Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

MgAl-Layered Double Hydroxide Solid Base Catalysts for Henry Reaction: A Green Protocol

Version 1 : Received: 28 February 2018 / Approved: 2 March 2018 / Online: 2 March 2018 (04:05:24 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Abdellattif, M.H.; Mokhtar, M. MgAl-Layered Double Hydroxide Solid Base Catalysts for Henry Reaction: A Green Protocol. Catalysts 2018, 8, 133. Abdellattif, M.H.; Mokhtar, M. MgAl-Layered Double Hydroxide Solid Base Catalysts for Henry Reaction: A Green Protocol. Catalysts 2018, 8, 133.

Journal reference: Catalysts 2018, 8, 133
DOI: 10.3390/catal8040133

Abstract

A series of MgAl-layered double hydroxide (MgAl-HT), the calcined form at 500oC (MgAlOx) and the re-hydrated one at 25oC (MgAl-HT-RH) were synthesized. Physicochemical properties of the catalysts were characterized by x-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Surface area of the as-synthesized, calcined and re-hydrated catalysts was determined by N2 physisorption at -196oC. CO2-teperature programmed desorption (CO2-TPD) was applied to determine the basic sites of catalysts. The catalytic test reaction was carried out using benzaldehyde and their derivatives with nitromethane and their derivatives. The Henry products (1-15) were obtained in a very good yield using MgAl-HT-RH catalyst either by conventional method at 90oC in liquid phase, or under microwave irradiation method. The mesoporous structure and basic nature of re-hydrated solid catalyst were responsible for their superior catalytic efficiency. The robust nature was determined by using the same catalyst for five times, where the product % yield was almost unchanged significantly.

Subject Areas

C-C bond formation; henry reaction; solid base catalyst; layered double hydroxide

Readers' Comments and Ratings (1)

Importance: How significant is the paper to the field?
Outstanding/highlight paper
0%
Significant contribution
100%
Incremental contribution
0%
No contribution
0%
Soundness of evidence/arguments presented:
Conclusions well supported
100%
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)
0%
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)
0%
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle
0%
Comment 1
Received: 25 March 2018
Commenter: Tamer S. Saleh
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: this article deals with very important reaction
and the results is promising
+ Respond to this comment
Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Rate this article
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0
Leave a public comment

×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.