments were performed in a temperature window of 80-180 °C, a sulfuric acid concentration between 0.005 and 0.5 M, and an initial sucrose concentration between 0.05 and 0.5 M. Glucose, fructose, and HMF were detected as the intermediate products. The maximum LA yield was 61 mol %, obtained at 160 °C, an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M, and an acid concentration of 0.2 M. The maximum HMF yield (22 mol %) was found for an acid concentration of 0.05 M, an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M, and a temperature of 140 °C. The experimental data were modeled using a number of possible reaction networks. The best model was obtained when using a first order approach in substrates (except for the reversion of glucose) and agreement between experiment and model was satisfactorily. The implication of the model regarding batch optimization is also discussed.
Levulinic
acid (4-oxopentanoic acid, LA) is considered as a very
important biobased platform chemical with a wide derivatization and
application range.[1−9] It is accessible by the acid catalyzed hydrolysis of the C6-sugars
in various biomass sources.[1−4,10−18] Typical byproducts are formic acid and humins. The latter are oligomeric/polymeric
substances that are either soluble or insoluble in the reaction mixture.
HMF, also a very versatile platform chemical, is an intermediate in
the conversion of C6 sugars to LA. HMF yields are a strong function
of the C6 sugar used and best results have been reported with ketohexoses
like fructose and psicose.[19] The yields
from aldohexoses such as glucose are by far lower and typically below
10 mol %.The Biofine Company has been actively involved in
the conversion
of lignocellulosic biomass to LA in the last 15 years.[20] In their process, the lignocellulosic biomass
and sulfuric acid catalyst are mixed in water, and the resulting slurry
is supplied to the reactor section. The reaction conditions, typically
180–210 °C, are such that formic acid and furfural, the
two major low molecular weight byproducts, are vaporized and collected
separately. The liquid phase with the LA and solids (humins, lignins)
is filtered to obtain an aqueous LA solution, which is neutralized
and further purified to obtain LA. Typical yields of LA are between
15 and 41 wt % on feed, the exact value being a function of the reaction
conditions and biomass source. GFBiochemicals recently reported a
Biofine derived process to produce LA from a wide range of biomass
feeds. Yield improvements were reported based on further optimization/modification
of the reactor and workup section, though details are to the best
of our knowledge not reported yet. Commercial production in Casserta,
Italy, started in the summer of 2015. The unit will be scaled up to
a full capacity of 10 000 MT/a by 2017.[21]A wide range of biomass feeds has been reported for
LA synthesis,
including both monomeric and dimeric sugars as well as complex biomass
sources such as Mischantus,[22] starch,[23] wood cellulose[24,25] and waterhyacynth.[26] Among them, sucrose has also been studied.[1−3,18,27−32] It is easily hydrolyzable to its monomers, d-glucose and d-fructose, which both can be converted to LA in good yields.
Sucrose is present in high amounts in sugar cane and sugar beets.
Waste streams of the sugar industry contain significant amounts of
sucrose and this justifies a detailed study on the use of sucrose
for LA synthesis.The first studies on the conversion of sucrose to LA were reported
in 1873 by Grote and Tollens.[10] Later studies
reported the use of various mineral acids such as hydrochloric acid,
sulfuric acid, and hydrobromic acid as well as heterogeneous catalysts.[18,27,28,30,31,33]Table summarizes a number of representative
studies on the acid-catalyzed conversion of sucrose to HMF and LA
using homogeneous Brönsted acid catalysts. The highest reported
LA yield is about 70 mol %, whereas the maximum HMF yield is limited
to about 27%.
Table 1
Selected Examples for LA and HMF Synthesis
from Sucrose in Water Using Homogeneous Brönsted Acid Catalysts
no.
sucrose concn
cat.
cat. concn
time
T (°C)
P (atm)
HMF yielda (mol %)
LA yielda (mol %)
ref
1
0.66 M
H2SO4
1.80 M
8 h
140
n.d.
40–50b
(32)
2
0.05
M
H2SO4
0.001 M
32 s
250
341
25
n.d.
(34)
3
0.18 M
H2SO4
1 M
16 h
125
n.d.
42b
(28)
4
1.17 M
HCl
2 M
24 h
100
n.d.
21–22
(27)
5
0.86 M
HCl
2 M
1 h
162
7
n.d.
42–43
(18)
6
0.18 M
HCl
3 M
16 h
125
n.d.
60b
(28)
7
0.29
M
HCl
6 M
5 h
108
n.d.
62
(29)
8
0.33 M
HCl
3.84 M
1 h
98
n.d.
