Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T04:07:08.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Infrared Laser-Induced Heterogeneous Reactions: Fluence-dependent Branching Ratios in 2-Propanol with CuO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

William E. Farneth
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Patrick G. Zimmerman
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Derk J. Hogenkamp
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Get access

Abstract

The heterogeneous decomposition of 2-propanol vapor in the presence of CuO solid can be induced by irradiation with a pulsed CO2 laser. The reaction produces both propene and acetone. In contrast, the homogeneous multiphoton-induced decomposition of 2-propanol vapor yields only propene. The branching ratio ([hydrocarbon]/[acetone]) in the heterogeneous experiments has been examined as a function of laser pulse energy. While the yield of acetone increases monotonically with increasing fluence, yields of hydrocarbon show two distinctly different regimes of fluence dependence. Reactions have been run with both d8 and h8 2-propanol and on 1:1 mixtures. Neither reaction channel shows significant isotopic selectivity over a range of experimental conditions. This data will be discussed in light of a model that involves energy deposition in the solid, followed by either heterogeneous reaction of adsorbed material or energy transfer and subsequent multiphoton excitation of the alcohol vapor.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. King, D. S., in “Infrared Multiphoton Excitation and Dissociation Dynamics of the Excited State”, Lawley, K. W., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York, 1982, pp 105189, and references cited therein.Google Scholar
2. Danen, W. A., Jang, J. C., in “Laser-Induced Chemical Processes”; Steinfield, J. I., Ed., Plenum Press, New York, 1981, p. 453.Google Scholar
3. Farneth, W. E., Thomsen, M. W., Schultz, N. L., Davies, M. A., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103, 4001 (1981).Google Scholar
4. George, T. F. J., Phys. Chem. 86, 10 (1982), and references cited therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Lin, M. C., Unstead, M. E., J. Phys. Chem. 82, 2047 (1978).Google Scholar
6. Chuang, T. J., J. Chem. Phys. 72, 63 (1980).Google Scholar
7. Farneth, W. E., Zimmerman, P. G., Hogenkamp, D. J., and Kennedy, S. D., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 105, 126 (1983).Google Scholar
8. Danen, W. C., J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 101, 1187 (1979).Google Scholar
9. Thomas, C. L., “Catalytic Processes and Proven Catalysts”, Academic Press: New York, 1970; p. 4950.Google Scholar
10. Teng, P. P., Weitz, E. and Lewis, F. D., J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 104, 5518 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Chuang, T. J., Surf. Sci. Reports, 3, 1 (1983).Google Scholar
12. Steel, C., Setamoglu, N., J. Phys. Chem. 87, 1133 (1983).Google Scholar