Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 4;15(5):e202102525. doi: 10.1002/cssc.202102525

Table 3.

Different studies of isosorbide production from liquid‐ and vapor‐phase sorbitol dehydration in continuous‐flow systems using different solid acid catalysts.

Catalyst

Solvent

T [K]

Isosorbide yield [%]

Isosorbide productivity [gisosorbide kgcatalyst −1 h−1]

Ref.

H‐β (75)

H2O (liquid phase)

503

83

60

[48a]

H‐β (75)

H2O (liquid phase)

503

54[a]

6.1[a]

[48a]

H‐β (38)

MeOH (liquid phase)

473

60

377

[48b]

H‐β (38)

MeOH (liquid phase)

443

28

176

[48b]

Cu2O(SO4)

H2O (vapor phase)

473

68

126

[47b]

PW/SiO2

H2O (vapor phase)

523

54

216

[36e]

SnPO

H2O (vapor phase)

573

47

89

[47a]

H3PO4 Ta2O5

H2O (vapor phase)

498

47

240

[47c]

H3PO4 Nb2O5

H2O (vapor phase)

498

63

311

[36e]

NbOPO4

H2O (vapor phase)

493

50[a]

35[a]

[49]

[a] Isosorbide yield and its productivity obtained starting from glucose as a starting reactant, whereas the other entries are obtained starting from sorbitol as a starting reactant.