Supported Cu–Cr catalysts were prepared by a non-alkoxide sol–gel route, and characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), H2-temperature programmed reduction (H2-TPR) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurement. Their structures were significantly tuned by the Cu–Cr molar ratio. CuCr2O4, CuCr2O4–CuO and CuCr2O4–Cr2O3 structures were confirmed in CuCr(0.5), CuCr(4) and CuCr(0.25) catalysts, respectively. A direct interaction between CuCr2O4 and CuO or Cr2O3 in CuCr(4) and CuCr(0.25) catalyst was observed by the H2-TPR and XPS results. The catalytic performance of Cu–Cr catalysts with various structures was examined by hydrogenolysis reaction of high concentrated glycerol. Under mild conditions (2.0 MPa and 130 °C) and high concentration (100 wt%), the maximum conversion (52%) was obtained over the CuCr(0.5) catalyst, while the CuCr(4) catalyst gave the highest selectivity of 1,2-PD (up to 100%). This finding will result in the production of less waste water and lower energy consumption in the following separation steps during glycerol hydrogenolysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: