Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Characterization and applications
of nanoporous materials
Gonçalo José Dias Antunes
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Chemical Engineering
Supervisors:
Prof. Carlos Manuel Faria de Barros Henriques
Dr. Vladimir L. Zholobenko
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Henrique Anibal Santos de Matos
Supervisor: Prof. Carlos Manuel Faria de Barros Henriques
Member of the Committee: Prof. José Manuel Félix Madeira Lopes
November 2018
1
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank my family for their continuous support, specially my
brother Duarte for fomenting my scientific interest.
I would also like to thank my supervisor at Keele University, Dr. Vladimir Zholobenko, for his
continuous support and availability to help both in this project and in my integration in Keele University.
A huge thanks to prof. Carlos Henriques as well for providing this opportunity and his wise counselling
both in this thesis and previous works.
I want to thank everyone in Birchall Centre for making me feel at home. Special thanks to Aqeel
who guided me through a lot of the lab work. Big thanks to Cátia and Martin who were always there
when I needed help, and Isabel, Ma, Emma and Matt (as well as the aforementioned) for all the moments
in and out of the office.
Back in Portugal, I want to thank Sara for supporting me throughout the last 5 years, Constança
for being the best goddaughter I could wish for. Another big thanks for the people who worked with me
across multiple labs and projects, especially Ricardo and Patrícia for all the times we worked and
laughed together, and my final project group: Maria, Rita and Adriana for being the most quirky and
unique team I’ve ever worked with. Last but not least, my flatmates Francisco and Sérgio, always
present in one way or another.
2
Abstract
Zeolites are widely used as a heterogeneous catalysts in a plethora of chemical processes.
One of the limitations of zeolites as catalysts is the accessibility of their active sites, since the
micropores where those are located hinder the diffusion rate of both reactant and product.
There have been multiple approaches to this issue in the last decades, mainly the synthesis of
frameworks with larger pores and the synthesis of mesoporous materials. The synthesis of zeolites
with mazzite and Linde Type L frameworks was attempted with the end goal of creating hierarchical
zeolites.
The synthesis of the mazzite framework was carried out with tetramethylammonium as a
structure directing agent, and a pure mazzite phase was never achieved. The synthesis of the Linde
Type L framework was carried out without an organic structure directing agent. The resulting samples
were analysed using Powder X-Ray Diffraction, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and
Scanning Electron Microscopy. Time constraints due to equipment availability and the issues during
the mazzite synthesis made it impossible to complete a hierarchical zeolite.
Keywords: micropores; mesopores; hierarchical zeolites; mazzite; ltl
3
Resumo
Os zeólitos são utilizados frequentemente na catálise heterogénea em diferentes aplicações.
Uma das limitações destes é a acessibilidade dos seus centros activos, uma vez que a maioria destes
se encontram no interior de microporos o que dificulta a velocidade de difusão quer de produtos quer
de reagentes.
Várias tentativas de minimizar este problema têm sido tentadas nas últimas décadas,
principalmente a síntese de estruturas com poros mais largos e a síntese de materiais mesoporosos.
Neste trabalho foi tentada a síntese de zeólitos com as estruturas da mazzite e Linde Type L, com
objectivo final de criar zeólitos hierárquicos.
A síntese da mazzite foi feita utilizando tetrametilamónia como director de estrutura, não
tendo sido obtida uma fase pura de mazzite. A síntese do zeólito Linde Type L não utilizou compostos
orgânicos como orientador de estrutura. As amostras resultantes foram analisadas por Difração de
Raio X, Espectroscopia no Infravermelho por Transformada de Fourier, e Microscopia Eletrónica de
Varrimento. As dificuldades na síntese de mazzite aliadas à disponibilidade de equipamento e
constrangimento do calendário impossibilitaram a finalização de um zeólito hierárquico.
Palavras-chave: microporos; mesoporos; zeólitos hierárquicos; mazzite; ltl
4
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 1
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Resumo ................................................................................................................................................. 3
List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... 5
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Nomenclature ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Zeolites and zeotypes ................................................................................................................... 8
Hierarchical Zeolites .................................................................................................................... 10
Mazzite and Linde Type L structures ...................................................................................... 12
Characterization ............................................................................................................................ 15
Physical Model .............................................................................................................................. 16
Experimental ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Synthesis ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Calcination ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Ion exchange ................................................................................................................................. 21
X-Ray Diffraction .......................................................................................................................... 22
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy ............................................................................. 23
Scanning Electron Microscopy ................................................................................................. 24
Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 25
Synthesis ........................................................................................................................................ 25
XRD .................................................................................................................................................. 26
FTIR .................................................................................................................................................. 42
SEM-EDX ......................................................................................................................................... 48
Conclusions and Future Work ...................................................................................................... 49
References ......................................................................................................................................... 50
5
List of figures Figure 1 - Silanol bonds responsible by Brönsted acidity in zeolites [42] ............................................... 8
Figure 2 - Mazzite (a) and LTL (b) structures viewed from [001] .......................................................... 12
Figure 3 - Mazzite (a) and LTL (b) structures viewed from [100] .......................................................... 13
Figure 4 - Physical model of LTL ............................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5 - Physical model of LTL ............................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6 - Physical model of LTL ............................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7 - Physical model of LTL ............................................................................................................ 17
Figure 8 – FTIR spectrometer ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9 - Simulated XRD pattern of MAZ [43] ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 10 – Simulated XRD Pattern of LTL [43] ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 11 - XRD Pattern for sample 2 before ion exchange .................................................................. 28
Figure 12 - XRD Pattern for Sample2 after ion exchange ...................................................................... 28
Figure 13- Comparison between the sample before (black) and after ion exchange (blue) ................ 29
Figure 14 - XRD Pattern for Sample 2 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks ....................................... 30
Figure 15 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 2 and the Simulated Pattern ........................................ 30
Figure 16 - Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 2 with COD ......................................................... 31
Figure 17 - XRD Pattern for sample 3 .................................................................................................... 32
Figure 18 – XRD Pattern for Sample 3 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks ...................................... 32
Figure 19 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 3 and the Simulated Pattern ........................................ 33
Figure 20 - Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 3 with COD ......................................................... 33
Figure 21 - Comparison between the regular sample (black) and the one with carbon nanotubes
(blue) ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 22 - Comparison between the mesoporous material before (black) and after calcination (blue)
............................................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 23 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4 .................................................................................................... 36
