Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
201100447
1162
1. Introduction
1.1. Acroleinan important and versatile intermediate
Acrolein (IUPAC name: prop-2-enal), the simplest unsaturated
aldehyde, is a colorless liquid (b.p. 53 8C) at room temperature
with a pungent and piercing odor. The conjugation of the carbonyl group with a vinyl group provides acrolein with a high
degree of reactivity. Acrolein is a critical intermediate for the
chemical industry and is converted to acrylic acid and its
esters, glutaraldehyde, methionine, polyurethanes and polyester resins (Figure 1).
www.chemsuschem.org
1163
process.[7] Partial oxidation of propylene catalyzed by multicomponent metal catalysts later replaced the aldol condensation and remains to be the primary manufacturing method.
Acrolein can be produced from partial oxidation of propane,
although it is more difficult to control selectivity and the yield
has not yet reached a commercially viable level. Several other
petroleum-based synthetic routes have been used successfully
to synthesize acrolein. Ai et al. synthesized acrolein through reaction of formaldehyde and ethanol at 240320 8C using nickel
phosphate or silica-supported metal (tungsten, zinc, nickel, or
magnesium) oxides.[8] Acrolein can also be obtained by the oxidation of allyl alcohol,[9, 10] decomposition of allyl ether[11] or
partial oxidation of ethane.[12] However, these routes have significant drawbacks for application on a larger scale, including
low availability and high cost of the reactants, high energy
consumption, or low selectivity.
Acrolein can also be produced through biological routes. As
early as the 1900s, acrolein formation was encountered during
alcoholic fermentation from grains with certain bacterial
strains, such as Bacillus amaracrylus, Clostridium welchii, and
Lactobacillus.[1315] In the case of alcoholic fermentation, acrolein was an undesirable compound, and the target of these studies had always been to minimize or prevent the associated
acrolein production. Only recently has research started to investigate the possibility of using this undesired route for possible chemical production. Vollenweider et al. gave a clear
statement of the potential of the solely biological route of
acrolein production.[16] However, bacterial methods have not
been viable at a production level.
The appearance of acrolein during glycerol distillation,[11]
where glycerol pyrolysis occurs, was probably the prototype of
the double dehydration process for producing acrolein from
glycerol. Acrolein formation from glycerol becomes faster and
considerably more selective in the presence of an acid, compared to pyrolysis alone at the same temperature. Acrolein
produced from glycerol is now categorized as bio-based acrolein, because glycerol is largely available as a coproduct of biodiesel production. With the advent of improved acid catalysts,
the production of bio-based acrolein is increasingly appealing
for industrial manufacture.
1.3. Going toward the bio-based route
1164
www.chemsuschem.org
ered bismuth molybdate catalysts for high-output and cost-effective acrolein production. The partial oxidation of propylene
has been the predominant manufacturing method worldwide
ever since. In parallel, acrolein production from propane continues to be of interest [Eq. (3)] because of propanes considerably lower cost.[17] Propane is the byproduct of both natural
gas production and oil refining, but is only consumed commercially as fuel. In contrast, the carboncarbon double bond of
propylene makes it an important intermediate for the production of a number of value-added chemicals, such as polypropylene, acrylonitrile, propylene oxide, and isopropyl alcohol. This
continual demand in many processes has driven up the propylene price, making development of the route from propane
more attractive. However, despite decades of work on acrolein
synthesis from propane, the yield of acrolein prepared through
partial oxidation of propane has not reached a point of commercial viability.
CH2 O CH3 CHO ! CH2 CHCHO H2 O
Because of the excess of glycerol, acrolein, one of the valueadded chemical derivatives of glycerol [Eq. (4)], has attracted
a great deal of attention in recent years. In a recent development of an acid-catalyzed dehydration, a good acrolein yield
was achieved. Hence, there is considerable potential for using
this method as a substitutive or complementary method to
the propylene oxidation route in the future.