50b
(31)
9
0.18
M
HBr
1 M
16 h
125
n.d.
70b
(28)
10
25 wt %
oxalic acid
0.03 M
2.5 h
145, 15 min then 125
27
n.d.
(35)
11
23 wt %
oxalic acid
0.23 wt %
3 h
200
3
25
n.d.
(36)
Yields are based
on monosaccharide
concentration.
Not clear
whether yields are based
on mol % or wt %, or on monosaccharide or sucrose concentration.
Yields are based
on monosaccharide
concentration.Not clear
whether yields are based
on mol % or wt %, or on monosaccharide or sucrose concentration.Kinetic studies on the conversion
of sucrose to HMF/LA using simple
homogeneous Brönsted acids such as sulfuric acid in water have
to the best of our knowledge not been reported in the literature.
Recently, Woodley et al. published a kinetic study on the conversion
of glucose–fructose mixtures using HCl as the catalyst in an
acetone–water mixture.[37] Kinetic
studies are of prime importance for a proper design of the reactor
section of LA processes and also allow selection of the best operating
conditions to achieve maximum yields and volumetric production rates
of LA.In this paper, the kinetics of the conversion of sucrose
to LA
using a batch setup is studied in a broad range of process conditions
(80–180 °C, sulfuric acid concentrations between 0.005–0.50
M, and initial sucrose concentrations between 0.05–0.50 M).
The concentrations of the intermediates (glucose, fructose, and HMF)
were also determined, and these components were included in the kinetic
analysis. On the basis of the experimental data, a reaction network
is proposed and the experimental data were modeled using a kinetic
scheme in line with this proposal. Furthermore, a number of alternative
kinetic networks were evaluated, and the results are compared with
the original scheme. Finally, the optimum conditions for batch processing
to obtain the highest LA/HMF yields were determined on the basis of
the model and will be discussed.
Methods
and Analysis
Chemicals
All chemicals were of analytical
grade and were used without further purification. Concentrated sulfuric
acid (95–97 wt % [CASRN 7664-93-9]) and formic acid (98–100
wt % [CASRN 64-18-6]) were purchased from Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).
Sucrose (≥95 wt % [CASRN 57-50-1]) and fructose (≥95
wt % [CASRN 57-48-7]) were acquired from Fisher Scientific UK (Leicestershire,
Great Britain); glucose (≥99.5 wt % [CASRN 14431-43-7]), 5-hydroxymethylfurfural
(≥99 wt % [CASRN 67-47-0]) and levulinic acid (98 wt % [CASRN
123-76-2]) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH (Steinheim,
Germany). Deionized water was used to prepare the various solutions.
Experimental Procedures
All reactions
were carried out in glass ampules with an internal diameter of 3 mm,
a wall thickness of 1.5 mm, and a length of 15 cm. These were filled
at room temperature with a solution of sucrose and sulfuric acid (total
liquid volume of 0.5 cm3) and then sealed with a torch.
A series of ampules was placed in a rack and placed in a constant
temperature oven (±1 °C) which was preset at the desired
reaction temperature. At different reaction times, an ampule was taken
from the oven and directly quenched into a cold water bath. The liquid
content was then filtered using a PTFE syringe filter (0.45 μm,
VWR, The Netherlands). The particle free aliquot was then diluted
7–8 times with water prior to HPLC analysis.
Analytical Methods
The composition
of the liquid phase was determined using two different HPLC systems.
An Agilent 1200 HPLC consisting of a Hewlett-Packard 1200 pump and
a Bio-Rad organic acid column (Aminex HPX-87H) was used for glucose,
fructose, HMF, and LA analysis. A typical example of a chromatogram
is given in Figure S1 (Supporting Information). For glucose, fructose, and LA, quantification was performed using
an RID detector, whereas a UV detector was used for HMF. An aqueous
sulfuric acid (5 mM) solution was used as the mobile phase at a flow
rate of 0.55 cm3 per minute. The column was operated at
60 °C. The analysis of a sample was complete within 60 min.An Agilent 1050 HPLC consisting of a Hewlett-Packard 1050 pump, a
Bio-Rad sugar column (Aminex HPX-87P), and a Waters 410 refractive
index detector was used for sucrose quantification. Double distilled
water was used as the mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.55 cm3 per minute. The column was operated at 80 °C. The analysis
of a sample was complete within 30 min.The concentrations of
each compound in the product mixture were
determined using calibration curves obtained by analyzing standard
solutions of known concentrations.
Definitions
The conversion of sucrose
(XSUC) and the yields of HMF (YHMF) and LA (YLA) are defined in eq –3.Here, CSUC,0 is
the initial concentration of sucrose. All definitions are on a molar
basis.
