Literature DB >> 29632875

For CO2 Reduction, Hydrogen-Bond Donors Do the Trick.

Steven A Chabolla1, Jenny Y Yang1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29632875      PMCID: PMC5879483          DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ACS Cent Sci        ISSN: 2374-7943            Impact factor:   14.553


× No keyword cloud information.
Carbon dioxide is the major pollutant responsible for climate change, an unfortunate byproduct of powering our society with fossil fuels. There is currently great interest in applying renewable energy to capture and reduce CO2 to provide carbon-neutral fuels. This approach mimics natural photosynthesis, which utilizes CO2 for energy storage and as a structural building block. Achieving this goal requires catalysts that can reduce CO2 to higher energy products or fuel precursors. A popular target reaction is the two-electron reduction of CO2 to CO. Along with H2, CO can be used in Fischer–Tropsch processes to generate liquid fuels. In this issue of ACS Central Science, Chapovetsky, Welborn, and co-workers describe an integrated experimental and computational investigation into mechanistic pathways for a series of cobalt complexes that catalyze this reaction.[1] The most active catalyst contains architectural features that are known to facilitate CO2 reduction in other molecular catalysts. However, their detailed analysis contained some surprises — and illuminates new ways in which the secondary structure can be harnessed to promote high catalytic activity. The initial cobalt catalyst reported by Chapovetsky and co-workers contains four secondary amines along the ligand backbone (1 in Figure ).[2] The pendant N–H groups appear to be poised to assist CO2 binding through hydrogen-bonding interactions; this binding motif has been observed in a structurally similar Ni(cyclam)2+ catalyst.[3] The N–H assist hypothesis was buoyed by the strong positive dependence on the number of groups and catalytic rate. However, the calculated energies for CO2 binding in this fashion contained an unexpected result: the ring flip required to position the N–H for CO2 binding came at a prohibitively high energetic cost, and is inaccessible under catalytic conditions. Instead, the reason analogues with sequentially methylated amines (pendant R2N–H groups replaced by R2N–CH3) have lower catalytic activity is their increased steric profile, which inhibits CO2 binding.
Figure 1

Adapted from the catalytic cycle proposed by Chapovetsky et al. for the hydrogen-bond assisted reduction of CO2.[2] The Co(II) catalyst is reduced at the electrode (i), followed by formation of a CO2 preassociation complex (ii) and rapid initial protonation (iii). The rate-determining second protonation step is facilitated by a hydrogen-bonding interaction with the TFE acid (iv) to yield CO and H2O.

Adapted from the catalytic cycle proposed by Chapovetsky et al. for the hydrogen-bond assisted reduction of CO2.[2] The Co(II) catalyst is reduced at the electrode (i), followed by formation of a CO2 preassociation complex (ii) and rapid initial protonation (iii). The rate-determining second protonation step is facilitated by a hydrogen-bonding interaction with the TFE acid (iv) to yield CO and H2O. The presence of proximal hydrogen-bond donors is also known to assist CO2 reduction by mediating proton movement. (For a prominent example, see phenol modified Fe(porphyrin), Costentin et al.)[4] However, the computational results again indicate that direct protonation from the N–H group would require an energetically challenging conformational change. Instead, the N–H groups play a role in orienting the acid for the rate-determining second protonation step (Figure , step iv). The detailed analysis of the catalytic cycle results in a rate law that quantifies the contribution of installing each N–H group in the ligand backbone on overall activity. Achieving this thorough understanding of the relationship between structure and function would likely have been impossible without the cooperative use of experimental observations and theoretical calculations. Ultimately, the unexpected role the N–H groups play in the catalytic cycle underscore the importance of considering structural dynamics in secondary coordination sphere interactions.[5] The most active variant, 1, with four pendant N–H groups, is both fast and selective for the product CO, with few electron equivalents going toward side reactions (such as direct proton reduction to H2). However, it operates with a high overpotential (η), a reflection of energetic inefficiency. With these properties, it joins an exclusive group of CO2 reduction catalysts that score high on key reactive metrics (selectivity and activity), but require improvement in others (η). A collective examination of mechanistic studies for molecular CO2 reduction catalysts may not appear to coalesce around any single structural feature or challenging catalytic step that would provide cohesive guidelines for catalyst design. This complexity is a consequence of the multivariable challenges associated with optimizing this reaction. Many catalysts rely on highly reducing metal centers to activate relatively inert CO2, but at the price of high overpotential. In other cases, the release of the product CO, a good ligand for electron rich metal centers, limits the catalytic rate. Achieving high product selectivity also requires inhibiting proton reduction pathways. Additionally, as in most multi-electron and -proton reactions, uncoupled movement of the latter can contribute to sluggish kinetics or high energy barriers in the catalytic cycle.[6] Studies on catalysts that have overcome these challenges reveal insight into circumventing these troublesome catalytic steps. In Ni(cyclam)2+ and the phenol-modified Fe(porphyrin) catalysts mentioned previously, cooperative CO2 binding through hydrogen-bonding interactions enables catalysis at milder potentials while also serving as proton shuttles. Additionally, insight into the electronic structure of reduced metal centers provides valuable information on how to inhibit competitive proton reduction pathways and ease CO release.[7] Many other strategies to improve catalyst performance, including incorporation of electrostatic interactions, are also emerging.[8] Can all of these considerations be pieced together to achieve an optimal catalyst? Many of the aforementioned considerations are actually already assembled in a single – albeit non-synthetic – catalyst. Electrochemical studies on the enzyme Ch CODH I from the anaerobic thermophile Carboxydothermus hydrogenoformans indicate fast and reversible interconversion of CO2 and CO with almost no overpotential indicating near-perfect energy efficiency.[9] Structural studies on the active site point to many of the elements described above, including cooperative CO2 binding and utilizing the local microenvironment to mediate proton movement.[10] Investigating the importance and impact of these interactions using both experiment and theory is crucial to achieving a synthetic catalyst with high rates, selectivity, and thermodynamic efficiency. In this way, we have the potential to mimic nature and master the art of CO2 chemistry.
  10 in total