www.chemsuschem.org
1165
Feed composition[a]
Contact time
[sec]
T
[8C]
Conversion
[%]
Selectivity[b]
[%]
Mo5VW1.5Te0.5Sb2Sn/Bi oxide[26]
Te-V-W-As/Sn-(Sb) oxide[27]
Sn-Sb-U oxide[28]
SnSb2VFe0.5Bi0.01 oxide[29]
Cr2Al0.7Mo7Te0.35 oxide[30]
Ni10Co0.3FeBiPMo12O57[31]
Ni4.5Co4FeBiP0.08Mo12O31[32]
NiCo3Fe2BiAs1.5K0.2Mo12O48.35[33]
NiCo3Fe2BiP2K0.2Mo12O49.6[34]
Mo12Bi0.17Mg0.512Fe0.17Mn05O2580[35]
Ni10.5FeBiMo2O54[36]
Mo-Bi-Fe-Mn-X oxide[37][e]
Mo-Co-Fe-Bi-X-O[38][f]
B-W-Co-Bi-Fe-Mo-Si-M-O[39][g]
Mo10Co8Fe2Bi0.9V0.05K0.05 oxide[40]
Mo10BiFe2Co8Zr0.1Ca0.1Ti0.2 oxide[41]
Mo12Te2Sb2Zr0.5Zn0.5V0.5 oxide[41]
Co4BiFeW2Mo10Si1.35K0.06 oxide[42]
Co-K-Mo-W-(P) oxide[43]
Mo12W0.3BiFeZn0.1Co4.5K0.06Al0.1Si5Ox[4446]
Mo12.25Bi1Fe3Co8Cs0.1[47]
Bi-Mo-Fe-Ni-Si oxide[48]
Mo-Bi-Fe-Co-(Ni)-X oxide[49][h]
I/O/steam = 1:1.6:6
I/O/steam = 1:6:3
I/O/N = 5:7.5:87.5
I/O/N/steam = 1:12:67:15
I/air/steam = 4:50:46
I/air/steam = 1:10:4.1
I/air/steam = 1:10:6
I/air/steam = 1:10:5
I/air/steam = 1:10:5
I/air/steam = 4.5:53:42.5
I/air/steam = 1:10:6
I/air/steam = 6:42.8:51.2
I/air/steam = 1:12:7
I/air/steam = 1:14:10
I/air/steam = 1:10:4
I/air/steam = 1:10:4
I/air/steam = 1:10:4
I/O/steam:N = 7:12.6:10:70.4
I/air/steam = 1:10:8
I/O = 1:0.53
I/O/steam = 110:3-20:7096
I/O/N = 1:120:120
I/O/steam:N = 1:1.6:2.3:4.9
3
4.9
3.5
3
4
1.8
4
1.5
1.5
9
4
2.4
2.4
6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.25
25
N.A.[c]
N.A.[c]
3
N.A.[c]
450
370
430
270
384
360
310
305
305
370
270
340
350
330350
330
310
350
320
350
310
360
360
310
66.5
65.6
89
62.3
95
90
95.5
94
96
94.8
95.80
91.30
90.80
99.60
6392
98.6
98.3
96.20
84.986.9
99.3099.5
96.00
87.30
> 97
N.A.[c]
69.9
81
72.8
83.3
93.1[d]
82.8
93
88
73.7
69.90
80.40
81.50
73.70
7095
91.8
88.3
86.60
83.187.7
90.1092.30
88.75
96.50
87.63
[a] Molar ratio is used (mol/mol); I = propylene. [b] Selectivity is defined as the molar ratio between the carbon in the acrolein produced in the reaction
and the carbon in the converted propylene. [c] Not available. [d] Acrolein +acrylic acid. [e] X = K, Rb, and/or Cs. [f] X = Sn or Sn with Al, Ni, W, Cr, In, Nb.
[g] M = alkali metal. [h] X = Cs and/or K.
1166
www.chemsuschem.org
Figure 4. Mechanisms of the formation of allyl intermediates (initial/rate-determining steps of the partial oxidation
of propylene).[53, 54]
cation and its formation rate is faster. The 28 carbocation undergoes loss of a proton to form an intermediate enol, which
undergoes subsequent tautomerization to form 3-hydroxypropanal. A second dehydration of 3-hydroxypropanal affords
acrolein (Figure 5 A1). Similarly, the 18 carbocation can form
acetol through formation of the less stable enol (Figure 5 B1).
In addition to intramolecular enol formation, intermolecular
condensation to form glycerol oligomers (Figure 6) can occur
and is often favored at lower reaction temperatures.[61]
www.chemsuschem.org
1167
Even with the presence of the acid, the activation energy for
these dehydrations is still considerable. As a result, the studies
of converting glycerol to acrolein conducted in aqueous phase
under atmospheric pressure generally fail to achieve a useful
acrolein yield even in the presence of mineral acids or mineral
salts.[6264] Two different general approaches have been examined to improve the reactivity: 1) increasing the boiling point
of the reactant either by pressurizing the reaction vessel to
conduct the reactions under sub- or supercritical conditions or
by mixing the reactant in a reaction medium with a high boiling point; 2) increasing the reaction temperature and conducting the reaction in the gas phase.
2.2.1. Liquid-phase reaction
In 1987, Ramayya et al. conducted a liquid-phase glycerol dehydration under high pressure using 0.005 m H2SO4 as the catalyst and a 0.5 m glycerol solution as the reactant.[65] Nearly
100 mol % acrolein selectivity was achieved, but glycerol conversion was low (< 40 %). At a fixed pressure of 34.5 MPa, they
found that a higher temperature favored glycerol conversion.
