Furfural and 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF) are abundantly available biomass-derived renewable chemical feedstocks, and their oxidation to furoic acid and furan-2,5-dicarboxylic acid (FDCA), respectively, is a research area with huge prospective applications in food, cosmetics, optics, and renewable polymer industries. Water-based oxidation of furfural/HMF is a lucrative approach for simultaneous generation of H2 and furoic acid/FDCA. However, this process is currently limited to (photo)electrochemical methods that can be challenging to control, improve, and scale up. Herein, we report well-defined ruthenium pincer catalysts for direct homogeneous oxidation of furfural/HMF to furoic acid/FDCA, using alkaline water as the formal oxidant while producing pure H2 as the reaction byproduct. Mechanistic studies indicate that the ruthenium complex not only catalyzes the aqueous oxidation but also actively suppresses background decomposition by facilitating initial Tishchenko coupling of substrates, which is crucial for reaction selectivity. With further improvement, this process can be used in scaled-up facilities for a simultaneous renewable building block and fuel production.
Furfural and 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF) are abundantly available biomass-derived renewable chemical feedstocks, and their oxidation to furoic acid and furan-2,5-dicarboxylic acid (FDCA), respectively, is a research area with huge prospective applications in food, cosmetics, optics, and renewable polymer industries. Water-based oxidation of furfural/HMF is a lucrative approach for simultaneous generation of H2 and furoic acid/FDCA. However, this process is currently limited to (photo)electrochemical methods that can be challenging to control, improve, and scale up. Herein, we report well-defined ruthenium pincer catalysts for direct homogeneous oxidation of furfural/HMF to furoic acid/FDCA, using alkaline water as the formal oxidant while producing pure H2 as the reaction byproduct. Mechanistic studies indicate that the ruthenium complex not only catalyzes the aqueous oxidation but also actively suppresses background decomposition by facilitating initial Tishchenko coupling of substrates, which is crucial for reaction selectivity. With further improvement, this process can be used in scaled-up facilities for a simultaneous renewable building block and fuel production.
Owing to the negative
consequences of fossil fuel use, intensive
research is ongoing, focusing on transitioning toward a renewable
framework for fuel and materials production.[1−5] Furfural and 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF) are chemical
feedstocks produced by hydrolysis of biomass waste.[6−8] Because of their
renewable nature, the synthesis of commodity chemicals from furfural
and HMF has garnered increasing attention.[9−12] Among many products obtainable
from furfural and HMF, their oxidation products, furoic acid and furan
dicarboxylic acid (FDCA), respectively, hold particular interest (Figure A). Furoic acid has
many applications including plastic plasticizer, food preservative,
pharmaceutical intermediate, and FDCA precursor, and has potential
applications in optics technology because of its unique crystal properties,
with large-scale synthesis plants operated by multiple companies.[13−16] Similarly, FDCA is a promising renewable alternative to terephthalic
acid for polymers synthesis.[17] FDCA-based
renewable biopolymers often show improved mechanical, thermal, and
gas transport properties compared to their terephthalic acid based
counterparts found in the market (Figure B),[18,19] with the United States
Department of Energy identifying FDCA as 1 of the 12 priority chemicals
for the establishment of a green chemical industry in the future.[20,21] Several companies started pilot plants for FDCA synthesis from HMF
over the past decade because of its growing market in the polymer
industry; however, the markedly different approaches undertaken reflect
the lack of an economically optimized process for the desired synthesis.[22]
Figure 1
Different aspects of furfural and HMF oxidation to furoic
acid
and FDCA. (A) Chemical equations with previous approaches. (B) Bioplastics
(PEF and PPF) derived from FDCA. (C) HMF oxidation by water to FDCA
with H2 evolution with previous and new approach. (D) Challenges
faced in this study and its circumvention. (E) Relevant ongoing catalytic
aqueous oxidation reactions during the process.