Figure 24 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks ....................................... 36
Figure 25 - Overlap of the Pattern from Sample 4 and the Simulated Pattern .................................... 37
Figure 26 - XRD Pattern for Sample 5 before calcination ...................................................................... 37
Figure 27 - XRD Pattern for Sample 5 after calcination......................................................................... 38
Figure 28 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks ....................................... 38
Figure 29 – Overlap of the Pattern from Sample 5 and the Simulated Pattern .................................... 39
Figure 30 – Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 5 with COD ........................................................ 39
Figure 31 - XRD Pattern for Sample 6 (KLTL) ......................................................................................... 40
Figure 32 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 6 and the Simulated Pattern ........................................ 41
Figure 33 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 2 ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 34 - FTIR Spectra for sample 2 showcasing Py adsorption ......................................................... 43
Figure 35 - FTIR Spectra for sample 3 .................................................................................................... 43
Figure 36 - FTIR Spectra for sample 3 after Py adsorption .................................................................... 43
Figure 37 - Subtraction spectra for sample 3 ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 38 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 4 exchanged with amm. Nitrate .................................................. 44
Figure 39 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 4 exchanged with amm. Acetate ................................................. 45
Figure 40 - FTIR Spectra of Sample 4 with both ion exchanges ............................................................ 45
Figure 41 - Subtraction of spectra for sample 4 exchanged with amm. nitrate ................................... 45
Figure 42 – Subtraction of Spectra for sample 4 exchanged with amm. Acetate ................................. 46
Figure 43 - FTIR Spectra for sample 6 .................................................................................................... 46
Figure 44 - FTIR spectra for sample 6 after Py adsorption .................................................................... 47
Figure 45 - Subtraction of the spectra for sample 6 before and after Py. adsorption .......................... 47
6
List of tables
Table 1 - Molar ratios for mazzite synthesis ......................................................................................... 14
Table 2 – Relevant molar ratios of the first two synthesis attempts .................................................... 18
Table 3 - Relevant molar ratios for the latter attempts ........................................................................ 19
Table 4 – Atomic percentages in the zeolite samples ........................................................................... 48
Table 5 – Bulk composition ratios in the zeolite samples ..................................................................... 48
7
Nomenclature
BET Brunauer, Emmet, Teller
CBU Composite Building Units
COD Crystallography Open Database
EDX Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy
FAU Faujasite
FTIR Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
gme Gmelnite
LTL Linde Type-L
MAZ Mazzite
MOR Mordenite
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Ressonance
OSDA Organic Structure Directing Agent
Py Pyridine
SDA Structure Directing Agent
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
TPD Temperature Programmed Desorption
XRD X-ray Diffraction
8
Introduction
Zeolites and zeotypes
Zeolites are three-dimensional, crystalline silicates and aluminosilicates, comprised by
tetrahedrally coordinated silica and aluminium connected by oxygen atoms. When other metals exist
within the structure, they’re referred as zeotypes instead. [1] [2]
Zeolites are widely used in different applications, from catalysis to adsorption, due to their
chemical properties and unique porous structures that allow different zeolite structures to be applied to
each need. The substitution of Si on the SiO4 tetrahedrons by Al3+ confers the structure a negative
charge, which is then compensated by cations inside the pore channels to neutralise this negative
charge in the structure. These cations can be exchanged with H+ in order to obtain the acidic form of
zeolites, allowing them to be used as catalysts in reactions like isomerization and cracking. At the same
time, they can be impregnated with other metals to serve as metallic catalysts and bifunctional catalysts
in cases where both sites are used. Zeolites with higher Si/Al ratio are usually more hydrophobic and
stronger acids, while zeolites with lower Si/Al are usually less hydrophobic and have a higher
concentration of cations to balance the extra negative charge in the framework. Typically silanol and
bridged OH groups are responsible for Brönsted acidity, while negatively charged extra-framework
aluminium contributes for Lewis acidity. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Figure 1 - Silanol bonds responsible by Brönsted acidity in zeolites [42]
The traditional method for zeolite production is hydrothermal synthesis, with reaction time and
temperature varying greatly depending on the intended structure. Most structures also require a
Structure Directing Agent (SDA), often an organic compound (OSDA), to be added during the
hydrothermal process. Recent studies have been carried out on zeolite synthesis in non-aqueous
synthesis. Non-aqueous synthesis aren’t necessarily water-free, but use organic solvents, usually
alcohols while adding small amounts of water to direct the reaction. In recent years, computer models
have made it possible to try and find new SDA for specific structures, with said models allowing to
rationally design specific SDA that fit the structure, reducing the amount of time and trials necessary to
find suitable compounds for this role. [6] [7] [8] [9]
Zeolites, when synthesised, are not in their acid form, as the negative charge from the structure
isn’t being balanced by protons, but by cations present in the reaction medium like sodium or potassium,
depending on what species are present in the synthesis medium. To obtain the acid form, it’s necessary
to ion exchange it to its H-form. This is usually done by exchanging it with NH4+, then thermally degrading
it to form H+. [2] In cases where OSDA were used, it is also necessary to remove these from the zeolite
9
pores before performing the ion exchange. The most frequent method is calcination, where the OSDA
is burned in controlled temperature and gas flow, and removed from the pores. This step requires
knowledge of the structure’s thermal stability, as it is possible to cause a collapse of the zeolite structure
if the calcination temperature is too high. [2] [7] [9] [10]
Other synthesis strategy is the conversion of other aluminosilicates to zeolites. The source
material can be amorphous or a different structure of zeolite, and processes vary from the usage of the
typical SDA that are used for the regular hydrothermal synthesis of the intended structure, to using a
seed of the intended structure placed in the reaction medium. Okubo et al have studied the relation
between the structures of the source and final structures, reaching the conclusion that this conversion
is possible as long as the structures share a single Composite Building Unit (CBU). It is also possible to
convert a mixture of different zeolites that share CBU between themselves to a structure that only shares
CBU with one of those structures, as shown by Honda et al. [10] [24]
While the narrow pore systems that define zeolites can be useful for selectivity due to steric
confinement of the reactants and products in certain reactions, the same narrow pores pose a problem
to the diffusion of these compounds, which can hinder the reaction rates due to diffusion limitations. [9]
[11] [12]
There have been two main approaches to this issue, synthesizing structures with larger pore
diameters, like AlPO8, and introducing a secondary mesopore system, creating hierarchical zeolites
with both a micro and mesopore system intertwined. The reduction of crystal sizes can also improve the
diffusion in zeolites, as it lowers the diffusion path of molecules inside the pores. [9-17]
The aperture size of a zeolite pore is connected to the amount of tetrahedrally coordinated
atoms (T-atoms) that form the ring of their opening. Zeolites don’t typically form openings bigger than
12-member rings, but the same isn’t true with zeotypes, which can go up to 20-rings. It is worth noting
that the ring diameter can change between rings with the same number of T-atoms, like cacoxenite and
cloverite which both have a 20-ring but with apertures of 14.2 Å and 13.2 Å, respectively. It is also worth
noting many of these materials aren’t thermally stable at higher temperatures, mak ing them unsuitable
for catalytic purposes. [17]
Hierarchical zeolites are zeolites with a secondary porosity system. Pore systems are
characterized by their diameter, with pores considered micropores between 0.2nm and 2nm, mesopores
between 2nm and 50nm and macro pores between 50nm and 100nm. By having both a micro and
mesoporous system, the accessibility to the acid and/or metallic sites inside the pores is increased, and
the diffusion path inside the micropores is also shortened, leading to increased diffusion. [9-17]
The goal of this work is to synthesize and characterize hierarchical zeolites of the Mazzite and
Linde Type-L structures. Details on these structures are mentioned further into this introduction.