Determination of the Kinetic Parameters
The kinetic parameters were determined using a nonlinear least-squares
approach using the MATLAB function lsqnonlin, which
is based on an Trust-Region-Reflective algorithm, and involves minimization
of the errors between the experimental data and the kinetic model.
Details about this procedure can be found in the literature.[38,39]
Results and Discussion
Experimental
Studies
A total of 24
experiments were performed in a temperature window of 80–180
°C, a sulfuric acid concentration between 0.005 and 0.5 M, and
an initial sucrose concentration between 0.05 and 0.5 M. Main products
(HPLC) are fructose, glucose, HMF, LA, and formic acid (FA), in line
with earlier studies.[1−3,8,32] The latter was not quantified in detail. Upon reaction, the color
of the reaction mixtures changed from transparent to yellowish-brown,
and in some cases solid dark brown byproducts (humins) were formed.
These are formed by condensation reactions of products and intermediates,
and were not quantified. In addition, soluble humins may be formed
as well.The concentrations of the main products as a function
of the batch time were determined (HPLC), and the results for two
representative experiments are given in Figures (120 °C) and 2 (180 °C).
Figure 1
Typical time–concentration profile of the products
of the
acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose at 120 °C, CH = 0.05 M, CSUC,0 = 0.5 M. Symbols denote experimental
values: (□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose,
(▽) HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model.
Figure 2
Typical time–concentration profile of the products of the
acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose at 180 °C, CH = 0.05 M, CSUC,0 = 0.5. Symbols denote experimental values:
(□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose, (▽)
HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model.
Typical time–concentration profile of the products
of the
acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose at 120 °C, CH = 0.05 M, CSUC,0 = 0.5 M. Symbols denote experimental
values: (□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose,
(▽) HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model.Typical time–concentration profile of the products of the
acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of sucrose at 180 °C, CH = 0.05 M, CSUC,0 = 0.5. Symbols denote experimental values:
(□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose, (▽)
HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model.The conversion rate of sucrose is a strong function of temperature
and acid concentration. The time for quantitative conversion is typically
less than 1 min at temperatures exceeding 120 °C, and as such
sucrose is not observed in most reaction mixtures (Figure ). At low temperatures (80
and 100 °C) and low acid concentrations, sucrose is detected
in the reaction mixtures for up to 20 min (100 °C, 0.005 M H2SO4). As expected, glucose and fructose are the
initial products and are derived from the acid catalyzed hydrolysis
(inversion) of sucrose. The glucose and fructose yields are around
100%, indicating that sucrose inversion is very selective in the experimental
window of process conditions.Glucose, fructose, and HMF are
typical intermediates and in some
cases (particularly at higher severity) show a clear maximum, whereas
LA is formed in significant amounts upon prolonged batch times. Glucose
is by far less reactive than fructose. These findings are in line
with earlier kinetic studies from our group on the conversion of the
individual sugars (Figure ).[40] Here, it was demonstrated
that on average, fructose is about 100 times more reactive than glucose
in the temperature window employed in this study.
Figure 3
Required batch time for
90% C6-sugar conversion (fructose and glucose)
versus temperature in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst (1
M). Reproduced from ref (40). Copyright 2015, American Chemical Society.
Required batch time for
90% C6-sugar conversion (fructose and glucose)
versus temperature in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst (1
M). Reproduced from ref (40). Copyright 2015, American Chemical Society.LA is stable under the experimental conditions
employed as is evident
from a constant concentration level at prolonged reaction times (up
to 900 min, data not shown for brevity). The maximum experimental
LA yield was 61 mol %, obtained at 160 °C, an initial sucrose
concentration of 0.05 M and an acid concentration of 0.2 M. The maximum
LA yield in this study is higher than reported in the literature for
sucrose when using sulfuric acid as the catalyst (40–50 mol
%).[32] It is also of interest to compare
the experimental LA yields with previous studies using the individual
sugars (glucose, fructose) in water with sulfuric acid as the catalyst.
For fructose alone, the highest experimental yield was 74 mol % (fructose
concentration of 0.1 M, a sulfuric acid concentration of 1 M, and
a temperature of 140 °C),[40] whereas
the best yields for glucose were somewhat lower (60%, 140 °C; CGLC,0, 0.1 M; Cacid: 1 M).[8] Though the experimental conditions
are different, the data imply that the experimentally observed highest
LA yield for sucrose in this study is in line with the values obtained
for experiments with the individual sugars.The maximum HMF
yield within the experimental window of process
conditions was 22 mol % (0.05 M sulfuric acid, 0.05 M sucrose, 140
°C). This value is slightly lower than reported in the literature
for sucrose in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst (25 mol %,
see Table ), though
comparison is hampered as the experimental conditions are different.