In 2001, Bhler et al. studied the reactions of glycerol under
sub-/supercritical water conditions. This study covered the
temperature range of 349475 8C at 25, 35, and 45 MPa and
residence times ranging from 32165 s.[66] Clearly, high temperature favors the gas-phase products such as H2, CO, and CO2,
and the production was more enhanced at temperatures
above 450 8C. Longer resident times, lower temperature, and
higher pressures seemed preferable for acrolein production;
however, strong trends of the acrolein yield in terms of these
conditional parameters were not observed. Without the addition of any acid, the selectivity to acrolein was low (6.6
37.5 mol %).
Reactor corrosion was found to be a problem under sub-/supercritical water conditions, and was more severe with the
usage of mineral acids or ZnCl2 as catalysts.[66] ZnSO4 is usually
considerably less corrosive, which justified the usage of ZnSO4
as the acid catalyst by Ott et al.[66] They found that under subcritical conditions, glycerol conversion increased as the quantity of ZnSO4 increased. The best result in their study (75 mol %
selectivity and 50 % conversion) over the temperature range of
1168
www.chemsuschem.org
Figure 7. Radical pathway of glycerol conversion to acrolein, acetol, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde.[68]
but also maintained the space yield for a longer time-onstream (TOS). Chai et al. divided the acidity (using the Hammett acidity function, H0) into three major groups: H0 8.2,
8.2 H0 3.0, and 3.1 H0 +6.8. The solid acids with
strengths in the range 8.2 H0 < M- > 3.0 were most likely
to afford good acrolein production. Outside this range, the catalyst either does not provide sufficient acidity to selectively
catalyze acrolein formation or is too acidic and suffers from
surface coke formation. Brnsted acid sites are superior to
Lewis acid sites for acrolein production; however, several studies show that Lewis acid sites could be converted into Brnsted acid sites in the presence of water vapor.[72, 73]
2.2.2.1. Catalysts
Supported mineral acids
Of the supported mineral acids, phosphoric acid has been reported as the most favorable.[69, 70, 71, 74, 75] The studies have been
conducted on various supporting materials, such as a-Al2O3,
activated bentonite, and activated carbon. Common mineral
acids are usually water soluble. Therefore, they cannot be solid
acids by themselves. Previous studies used them as solid acids
after they were supported on catalyst frameworks. Boronic
acid, sulfuric acid, and phosphoric acid supported by silica,[71]
alumina,[74] or zeolite[69] have been studied in the past. Supported phosphoric acid thus far provided the best result compared to other supported mineral acids. In 1993, Haas et al.[75]
stated that they had produced 1,2- and 1,3-propandiol from
glycerol. The first step described in their patent is the dehydration of glycerol using an alumina-supported phosphoric acid
for the production of acrolein in 70.5 mol % yield. Suzuki patented a semi-batch reaction using H3PO4/aAl2O3, with dropwise addition of glycerol solution, and reported 42 % conversion and 89 mol % selectivity.[70]
Zeolites
Zeolites are crystallized aluminosilicates, consisting of a threedimensional framework of tetrahedral SiO4 or AlO4. The general
formula of a zeolite can be represented as Mx/n [(AlO2)x(SiO2)y]w H2O. The zeolite has well defined yet controllable
pore sizes, good thermal stability, and tunable distribution of
Brnsted and Lewis acidities.[76] Li and co-workers patented the
use of acidic zeolites to catalyze glycerol dehydration to acrolein.[77] The highest acrolein yield was reported as 82.1 mol %
using ZSM-11 as catalyst at 320 8C. Corma and co-workers operated glycerol conversion in a MicroDowner unit in the presence of ZSM-5 zeolites. At the optimal condition, they reported
62.1 mol % acrolein selectivity and 100 % glycerol conversion.[78]
Ghlich et al. screened several zeolites using a microactivity
test unit. They found that a low amount of phosphoric acid
loading boosted the acrolein selectivity.[79] Neher et al. achieved 7175 mol % selectivity using HZSM-5 to catalyze the
liquid-phase reaction (250300 8C) at 7 MPa.[80] However, the
corresponding glycerol conversion was only 1519 %. Chao
et al. disclosed their development of a catalyst using HZSM-5,
with a SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of 25360, together with the
www.chemsuschem.org
1169
1170
www.chemsuschem.org
Particle
sizes
[mm]
Surface Glycerol
Acrolein
Feed (gas)
conversion selectivity
area
[mol %]
[mL min1]
[m2 g1] [%]
Nb2O5[d]
ZSM5 (Si/Al = 100)
15 %H3PO4/SiO2[f]
15 %H3BO3/SiO2[f]
30 % H3PW12O40/SiO2
30 % H4SiW12O40/SiO2
30 % H3MoW12O40/SiO2
H4SiW12O40
15.43 % WO3/ZrO2
20 %HPMo/A5
20 %HPW/A5
20 %HSiW/A5
20 %HSiW/AS4
20 %HSiW/AS12
30 %H3PW12O40/SiO2[g]
30 %H3PW12O40/SiO2[i]
15 %H3PW12O40/ZrO2[i]
10 %H4SiW12O40/AC
Nd4(P2O7)3[k]
FePO4 (A)
FePO4 (AH)
FePO4 (P)
FePO4 (H)
HZSM-5[l]
HZSM-5[l]
HZSM-5[l]
HZSM-5[l]
CsPW
Cs2HPW12O40
0.5 %Pd/CsPW
0.5 %Ru/C + CsPW (1:10)
20 %HPW/SiO2
2 %Pd/20 %HPW/SiO2
VOPO4[m]
SAPO-11
SAPO-34
La4(P2O7)3
Ce4(P2O7)3
Nd4(P2O7)3
Sm4(P2O7)3
Eu4(P2O7)3
Gd4(P2O7)3
Tb4(P2O7)3
Ho4(P2O7)3
Er4(P2O7)3
Tm4(P2O7)3
Yb4(P2O7)3
Lu4(P2O7)3
20 %H4SiW12O40/SiO2
20 %H4SiW12O40/Al2O3[n]
N.A.[e]
40120
75650
75650
75650
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
5001000
315500
315500
315500
315500
315500
350840[h]
350840[h]
350840u[h]
350840[h]
N.A.[e]
125200
125200
125200
125200
2060
2060
2060
2060
45180
45181
45182
45183
45184
45185
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
13
1.22.4
99
70
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
<5
59
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
141
162
133
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
43.6
2.6
7.8
8.7
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
130
70
84
117
205
200
10
89
359
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
N.A.[e]
300
140
88
100
69.9
1.5
99.7
98.3
98.4
26.7
88
97.3
99.2
98.4
100
91
25
20
76
92.6
96.4
100.0
97.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
98
83
57
100 (41)
91 (21)
97 (79)
95 (50)
100 (60)
100 (72)
100
88 (65)
59 (42)
76.2
44.8
87.2
89.7
83.1
88.2
87.6
84.4
86.7
87
48.4
58.5
94.4
98.7
51
62.1
48.2
27.3
65.1
86.2
33.4
59
72.1
45
51.7
63.6
75
71
59
54
71
75.1
82.7
78.4
81.5
85.3
92.1
60
63
65
67
98 (94)
97 (94)
83 (96)
94 (92)
97 (95)
85 (94)
64
62 (55)
72 (65)
78.5
42.9
79.9
77.8
78.5
78.9
78.8
77.2
79.7
77.8
63.7
64.4
88.0
84.7
Glycerol
T
TOS[a]
concentration[b] [wt %] feed information[c] [h1]
[8C] [h]
30 (N2)
36.20
20
N.A.[e]
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
2.5 (O2)
20
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
30 (He)
10
31 (N2)
36.20
32 (N2)
36.20
33 (N2)
36.20
20 (He)
10
30 (N2)
36.2
40
9.6 (N2)
9.6 (N2)
40
40
9.6 (N2)
40
9.6 (N2)
30 (N2)
35 or 50
30 (N2)
35 or 50
30 (N2)
35 or 50
30 (N2)
35 or 50
10
15 (N2)
15 (N2)
10
10
15 (H2)
10
15 (H2)
15 (N2)
10
15 (H2)
10
18 (N2/O2) 20
50 (He)
5
50 (He)
105
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
30 (N2)
36.2
60 (Ar)
20
60 (Ar)
20
80
335[e]
0.587[e]
0.587[e]
0.587[e]
0.587[e]
0.587[e]
0.587[e]
330
0.574[e]
0.574[e]
0.574[e]
0.574[e]
0.574[e]
400
400
400
[j]
227
600
600
600
600
155
465
719
1438
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
43 (90)
44 (90)
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
84.4
84.4
315
350
325
325
325
275
275
275
280
275
275
275
275
275
315
315
315
330
320
280
280
280
280
320
320
320
320
275
275
275
275
275
275
300
280
280
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
275
275
910
910
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
several
several
several
several
several
910
910
910
5
78
5
5
5
5
910
910
910
910
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
1 (5)
10
after 1
after 1
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
7.5
Ref.
[82]
[78]
[71]
[71]
[71]
[71]
[71]
[71]
[61]
[98]
[98]
[98]
[98]
[98]
[101]
[101]
[101]
[95]
[102]
[102]
[102]
[102]
[102]
[103]
[103]
[103]
[103]
[100]
[100]
[100]
[100]
[100]
[100]
[104]
[105]
[105]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[85]
[106]
[106]
[a] Time-on-stream. [b] The concentration of glycerol solution = Wglycerol(g)/(Wglycerol+Wwater)(g). [c] The reported data are gas-hourly-space-velocity unless otherwise specified. [d] Calcined @400 8C. [e] Not available. [e] Weight hourly space velocity. [f] 6 nm. [g] Calcined@350 8C. [h] Corresponds to 2040 mesh.