Different aspects of furfural and HMF oxidation to furoic
acid
and FDCA. (A) Chemical equations with previous approaches. (B) Bioplastics
(PEF and PPF) derived from FDCA. (C) HMF oxidation by water to FDCA
with H2 evolution with previous and new approach. (D) Challenges
faced in this study and its circumvention. (E) Relevant ongoing catalytic
aqueous oxidation reactions during the process.The most explored selective oxidative routes to access furoic acid
and FDCA from furfural and HMF use heterogeneous catalysts, such as
supported PbPt/C, Au, Ag2O/CuO, and AuPd/Mg(OH)2, with excess oxidants (mainly high-pressure oxygen or air).[23−26] The process produces water as the side product for HMF to FDCA conversion,
which although environmentally benign, does not hold any economic
value. Alternative oxidation methods such as electrochemical[27−29] and bio[30] -enzymatic[31−34] oxidation of furfural and HMF
to furoic acid and FDCA have also been explored. Recent reports have
elegantly coupled H2 production from water with biomass
oxidation to (photo)electrochemically produce H2 and furoic
acid/FDCA from water and furfural/HMF mixture (Figure C).[35−40] These photoelectrochemical systems, however, require advanced specialized
materials and can be challenging to rationally improve. Besides, their
large-scale implementation can be difficult because of the need for
sophisticated infrastructures and low working concentrations.[41]In contrast to the explored heterogeneous,
biological, enzymatic,
and (photo)electrochemical processes, catalytic homogeneous systems
for furfural and HMF oxidation are extremely limited. The use of well-defined
homogeneous complexes for furfural/HMF oxidation is challenging because
of the facile substrate decomposition pathways at high temperatures
in alkaline/aerobic conditions leading to the formation of polymeric
products (Figure D).[42,43] Goldberg and co-workers have reported complexes that are active
in catalyzing the aqueous reforming of other aldehydes to acids, but
display minimal activities when furfural/HMF is used as a substrate.[44,45] Interestingly, Nakajima and co-workers have recently reported an
N-heterocyclic carbene organocatalyst for furfural to furoic acid
conversion in the presence of 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU)
base, which use O2 as the oxidant, but can only partially
oxidize HMF to 5-hydroxymethylfurancarboxylic acid intermediate.[46]Herein, we report the catalytic homogeneous
oxidation of furfural
and HMF to furoic acid and FDCA, respectively, using alkaline water
as the formal oxidant. The reaction is catalyzed by well-defined ruthenium
complexes with acridine-based PNP pincer ligands[47,48] and generates pure H2 gas as the reaction byproduct.
Mechanistic studies indicate that the Ru complexes not only catalyze
the substrate oxidation to acid but also induce rapid substrate disproportionation
in the initial hour, which is crucial in preventing substrate decomposition.
Further reaction involves the dehydrogenative oxidation of the generated
alcohol by water (Figure E). The scalability of the process is demonstrated by carrying
out a gram-scale reaction. Notably, the system can theoretically produce
up to a substantial 3.48 wt % H2 when HMF is used as a
substrate and LiOH as the base if a neat system is developed, generating
both renewable fuel and material precursors in one simple homogeneous
process.
Results and Discussion
Furfural Oxidation to Furoic Acid
Catalyst
Screening
Our investigation started by exploring
the aqueous furfural oxidation to furoic acid in the presence of the
Ru-PNN bipyridyl complex 1 (Figure A), which is reported by us to catalyze aqueous
dehydrogenative oxidation of alcohols to carboxylic acid salts by
alkaline water (Table S1, Supporting Information).[49] However, attempts toward aqueous oxidation of
furfural at 135 °C by complex 1 (1 mol %) in 1,4-dioxane/alkaline
water resulted in complete decomposition of furfural with no generation
of H2 or furoic acid. A control reaction revealed that
furfural is prone to degradation at elevated temperature under the
reaction conditions, even without any catalyst. We subsequently screened
several ruthenium-based pincer complexes developed in our group for
the desired dehydrogenative oxidation reaction. However, all efforts
involving complexes 1–4 resulted in substrate
decomposition with no significant gas generation (Figure A). In the case of the Ru-PNNBPyPh complex (5), the furfural decomposition rate
slowed down, obtaining the acid and alcohol as the reaction products,
however, with only a small amount of H2 generated (8%)
(Table S1, entry 7). Remarkably, the acridine
PNP complex 6 catalyzed the reaction with high H2 (80%) yield and furoic acid (87%) yield (Table S1, entry 8). GC analysis of the generated gas mixture
showed only H2 gas with no CO contamination, suitable for
its use in a proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell without further
purification. Optimization of the catalyst amount showed that 1 mol
% catalyst loading is ideal for both high H2 and furoic
acid yields, with lower catalyst loadings being detrimental, especially
for H2 yields (Figure A). A stoichiometric base was necessary for the reaction,
and under the catalytic base, decreased yields were observed. Furoic
acid and H2 were obtained in >95% yield by increasing
the
reaction time from 36 to 48 h.
