Comparison of Lewis Acidity between Al-MCM-41 Pure Chemicals and Al-MCM-41 Synthesized from Bentonite

This study focused on the Lewis acidity of Al-MCM-41 prepared from bentonite (Al-MCM-bentonite) as silica and aluminum source simultaneously. This acidity was compared with Al-MCM-41 synthesized from pure chemicals reagents (Al-MCM-standard). Structural analysis showed that the substitution of the s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bulletin of chemical reaction engineering & catalysis 2019-08, Vol.14 (2), p.358-368
Main Authors: Ali-Dahmane, Tewfik, Brahmi, Lamia, Hamacha, Rachida, Hacini, Salih, Bengueddach, Abdelkader
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
al-mcm-41
algerian bentonite
allylation of benzaldehyde
lewis acid
mesoporous materials
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study focused on the Lewis acidity of Al-MCM-41 prepared from bentonite (Al-MCM-bentonite) as silica and aluminum source simultaneously. This acidity was compared with Al-MCM-41 synthesized from pure chemicals reagents (Al-MCM-standard). Structural analysis showed that the substitution of the silicon atom by the aluminum atom decreases the structural order of Al-MCM-standard, whereas Al-MCM-bentonite has a better structural organization. The Lewis acidity of the Al-MCM-bentonite was evaluated in allylation reaction of benzaldehyde with allyltrimethylsilane and pyridine adsorption experiments. The results showed that the difference in acidity between Al-MCM-standard and Al-MCM-bentonite is due to the amount of aluminum incorporated into the framework of our mesoporous materials. According to the EDX analysis, the incorporation of aluminum in Al-MCM-standard (Si/Al = 13.47) is more important than in Al-MCM-bentonite (Si/Al = 43.64). This explains the low acidity of Al-MCM-bentonite, and the moderate yields in the allylation reactions of benzaldehyde with allyltrimethylsilane. 
ISSN:1978-2993
1978-2993
DOI:10.9767/bcrec.14.2.3367.358-368