For fructose alone, the highest reported HMF yield in water using
sulfuric acid is 53 mol % (initial fructose concentration of 0.1 M,
a sulfuric acid concentration of 0.01 M and a temperature of 180 °C).[40] For glucose, the HMF yield is considerably lower
and for instance Girisuta et al. reported a maximum yield of 5 mol
% in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst in a similar window
of process conditions.[8] As such, the value
of 22 mol % for sucrose is in line with the literature, particularly
when considering that the initial inversion of sucrose to fructose
and glucose is fast and essentially quantitative.Glucose can
be isomerized to fructose, though the reaction is known
to be slow in the absence of catalysts and equilibrium limited in
water. At 150 °C, the equilibrium constant in water is about
1.[41] In this study, the rate of glucose–fructose
isomerization appears to be slow compared to the time scale of the
other reactions, particularly at low temperatures. This is illustrated
by Figure , showing
that the glucose concentration is about constant after its initial
formation from sucrose, whereas the fructose concentration is dropping
more rapidly. In case of the occurrence of a rapid isomerization reaction,
a different profile is expected with a constant fructose-to-glucose
ratio.Of interest is the observation of a small drop in the
glucose concentration
directly after its formation from sucrose, see Figure for a representative example. This effect
is particularly evident for experiments carried out in the lower temperature
range. A possible explanation is the formation of reversion products
of glucose, mostly dimers, as also proposed by Johnson et al.[42] These reactions are known to be relatively fast
and equilibrium limited (vide infra). For fructose,
this trend is not observed, likely due to the fact that fructose is
by far more reactive than glucose and already converted to a significant
extent directly after its formation.
Kinetic
Modeling Studies
Reaction Network Development
The
experimental data were initially modeled (model 1) with a global reaction
network given in Figure . The reaction network is based on earlier reaction networks proposed
for experimental and kinetic modeling studies for glucose and fructose
individually.[8,40] The latter is justified as it
was shown experimentally that sucrose is rapidly hydrolyzed and inverted
to a 1 to 1 molar mixture of fructose and glucose.
Figure 4
Proposed reaction network
(model 1) for the conversion of sucrose
to LA and HMF.
Proposed reaction network
(model 1) for the conversion of sucrose
to LA and HMF.In acidic media, glucose
may dehydrate inter- and intramolecularly
to form glucose oligomers and anhydroglucoses (mainly levoglucosan,
LG), respectively.[42] Literature studies
revealed that up to 12 wt % of the glucose is converted into reversion
products at high sugar loadings (200 mg·cm–3). The reversion products are mainly disaccharides, and larger oligosaccharides
were not reported to be formed in significant amounts. In Figure , only one (neotrehalose)
of the possible reversion dimers is shown. Disaccharide formation
was modeled using a second-order dependency in glucose. In addition,
the dimerization reaction is known to be reversible and this was also
assumed in our model. Johnson et al.[42] also
reported the formation of levoglucosan (LG) from glucose, though only
in significant amounts at low glucose concentrations (<10 mg·cm–3). LG was also not detected in this study, and as
such this reversion product was not included in the kinetic models.The equilibrium reaction between glucose and fructose was also
not included in the first model. This reaction is known to be catalyzed
by (inorganic) bases and enzymes. Acids are known to be less effective
and the acid catalyzed isomerization reaction is known to be by far
slower than the base-catalyzed isomerization. For instance, Watanabe
et al. showed that fructose reacts in acidic aqueous media to HMF
with negligible glucose formation.[43] However,
when starting with glucose, some fructose besides HMF and LA were
observed. As such, glucose–fructose isomerization was included
in subsequent kinetic models (vide infra).Furthermore, model 1 assumes that both fructose and glucose react
independently to HMF. This assumption is based on literature evidence
for kinetic studies using glucose[8] only
and recent studies by Woodley et al. for fructose–glucose mixtures
in water–acetone as the solvent.[37] In the latter, the reaction of glucose to HMF was required to obtain
a better model description of the experimental data.Finally,
it is assumed that glucose, fructose, and HMF individually
react to soluble and insoluble humins, as proposed for studies with
the individual sugars. This is a simplification as cross condensations
between the various intermediates (fructose, glucose, HMF) cannot
be excluded beforehand. The possibility of cross condensations between
glucose and fructose to form humins was investigated independently.