Figure 2
Catalytic oxidation of furfural and HMF
with water as the formal
oxidant. (A–D) Furfural to furoic acid: (A) Catalyst and condition
screening. (B) Effect of base. (C) Catalyst ligand substitution effect.
(D) Temperature effect on furfural to furoic acid conversion. (E–G)
HMF to FDCA: (E) Reaction equation. (F) Different possible parallel
pathways. (G) Condition optimization to obtain FDCA and H2. Reactions in (A)–(D) were conducted using 1 mmol of furfural,
1 mol % catalyst, and 1.2 equiv of the base in 1,4-dioxane (2 mL)/water
(1 mL) unless otherwise specified. Reactions in (B) and (D) are with 6 (1 mol %) as the catalyst, and reactions in (C) used NaOH
(1.2 equiv) as the base with 48 h reaction time. Reactions in (G)
used 0.5 mmol of HMF in 1,4-dioxane (2 mL)/water (1 mL), with other
reaction conditions as specified. Yields calculated by 1H NMR (mesitylene standard) and gas buret (H2). Yields
correspond to furoic acid or FDCA salts before acidification with
isolated yields in parentheses.
Catalytic oxidation of furfural and HMF
with water as the formal
oxidant. (A–D) Furfural to furoic acid: (A) Catalyst and condition
screening. (B) Effect of base. (C) Catalyst ligand substitution effect.
(D) Temperature effect on furfural to furoic acid conversion. (E–G)
HMF to FDCA: (E) Reaction equation. (F) Different possible parallel
pathways. (G) Condition optimization to obtain FDCA and H2. Reactions in (A)–(D) were conducted using 1 mmol of furfural,
1 mol % catalyst, and 1.2 equiv of the base in 1,4-dioxane (2 mL)/water
(1 mL) unless otherwise specified. Reactions in (B) and (D) are with 6 (1 mol %) as the catalyst, and reactions in (C) used NaOH
(1.2 equiv) as the base with 48 h reaction time. Reactions in (G)
used 0.5 mmol of HMF in 1,4-dioxane (2 mL)/water (1 mL), with other
reaction conditions as specified. Yields calculated by 1H NMR (mesitylene standard) and gas buret (H2). Yields
correspond to furoic acid or FDCA salts before acidification with
isolated yields in parentheses.
Effect of the Base, Catalyst Substitution, and Temperature
Next, the effect of different bases was explored (Figure B; Table S2). Strong bases such as NaOH, KOH, and LiOH were effective
for high furoic acid and H2 yield, with relatively weaker
bases such as K3PO4 and Na2CO3 being similarly effective (>90% furoic acid yield). Decreasing
the base strength further as with NaHCO3 resulted in decreased
furoic acid yield (52%), with the rest of the product being the alcohol.