1.  Electrocatalytic reduction of carbon dioxide by nickel cyclam2+ in water: study of the factors affecting the efficiency and the selectivity of the process.

Authors:  M Beley; J P Collin; R Ruppert; J P Sauvage
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  1986-11-01       Impact factor: 15.419

2.  Through-Space Charge Interaction Substituent Effects in Molecular Catalysis Leading to the Design of the Most Efficient Catalyst of CO2-to-CO Electrochemical Conversion.

Authors:  Iban Azcarate; Cyrille Costentin; Marc Robert; Jean-Michel Savéant
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 15.419

3.  Elucidation of the selectivity of proton-dependent electrocatalytic CO2 reduction by fac-Re(bpy)(CO)3Cl.

Authors:  John A Keith; Kyle A Grice; Clifford P Kubiak; Emily A Carter
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 15.419

4.  A local proton source enhances CO2 electroreduction to CO by a molecular Fe catalyst.

Authors:  Cyrille Costentin; Samuel Drouet; Marc Robert; Jean-Michel Savéant
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Controlling Proton Delivery through Catalyst Structural Dynamics.

Authors:  Allan Jay P Cardenas; Bojana Ginovska; Neeraj Kumar; Jianbo Hou; Simone Raugei; Monte L Helm; Aaron M Appel; R Morris Bullock; Molly O'Hagan
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 15.336

6.  Proton-Assisted Reduction of CO2 by Cobalt Aminopyridine Macrocycles.

Authors:  Alon Chapovetsky; Thomas H Do; Ralf Haiges; Michael K Takase; Smaranda C Marinescu
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 15.419

7.  Carbon dioxide activation at the Ni,Fe-cluster of anaerobic carbon monoxide dehydrogenase.

Authors:  Jae-Hun Jeoung; Holger Dobbek
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Rapid and efficient electrocatalytic CO2/CO interconversions by Carboxydothermus hydrogenoformans CO dehydrogenase I on an electrode.

Authors:  Alison Parkin; Javier Seravalli; Kylie A Vincent; Stephen W Ragsdale; Fraser A Armstrong
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 15.419

9.  Proton-Coupled Electron Transfer: Moving Together and Charging Forward.

Authors:  Sharon Hammes-Schiffer
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 15.419

10.  Pendant Hydrogen-Bond Donors in Cobalt Catalysts Independently Enhance CO2 Reduction.

Authors:  Alon Chapovetsky; Matthew Welborn; John M Luna; Ralf Haiges; Thomas F Miller; Smaranda C Marinescu
Journal:  ACS Cent Sci       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 14.553

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Achieving Moderate Pressures in Sealed Vessels Using Dry Ice As a Solid CO2 Source.

Authors:  Mohit Kapoor; Pratibha Chand-Thakuri; Justin M Maxwell; Michael C Young
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 1.355

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.