[i] Calcined@650 8C. [j] Unspecified. [k] pH 6, calcined@500 8C. [l] Nanocrystalline. [m] Calcined@800 8C. [n] Together with a non-thermal plasma application.
a study of HPA salts with Cs, which had been reported as the
most promising counter cation for acid-catalyzed reactions.
The HPW-Cs salt showed better performance than HSiW-Cs
salt, although both of them showed high acrolein selectivity.
The doping of Pt group metals on the HPW-Cs salt slowed the
deactivation rate without lowering the acrolein selectivity. The
www.chemsuschem.org
1171
1172
www.chemsuschem.org
cluded that vanadium phosphate oxides were stable during reaction in the presence of water vapor.[104] The commercial USYbased equilibrium catalyst and ZSM5-based additive used by
Corma et al. did not show noticeable changes in catalyst properties, stability or catalytic activity at different temperatures
with various water fractions in glycerol solution.[78] A slight increase in catalyst stability with the increase of water content in
the glycerol feed was reported for two other zeolites, H-ZSM-5
(150) and H-ZSM-5 (30).[81] As the water faction increased
(within the range of 66.691.3 wt %), the acrolein yield increased with no significant variation in glycerol conversion.
Suprun et al. claimed that water had a positive influence on
the catalysts (Al2O3- and TiO2-supported phosphate ions, SAPO11 and SAPO-3) for glycerol-to-acrolein conversion in that it
created a moderate increase in acidity by the formation of
extra-framework alumina species [e.g., Al(OH) + and Al(OH)2 + ]
and some titania species, which provided weak Lewis acid
sites.[105] Furthermore, water as a dilute agent for glycerol inhibits catalyst deactivation.[78] The surface reaction network of
the chemisorbed glycerol is very likely to be influenced by the
presence of water vapor.[81] The undesired sequential reactions
from acrolein might be suppressed by the water vapor.[78] In
the presence of water, some Lewis acid sites might be converted into Brnsted acid sites, which are preferred for acrolein formation.[98, 107] Therefore, a conclusion may be drawn that, with
a good solid acid catalysts, the presence of water vapor is
a positive factor to the glycerol-to-acrolein conversion.
2.2.2.3. Problems to be solved
Promising progress has been achieved regarding the acrolein
yield, which is already competitive with the current manufacturing methods derived from propylene.[78] To transform this
bio-based process into a completely satisfactory substitution
to the propylene method, one problem needs to be solved:
how to extend the service life of the highly efficient solid acid
catalysts to the timescale of months to years. Catalyst deactivation was reported in almost every study on glycerol dehydration to acrolein.[61, 71, 72, 74, 81, 82, 85, 95, 98101, 103105, 108, 110, 111] The negative influence of catalyst deactivation was usually reflected in
the decrease of glycerol conversion along with reaction time,
which lowered the overall acrolein yield. For example, compared to glycerol conversion at 1 h TOS, the conversion at 5 h
TOS was reduced by 4059 % for the Cs heteropoly salts in Alhanash and co-workers study.[100] In the study by Kim et al.,[81]
the ZSM-5 catalysts with various Si/Al ratios showed a reduction
of 4669 % in glycerol conversion at 1012 h TOS compared to
2 h TOS, and also some reduction in acrolein selectivity.
Catalyst deactivation is caused by coke formation on the catalyst surface, thereby blocking the pores and preventing reactant contact with the active sites. Glycerol conversion would
decrease as a result. Also, part of the coke is formed from acrolein or glycerol, so its formation further reduced the acrolein
yield. Stronger acid sites, or more specifically, strong Brnsted
acid sites, are favored for acrolein formation, but they unfortunately also lead to more severe coking and, therefore, more
severe catalyst deactivation.[100]
Figure 8. Process flow diagram for the production of acrolein from propylene.[117, 119]
www.chemsuschem.org
1173
Figure 9. Proposed process flow diagram for the production of acrolein from glycerol. The rectangle (dashed line, left hand side) is applied if crude glycerol is
used as starting material.
1174
www.chemsuschem.org
Table 4. Comparative list of reactor and separation columns for the propylene-based and bio-based acrolein production.[a]
Propylene-based process
Bio-based process
[a] This table corresponds to the schemes presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. [b] PBR stands for packed-bed reactor.
ance for marketing, administration and research and development, and the capital charge.
To simplify the comparison of the two processes, the following Equations (5) and (6) are used in the calculation. Two parts
comprise the direct operating cost: Cv and the fixed cost, each
of which contains several elements. Cv is represented by:
P l Y Cv Cfix
where Cv is the variable cost, Ccat is the cost for the catalyst,
Cfeedstock is the cost for feedstock, Cen is the cost for energy consumption, Cother includes all the other components in the variable cost, which is assumed to be the same for both processes.
The difference in variable costs between the propylenebased process and bio-based acrolein can thus be expressed in
Equation (7).