Among amine-based organic bases, DBU was moderately effective for
acid generation (78%), whereas with dimethyl aminopyridine (DMAP),
almost no acid formed, with 85% furfural being unreacted. We also
explored the effect of different ligand substituents of the catalyst
structure on product yield (Figure C). Complexes Ru-Acr(iPr) (6) and Ru-Acr(Cy) (7) displayed similar catalytic activities
under the conditions for furfural oxidation to furoic acid. In contrast,
the Ru-Acr(Ph) complex 8, with electron-withdrawing Ph
substitutions onto phosphorus donor atoms, was slightly less active
in catalyzing the reaction. Optimization studies regarding reaction
temperature revealed that 135 °C is required for reaction completion
in 48 h and decreasing the temperature to 125 or 115 °C resulted
in lower yields (Figure D).
HMF Oxidation to FDCA
The direct
oxidation of HMF to
FDCA via this homogeneous dehydrogenative aqueous oxidation method
was subsequently explored (Figure E). As mentioned earlier, direct FDCA synthesis from
HMF by water is a process with a great prospect in the industrial
production of biobased renewable polymers and fuels, for which current
methods are limited. HMF oxidation to FDCA can occur via two different
routes— one via the generation of 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furancarboxylic
acid (HMFCA) from the initial oxidation of the aldehyde group to acid
or via initial oxidation of the alcohol group in HMF forming diformylfuran
(DFF), whose subsequent oxidation generates FDCA (Figure F). With use of our method,
heating HMF at 135 °C in the presence of complex 6 (4 mol %), NaOH (2.2 equiv) in 1,4-dioxane/water (2:1 mL/mL), FDCA
formation in 15% yield was observed after 18 h (Figure G, entry 1). The primary reaction product
was the HMFCA intermediate (75%), signifying that oxidation of the
aldehyde group is easier than that of the alcohol group under the
conditions (Figure S12). These two products,
along with the disproportionation product bis(hydroxymethyl)furan
(BHMF, 10%), accounted for all the HMF conversion (99%), indicating
the absence of any polymeric side pathways. A higher yield of FDCA
(70%) was obtained by using a more alkaline solution (4 equiv of base)
and a longer reaction time (60 h) (entry 2). Similar to furfural oxidation,
complex 8 was less active for HMF to FDCA oxidation,
too (entry 3). FDCA yield increased to 95% when the reaction temperature
was increased to 150 °C, using 6 as the catalyst
(entry 4). Under optimized conditions, FDCA in high yield (95%) was
obtained (H2 yield: 93%) with 2 mol % of complex 6 and 2.2 equiv of NaOH, at 160 °C after 68 h of reaction
(entry 5). LiOH was similarly active as NaOH as a base in facilitating
FDCA formation under the reaction conditions (entry 6). Thus, it is
shown that complex 6 can catalyze the direct and selective
HMF oxidation to FDCA in the presence of alkaline water with high
yields while also generating quantitative pure H2 gas.
In the absence of catalyst, decomposition of HMF into unidentifiable
products was observed (entry 7).
Mechanistic Investigation
We subsequently explored
the reactivity complex 6 with aldehyde, base, and water
to understand the reaction mechanism (Figure ). Initial experiments were carried out with
benzaldehyde as the furfural surrogate, which is more stable at higher
reaction temperatures and easier to follow. Complex 6 does not react with benzaldehyde (5 equiv) under neutral conditions
in a THF/water solvent mixture (0.5:0.1 mL/mL), even when heated at
a high temperature of 130 °C for 0.5 h (Figure a). On the other hand, when NaOH (5 equiv)
was added, and the solution was subsequently heated at 130 °C
for 10 min inside a J. Young NMR tube, generation of two new complexes
were observed in the 31P{1H} NMR spectrum (Figure S31) with their characteristics 31P chemical shifts at 74.1 and 87.5 ppm, respectively, at a 0.8:1.0
ratio (parent complex 31P signal chemical shift is at 69.1
ppm). In the 1H NMR spectrum, surprisingly, the 9H acridine
aromatic protons from both complexes were missing, which appear around
8–9 ppm as a singlet, with new sets of peaks around 3.5–4
ppm, which were assigned to CH2 protons at the 9 position
of the acridine ring (Figure S33). On the
basis of further NMR analysis and our previously reported observations
with the Ru-Acr system, these two complexes were identified as the
dearomatized 9H acridine complex (9) and Ru-Acr9H phenyl-carboxylate
complex (9a) (Figure a).[47] Thus, under the reaction
conditions, hydride transfer from the substrate initially takes place
to the 9CH position of the catalyst’s acridine backbone, leading
to the formation of dearomatized complexes,[50,51] which further catalyze the reaction.