10
Hierarchical Zeolites
There are multiple strategies to create hierarchical zeolites, with these strategies being divided
in top-down and bottom-up approaches. Top-down strategies focus on the modification of pre-
synthesized zeolites, while bottom-up strategies aim to synthesize hierarchical zeolites without the
need of post synthesis demetallation. Bottom-up strategies include hard templating, soft templating,
assembly of nanosized zeolites and zeolization of preformed solids, while top-down includes
dealumination, desilication, recrystalization and surfactant templated crystal rearrangement. Pérez-
Ramírez et al defined a hierarchy factor to maximize in hierarchical zeolite design, given by the
formula (1):
𝐻𝐹 =𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑐𝑟𝑜
𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
×𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑜
𝑆𝐵𝐸𝑇
(1)
This factor is maximized when the mesopore surface area increases without losses of
micropore volume, this way a zeolite with high hierarchy factor is one that retains its microporosity
despite gaining a secondary pore structure. [9][11] [12] [16] [17] [18] [39]
Hard templating consists on the synthesis of a zeolite in the porosity of a solid structured
template material, using solid compounds like carbon black, carbon nanotubes, pyrolized wood,
CaCO3 nanoparticles, and others as templates. The template then needs to be removed, usually by
calcination. [9] [12] [16] [17]
Soft templating utilizes templates like cationic surfactants, cationic polymers, polymeric
aerogels, starch and bacteria. The usage of SDA and soft templates can sometimes result in high
amounts of amorphous material formed, however these templates can in some cases be developed to
act as both mesopore template and SDA, removing that issue.[9] [12] [16] [17] [39]
Zeolization of mesoporous materials consists in the conversion of mesoporous amorphous
silicates or aluminosilicates into zeolites, usually recurring to SDA. [9] [12] [16] [17] [39]
On the top-down approaches, dealumination is the removal of some of the aluminium from the
zeolite framework. This can be achieved by post synthesis calcination, steaming, acid leaching, or
chemical treatments. Since dealumination increases the Si/Al ratio, it can also be used to increase the
strength of the acid sites. [9] [12-18] [39]
Desilication is the removal of some silica from the framework, by selective hydrolysis of the Si-
O-Si bonds in alkaline medium, usually NaOH. Bulkier bases can be used for selective removal of
silica, as the bulkier bases will be unable to enter the pores and removing silica from the inside of
these. The key factors for this process are concentration, temperature and time on the medium, and
the Si/Al ratio of the zeolite. The negative charge of the framework aluminium repels the OH-,
protecting the silanol groups from being attacked. For this reason, desilication is more effective for
mesopore formation in dealuminated zeolites. The ideal Si/Al ratios for desilication are usually
between 25 and 50, with ratios lower than 20 being too resistant to the attack on the Si-O bonds, and
11
ratios higher than 50 being too susceptible to it, leading to excessive and unselective removal. Crystal
defects like stacking faults can also favour the desilication mechanism. [9] [12-17] [39]
The surfactant templated top-down approaches are similar to desilication but use weaker
bases and milder conditions, as well as surfactants to induce mesopore formation, similar to the soft
templating bottom-up strategy. Despite the similarities with desilication, there is no silica loss in these
reactions, leaving the Si/Al ratio untouched. [9] [12] [16] [17]
12
Mazzite and Linde Type L structures
The Mazzite structure (MAZ) consists stacked columns of gmelnite cavities, forming 12-ring
channels in between those columns. The opening of these pores is 7.4 Å between opposing oxygen
atoms. This structure was first synthesised in the 1960s by Union Carbide and given the name zeolite
Ω. Mobil also synthesized the same structure with a slightly higher Si/Al ratio and named it ZSM-4. In
1972, the natural counterpart of these structures was discovered in basaltic lavas in France, and the
structure is now known by this name. [19] [20] [27] [40]
The Linde Type L (LTL) structure has a similar shape when compared with MAZ, but instead
of gmelnite, the structure is made by columns of cancrinite cages and double six-membered rings,
forming the characteristic 12-channel of ltl cages. The 12-member cage on LTL is wider than the one
in MAZ, being able to fit a 10.01 Å sphere inside it versus 8.09 Å in the MAZ, however the pore
opening is slightly smaller at 7.1 Å. Zeolite L was first synthesised in 1965 by Union Carbide and has
no known natural counterpart. [21] [22]
A side by side comparison of these structures can be visualized in Figure 2. As visible on this
figure, the two structures are identical when seen from [001]. However, when seen from [100] like in
Figure 3. the difference between the 12-channel formed between the gme cavities and the ltl cage can
easily be seen.