For this purpose, the concentration–time profile for the individual
sugar was compared to that of a mixture of both sugars in a 1 to 1
ratio. The results for two representative experiments are given in Figure . It shows that the
concentration–time profiles for the individual sugars are not
affected in the presence of the other sugar, implying that cross condensation
reactions between the two sugars do not take place to a considerable
extent.
Figure 5
Concentration–time profiles for glucose and a mixture of
glucose and fructose (1 to 1 molar ratio, left) and fructose and a
mixture of fructose and glucose (1 to 1 molar ratio, right). CGLU,0 = CFRU,0 =
0.50 M, 180 °C, CH = 0.05 M.
Concentration–time profiles for glucose and a mixture of
glucose and fructose (1 to 1 molar ratio, left) and fructose and a
mixture of fructose and glucose (1 to 1 molar ratio, right). CGLU,0 = CFRU,0 =
0.50 M, 180 °C, CH = 0.05 M.
Model
Development
The first kinetic
model (model 1) was developed based on the reaction network given
in Figure and assumes
first-order reactions in most substrates. As the reaction rate of
sucrose inversion to glucose and fructose is much faster than for
the consecutive reactions, the inversion of sucrose was modeled independently.
In a later stage, extended reaction networks (including glucose–fructose
isomerization) were modeled and the results will be provided in a
separate paragraph.
Kinetic Modeling of Sucrose
Conversion to
Glucose and Fructose
The kinetic model for the conversion
of sucrose to glucose and fructose was developed using eight experiments
from the data set with a total of 29 data points. Only this limited
data set could be used as sucrose is converted on the time scale of
less than a minute at the higher temperatures within the temperature
window.The inversion of sucrose to fructose and glucose is
typically modeled in the literature using a first order approach in
acid and sucrose (Table ) and a similar approach was used in this study.
Table 2
Overview of Kinetic Studies on Sucrose
Hydrolysis to Glucose and Fructose
no.
CSUC,0 [M]
Cacid [M]
conditions
T [°C]
t [h]
RSUC/mol L–1 min–1a
ref
1
0–2.63
CH+ = 3 × 10–7 – 0.1
isothermal operation
20–130
n.a.
(44)
2
0.01–0.1
CH2SO4 =
0.10–1.0
isothermal operation
45–55
0.50
(45)
3
0.07
CH2SO4 =
0.01–0.20
isothermal operation
160–200
0.05–0.20
too
fast, not observable
(46)
4
0.06
CHCl = 5 × 10–4
nonisothermal,
linear gradient
70–98
15
(47)
60–98
16
60–90
15
5
0.03
CHCl = 0.25
continuous flow nonisothermal,
ramp time of 2.5 s, flow rate
of 450 mL/min
Tset = 151 (151–155)
0.0125
(48)
Tset = 144 (144–150)
0.0125
(49)
Tset = 139 (139–146)
0.0125
6
0.015, 0.15, 0.73
CHCl = 10–4–10–8
pressure of 10 MPa, subcritical water
160–200
1–4 min
7
3 × 10–3
CHNO3 = 0.5–2.5
nonisothermal
method
50–90
0.83
(50)
8
0.26
CH+ = 0.34 (>1.70
Na+ eq/L, 800 g/L)
microwave, Amberlite 200
°C
40–80
500
(51)
T in K.
T in K.For a batch reactor, the mass balance for sucrose is given in eq .When
assuming first order reactions, R1S is
given by eq .The temperature dependence of the kinetic
constant was considered using a modified Arrhenius equation as given
in eq .where TR is the reference temperature
(140 °C), k1RS is the rate constant
at reference temperature and Ea1S is the
activation energy.At the start-up of the reaction, the reaction
takes place nonisothermally
due to heating-up of the contents of the ampule from room temperature
to the oven temperature. The experimental profiles at different temperatures
were modeled using a heat balance for the contents in an ampule using eq and 8.The value of h was shown
to be a function of the set-point of the oven. This temperature dependence
was determined by fitting the calculated h-values
at different set points of the oven (80–180 °C) and was
found to be described properly using a simple linear relation (eq ):The actual H+ concentration was
calculated using eq .Here Ka,HSO represents
the dissociation constant of HSO4–. The
temperature dependence of this dissociation constant is given in eq (T in
K).[52]The kinetic constants
and the activation energies were determined
using the MATLAB software package by simultaneous modeling of the
8 selected experiments. Good agreement between model and experimental
data was obtained, as is evident from a parity plot and the time concentration
graph of a selected experiment (Figure ). The estimated value for k1RS was 730 ± 290 L mol–1 min–1 and 110 ± 10 kJ mol–1 for the activation
energy. The experimentally determined activation energy for the reaction
is within the 93–118 kJ mol–1 range as reported
in the literature (Table ).