Figure 3
Mechanistic and control
experiments. (a) Reactivity of complex 6 with benzaldehyde
in the presence or absence of NaOH. (b)
Complex 9 catalyzed furfural oxidation to furoic acid.
(c) Reactivity of complex 9 with furfural and water.
(d) Reactivity of 9 with furoic acid to generate the
furoate complex 9b. Additional reactivity of 9b in the presence of base NaOH and water. No reaction took place without
the base. (e) Catalytic activity of complex 9b in catalyzing
furfural to furoic acid in the presence of NaOH.
Mechanistic and control
experiments. (a) Reactivity of complex 6 with benzaldehyde
in the presence or absence of NaOH. (b)
Complex 9 catalyzed furfural oxidation to furoic acid.
(c) Reactivity of complex 9 with furfural and water.
(d) Reactivity of 9 with furoic acid to generate the
furoate complex 9b. Additional reactivity of 9b in the presence of base NaOH and water. No reaction took place without
the base. (e) Catalytic activity of complex 9b in catalyzing
furfural to furoic acid in the presence of NaOH.Accordingly, complex 9 catalyzed the dehydrogenative
oxidation of furfural under basic conditions with similar activity
as the aromatized complex 6 (furoic acid yield 98%, Figure b). Subsequent mechanistic
experiments focused on the reactivity of complex 9 with
different substrates. In the absence of base, complex 9 reacts with water and furfural at 130 °C to generate the furoate
complex 9b after 10 min (Figure c, Figure S35). 9b can also be accessed alternatively by mixing 9 with furoic acid in THF at room temperature (Figure d, Figure S36).[52]9b was found to be stable under
neutral conditions in THF in the presence of water (10 equiv), even
when subjected to high temperature (130 °C) (Figure S37). On the other hand, when NaOH (3 equiv) was added
to the solution, the formation of a new complex was observed at RT
in the 31P NMR, along with the generation of sodium furoate
(observed in 1H NMR) (Figure d). The new complex slowly decomposed at
RT, which was facilitated at elevated temperature (Figure S38) and is tentatively assigned the structure of high-energy
hydroxide intermediate 9c. The furoate complex 9b was observed to catalyze the aqueous oxidation of furfural
in the presence of an external base; however, its catalytic activity
subsided when no base was present in the system (Figure e). Thus, complex 9b seemingly acts as a deactivating species under the reaction conditions,
and the addition of a stoichiometric base is required to remove the
chelating furoate ligand to generate the product while at the same
time opening relevant coordination sites for catalytic turnover.On the basis of these observations, a mechanism cycle as shown
in Figure is proposed.
Initial hydride transfer from the substrate to the catalyst ligand
backbone generates the dearomatized complex 9 (step i).
Complex 9, in the presence of water, generates the hydroxide
complex 9c with H2 evolution (step ii).[50] In the presence of furfural, the hydroxo complex
generates the hemiacetal complex 9d via attack of the
hydroxide ligand onto furfural (step iii), akin to the mechanism proposed
at heterogeneous metal water interfaces.[53−55] Further β-hydride
elimination generates the furoic acid complex (step iv), H2 liberation leading to the furoate complex 9b (step
v). In the absence of an external base, the catalytic cycle halts
at this stage; however, when a base is present, the furoate ligand
detaches as product furoate salt while regenerating the hydroxide
complex (step vi). It should be noted here that an alternate mechanism
involving the initial free acetal formation, followed by acetal dehydrogenation
and beta hydride elimination cannot be entirely ruled out, based on
our mechanistic observations (SI, section 7.5).