Figure 2 - Mazzite (a) and LTL (b) structures viewed from [001]
13
Figure 3 - Mazzite (a) and LTL (b) structures viewed from [100]
Despite the structural similarities, the uses for these two structures are widely different, with
MAZ performing well in acid catalysis and LTL in basic catalysis. MAZ isn’t widely used, but has been
studied as a catalyst for acid and bifunctional catalysis, in cracking, toluene conversion, hydration, and
particularly successful in isomerization where a sample of dealuminated Pt-HMAZ outperformed a
commercial Pt-MOR catalyst in a study carried out by Guisnet and coworkers. MAZ has been reported
to be more selective to dibranched isomer formation when compared to FAU and MOR catalysts, both
widely used, and dealuminated MAZ samples have been reported to retain ammonia at temperatures
up to 773K. Despite these promising signs, MAZ isn’t widely used commercially, one of the
motivations of this work is to try to understand the reason behind that apparent contradiction. On the
other hand, LTL performs well as a catalyst in reforming, aromatization and dehydrogenation
reactions, with authors somewhat divided between the key factor for its success being due to its shape
or its basic characteristics inhibiting acid sites.[18] [23] [26] [28] [32] [33-35]
The synthesis of these two structures is also wildly different. The hydrothermal synthesis of
LTL is quite simple, with potassium ions acting as SDA and therefore not needing the addition of
OSDA. Typically, the LTL obtained this way has a Si/Al ratio between 3 and 6, with alternative
14
synthesis methods being able to form LTL at lower ratios. The crystallization usually occurs in 2 days
or less, at temperatures between 100ºC and 200ºC. [21] [33-35]
The same cannot be said about the MAZ synthesis. The zeolite omega synthesis has been
plagued with secondary phases from the start, with common contaminates including gmelnite, offretite,
zeolite P, sodalite, analcime, philipsite and gismondine. The original and most common used SDA for
MAZ synthesis is tetramethylammonium (TMA), usually in either hydroxide or bromide forms. Sodalite
formation tens do increase with TMA concentration, while analcime formation increases with Na
concentration. Si/Al ratios are between 2.5 and 10 in the original patents. Crystallization temperatures
are usually between 80ºC and 200ºC, but usually below 150ºC. Synthesis times vary greatly with
temperature and composition, with crystallization occurring between 1 and 40 days. Some procedures
use a seeding solution that requires aging before the crystallization starts. At temperatures below
135ºC the crystallization starts by forming a faujasite phase that is then converted to MAZ. At higher
temperatures this behaviour has not been noticed. This behaviour, as well as the frequent
contaminant phases comes from the fact that mazzite is one of several metastable phases in systems
containing TMA. Frequent formation of other phases has led to an interest in research for other SDA
to produce MAZ, with compounds like dioxane, diquaternary alkylammonium ions, piperazine and
crown ethers being tested with varying degrees of success. Considerable research has also been into
alternative synthesis methods like magadiite conversion, zeolite conversion and non-aqueous
synthesis. [7-8] [10] [18] [23-32] [40]
The molar ratios in which MAZ synthesis is ideal [40] are resumed in Table 1
Table 1 - Molar ratios for mazzite synthesis
Species Minimum Maximum
𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 + 𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑺𝒊𝑶𝟐
0.3 0.5
𝑺𝒊𝟐𝑶
𝑨𝒍𝟐𝑶𝟑
8.0 20.0
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 0.0 0.2
𝑯𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 15.0 40.0
15
Characterization
There are many different analytical methods for zeolite characterization, including Powder X-
Ray Diffraction (XRD), Fourier Transformed Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM), Gas Adsorption, Microcalorimetry, Nuclear Magnetic Ressonance (NMR), and
others. [1-6]
The XRD technique is based on detecting the diffraction gratings of X-ray wavelengths caused
by the structure and composition of the sample. The equipment generates X-ray waves in a cathode
ray tube, which are then filtered on a monochromator to generate monochromatic radiation, which is
then directed towards the sample. The interference generated by the sample is then detected and
processed, and the sample is scanned across a range of angles to obtain every possible diffraction
direction. Conversion of the diffraction peaks to d-spacings allows identification of the structure, as
every mineral has unique d-spacings. The identification is usually done by comparing the results with
references. [36]
FTIR probes the vibrational properties of a sample, allowing the identification of functional
groups that can be associated with characteristic bands. In the case of zeolites, this method can be
used to distinguish acid sites from non-acidic OH groups, as well as identify the accessibility and
strength of different acid sites by using probe molecules that adsorb on these. [37]
Zeolites are pressed into disks, then go through an activation stage at high temperature. After
activation and cooling down, the spectra can be collected with the cell in vacuum. Acid sites can be
studied by injecting probe molecules like ammonia into the cell, wait for the zeolite to adsorb, collect
the spectrum and compare it with the original spectrum. After that, the acid strength can be tested by
gradually increasing the temperature and collecting multiple spectra at different temperatures, as
stronger acid sites can retain bases at higher temperatures. Different probe molecules can be used for
different studies, with bulkier molecules like pyridine being used for accessibility studies. It is also
possible to determine the number of acid sites by using ammonia additions and their spectra as a
titration. [18] [23]
Another widely used method is gas adsorption. The two most used for physical adsorption are
volumetric (or manometric), where the volume adsorbed or gas pressure are measured, and
gravimetric, where the sample is weighted in a microbalance and pressure is also measured.
Gravimetric adsorption is most convenient at room temperature, so since the most commonly used
gases are argon and nitrogen, both having very low boiling points, this method isn’t as used as the
manometric. For many years, nitrogen adsorption at 77K was considered the standard measure of
surface area, however argon has been gaining popularity as it doesn’t exhibit specific interactions with
functional groups, making it faster to adsorb. Carbon dioxide is also occasionally used to access even
smaller micropores, as its kinetic diameter is slightly lower at 0.33nm versus 0.34 and 0.36 for argon
and nitrogen respectively. The obtained data is then used in adsorption models, typically Brunauer-
Emmett-Teller (BET). [38]
16
Physical Model
On the side of the experimental work, a physical model of the LTL structure was built, using
Cochranes of Oxford Minit Molecular Models, connected by pieces of lab grade tubing. The finished
model can be seen in figures 4 to 7.
Figure 4 - Physical model of LTL
Figure 5 - Physical model of LTL
17
Figure 6 - Physical model of LTL
Figure 7 - Physical model of LTL
18
Experimental
Synthesis
The synthesis mixtures were prepared using TMABr (Sigma Aldrich, 99%), TMAOH (Alfa Aesar,
99%, pentahydrate), NaOH (Fisher Scientific, 99%), KOH (Fisher Scientific, 99%), alumina (Sigma
Aldrich, 99%), aluminium sulphate (Sigma Aldrich, 99%) and colloidal silica (Ludox, 30wt% and 40wt%).
The first attempt at mazzite synthesis were based on Vaughan and Strohmaier’s contributions
in the book Verified Syntheses of Zeolitic Materials. [41] This procedure uses a seeding solution that
should be aged before the crystallization step. The seeding solution was produced in excess, to use in
further attempts with longer ageing.
The seeding solution was prepared by mixing 1.872g of alumina, 9.06g of sodium hydroxide
and 16.90g of water, and microwave this mixture at 150ºC for 30 minutes. Then 7.01g of the solution
obtained in the previous step was mixed with 8.34g of colloidal silica and 4.39g of water to finalize the
seeding solution.
After 24h of ageing, three other solutions were made: an alumina solution containing 14.07g of
water, 5.55g of sodium hydroxide and 7.07 of alumina, that was microwaved at 150ºC for 30 minutes to
dissolve the alumina; a solution of 5.65g of TMA bromide in 7.08g of water; and a solution of 4.23g of
aluminium sulphate in 7.07g of water. The crystallization batch was obtained by mixing 13.40g of the
first solution, 1.98g of the seeding solution, the remaining two solutions, 60.48g of sodium silicate and
4.90g of water. This mixture was left to cristalize for 5 days at 100ºC, and the final product was separated
by centrifugation.
A second attempt with this method was made, with the seeding solution ageing 20 days and a
crystallization time of 7 days. The rest of the procedure was similar, with minor variations in the amounts
weighted, and composition differences of the final mixture can be seen on Table 2.
Table 2 – Relevant molar ratios of the first two synthesis attempts
Species First Second
𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 + 𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑺𝒊𝑶𝟐
0.433 0.387
𝑺𝒊𝟐𝑶
𝑨𝒍𝟐𝑶𝟑
9.08 10.26
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 0.16 0.16
𝑯𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 31.4 31.3
Further crystallization attempts were based on Flanigen’s patent, with this method not requiring
either seeding solution or ageing, and using TMA hydroxide instead of bromide. [40]
19
This mixture was prepared by mixing 15.27g of water, 1.98g of alumina and 3.18g of sodium
hydroxide and heating it in an oven at 180ºC overnight. The heating was done in an oven overnight
instead of in a microwave in 30 minutes like in the previous attempts due to an equipment failure with
the microwave. 25.00g of silica (ludox30) and 3.64g of TMA hydroxide were then mixed with the solution,
and crystallization was performed at 100ºC over 20 days.
