Communication
RSC Advances
adhesive and zeolite itself, GC electrodes overcoated with only
On the basis of the above investigations, much higher elec-
poly(vinyl ethyl ether) (POV) adhesive (labeled POV/GC, curve c) trocatalytic activities have been successfully obtained on Ag–Y/
and with a NaY layer on the POV adhesive (labeled NaY/POV/GC, GC electrode, not only in cyclic voltammograms, but also in
curve d) were used for the electrochemical investigations. As bulk electrolysis. The structure of prepared Ag–Y zeolite was
shown in Fig. 3c and d, no reduction peak could be found, characterized by XRD, BET, ICP, SEM, TEM, XPS, H
which indicates that POV and NaY have no response toward the -TPO.
electroreduction of PhCH Br. In other words, Ag–Y zeolite
2
-TPR and
O
2
2
modied electrode displayed more excellent electrocatalytic
behavior than Ag electrode.
Acknowledgements
Then, a series of Ag–Y-X zeolites (ICP data as shown in Table This work was nancially supported by the Project for the
S1†), prepared in different concentration (0.0X M) of AgNO3, National Natural Science Foundation of China (21173085,
were modied on GC electrodes to check the electrocatalytic 21203066, 21373090, 21473060).
+
ability. Fig. 3e–h shows the effect of Ag concentration in
2
preparation solution on the voltammetry of PhCH Br. Briey,
the most positive reduction peak potential and the highest
Notes and references
reduction peak current were obtained on Ag–Y-4/GC electrode
1 R. Barhdadi, C. Courtinard, J. Y. Nedelec and M. Troupel,
Chem. Commun., 2003, 1434–1435.
(Fig. 3 curve e). This implies that the highest catalytic activity is
achieved on the Ag–Y zeolite prepared in 0.04 M AgNO3
solution.
2 E. Dunach, D. Franco and S. Olivero, Eur. J. Org. Chem., 2003,
1605–1622.
As a further test of electrocatalytic ability of Ag–Y zeolite
modied electrode, a series of potentiostatic electrolysis were
carried out in an undivided cell equipped with Mg anode in the
3 P. Gomes, H. Fillon, C. Gosmini, E. Labbe and J. Perichon,
Tetrahedron, 2002, 58, 8417–8424.
4 Y. C. Lan, H. Wang, L. X. Wu, S. F. Zhao, Y. Q. Gu and J. X. Lu,
J. Electroanal. Chem., 2012, 664, 33–38.
5 D. F. Niu, L. P. Xiao, A. J. Zhang, G. R. Zhang, Q. Y. Tan and
J. X. Lu, Tetrahedron, 2008, 64, 10517–10520.
6 A. A. Isse, L. Falciola, P. R. Mussini and A. Gennaro, Chem.
Commun., 2006, 344–346.
absence and presence of CO
The electrolysis carried out at the rst reduction peak
potential in the absence of CO produce biphenylethane
Table 2 entries 1–6). The cathode material and zeolite dosage
affect the electrodimerization yield. 46% of PhCH CH Ph,
2
(Table 2).
2
(
2
2
which is 2 and 3.5 times as much that on Ag electrode (Table 2
entry 2) and GC electrode (Table 2 entry 1) respectively, could be
obtained when 0.04 g cm Ag–Y-4 zeolite was modied on GC
7 A. A. Isse, S. Gottardello, C. Durante and A. Gennaro, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 2008, 10, 2409–2416.
8 V. Jouikov and J. Simonet, Electrochem. Commun., 2010, 12,
331–334.
ꢂ2
electrode (Table 2 entry 4).
Meanwhile, similar potentiostatic electrolysis were carried
out at the second reduction peak potential in the presence of
9 D. F. Niu, A. J. Zhang, T. Xue, J. B. Zhang, S. F. Zhao and
J. X. Lu, Electrochem. Commun., 2008, 10, 1498–1501.
CO . Aer esterication, PhCH COOCH was synthesized 10 A. Wang, Y. F. Huang, U. K. Sur, D. Y. Wu, B. Ren,
2
2
3
(
Table 2 entries 7–9). All most 3 and 10 times of carboxylated
S. Rondinini, C. Amatore and Z. Q. Tian, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,
2010, 132, 9534–9536.
yield could be obtained on Ag–Y-4/GC electrode (Table 2 entry 9)
than that on Ag (Table 2 entry 8) and GC electrode (Table 2 11 Y. F. Huang, D. Y. Wu, A. Wang, B. Ren, S. Rondinini,
entry 7). Z. Q. Tian and C. Amatore, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132,
7199–17210.
1
12 J. B. Zhang, D. F. Niu, Y. C. Lan, H. Wang, G. R. Zhang and
J. X. Lu, Synth. Commun., 2011, 41, 3720–3727.
Table
electrodes
2
Electrochemical reduction of PhCH
2
Br on different
1
3 A. A. Isse, C. Durante and A. Gennaro, Electrochem. Commun.,
a
2011, 13, 810–813.
b
14 T. Maiyalagan, Appl. Catal., A, 2008, 340, 191–195.
15 A. Vertova, R. Barhdadi, C. Cachet-Vivier, C. Locatelli,
A. Minguzzi, J. Y. Nedelec and S. Rondinini, J. Appl.
Electrochem., 2008, 38, 965–971.
16 Y. Zhang, F. Chen, J. Zhuang, Y. Tang, D. Wang, Y. Wang,
A. Dong and N. Ren, Chem. Commun., 2002, 2814–2815.
17 A. Pourahmad, Micro Nano Lett., 2012, 7, 511–514.
Yield (%)
E
app (V vs. Catalyst dosage
ꢂ
ꢂ2
Entry Cathode
Ag/AgI/I ) (g cm
)
Dimer Carboxylate
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GC
Ag
ꢂ0.833
ꢂ0.693
0
0
13
23
15
46
36
20
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
c
c
Ag–Y-4/GC ꢂ0.649
Ag–Y-4/GC ꢂ0.649
Ag–Y-4/GC ꢂ0.649
Ag–Y-4/GC ꢂ0.649
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.16
0
c
c
18 A. Nezamzadeh-Ejhieh and H.-S. Hashemi, Talanta, 2012, 88,
c
201–208.
d
d
d
GC
Ag
ꢂ1.600
ꢂ1.200
19 M. Abrishamkar and F. B. Kahkeshi, Microporous Mesoporous
Mater., 2013, 167, 51–54.
0
0.04
10
29
Ag–Y-4/GC ꢂ1.100
2
0 M. Jafarian, M. Rashvand avei, M. Khakali, F. Gobal,
S. Rayati and M. G. Mahjani, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2012, 116,
18518–18532.
a
ꢂ1
General condition: MeCN ¼ 10 mL, TEABF
4
¼ 0.1 mol L , PhCH Br ¼
2
ꢂ1
ꢀ
b
0
.1 mol L , T ¼ 25 C, Mg as anode. GC yield based on the starting
c
d
PhCH
2
Br.
P
N
¼ 1 atm, Q ¼ 1 F.
P
CO ¼ 1 atm, Q ¼ 2 F.
2
2
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015
RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 42663–42665 | 42665