DCv DCcat DCfeedstock DCen DCother
g
p
g
p
g
p
Ccat
Ccat
Cfeedstock
Cen
Cen
Cfeedstock
www.chemsuschem.org
1175
20 536[d]
refined glycerol
595.25749.57[c]
25 669[e]
crude glycerol
77.16198.42[c]
the most important role comsteam
7.31
20 089[f]
82 142[g]
82 142[g]
pared to the other components
energy
0.05[h]
0
2.67 106[h, i]
2.67 106 kWh[h, i]
in the variable costs (Table 5),
which is consistent with indusTotal price [MM$]
12.9516.13[k]
2.715.83[l]
15.74[j]
trys continuous search for the
least expensive feedstock.
[a] Price reported in February 2011 by ICIS.[121] [b] Calculated based on 10 000 t annual acrolein production and
80 mol % acrolein yield: [10 000 t/(56 g mol1) (42 g mol1)]/80 % = 9375 t. [c] Price reported in September 2010
The catalyst is the remaining
by ICIS,[122] apart from of the lower end of crude-glycerol price.[123] [d] Calculated based on 10 000 t annual acrocomponent of Cv [Equation (6)]
lein production, 80 mol % acrolein yield, and stoichiometry of glycerol dehydration to acrolein: [10 000 t/
in addition to those listed in
(56 g mol1) (92 g mol1)]/80 % = 20 536 t. [e] Calculated based on the same assumptions as [d] and the asTable 5. It is rather difficult to acsumption that crude glycerol contains 80 % glycerol: [10 000 t/(56 g mol1) (92 g mol1)]/80 % = 25 669 t. [f] Calquire accurate price information
culated based on molar ratio of the feed propylene/air/steam = 1:10:5 and calculated propylene amount required: 9375 t/(42 g mol1) (18 g mol1) 5 = 20 089 t. [g] Calculated based on calculated amount of glycerol
on industrial catalysts. Therefore,
required and the assumption that the feed has a concentration of 20 wt % glycerol: 20 536 t/20 % = 82 142 t.
an indirect approach was used
1
[h] $ per kWh. [i] Calculated for a year based on heat (43 kJ mol ) required for the endothermic dehydration reto evaluate this component. Bisaction[106] and annual working hours of 8000 h: [105 t (106 g t1)/(56 g mol1)]/80 % (43 kJ mol1)
muth molybdate was considered
(0.000278 kWh kJ1) = 2.67 106 kWh. [j] (1664 $ t1) (9375 t) + (7.31 $ t1) (20 089 t) = 15.74 106 $ = 15.74 M$.
[k] low: (595.25 $ t1) (20 536 t) + (7.31 $ t1) (82 142 t) + (0.05 $ kWh1) (2.67 106 kWh) = 12.95 MM$. high:
as an example of a multi-compo(749.57 $ t1) (20 536 t) + (7.31 $ t1) (82 142 t) + (0.05 $ kWh1) (2.67 106 kWh) = 16.13 MM$. [l] (77.16 $ t1)
nent metal catalyst. In general,
1
1
6
1
(25 669 t) + (7.31 $ t ) (82 142 t) + (0.05 $ kWh ) (2.67 10 kWh) = 2.71 MM$ (low) and (198.42 $ t )
an acid catalyst is considerably
(25 669 t) + (7.31 $ t1) (82 142 t) + (0.05 $ kWh1) (2.67 106 kWh) = 5.83 MM$ (high).
less expensive than a multi-component metal catalyst. For example, the retail price (SigmaAldrich) of active bismuth molybrefer to what is used in the reaction. Also, the energy listed in
date is over twice that of silicotungstic acid (Table 6). At an inthe table only refers to the part of energy required to heat the
dustrial scale, it is reasonable to assume that the relative cost
reactant(s) and for the reaction (assuming the energy condifference remains the same. The average lifetime of a multi-
systems (http://www.eetcorp.com/heepm/glycerinspecs.htm),
the Crown Ion Works Glycerol-Refining-System (http://
www.crowniron.com/technologies/oleo_glycerine.cfm)
and
ROHMIHAASs AMBERSEP BD50 from Dow (http://www.amberlyst.com/glycerol.htm). A conservative assumption is made that
Cfix + Cother of the bio-based acrolein production from crude
glycerol and from refined glycerol is 1.3 and 1.1 times that of
the propylene-based acrolein production.
Several major components in Cv differ greatly between the
propylene-based and bio-based methods for a 10 000-ton/year
acrolein production (Table 5). The quantities for steam only
Table 6. Comparison of catalysts used for the propylene- and glycerol-based acrolein production (10 000 t per year).