Figure 6
Parity plot for experimental and model data (left) and a representative
concentration–time curve (right) for the reaction of sucrose
to glucose and fructose. Conditions (right), T =
100 °C, CSUC(0) = 0.26 M, Cacid = 0.005 M.
Parity plot for experimental and model data (left) and a representative
concentration–time curve (right) for the reaction of sucrose
to glucose and fructose. Conditions (right), T =
100 °C, CSUC(0) = 0.26 M, Cacid = 0.005 M.
Kinetic Modeling Using Network 1
A simplified representation of the reaction network of model 1 (Figure ) including a labeling
scheme of the individual reactions is given in Figure . For all reactions a first order approach
in reactants was applied, the only exception being the reaction of
glucose to glucose dimers, which was assumed to be second order. The
kinetic constants for sucrose inversion to fructose and glucose were
fixed to the model values obtained in the previous paragraph.
Figure 7
Schematic representation
of the reaction network for kinetic model
1.
Schematic representation
of the reaction network for kinetic model
1.The individual reaction rates
are defined in eq –19.The temperature dependencies
of the kinetic
rate constants were defined in term of modified Arrhenius equation
like the one given in eq , and a reference temperature of 140 °C was used.For
a batch reactor setup, the concentrations of the individual
species are a function of time. When using the proposed kinetic model
as given in Figure , these are represented by the following differential equations:
Modeling
Results for Model 1
A
total of 24 experiments with 884 experimental data points, being the
concentrations of glucose, fructose, HMF, and LA at different reaction
times, was used for the development of the kinetic model. The best
estimation of the kinetic parameters and their standard deviations
were determined using a MATLAB optimization routine and the results
are given in Table .
Table 3
Model Results for Model 1 (Figure )
k value at 140 °C
model result
±
dimension
k1G
0.009
0.002
L mol–1 min–1
k2G
0.005
0.002
L mol–1 min–1
k1F
0.361
0.016
L mol–1 min–1
k2F
0.200
0.020
L mol–1 min–1
k1HMF
0.225
0.010
L mol–1 min–1
k2HMF
0.026
0.019
L mol–1 min–1
k1G2
0.227
0.057
L2 mol–2 min–1
k2G2
1.427
0.394
L mol–1 min–1
Ea1G
153
14
kJ mol–1
Ea2G
172
19
kJ mol–1
Ea1F
116
3
kJ mol–1
Ea2F
122
5
kJ mol–1
Ea1HMF
92
3
kJ mol–1
Ea2HMF
146
43
kJ mol–1
Ea1G2
55
14
kJ mol–1
Ea2G2
99
17
kJ mol–1
Agreement between model 1 and experiment is good,
as illustrated
by the overall parity plot, the parity plot for LA (Figure ), and a number of modeled
profiles in Figure .
Figure 8
Parity plot for model 1 including the concentrations of all components
(left) and only LA (right).
Figure 9
Experimental data points and model lines (model 1) for a number
of representative batch experiments. Symbols denote experimental values:
(□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose, (▽)
HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model 1.
Parity plot for model 1 including the concentrations of all components
(left) and only LA (right).Experimental data points and model lines (model 1) for a number
of representative batch experiments. Symbols denote experimental values:
(□) sucrose, (○) glucose, (△) fructose, (▽)
HMF, (◇) LA. Lines, model 1.Inspection of the kinetic constants at reference temperature
in Table show that
the sucrose
inversion to fructose and glucose is by far the fastest reaction in
the network followed by the glucose dimerization equilibrium reaction,
which is in line with the experimental findings (Figure ). In addition, the kinetic
constant for the reaction of glucose to HMF is about 40 times lower
than for the reaction of fructose to HMF, which is also in agreement
with studies for the individual sugars.[40]It is of interest to compare the activation energies for the
main
reactions with those provided in the literature for aqueous systems
using homogeneous catalysts (glucose[43,53−57] and fructose to HMF[40,58−60] and HMF to
LA[40,53−56,58,60−63]). The results are provided in Figure and Figure .
Figure 10
Overview of activation
energies for the Brönsted acid catalyzed
conversion of glucose (left) and fructose (right) to HMF in water:
(white bars) using sulfuric acid catalys; (gray bars) other acid catalysts;
(black bar) this study.
Figure 11
Overview of activation energies for the Brönsted acid-catalyzed
conversion of HMF to LA in water: (white bars) using sulfuric acid
catalyst; (gray bars) other acid catalysts; (black bar) this study.
