| Literature DB >> 35423823 |
HanShuang Liu1, KaiJun Wang1, XiaoYan Cao1, JiaXin Su1, Zhenggui Gu1.
Abstract
In this study, different magnesium, copper, lanthanide single metal, and composite multimetal oxide catalysts were prepared via the coprecipitation route for the aerobic oxidation of cumene into cumene hydroperoxide. All catalysts were characterized using several analytical techniques, including XRD, SEM, EDS, FT-IR, BET, CO2-TPD, XPS, and TG-DTG. La2O3-CuO-MgO shows higher oxidation activity and yield than other catalysts. The results of XRD and SEM studies show that the copper and magnesium particles in the catalyst are smaller in size and have a distribution over a larger area due to the introduction of the lanthanum element. The CO2-TPD results confirmed that the catalyst has more alkali density and alkali strength, which can excite active sites and prevent the decomposition of cumene hydroperoxide. XPS results show that due to the promotional effect of La2O3, there are more lattice and active oxygen species in the catalyst, which can effectively utilize the lattice defects under the strong interaction between metal oxides for rapid adsorption and activation, thus improving the oxidation performance. Besides, La2O3-CuO-MgO exhibits good stability and crystalline structure due to its high oxygen mobility inhibiting coking during the cycle stability test. Finally, the possible reaction pathway and promotional mechanism on La2O3-CuO-MgO in cumene oxidation are proposed. We expect this study to shed more light on the nature of the surface-active site(s) of La2O3-CuO-MgO catalyst for cumene oxidation and the development of heterogeneous catalysts with high activity in a wide range of applications. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423823 PMCID: PMC8696952 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra00176k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1The XRD profiles of the C–M, L–M and L–C–M.
Fig. 2The SEM pictures of the (a) C–M, (b) L–C–M.
Fig. 3X-ray energy spectrum analysis results of L–C–M sample: (a) scanning electron microscope image; (b) carbon element distribution diagram; (c) oxygen element distribution diagram; (d) magnesium element distribution diagram; (e) copper element distribution; (f) lanthanum element distribution diagram; (g) catalyst sample test energy spectrum.
Fig. 4The FT-IR transmission spectra of the C–M, L–M, L–C–M.
Physical properties of catalysts
| Samples | BET surface area (m2 g−1) | Total pore volume (cm3 g−1) | Average pore diameter (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C–M | 48.98 | 0.28 | 22.87 |
| L–M | 20.84 | 0.18 | 30.15 |
| L–C–M | 4.15 | 0.06 | 43.58 |
Fig. 5N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms and pore-size distribution curve (inset) of C–M, L–M, L–C–M.
Fig. 6The CO2-TPD pictures of the C–M, L–M and L–C–M.
The alkaline test results of the C–M, L–M and L–C–M
| Samples | Total basic sites | SB sites | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity (cm3 per g STP) | Temperature (°C) | Quantity (cm3 per g STP) | |
| C–M | 21.80 | 670.25 | 2.32 |
| L–M | 55.14 | 633.92 | 30.14 |
| L–C–M | 60.55 | 672.43 | 46.60 |
Fig. 7XPS survey spectrum of (a) C–M, (b) L–M and (c) L–C–M. High resolution XPS survey at (d) Cu 2p region, and (e) O 1s region.
Surface atomic concentration of different elements in C–M, L–M and L–C–M catalysts using XPS results
| Samples | Surfer element molar ratio/% | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CuAp2+ | CuBp2+ | CuAs2+ | CuBs2+ | Oα | Oβ | Oγ | |
| C–M | 59.76 | 11.86 | 16.01 | 12.36 | 15.89 | 65.43 | 18.68 |
| L–M | — | — | — | — | 17.74 | 67.23 | 15.03 |
| L–C–M | 69.01 | 15.83 | 8.91 | 6.25 | 20.33 | 71.03 | 8.64 |
Fig. 8TG and DTG curves of the (a) C–M, (b) L–M and (c) L–C–M.
Fig. 9IPB conversion (a) and cyclic stability test results of L–C–M samples (b).
SB sites, the molar ratio of Oβ and catalytic oxidation activity of different composite oxide catalystsa
| Samples | SB sites | Oβ/Oβ + Oα |
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | Quantity (cm3 per g STP) | CHP | PP | AP | ||||
| C–M | 670.25 | 2.32 | 0.65 | 53.26 | 56.59 | 34.69 | 8.43 | 30.14 |
| L–M | 633.92 | 30.14 | 0.67 | 67.50 | 58.90 | 39.56 | 0.35 | 39.76 |
| *Co(BPZ) | — | — | — | 34 | 84 | 15 | 1 | 28.56 |
| *[MP4]Br | — | — | — | 16.7 | 87.7 | — | — | 14.65 |
| *Co-BTC | — | — | — | 49 | 69 | — | — | 33.81 |
| *NHPI/Cu(acac)2 | — | — | — | 68 | 44 | 45 | 10 | 29.92 |
| L0.8–C0.01–M1 | — | — | — | 81.35 | 70.64 | 27.43 | 0.57 | 57.46 |
| L0.8–C0.03–M1 | 672.43 | 46.60 | 0.71 | 95.50 | 60.57 | 36.23 | 1.75 | 57.84 |
| L0.8–C0.05–M1 | — | — | — | 95.75 | 55.37 | 39.46 | 3.43 | 53.02 |
| L0.8–C0.07–M1 | — | — | — | 96.23 | 50.39 | 43.12 | 5.85 | 48.49 |
| L0.8–C0.09–M1 | — | — | — | 98.22 | 45.64 | 44.27 | 9.79 | 44.83 |
Reaction conditions: raw material (IPB) = 20 ml, initiator (CHP) = 0.2 ml, composite oxide catalyst = 0.4 g, reaction temperature = 90 °C; time = 6 h; rate = 500 ml min−1.
The surfer element molar ratio of Oβ in O 1s XPS test.
Conversion of IPB based on the DAD-HPLC results = moles of IPB reacted/[initial moles of IPB used] × 100.
Selectivity of product calculated by total moles of CHP formed/total moles of IPB converted.
Yield of CHP = conversion × selectivity.
Fig. 10XRD patterns profiles of fresh and used samples.
Fig. 11Catalytic mechanism of cumene free radical chain oxidation.