Process
Active catalyst
Retail price
[$ g1]
Life time
[year]
Amount
[kg]
Total cost
factor[a] (per year)
Total cost
(106 $ per year)
propylene process
glycerol process
bismuth molybdate
silicotungstic acid
3.53
1.62
1.5
0.5
9657[b]
7083[d]
1
1.01
0.484.83 [d]
0.494.88[e]
[a] Due to the fact that the industrial catalyst price of propylene process is unknown, this factor reflects the relative relationship between the catalysts of
propylene-based process and bio-based process. [b] Calculated for 10 000 t acrolein production. An acrolein yield of 80 mol % was assumed. The density
used was 5670 kg m3, and GHSV used was 800 h1. [c] Calculated based on the assumption that the price of the industrial catalyst for the propylenebased production falls within the range of 50500 $ kg. [d] Calculated for 10 000 t acrolein production. An acrolein yield of 80 mol % was assumed. The
density used was 520 kg m13, and GHSV used was 100 h1. [e] Lower limit: 0.483 MM$ 1.01 = 0.488 MM$; upper limit: 4.83 MM$ 1.01 = 4.88 MM$.
1176
www.chemsuschem.org
www.chemsuschem.org
1177
1178
www.chemsuschem.org
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
HATCH project No. TEN00325.
Keywords: biofuel
dehydrogenation
heterogeneous catalysis oxidation
glycerol
[45] T. Shiotani, T. Kuroda. Manufacture of catalysts for synthesis of unsaturated aldehydes and carboxylic acids, JP 07016464, Mitsubishi Rayon
Co, Japan, 1995, 5 pp.
[46] T. Shiotani, T. Kuroda, Y. Taniguchi (Mitsubishi Rayon Co, Ltd.), JP
08024652, 1996, p. 6.
[47] Y. Tanaka. (Daicel Chem.), JP 8040969, 1996, p. 5.
[48] T. S. Chang, D. H. Cho, D. K. Lee (Korea Res. Inst. Chem. Tech. [US]), US
6410800, 2002, p. 4.
[49] G. Liu, P. Liu, H. Sun, H. Wu. (Hefei Haili Technology Dev. Co., Ltd.), CN
101402044, 2009, p. 7.
[50] G. Creten, D. S. Lafyatis, G. F. Froment, J. Catal. 1995, 154, 151 162.
[51] Y. A. Saleh-Alhamed, R. R. Hudgins, P. L. Silveston, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1992,
47, 2885 2890.
[52] V. M. Bondareva, T. V. Andrushkevich, Y. D. Pankratiev, React. Kinet.
Catal. Lett. 1986, 32, 171 175.
[53] H. Fansuri, G. H. Pham, S. Wibawanta, D. K. Zhang, D. French, Surf. Rev.
Lett. 2003, 10, 549 553.
[54] T. A. Hanna, Coord. Chem. Rev. 2004, 248, 429 440.
[55] G. S. Patience, P. L. Mills in New Developments in Selective Oxidation II,
Vol. 82 (Eds.: V. C. Corberan, S. V. Bellon), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994,
pp. 1 18.
[56] T. M. Leib, P. L. Mills, J. J. Lerou, Coord. Chem. Rev. 1996, 51, 2189
2198.
[57] K. H. Song, S. E. Han, K. H. Park, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2001, 18, 184
189.
[58] S. E. Han, J. Choe, K. H. Song, I. W. Kim, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 9,
301 305.
[59] H. Redlingshfer, A. Fischer, C. Weckbecker, K. Huthmacher, G. Emig,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 5482 5488.
[60] C. M. ONeill, E. E. Wolf, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 2697 2706.
[61] A. Ulgen, W. Hoelderich, Catal. Lett. 2009, 131, 122 128.
[62] Preparation of acrolein, A. Wohl, B. Mylo, Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1912,
45, 2046 2054.
[63] Preparation of acrolein at Stockholm. G. F. Bergh, J. Prakt. Chem. 1909,
79, 351 357.
[64] J. B. Senderens, Comptes Rendus Chimie 1910, 151, 530 532.
[65] S. Ramayya, A. Brittain, C. DeAlmeida, W. Mok, M. J. Antal, Jr., Fuel
1987, 66, 1364 1371.
[66] L. Ott, M. Bicker, H. Vogel, Green Chem. 2006, 8, 214 220.
[67] Acrolein synthesis from glycerol in hot-compressed water: M. Watanabe, T. Iida, Y. Aizawa, T. M. Aida, H. Inomata, Bioresour. Technol. 2006,
98, 1285 1290.
[68] W. Bhler, E. Dinjus, H. J. Ederer, A. Kruse, C. Mas, J. Supercrit. Fluids
2002, 22, 37 53.
[69] H. E. Hoyt, T. H. Manninen (U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc.), US 2558520,
1951, p. 2.
[70] N. Suzuki, M. Takahashi (Kao Corp.), JP 2006290815, 2006, p. 7.
[71] E. Tsukuda, S. Sato, R. Takahashi, T. Sodesawa, Catal. Commun. 2007, 8,
1349 1353.
