| Literature DB >> 35601448 |
Riccardo Polese1, Elisa Pintus1, Luca Nuvoli1, Monica Tiana1, Salvatore Pintus1, Giuseppe Satta1, Andrea Beccu1, Silvia Gaspa1, Massimo Carraro1, Lidia De Luca1, Ugo Azzena1, Luisa Pisano1.
Abstract
The acid-promoted epoxidation of vegetable oils was studied using a variety of acidic ion exchange resins as heterogeneous acid catalysts. Quantitative and selective epoxidation of a series of vegetable oils with different composition of saturated, mono-, di- and tri-unsaturated fatty acids was obtained upon identification of the more efficient catalyst and experimental conditions. Furthermore, optimized reaction conditions were successfully applied to the epoxidation of a waste cooking oil, thus extending our procedure to the valorization of a biowaste, an area of increasing importance within a more sustainable society. The use of quantitative 1HNMR besides making accurate evaluation of the amounts of reagents to be employed and of the selectivity, allowed facile and rapid quantification of mono-, di- and tri-epoxides, thus providing an indirect indication on the fatty acid composition of the vegetable oils, even in the presence of very low quantities of linolenic acid.Entities:
Keywords: acidic ion exchange resin catalysts; aquivion; epoxidation; q1HNMR; vegetable oils; waste cooking oils
Year: 2022 PMID: 35601448 PMCID: PMC9043701 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: R Soc Open Sci ISSN: 2054-5703 Impact factor: 3.653
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the epoxidation reaction Aquivion-catalysed with generated in situ from and aqueous , and mass transfer between phases.
Catalytic epoxidation of safflower oil promoted by AIER catalysts.a
| exp. | AIER catalyst | conv. (%) | yield (%) | selectivity (%) | TOF (h−1)c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | 99.8 | 94.2 | 94.4 | ||
| 2 | Amberlite® IR-120 (H) | 33 | 50.7 | 48.6 | 95.9 | 2.42 |
| 3 | Amberlite® IR-120 (H) | 44 | 70.6 | 67.5 | 95.6 | |
| 4 | Amberlite® IR-120 (H) | 128 | 98.6 | 94.7 | 96.0 | |
| 5 | Amberlyst® 15 | 33 | 36.6 | 33.8 | 92.4 | 2.42 |
| 6 | Amberlyst® 15 | 44 | 55.8 | 53.5 | 95.8 | |
| 7 | Amberlyst® 15 | 150 | 90.1 | 87.3 | 96.9 | |
| 8 | Amberlyst® 15 | 170 | 95.3d | 87.0 | 91.3 | |
| 9 | Dowex® 50WX2 (H) | 33 | 87.8 | 82.8 | 94.4 | 4.05 |
| 10 | Dowex® 50WX2 (H) | 66 | 99.5 | 94.2 | 94.6 | |
| 11 | Aquivion® PW79S | 17 | 85.4 | 79.4 | 93.0 | 8.03 |
| 12 | Aquivion® PW79S | 22 | 94.5 | 89.0 | 94.1 | |
| 13 | Aquivion® PW79S | 27 | 99.6 | 91.8 | 92.2 | |
| 14 | Aquivion® PW79S | 33 | 99.9 | 91.3 | 91.4 | |
| 15 | Aquivion® PW79S | 66 | 99.5 | 90.9 | 91.4 | |
| 16 | Aquivion® PW79S | 126 | 99.9 | 88.1 | 88.2 |
aThe epoxidation was performed in toluene for 6 h at 60°C; ratio .
b molar ratio.
c .
dQuantitative conversion yields were obtained performing the reaction for 24 h.