Figure 4
Mechanistic cycle. A plausible scheme for furfural to furoic acid
formation using water catalyzed by 6 involving the generation
of dearomatized complexes. Elemental steps: (i) initial dearomatization
of the catalyst, (ii) initial dehydrogenation of water by 9 generating hydroxide complex, (iii) hydroxide attack on the aldehyde,
(iv) beta hydride elimination, (v) H2 evolution, and (vi)
product elimination and substitution.
Mechanistic cycle. A plausible scheme for furfural to furoic acid
formation using water catalyzed by 6 involving the generation
of dearomatized complexes. Elemental steps: (i) initial dearomatization
of the catalyst, (ii) initial dehydrogenation of water by 9 generating hydroxide complex, (iii) hydroxide attack on the aldehyde,
(iv) beta hydride elimination, (v) H2 evolution, and (vi)
product elimination and substitution.Simultaneous to the aldehyde dehydrogenative coupling with water,
leading to generation of the furoate salt and H2, disproportionation
of furfural also takes place to generate furoate and furfuryl alcohol
as the reaction products. These two processes result in the quick
consumption of the initial aldehyde during the reaction. Total consumption
of the aldehyde was observed after the initial 15 min of reaction
along with 60% of furoic acid and 20% H2 yield (40% of
furfuryl alcohol side product; Figure A). The subsequent reaction completion involves the
conversion of the generated furfuryl alcohol to furoic acid. The observed
H2 evolution time profile suggests that the aldehyde dehydrogenative
coupling reaction with water is quick, with alcohol dehydrogenation
being comparatively slower (Figure S16).
Similar to furfural, HMF oxidation is also surmised to proceed involving
a combination of direct dehydrogenative oxidation to FDCA and disproportionation–oxidation
pathway involving BHMF. Accordingly, when BHMF was tried as a substrate
instead of 5-HMF, FDCA in high yields (81%) was isolated (similar
reaction conditions as in Figure G, entry 4) (see Supporting Information). The reaction pathways ongoing during the reactions of furfural
and HMF oxidation are detailed in Figure S45.
Figure 5
Active decomposition suppression by Ru complexes. (a) Product distribution
from furfural oxidation after 15 min with and without the presence
of catalyst. Furfural (0.5 mmol), water (1 mL), 6 (1
mol %), NaOH (1.2 equiv), and 1,4-dioxane (2 mL). (b) Catalytic formation
of furfuryl furoate by Tishchenko coupling of furfural catalyzed by 9. Furfural (0.5 mmol), 9 (1 mol %), and 1,4-dioxane
(2 mL). (c) Alternative [Ru] and base-mediated pathway for furfural
disproportionation under the reaction conditions as compared to Cannizzaro
disproportionation.
Active decomposition suppression by Ru complexes. (a) Product distribution
from furfural oxidation after 15 min with and without the presence
of catalyst. Furfural (0.5 mmol), water (1 mL), 6 (1
mol %), NaOH (1.2 equiv), and 1,4-dioxane (2 mL). (b) Catalytic formation
of furfuryl furoate by Tishchenko coupling of furfural catalyzed by 9. Furfural (0.5 mmol), 9 (1 mol %), and 1,4-dioxane
(2 mL). (c) Alternative [Ru] and base-mediated pathway for furfural
disproportionation under the reaction conditions as compared to Cannizzaro
disproportionation.
Active Decomposition Inhibition
by [Ru]
The ruthenium
complex takes an active part in the substrate disproportionation process.
As mentioned, under standard reactions with complex 6, furfural is entirely consumed in 15 min via combined dehydrogenative
aqueous oxidation (to acid and H2) and disproportionation
(to acid and alcohol) to produce furoate and furfuryl alcohol (Figure A), selectively.