Another attempt was made based on this method with a different approach, opting to use higher
temperature and a shorter crystallization time. For this attempt, 3.90g of alumina, 6.37g of sodium
hydroxide and 30.2g of water were first mixed and put in an oven at 180ºC overnight, and then mixed
with 7.26g of TMA hydroxide and 50.01g of silica (Ludox 30). Crystallization was performed at 180ºC
for 4 days.
An attempt at a hierarchical version was also done, adding carbon nanotubes to the synthesis
batch and letting that sit for a day before starting crystallization. For this attempt, 10.4g of a previously
prepared solution of alumina and sodium hydroxide was used. To this solution 1.85g of TMAOH and
12.75g of silica (Ludox30) were added. After mixing, 0.64g of carbon nanotubes were added. The molar
ratios of these mixtures can be seen in table 3.
Table 3 - Relevant molar ratios for the latter attempts
Species First Second Mesoporous
𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 + 𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑺𝒊𝑶𝟐
0.72 0.72 0.72
𝑺𝒊𝟐𝑶
𝑨𝒍𝟐𝑶𝟑
9.34 9.49 9.49
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 0.12 0.12 .12
𝑯𝟐𝑶
𝑻𝑴𝑨𝟐𝑶 + 𝑵𝒂𝟐𝑶 22.24 22.21 22.19
The LTL synthesis was successful on its first attempt. The method was based on the original
patent by Union Carbide. [21] First, 2.01g of alumina, 8.98g of potassium hydroxide, 6.07g of sodium
hydroxide and 77.00g of water were mixed, and left in an oven at 180ºC overnight. The following day,
58.00g of silica (Ludox40) were added, and the mixture was left ageing for 24h. Crystallization was
performed for 24h at 175ºC. 2.34g of this zeolite were produced, despite the purging of a quarter of the
synthesis mixture due to limitations of the autoclave.
20
Calcination
The calcination was done in two steps, the first in nitrogen at a lower temperature, and the
second, more aggressive, in oxygen at higher temperature.
The early samples were calcined in nitrogen at 400ºC for an hour, then temperature was lowered
to 300ºC, the gas switched from nitrogen to oxygen, and the second step of calcination done at 500ºC
for 16h. The samples were then let cooling down until room temperature.
Latter samples were calcined using the same method and timing, but with the temperatures
increased to 450ºC and 550ºC respectively. The LTL sample wasn’t calcined as it didn’t require any
OSDA, so there was no point in calcining it to remove organic compounds.
21
Ion exchange
The ion exchange was done using ammonium nitrate (analaR, 98%) and ammonium acetate
(GPR, 97%).
The first sample wasn’t exchanged, the second was exchanged using 5M solutions of ammonia
nitrate. Latter samples were exchanged using 1M solutions of ammonia nitrate or ammonia acetate.
Every ion exchange was done three times per sample, with the zeolites being separated by
centrifugation, washed with hot water, and centrifuged again between treatment, and centrifuged and
left to dry at 100ºC overnight after the treatment. All ion exchange treaments were performed at room
temperature and atmospheric pressure.
22
X-Ray Diffraction
Powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns were recorded on a Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer
with CuKα radiation at 40kV and 40mA over the 2-theta angle range of 5-60º. The crystalline phases
were matched by comparing the XRD patterns of the catalysts with those reported in the literature, both
manually with simulated XRD patterns, and using the Crystallography Open Database (COD).
Samples were not subjected to any treatment before performing this analysis.
23
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
FTIR spectra were collected using a Protege 460 spectrometer, with a high sensitivity MCT
detector, with a spectral range from 600 to 7000 cm-1.
Spectra were collected before and after pyridine adsorption, to study the accessibility of the acid
sites of the samples. Temperature Programmed Desorption (TPD) can be used to study properties of
the synthesized zeolites like the acidic strength of different sites in the porous system. However, this
analysis was not performed since a pure MAZ sample was not obtained and acid sites on LTL are not
relevant for the reactions that use it as catalyst.
Samples were prepared by pressing the powder between 1-3 tons to form disks. These disks
then go through an activation step at 450ºC, to remove adsorbed water and other impurities that might
interfere with the measurements.
Figure 8 – FTIR spectrometer
24
Scanning Electron Microscopy
SEM data was collected with a Hitachi TM3000, attached to a Bruker EDX system allowing the
determination of bulk composition via Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).
This equipment didn’t have enough magnification to identify the shape of individual crystals,
but the EDX system made it possible to obtain bulk Si/Al ratios.
The samples were prepared by forming disks like the ones used in FTIR, glue them into a
sample holder with an appropriate glue and finally carbon coat them to avoid powder to escape into
the vacuum system.
25
Results and Discussion
Synthesis
Six different samples were synthesized, with the first five being failed attempts at obtaining a
pure MAZ phase, and the sixth a successful attempt at synthesizing pure LTL.
The synthesis of mazzite is known to be tricky, but the difficulties in obtaining a pure sample
were higher than expected. To obtain a pure phase, further experiments would be required, preferably
running multiple simultaneous attempts in similar conditions in a way that a single parameter can be
varied to obtain comparable results. Ideally, the alumina dissolution steps should be performed on a
microwave unit, as this allows much quicker results versus a regular oven where the solution needs to
stay overnight for complete dissolution. This was the case on the early synthesis attempts but an
equipment failure made it so that latter attempts required that extra waiting time. Gas Adsorption was
also not performed due to equipment malfunction
There was also some insistence in the conventional synthesis methods, which in hindsight was
likely a mistake, since zeolite conversion is also a viable synthesis approach that would have been
interesting to study and compare with conventional hydrothermal synthesis.
The LTL synthesis, simpler than MAZ, was finally attempted to illustrate how such similar
structures can have such different properties and difficulty in the synthesis process. It was however too
late to attempt a bottom-up approach at hierarchical LTL synthesis, and there wasn’t enough material
to attempt a top-down, as only 2.34g of pure LTL was obtained and steaming and/or acid leaching
required larger amounts.
26
XRD
XRD results were compared with the data from the Collection of Simulated XRD Powder
Patterns for Zeolites, 4th edition. Said simulated patterns are shown in figures 9 and 10. A peak analysis
in the Origin software was run on these to find characteristic peaks to match with the experimental data.
Figure 9 - Simulated XRD pattern of MAZ [43]
27
Figure 10 – Simulated XRD Pattern of LTL [43]
The first attempt at synthesising Mazzite was unsuccessful, forming a mostly amorphous
material. The XRD for this sample had no relevant peaks so no other characterization was performed
for this sample.
