4.4 Article

Glucose transformation to 5-hydroxymethylfurfural in acidic ionic liquid: A quantum mechanical study

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 327-335

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24214

关键词

biomass; reaction mechanism; statistical mechanics; ionic liquids; quantum mechanical calculation

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT)
  2. Nagoya University Program for Leading Graduate Schools-Integrative Graduate Education and Research (IGER) (G30 Program Nagoya at University)
  3. Program in Green Natural Science
  4. Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talents Project (DPST) (Royal Government of Thailand scholarship)
  5. Academic Consortium 21 (AC21) [24750015]
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K05385] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isomerization and transformation of glucose and fructose to 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in both ionic liquids (ILs) and water has been studied by the reference interaction site model self-consistent field spatial electron density distribution (RISM-SCF-SEDD) method coupled with ab initio electronic structure theory, namely coupled cluster single, double, and perturbative triple excitation (CCSD(T)). Glucose isomerization to fructose has been investigated via cyclic and open chain mechanisms. In water, the calculations support the cyclic mechanism of glucose isomerization; with the predicted activation free energy is 23.8 kcalmol(-1) at experimental condition. Conversely, open ring mechanism is more favorable in ILs with the energy barrier is 32.4 kcalmol(-1). Moreover, the transformation of fructose into HMF via cyclic mechanism is reasonable; the calculated activation barriers are 16.0 and 21.5 kcalmol(-1) in aqueous and ILs solutions, respectively. The solvent effects of ILs could be explained by the decomposition of free energies and radial distribution functions of solute-solvent that are produced by RISM-SCF-SEDD. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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