Overview of activation
energies for the Brönsted acid catalyzed
conversion of glucose (left) and fructose (right) to HMF in water:
(white bars) using sulfuric acid catalys; (gray bars) other acid catalysts;
(black bar) this study.Overview of activation energies for the Brönsted acid-catalyzed
conversion of HMF to LA in water: (white bars) using sulfuric acid
catalyst; (gray bars) other acid catalysts; (black bar) this study.The activation energy for glucose
to HMF found in this study (153
± 14 kJ mol–1) is equal within the confidence
interval to the value reported for the reaction using the individual
sugar as the starting material (152 ± 1 kJ mol–1) and sulfuric acid as the catalyst by Girisuta et al.[8] For fructose, a broad range of activation energies
has been reported (Figure , right). The value of 116 ± 3 kJ mol–1 is close to that reported for fructose-only studies (123 ±
5 kJ mol–1) using sulfuric acid as the catalyst
by Fachri et al.[40] The activation energies
reported in the literature for the conversion of HMF to LA show a
large spread (Figure ). However, the value found here (92 ± 3 kJ mol–1) is within the range and close to those found previously for kinetic
modeling studies in our group for fructose and glucose only (111 ±
1 and 92 ± 5 kJ mol–1)[8,40] using
sulfuric acid as the catalyst.In the reaction network of model
1, all intermediates (glucose,
fructose, and HMF) may either react to desired products or to humins.
The activation energies for the desired reactions are all lower than
for those forming humins (Table ). This suggests that LA formation will be favored
when the reaction is carried out at lower temperatures (vide
infra).
Alternative Kinetic Models
A number
of kinetic models derived from alternative reaction networks were
explored and the results were compared with those for model 1. The
alternative reaction networks (2 and 3) are schematically given in Table .
Table 4
Reaction Networks Tested for Kinetic
Modeling
The reaction network
for model 2 is similar to that for model 1,
the only difference is the use of a power law approach to describe
the kinetics of humin formation (eqs –27) instead of a first
order approach. This approach was selected as previous studies with
the individual sugars showed that an order higher than 1 gave a better
model fit, rationalized by considering that humin forming reactions
are intermolecular condensation reactions which are likely not first
order reactions.[8,40]The data set was modeled
including the three
additional parameters representing the orders in humin formation (aF,
aG, aH). The values for the three parameters were 1.6 ± 0.2,
1.5 ± 1, and 0.94 ± 0.1 for aF, aG, and aH, respectively
(Table S1, Supporting Information). The
quality of the model as expressed in terms of R2 and the AIC criterion[64] was not
much better than that of model 1 (Table ). In addition, the value for aH is close
to 1 and the value for aG has a large confidence interval including
1. As such, and also considering the fact that a model with the lowest
number of parameters is preferred, model 2 does not provide a considerable
improvement.In model 1, glucose–fructose isomerization
is not included,
rationalized by the observation that the acid-catalyzed reaction is
known to be much slower than the base-catalyzed isomerization reaction.[43] To assess the importance of isomerization, the
glucose–fructose isomerization reaction is included in model
3 (see Table for
details).The reaction was modeled as an equilibrium
reaction (eq ) with
a first-order dependency in both glucose and fructose. The value of
the equilibrium constant (about 1 in the temperature window of this
study) was taken from the literature[41,65] and as such
only the rate of one of the reactions was fitted. The model quality,
expressed by the R2-value and the AIC
criterion, were close to those for model 1 (Table ). The modeled value of k1eq was 1.7 × 10–4 ± 1.0 ×
10–3 L mol–1 min–1, which is a factor of 10 lower than all other rate constants (Table ). As such, this confirms
that the rate of the isomerization reaction is relatively slow compared
to the time scale of all other reactions. In addition, the confidence
interval is larger than the modeled value of the kinetic constant,
also an indication that the kinetic constant may actually be close
to zero and thus has limited value. Thus, we can conclude that a reaction
network involving glucose-fructose isomerization provides a good representation
of the experimental data set, though that the model predicts that
the contribution of the isomerization reaction is very limited under
the prevailing reaction conditions, in line with experimental findings (vide supra).