The second sample was crystalline, and its pattern was compared both with the data from the
book, and with the COD. This sample was subjected to harsher conditions in its ion exchange, so XRD
patterns were collected before and after that treatment. Figures 11 to 13 show the patterns before and
after ion exchange, as well as an overlap of the two.
28
Figure 11 - XRD Pattern for sample 2 before ion exchange
Figure 12 - XRD Pattern for Sample2 after ion exchange
29
Figure 13- Comparison between the sample before (black) and after ion exchange (blue)
As it can be seen, there was no alteration to the structure during the ion exchange. Both spectra
were then matched with the references, and the spectra for the ion exchanged sample was compared
with the COD database. The comparison with a MAZ reference shows that while the characteristic peaks
are present, there are also other peaks as strong as the ones that match the MAZ phase, indicating the
presence of a secondary phase. The COD comparison didn’t match mazzite, finding chabazite,
pyrophillite, andalusite and mullite instead.
30
Figure 14 - XRD Pattern for Sample 2 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks
Figure 15 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 2 and the Simulated Pattern
31
Figure 16 - Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 2 with COD
The third sample was also compared with both references too, but no XRD were made after ion
exchange since the previous comparison shows that this doesn’t affect the crystalline structure. As it
can be seen in figures 17 to 20 the peaks found in Origin are present, but there are extra peaks around
14º and after 30º. Comparison with the COD matches chabazite, silimanite, andalusite and mullite, and
no mazzite again.
32
Figure 17 - XRD Pattern for sample 3
Figure 18 – XRD Pattern for Sample 3 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks
33
Figure 19 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 3 and the Simulated Pattern
Figure 20 - Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 3 with COD
34
The fourth and fifth samples share the same crystallization conditions, but the fifth sample was
crystallized with carbon nanotubes as a mesopore template. Figures 21 and 22 show comparison
between the XRD data of the 3, first between the regular and the mesoporous sample, and then between
the mesoporous sample before and after calcination. There are no significant differences between the
spectra of the regular and mesoporous version, meaning the microporous structure isn’t altered between
the two. There are a few peaks that don’t match Mazzite, most notably the most intense peak at 24.33.
After calcination, most peaks intensity diminished, which might mean loss of crystallinity during
calcination. This could have happened since the calcination of this sample didn’t go as smoothly as the
previous, with a lot of carbonaceous material forming and just a small amount of sample being properly
calcined. This might have been caused by an increase of temperature due to the burning of nanotubes.
The mesoporous sample spectra was compared with the COD, and the same results as the third sample
were obtained, with mazzite not being identified, and chabazite, andalusite, silimanite and mullite being
all matched. These comparisons as well as each isolated pattern can be seen in figures 24 to 30.
Figure 21 - Comparison between the regular sample (black) and the one with carbon nanotubes (blue)
35
Figure 22 - Comparison between the mesoporous material before (black) and after calcination (blue)
36
Figure 23 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4
Figure 24 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks
37
Figure 25 - Overlap of the Pattern from Sample 4 and the Simulated Pattern
Figure 26 - XRD Pattern for Sample 5 before calcination
38
Figure 27 - XRD Pattern for Sample 5 after calcination
Figure 28 - XRD Pattern for Sample 4 matched with theoretical MAZ peaks
39
Figure 29 – Overlap of the Pattern from Sample 5 and the Simulated Pattern
Figure 30 – Comparison of the Pattern from Sample 5 with COD
The LTL sample wasn’t run on COD, as it perfectly matched the reference. The peaks were
identified using the same procedure in Origin, however this graph isn’t displayed due to visual clutter
40
from the amount of peak numbers. The experimental spectra and its matching with reference can be
seen in figures 31 and 32.
Figure 31 - XRD Pattern for Sample 6 (KLTL)
41
Figure 32 - Overlap of the Pattern for Sample 6 and the Simulated Pattern
42
FTIR
Mazzite is known to have two distinct bands for OH groups, Si-OH at 3744 cm-1, with a shoulder
at 3735 cm-1, and Si-OH-Al at 3600 cm-1. Furthermore, pyridine adsorbed in Mazzite forms bands at
1636 and 1542 cm-1 when pyridinium ions form on Brönsted acid sites, and 1622 and 1454 cm-1 when
pyridine is coordinated on Lewis acid sites. Samples without pyridine adsorbed show bands at 1496 and
1462 cm-1. [18] [23]
While the XRD data for Sample 2 looked promising, the FTIR data brings expectations down,
with no relevant peaks on the 3600-3700 cm-1 region, characteristic of silanol and bridged OH groups.
The absence of these groups means the absence of acid sites in the structure, which are required for
the adsorption experiments. There is also a small peak around the 1450-1500 cm-1 region that may
indicate the presence of a small quantity of leftover SDA. For this reason, the calcination temperature
was increased in further experiments. Figure 33 shows the spectra before and after pyridine adsorption,
as well as the subtraction of the two, illustrating a small drop around the 3600-3700 cm-1 region, while
Figure 34 shows the same spectra in a different range, illustrating a couple small peaks increasing after
pyridine adsorption in the regions between 1450-1500 cm-1, indicating a very slight amount of pyridine
adsorption, consistent with the data from the other range
Figure 33 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 2
43
Figure 34 - FTIR Spectra for sample 2 showcasing Py adsorption
The results for the third sample are better, with clear peaks around 3750 cm-1 and in the 3600-
3650 cm-1 region, however this second peak is broader than it should, indicating multiple non-equivalent
tetrahedral atom positions. There is also a band around 1485 cm-1. Subtraction spectra is consistent
with some pyridine adsorption, but the majority of the acid sites were left untouched
Figure 35 - FTIR Spectra for sample 3
Figure 36 - FTIR Spectra for sample 3 after Py adsorption
44
Figure 37 - Subtraction spectra for sample 3
For sample 4, two different ion exchanges were performed, one with ammonium nitrate and
another with ammonium acetate. The sample that was exchanged with ammonium nitrate has one of
its OH bands at 3550 cm-1, while the sample that was exchanged with ammonium acetate has both
that band and a shoulder at 3625 cm-1, which suggests is coherent with the sample having two
different phases, with one blocking the other’s pores, as nitrate is slightly bulkier than acetate, making
it harder for it to diffuse through. This difference can easily be seen in Figure 40. In the 1400-1700 cm-
1 region there is no significant difference between the two exchanges
Figure 38 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 4 exchanged with amm. Nitrate
45
Figure 39 - FTIR Spectra for Sample 4 exchanged with amm. Acetate
Figure 40 - FTIR Spectra of Sample 4 with both ion exchanges
Figure 41 - Subtraction of spectra for sample 4 exchanged with amm. nitrate
46
Figure 42 – Subtraction of Spectra for sample 4 exchanged with amm. Acetate
There is no FTIR data for sample 5, as its calcination didn’t provide enough clean material to
press into a disk.