Interestingly, when the reaction was conducted without catalyst, only
55% furfural conversion was observed after 15 min, with only 20% accounting
for acid and alcohol products by Cannizzaro disproportionation, the
rest being unidentified decomposition products (Figure A). These results suggest a parallel disproportionation
pathway for furfural, in addition to the Cannizzaro mechanism, in
the presence of Ru catalyst. Accordingly, when furfural was heated
at 135 °C in 1,4-dioxane in the presence of complex 9 (1 mol %) for 3 h, formation of furfuryl furoate in 65% yield was
observed, signifying that complex 9 can catalyze the
Tishchenko coupling of furfural (Figure B).[51,56] The resulting ester,
under the reaction conditions of Table S1 is hydrolyzed to furoate salt and furfuryl alcohol (Figure C). This alternative disproportionation
pathway via Tishchenko coupling followed by base-mediated hydrolysis
leads to quick consumption of all furfural/HMF before the onset of
decomposition and is crucial for the observed high oxidation selectivity
with catalyst 6 or 9. A tentative mechanism
of the Tishchenko reaction catalyzed by complex 9 is
shown in Supporting Information (Figure S40).
Catalyst Recycling and Scale-Up
Focusing on the practicality
of the system for large-scale implementation, we also explored the
possibility of catalyst recycling after the reaction. The catalyst
was recovered from the postreaction solution by evaporation of the
solvents and extracting the catalyst with benzene (detailed procedure
in Supporting Information). Following this
protocol, the catalyst was recycled for three cycles and its catalytic
activities for furfural oxidation were retained after the third cycle.
(97%, 91%, and 83% sodium furoate yield, respectively, in the first,
second, and third cycle), demonstrating the viability of catalyst
recycling. We also conducted a gram-scale experiment with 15 mmol
of furfural (1.44 g) to check the scalability of the process. After
68 h of reaction at 150 °C, 1.3 g of furoic acid (77% yield)
was isolated from the reaction, along with 316 mL of H2 collected (87% yield), demonstrating the scalability of the process.
Conclusions
We report here molecular catalysts for the direct
catalytic oxidation
of furfural and HMF to furoic acid and FDCA, respectively, using alkaline
water as the formal oxidant. The oxidation is associated with the
generation of pure H2 gas with no detectable CO contamination
(detection limit: 15 ppm), suitable for direct utilization in a proton-exchange
membrane fuel cell. When the ruthenium acridine PNP complex 6 was used as the catalyst, furoic acid/FDCA was obtained
with high yield (>95%) by aqueous oxidation of furfural/HMF. Mechanistic
studies revealed an initial hydride transfer from the substrate to
the catalyst ligand backbone under the conditions, generating the
dearomatized complex 9, which subsequently catalyzed
the oxidation. Complex 9 also catalyzes the Tishchenko
coupling of substrates, which is essential for background decomposition
suppression. Overall, the Ru-acridine PNP-based system is unique,
with its atypical reactivity, in catalyzing the selective furfural/HMF
oxidative reactions with complete inhibition of substrate decomposition,
resulting in high furoic acid/FDCA and H2 yields. We believe
that this report will initiate further investigations toward the homogeneous
catalytic oxidation of furfural/HMF, largely overlooked until now,
especially with water as the formal oxidant, given the dire importance
of transitioning toward renewable material and fuel synthesis in the
context of modern sustainability. With sufficient improvements in
the conditions, such a homogeneous process could be ideal for large-scale
FDCA (and furoic acid) and H2 synthesis from the HMF (and
furfural)–water mixture in an industrial setup, compared to
the equivalent (photo)electrochemical processes.
Authors: Chidambaram Gunanathan; Boopathy Gnanaprakasam; Mark A Iron; Linda J W Shimon; David Milstein Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Frank M A Geilen; Barthel Engendahl; Andreas Harwardt; Wolfgang Marquardt; Jürgen Klankermayer; Walter Leitner Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Leanne G Bloor; Renata Solarska; Krzysztof Bienkowski; Pawel J Kulesza; Jan Augustynski; Mark D Symes; Leroy Cronin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Niki Poulopoulou; Nejib Kasmi; Maria Siampani; Zoi N Terzopoulou; Dimitrios N Bikiaris; Dimitris S Achilias; Dimitrios G Papageorgiou; George Z Papageorgiou Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 4.329