Table 5
Model Results for
Model 3 (Including
Glucose–Fructose Isomerization (See Table )
k value at 140 °C
model result
±
dimension
k1G
0.010
0.002
L mol–1 min–1
k2G
0.004
0.002
L mol–1 min–1
k1F
0.363
0.015
L mol–1 min–1
k2F
0.196
0.020
L mol–1 min–1
k1HMF
0.226
0.009
L mol–1 min–1
k2HMF
0.030
0.020
L mol–1 min–1
k1G2
1.004
0.231
L2 mol–2 min–1
k2G2
3.095
0.814
L mol–1 min–1
k1eq
1.7 × 10–04
1.0 × 10–03
L mol–1 min–1
Ea1G
156
16
kJ mol–1
Ea2G
167
31
kJ mol–1
Ea1F
117
3
kJ mol–1
Ea2F
119
6
kJ mol–1
Ea1HMF
92
3
kJ mol–1
Ea2HMF
138
30
kJ mol–1
Ea1G2
48
11
kJ mol–1
Ea2G2
89
15
kJ mol–1
Eaeq
2
2
kJ mol–1
Model Implications
Determination
of Optimum Conditions for
LA and HMF Yield in Batch
The model implication calculations
were all carried out using model 1, thus assuming that all reactions
in the model are first order in reactants and acid concentration,
except for glucose reversion. Figure shows the yield of LA as a function of time for different
temperatures, at a sucrose starting concentration of 0.1 M and an
acid concentration of 0.5 M.
Figure 12
Modeled LA yield as a function of batch time
at different temperatures
(initial sucrose concentration of 0.1 M, sulfuric acid concentration
of 0.5 M).
Modeled LA yield as a function of batch time
at different temperatures
(initial sucrose concentration of 0.1 M, sulfuric acid concentration
of 0.5 M).The model predicts that
the LA yield is highest at the lowest temperature
in the range, namely, 70 mol % at 100 °C. This may be rationalized
by considering that the reactions leading to humins all have higher
activation energies than the reactions forming LA. Therefore, lowering
the temperature will lead to higher LA yields. However, the batch
times at lower temperatures are excessively longer than at the highest
temperature (up to 70000 min for maximum LA yield at 100 °C),
leading to very unrealistically low reactor productivities (mol LA·m–3reactor·h–1). As
such, the optimum temperature for LA synthesis will be a compromise
between LA yield and batch time.The highest experimental value
for the yield of LA was 61 mol %
at 160 °C, in line with model predictions using the experimental
conditions as input. LA yields at lower temperatures were, in contrast
to model predictions, lower, which is due to incomplete conversion
of particularly glucose, the least reactive sugar, and as such the
maximum LA yields were not attained.The modeled HMF yield versus
the temperature is given in Figure . The highest modeled
HMF yield is 21 mol %, obtained at the highest temperature in the
range.
Figure 13
Modeled HMF yield as a function of time at different temperatures
(initial sucrose concentration of 0.1 M, sulfuric acid concentration
of 0.5 M).
Modeled HMF yield as a function of time at different temperatures
(initial sucrose concentration of 0.1 M, sulfuric acid concentration
of 0.5 M).
Conclusions
An experimental and kinetic modeling study on
the conversion of
sucrose to LA and HMF in water using sulfuric acid as the catalyst
is reported. The maximum experimental LA yield was 61 mol % (160 °C,
an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M and an acid concentration
of 0.2 M), whereas the maximum HMF yield was 22 mol % (140 °C,
an initial sucrose concentration of 0.05 M and an acid concentration
of 0.05 M). The experimental data were modeled using a number of possible
reaction networks, and the best model when considering model quality
indicators (R-squared of parity plots, AIC criterion,
and number of model parameters) was obtained when using a first order
approach in substrates (except for the reversion of glucose). The
model was used to determine optimum conditions regarding LA and HMF
yields in batch and predicts that highest LA yields are possible at
the lowest temperature in the range, though this goes at the expense
of reactor productivity (mol LA·m–3reactor·h–1) due to considerable reductions in reaction
rates. Highest HMF yields are predicted for the highest temperature
in the range.This information may be used to develop efficient
processes for
the conversion of sucrose solutions to biobased building blocks like
HMF and LA. In addition, it may also be the starting point for the
development of such processes using waste streams from sugar industries,
though experimental studies with such real feeds will be required
to assess the effects of impurities (salts, proteins, bases) on rates
of the individual reactions.
Authors: Heidi M Pilath; Mark R Nimlos; Ashutosh Mittal; Michael E Himmel; David K Johnson Journal: J Agric Food Chem Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 5.279
Authors: Robert-Jan van Putten; Jenny N M Soetedjo; Evgeny A Pidko; Jan C van der Waal; Emiel J M Hensen; Ed de Jong; Hero J Heeres Journal: ChemSusChem Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 8.928
Authors: Ria M Abdilla-Santes; Wenze Guo; Pieter C A Bruijnincx; Jun Yue; Peter J Deuss; Hero J Heeres Journal: ChemSusChem Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 8.928