Because LTL isn’t used as an acid catalyst, the FTIR data available in literature for this zeolite
usually covers its K and Na forms instead of H form. This means there is no literature to do a direct
comparison with sample 6. The sample has a peak in at 3745 cm-1, a band in the 3620-3660 cm-1 region
and two very broad bands between 2200 and 3600 cm-1. After pyridine adsorption, the band at 2650-
3600 cm-1 changes drastically, revealing multiple peaks between these wavenumbers. The peak at 3745
cm-1 decreases considerably and the band at 3620-3660 cm-1 almost disappears. This means pyridine
is adsorbing on the acid sites of the zeolite.
The adsorption gave origin to two peaks at 1455 cm-1 and 1490 cm-1 and three bands, one
between 1520 and 1560 cm-1 and two between 1590 and 1650 cm-1.
Figure 43 - FTIR Spectra for sample 6
47
Figure 44 - FTIR spectra for sample 6 after Py adsorption
Figure 45 - Subtraction of the spectra for sample 6 before and after Py. adsorption
48
SEM-EDX
As mentioned in the previous section, this SEM equipment does not have enough magnification
to reveal the shape of the crystals. However, the EDX couple to this equipment allows determination of
bulk Si/Al ratios, as well as confirmation if there are any leftover metal cations after ion exchange.
The early mazzite attempt samples have a near one to one ratio of sodium and aluminium, while
latter attempts start much lower at around 60% sodium to aluminium. This fact, combined with the higher
bulk Si/Al ratio of the latter attempts suggests the presence extra-framework aluminium, as the
stoichiometry of framework aluminium and monovalent sodium is 1:1. The LTL sample has close to a
one to one ratio of potassium to aluminium, and a silica to aluminium ratio close to its theoretical value
[22], suggesting low extra-framework aluminium.
It is also worth noting that the metallic ion removal during ion exchange is substancially lower in
LTL compared to the remaining samples.
The data collected with this technique can be seen in Tables 4 and 5:
Table 4 – Atomic percentages in the zeolite samples
Sample Ion
exchanged
Si (%) Al (%) Na (%) K (%)
2 No 22.08 8.71 8.81 -
2 Yes 23.42 9.80 2.15 -
3 No 22.27 6.81 4.74 -
4 No 28.66 8.83 5.14 -
4 Yes 24.62 8.29 0.67 -
6 No 19.93 6.94 0.43 6.80
6 Yes 23.50 7.90 0.12 3.44
Table 5 – Bulk composition ratios in the zeolite samples
Sample Ion exchanged Si/Al Na/Al K/Al
2 No 2.54 1.01 -
2 Yes 2.39 0.22 -
3 No 3.17 0.63 -
4 No 3.25 0.58 -
4 Yes 2.97 0.08 -
6 No 2.87 0.06 0.98
6 Yes 2.97 0.02 0.44
49
Conclusions and Future Work
Mazzite is a curious case among zeolites, where despite multiple literature showing its
advantages as a catalysts versus widely used structures like faujasite or mordenite, its use isn’t
widespread. On top of that, while literature on mazzite synthesis, characterization and uses exists,
there is a much smaller amount of it compared to these popular structures. Throughout this work, the
difficulties of synthesising pure mazzite were evident, with results ranging from amorphous material, to
materials that match the XRD pattern quite well but can’t adsorb probe molecules. Detected phases in
the XRD patterns include chabazite, silimanite, mullite, and andalusite, the last two of which are not
zeolites. The failure to produce pure, high quality mazzite hints that one of the reasons this structure
isn’t widely used despite its great acidic properties can be the difficulty of the synthesis process.
Some of the FTIR results suggest that some of the SDA was retained in the structure. That,
allied to the inability to diffuse pyridine, suggests a blockage on the channels, possibly caused by the
presence of secondary phases. This corroborates the presence of non-zeolitical aluminosilicates. The
fact that the sample that was ion exchanged using ammonium acetate had a broader OH band than
the equivalent sample exchanged using ammonium nitrate also hints at a partial blockage of the pore
system.
For these reasons, further optimization of the synthesis process is required, and alternative
processes like zeolite conversion seem to have more potential than the traditional hydrothermal
process for this particular structure. It is worth noting that despite the favourable properties, zeolite
conversion can start from zeolites like faujasite that are just marginally inferior for the intended use of
mazzite, which may make its conversion pointless. A better optimization effort would require more time
and a larger amount of autoclaves and ovens available, in order to be able to conduct multiple
experiments with different synthesis conditions simultaneously.
Further work should be made on the approach to hierarchical mazzite as well. If the zeolite
conversion does become that standard method for producing this phase, optimization of the conditions
for dealumination and desilication will be key on producing high quality hierarchical mazzite, with its
Si/Al ratio tuned accordingly for the intended catalytic effect.
LTL zeolite was a simple synthesis compared to mazzite, despite the structures being visually
similar. It is also interesting to note that unlike MAZ, it performs better as a basic catalyst, so its
potential uses are in processes like aldol or Knoevenagel condensation or aromatization of linear
compounds. All these processes can use quite bulky reactants and form bulky products, making the
optimization of hierarchical LTL zeolites for specific reactions a potentially interesting project. Further
work should be done on the effect of Si/Al ratios on each reaction, as well as the stability of
mesoporous LTL obtained from different processes.
50
References [1] Corma, A. (1997) Solid acid catalysts. Current opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 2
63-75
[2] Corma, A., Martínez, A. (1995) Zeolytes and Zeotypes as Catalysts. Advanced Materials 7 2
137-144
[3] Corma, A. (1997) From Microporous to Mesoporous Molecular Sieve Materials and Their Use
in Catalysis. Chemical Reviews 97 2373-2419
[4] Datka, J., Tarach, K., Góra-Marek, K. (2015) Acidic Properties of Hierarchical Zeolites. In
Mesoporous Zeolites: Preparation, Characterization and Applications ch.14
[5] Zanjanchi, M., Razavi, A. (2000) Identification and estimation of extra-framework aluminium in
acidic mazzite by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Spectrochimica Acta 57 119-127
[6] Li, J., Corma, A., Yu, J. (2015) Synthesis of new zeolite structures. Chemical Society Reviews
44 7112-7127
[7] Yang, S., Evmiridis, N. (1995) Synthesis and characterization of an offretite/erionite type
zeolite. Microporous Materials .6 19-26
[8] Yang, S., Vlessidis, A., Evmiridis, N. (1996) Synthesis of zeolites in the system Na2O-SiO2-
Al2O3-H2O-glycerol. Microporous Materials 9 273-286
[9] Li, K., Valla, J., Garcia-Martinez, J. (2013) Realizing the Commercial Potential of Hierarchical
Zeolites: New Opportunities in Catalytic Cracking. ChemCatChem 6 10 2754-2776
[10] Honda, K., Yashiki, A., Sadakane, M., Sano, T. (2014) Hydrothermal conversion of FAU and
*BEA-type zeolites into MAZ-type zeolites in the presence of non-calcined seed crystals.