[72] S.-H. Chai, H.-P. Wang, Y. Liang, B.-Q. Xu, Green Chem. 2007, 9, 1130
1136.
[73] M. Craus in Handbook of Heterogeneous Catalysis (Eds.: G. Ertl, H. Knzinger, J. Weitkamp), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1997.
[74] W. Yan, G. J. Suppes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 3279 3283.
[75] T. Haas, A. Neher, D. Arntz, H. Klenk, W. Girke (Degussa AG), US
5426249, 1993, p. 3.
[76] K. Tanable, M. Misono, M. Ono, H. Hattori, New solid acids and bases:
their catalytic properties, Kadansha, Tokyo, and Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1989.
[77] X. Li, C. Zhang, C. Qin, C. Chen, J. Shao (Shanghai Huayi Acrylic Acid
Co., Ltd.), CN 101070276, 2007, pp. 10.
[78] A. Corma, G. W. Huber, L. Sauvanaud, P. OConnor, J. Catal. 2008, 257,
163 171.
[79] M. Ghlich, K. Ruchle, H. Toufar, W. Reschetilowski, DGMK Tagungsber.
2008, 3, 209 215.
[80] A. Neher, T. Haas, D. Arntz, H. Klenk, W. Girke (Degussa AG), US
5387720, 1993, p. 3.
[81] Y. T. Kim, K.-D. Jung, E. D. Park, Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2010,
131, 28 36.
[82] S.-H. Chai, H.-P. Wang, Y. Liang, B.-Q. Xu, J. Catal. 2007, 250, 342 349.
www.chemsuschem.org
1179
1180
www.chemsuschem.org
[113] D. C. Cameron, J. A. Koutsky, Conversion of Glycerol from Soydiesel Production to 1,3-Propanediol; Final Report, National Biodiesel Development
Board, UW-Madison, Madison, Madison, WI, 1994.
[114] E. Santacesaria, R. Tesser, M. D. Serio, L. Casale, D. Verde, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 964 970.
[115] C. A. Ramrez-Lpez, J. R. Ochoa-Gmez, M. Fern ndez-Santos, O.
Gmez-Jim
nez-Aberasturi, A. Aonso-Vicario, J. Torrecilla-Soria, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 6270 6278.
[116] T. Ohara, H. Sata, N. Shimizu, G. Prescher, H. Schwind, O. Weiberg in
Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Ed.: W. Gerhartz), VCH,
Weinheim, Germany, 1987.
[117] S. Matar, L. F. Hatch, Chemistry of Petrochemical Processes, Gulf Pub. Co,
Houston, TX, 1994.
[118] W. G. Etzkorn in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 5th
ed., Wiley, New York, 2006.
[119] K. Weissermel, H. J. Arpe, Industrial Organic Chemistry. Important Raw
Materials and Intermediates, VCH, Weinheim, 1978.
[120] B. G. Hermann, M. Patel, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2007, 136, 361
388.
[121] ICIS, Propylene Prices and Pricing Information, Vol. 2011, ICIS pricing,
2011.
[122] ICIS, Sample report: Glycerin (US Gulf), Vol. 2011, ICIS Pricing, 2010.
[123] D. T. Johnson, K. A. Taconi, Environ. Prog. 2007, 26, 338 348.
[124] Kunming Jiaxinde Chemicals Corporation, http://www.alibaba.com/
product-gs/297209147/Acrolein.html, accessed Aug. 01, 2011.
[125] Laohekou Jinghong Chemical Co., Ltd., http://www.diytrade.com/
china/4/products/3517179/Acrolein.html, last accessed February 2012.
[126] E. Voegele. Legislating Incentive in Biorefining, November 03, 2010,
http://www.biorefiningmagazine.com/articles/192/legislating-an-incentive.
[127] J.-L. Dubois (Arkema France), US 12162691, 2007.
[128] N. Bertolini, N. Ferlazzo (Euteco Impianti SpA), US 4289654, 1981, p. 6.
[129] U. Hammon, K. Herzog, H.-P. Neumann (BASF AG), US 5264625, 1993,
p. 4.
[130] W. Ruppel, U. Wegerle, A. Tenten, U. Hammon (BASF AG), US 5739391,
1998, p. 4.
[131] S. Unverricht, H. Arnold, A. Tenten, U. Hammon (BASF AG), US
6403829, 2002, p. 9.
[132] M. S. Reisch, Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88 (11), 12.
[133] M. S. Reisch, Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88 (21), 21 22.
[134] R. Coons, Arkema Finds Glycerol-to-Acrylic Acid Catalysts; Demo-Scale
Plant Possible on http://www.chemweek.com, April 10, 2009.
[135] N. Alperowicz, Shokubai Advances Glycerine-to-Acrylic Acid Process on
http://www.chemweek.com, December 1, 2009.
Received: August 10, 2011
Revised: December 12, 2011
Published online on April 11, 2012