4.8 Article

Alkene epoxidation with mesoporous materials assembled from TS-1 seeds - Is there a hierarchical pore system?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 269, 期 2, 页码 367-375

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2009.11.023

关键词

Hierarchical pore systems; Zeolite seeds; TS-1; Epoxidation; XANES

资金

  1. German Science foundation [Gi 139/20]
  2. Flemish Government
  3. Methusalem
  4. FWO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hexagonal mesoporous solids were synthesized from solutions containing TS-1 seeds. The products were characterized by XRD, nitrogen and argon physisorption, TEM, TG/DTA of template decomposition (also after extraction of the mesopore template), UV-Vis and IR spectroscopy, and XANES at the TiK edge. Their catalytic activities were assessed for cyclohexene epoxidation in hydrophilic and hydrophobic environment (CH3OH/water, with H2O2 oxidant, and decane, with tert-butyl hydro-peroxide oxidant, respectively) and for n-hexene epoxidation in hydrophilic environment. The mesopore system was clearly documented by XRD, physisorption measurements, and TEM, whereas evidence for micropores by physisorption proved elusive. However, the micropore template was detected in the solids by TG/DTA even after extraction of the mesopore template, and among the Ti sites, which were confirmed to be tetrahedrally coordinated by UV-Vis and XANES, a clear majority was able to coordinate two water molecules. It was concluded that the pore walls had been built up from nanoparticulate TS-1 precursors resulting in walls of ca. 1.5 nm thickness, which resemble rather the exterior layers of a TS-1 crystallite than its (hydrophobic) interior. In cyclohexene epoxidation, the micro-mesophases were by 1-2 orders of magnitude more active than TS-1 and outperformed also Ti-MCM-41, at similar selectivity in hydrophobic medium. With 1-hexene in hydrophilic medium, however, the micro-mesophases failed completely whereas TS-1 exhibited high activity. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据