Adsorption olefin structure

Comparison of entries 4 and 8 of Table 16 shows that linear IOS 2024 and AOS 2024 adsorption values were the same within a modest experimental error. The major chemical structure difference between them is the position of the sulfonate group on the carbon chain and perhaps the position of the carbon-carbon double bond. These two factors do not appear to have an appreciable effect on adsorption. Therefore, the lower adsorption of IOS 1518 relative to AOS 1618 is probably due to the greater hydrophobe branching of the internal olefin sulfonate or the lower di.monosulfonate ratio. 

Hj Dj exchange on, 26 39-43 heteropolyanion-supported, 41 230-231 high MiUer index, 26 12-15,35,36 -H-USY zeoUte, 39 186-187 hydrocarbons adsorption, 38 229-230 reactions of cyclopropane, cyclohexane, and n-heptane, 26 51-53 structural effects, 30 25-26 hydrogen adsorption on, 23 15 hydrogenation, 30 281-282 olefins, in ethanol, 30 352-353 in hydrogenation reaction, 33 101 -iron alloys, 26 75 isomerization, 30 2-3 isotope, NMR properties, 33 213,274 kinetic oscillations, 37 220-228 ball models of densely packed surfaces, 37 221-222... 

Apparently the geometry of the transition state for adsorption is approximately that of a ir-complexed olefin in that its structure seems to be only slightly distorted from that of the isolated alkene. However, this does not necessarily mean that the adsorbed state which is formed in the elementary reaction to which the stereochemistry refers is a tt complex, because the same geometry also represents a stage in the progression of olefin to the eclipsed 1,2-diadsorbed alkane. Hopefully other experi-... 

There are three liquid-phase adsorption Sorbex technology-based separation processes for the production of olefins. The first two are the UOP C4 Olex and UOP Sorbutene processes and the third is the detergent Olex process(Cio i,5) [25, 26]. The three olefin separation processes share many similarities. The first similarity between the three olefin separation processes is that each one utilizes a proprietary adsorbent whose empirical formula is represented by Cation,([(A102)),(Si02)2] [27]. The cation type imparts the desired selectivity for the particular separation. This zeolite has a three-dimensional pore structure with pores running perpendicular to each other in the x, y and z planes [28]. The second similarity between the three olefin separation processes is the use of a mixed olefin/paraffin desorbent. The specifics of each desorbent composition are discussed in their corresponding sections. The third similarity is the fact that all three utilize the standard Sorbex bed allotment that enables them to achieve product purities in excess of 98%. The following sechons review each process in detail. 

The answer to the first question is undoubtedly a positive one. The classical papers by Beeck et al., Rideal et al., and others have shown that ethylene disproportionates upon chemisorption into ethane and carbonaceous (adsorbed) residues (see 162). This disproportionation takes place at relatively low temperatures at room temperature and lower (see 162 for review). Moreover, the intensity analysis of LEED data has shown that upon chemisorption of ethylene, ethylidyne structures are formed. Similar structures are also formed by dissociative adsorption of higher olefins (181,182). There is thus no doubt with regard the first question. 

The conversion of methanol to hydrocarbons (MTHC) on acidic zeolites is of industrial interest for the production of gasoline or light olefins (see also Section X). Upon adsorption and conversion of methanol on calcined zeolites in the H-form, various adsorbate complexes are formed on the catalyst surface. Identification of these surface complexes significantly improves the understanding of the reaction mechanism. As demonstrated in Table 3, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME), and methoxy groups influence in a characteristic manner the quadrupole parameters of the framework Al atoms in the local structure of bridging OH groups. NMR spectroscopy of these framework atoms under reaction conditions, therefore, helps to identify the nature of surface complexes formed. 

Infrared spectra of propene and isobutene on different catalysts were measured by Gorokhovatskii [143]. Copper oxide, which converts olefins to butadiene and aldehydes, shows adsorption complexes different from structures on a V2Os—P2Os catalyst which produces maleic acid anhydride. Differences also exist between selective oxidation catalysts and total oxidation catalysts. The latter show carbonate and formate bands, in contrast to selective oxides for which 7r-allylic species are indicated. A difficulty in this type of work is that only a few data are available under catalytic conditions most of them refer to a pre-catalysis situation. Therefore it is not certain that complexes observed are relevant for the catalytic action. 

As seen from the above examples, one should not overestimate the capacity of a bridged OH group to protonate an adsorbed molecule. Even in the case of such a strong base as ammonia, it would be better to talk about local surface structure with charge transfer than about relatively free ammonia ion. This is even more the case for the adsorption of organic molecules (olefines, alcohols) possessing lower basicities. Carbonium ion forms should likely be considered here only as excited structures. 

The molecular sie es employed for this operation are synthetic siflco-alumioas which carry metallic ions, with uniform pore diameters between 3 and 10 A, and whose structure is comparable to that of natural zeolites. They are capable of separating linear carbon chains, which are specifically adsorbed, from those that are branched. Many technologies have been develops particularly by Exxon, BP British Petroleum), Texaco, UQP and 7fubn Carbide, which exploit their capacity for selective adsorption to isolate n-paraflins from their branched isomers as well as linear olefins from their branched homologues. ... 

---