Catalytic epoxidation of different vegetable oils.
| exp. | vegetable oil | catalyst (meq | conv. (%) | yield (%) | selectivity (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | safflower | 5.03 | Aquivion (33) | 100.0 | 92.1 | 92.1 |
| 2 | thistle | 4.34 | Aquivion (33) | 99.9 | 94.3 | 94.4 |
| 3 | WCO | 3.92 | Aquivion (33) | 98.6 | 93.3 | 94.7 |
| 4 | hemp | 5.81 | Aquivion (66) | 99.7 | 91.07 | 91.3 |
| 5 | safflower | 5.03 | Dowex (33) | 87.8 | 82.8 | 94.4 |
| 6 | hemp | 5.81 | Dowex (66) | 94.9 | 89.1 | 91.3 |
a molar ratio.
Figure 2q 1HNMR spectra of safflower oil and epoxidated safflower oil (NMR 400 MHz, ).
Figure 3q 1HNMR spectra of hemp oil and epoxidated hemp oil (NMR 400 MHz, ).
Longitudinal relaxation times T1 of proton nuclei of the safflower oil and its epoxidized derivative.
| ppm ( | substrate | proton assignmenta | peak notationb | T1 (s) | integral limits (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.35 | safflower oil | A | 2.06 | 5.46–5.21 | |
| 4.28 | safflower oil | 2xCH gly | 0.52 | 4.37–4.23 | |
| 4.13 | safflower oil | 2xCH gly | 0.54 | 4.21–4.08 | |
| 2.77 | safflower oil | H | 1.52 | 2.85–2.70 | |
| 2.31 | safflower oil | C | 0.84 | 2.39–2.23 | |
| 2.04 | safflower oil | D | 1.33 | 2.12–1.96 | |
| 1.61 | safflower oil | E | 0.84 | 1.69–1.53 | |
| 1.30 | safflower oil | F | 1.11 | 1.43–1.21 | |
| 0.89 | safflower oil | G | 2.65 | 0.95–0.82 | |
| 5.26 | safflower epoxide | A | 1.04 | 5.31–5.22 | |
| 4.29 | safflower epoxide | 2xCH gly | 0.49 | 4.38–4.22 | |
| 4.15 | safflower epoxide | 2xCH gly | 0.49 | 4.22–4.08 | |
| 3.10 | safflower epoxide | tri- + di- epox | 1.91 | 3.20–3.03 | |
| 2.98 | safflower epoxide | di- + tri- epox | 1.73 | 3.03–2.94 | |
| 2.89 | safflower epoxide | mono epox | 1.86 | 2.94–2.86 | |
| 2.32 | safflower epoxide | C | 0.76 | 2.43–2.24 | |
| 1.54 | safflower epoxide | Z | 0.87 | 1.90–1.19 | |
| 0.90 | safflower epoxide | G | 2.16 | 0.98–0.82 |
aAs previously reported by Xia et al. [35].
bThe signals letters agree with those in figures 2 and 3.
q 1H NMR integral relationship for composition determination.
| name | relationship | |
|---|---|---|
| normalizing factor | (1) | |
| triacylglycerides mean molecular weight | TGA MW | (2) |
| epoxidated derivative mean molecular weight | EPOX MW | (3) |
| oxirane oxygen | (4) | |
| mean double-bond content | DB | (5) |
| oil polyunsaturated fatty acids | (6) | |
| oil monounsaturated fatty acids | (7) | |
| oil unsaturated fatty acids | (8) | |
| oil saturated fatty acids | (9) | |
| oil tri-unsaturated | (10) | |
| oil di-unsaturated | (11) | |
| MonoEpox | (12) | |
| DiEpox | (13) | |
| TriEpox | (14) |
Properties of AIER catalysts.a
| catalyst | matrix | moisture | acidity meq H+/ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amberlyst® 15 | 52–57% | 4.7 | |
| Amberlite® IR-120 (H) | 53–58% | 4.5 | |
| Dowex® 50WX2 (H) | 80% | 4.3–4.8 | |
| Aquivion® PW79S | fluoroethylene + sulfonyl fluoride vinyl ether | 0–2% | 1.2–1.3 |
aData from datasheet available online from suppliers; more information is also accessible.
Figure 4Comparison of conversion, yield and selectivity in the presence of .
Figure 5Conversion, yield and selectivity as a function of the number of reuses of catalysts (Aquivion and Dowex).