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 196 254-260
[11] Pérez-Ramírez, J., Verboekend, D., Bonilla, A., Abelló, S. (2009) Zeolite Catalysts with
Tunable Hierarchy Factor by Pore-Growth Mediation. Advanced Functional Materials 19
3972-3979
[12] Verboekend, D., Pérez-Ramírez, J. (2011) Desilication Mechanism Revisited: Highly
Mesoporous All-Silica Zeolites Enabled Through Pore-Directing Agents. Chemistry: A
European Journal 17 1137-1147
[13] Mitchell, S., Pinar, A., Kenvin, J., Crivelli, P., Kärger, J., Pérez-Ramírez, J. (2014) Structural
analysis of hierarchically organized zeolites. Nature Communications 6 8633
[14] Groen, J., Peffer, L., Moulijin, J., Pérez-Ramírez, J (2005) Mechanism of Hierarchical Porosity
Development in MFI Zeolites by Desilication: The Role of Aluminium as a Pore-Directing
Agent. Chemistry: A European Journal 11 4983-4994
[15] Svelle, S., Sommer, L., Barbera, K., Vennestrøm, P., Olsbye, U., Lillerud, K., Bordiga, S.,
Pan, Y., Beato, P. (2011) How defects and crystal morphology control the effects of
desilication. Catalysis Today 168 38-47
[16] Verboekend, D., Nuttens, N., Locus, R., Van Aelst, J., Verolme, P., Groen, J., Pérez-Ramírez,
J., Sels, B. (2016) Synthesis, characterization, and catalytic evaluation of hierarchical faujasite
zeolites: milestones, challenges and future directions. Chemical Society Reviews 45 3305-
3566
51
[17] Jian, J., Yu, J., Corma, A. (2010) Extra-Large-Pore Zeolites: Bridging the Gap between Micro
and Mesoporous Structures. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 49 3120-3145
[18] Guisnet, M., Ayrault, P., Datka, J. (1998) Acid proprieties of mazzite zeolites studied by IR
spectroscopy. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 20 283-291
[19] Fajula, F., Vera-Pacheco, M., Figueras, F. (1987) Synthesis of zeolite omega. Influence of the
temperature and the reagents on the crystallization kinetics. Zeolites 7 203-208
[20] Galli, E. (1974) Mazzite, A Zeolite. Crystal Structure Communications 3 339-344
[21] Donald W. Breck, Tonawanda, and Nancy A. Acara, Kenmore, N.Y., assignors to Union
Carbide Corporation, US Patent 3,216,789, Crystalline Zeolite L(1965)
[22] Barrer, R., Villiger, H. (1969) The crystal structure of the synthetic zeolite L. Zeitschrift für
Kristallographie 128 352-370
[23] McQueen, D., Chiche, B., Fajula, F., Auroux, A., Guimon, C., Fitoussi, F., Schulz, P. (1996) A
Multitechnique Characterization of the Acidity of Dealuminated Mazzite. Journal of Catalysis
161 587-596
[24] Ogawa, A., Iyoki, K., Kamimura, Y., Elangovan, S., Itabashi, K., Okubo, T. (2013) Seed-
directed rapid synthesis of MAZ-type zeolites without using organic structure-directing agent.
IMicroporous and Mesoporous Materials 186 21-28
[25] Castillo, M., Di Renzo, F., Fajula, F., Bousquet, J. (2005) Crystallization kinetics of zeolite
omega, the synthetic analog of mazzite. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 90 221-228
[26] Perrota, A., Kibby, C., Mitchell, B., Tucci, E (1978) The Synthesis, Characterization, and
Catalytic Activity of Omega and ZSM-4 Zeolites. Journal of Catalysis 55 240-249
[27] Goossens, A., Feijen, E., Verhoeven, G., Wouters, B., Grobet, P., Jacobs, P., Martens, J.
(1999) Crystallization of MAZ-type zeolites using tetramethylammonium, sodium, and n-
hexane derivatives as structure- and composition-directing agents. Microporous and
Mesoporous Materials 35-36 555-572
[28] Xu, H., Dong, P., Liu, L., Wang, J., Deng, F., Dong, J. (2006) Synthesis and characterization
of zeolite mazzite analogue in Na2O-Al2O3-SiO2-Piperazine-H2O. Journal of Porous Materials
14 97-101
[29] Tianming, L., Zhang, S., Feng, Z., Wang, F., Zhang, S., Zheng, J., Liu, X., Meng, C., Wang,
Y. (2017) Synthesis of Zeolite Omega by the Magadiite Conversion Method and Insight into
the Changes of Medium-Range Structure during Crystallization. Crystal Growth and Design 17
3940-3947
[30] Lee, S., Shin, C., Yang, D., Ahn, S., Nam, I., Hong, S. (2003) Reinvestigation into the
synthesis of zeolites using diquaternary alkylammonium ions with n=3-10 as structure-
directing agents. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 64 97-104
[31] De Witte, B., Patarin, J., Guth, J., Cholley, T (1997) Synthesis of mazzite-type zeolites in the
presence of organic solvents; study of the structure directing role of p-dioxane. Microporous
Materials 10 247-257
52
[32] Fajula, F., Boulet, M., Coq, B., Rajaofanova, V., Figueras, F., Des Courieres, T. (1993)
Hydroconversion of n-alkanes and decalin over bifunctional Pt-Mazzite Catalysts. Studies in
Surface Science and Catalysis 75 1007-1018
[33] Consuelo, C., Villa, A., Ramirez-Corredores, M. (2000) Synthesis and Characterization of
cobalt modified LTL-type zeolite. Applied Catalysis A: General 197 151-156
[34] Ghoroghchian, F., Aghabozorg, H., Farhadi, F., Kazemian, H. (2009) Controlled Synthesis of
a Thin LTL Zeolitic Membrane Using Nano-Sized Seeds: Characterization and Permeation
Performance. Chemical Engineering and Technology 33 2066-2072
[35] Tangale, N., Sonar, S., Niphadkar, P., Joshi, P. (2016) Hierarchical K/LTL zeolites: Synthesis
by alkali treatment, characterization and catalytic performance in Knoevenagel condensation
reaction. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 40 128-136
[36] Bish, D., Post, J. (1989) Modern Powder Diffraction. Reviews in Mineralogy 20
[37] Berthomieu, C., Hienerwadel, R. (2009) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy.
Photosynthesis Research 01 157-170
[38] Chychoz, K., Guillet-Nicholas, R., García-Martínez, J., Thommes, M. (2017) Recent advances
in the textural characterization of hierarchically structured nanoporous materials. Chemical
Society Reviews 46 389-414
[39] Na, K., Choi, M., Ryoo, R. (2012) Recent advances in the synthesis of hierarchical
nanoporous zeolites. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 166 3-19
[40] Flanigen et al. Synthetic crystalline zeolite and process for preparing same, US Patent
4,241,036 (1980)
[41] Vaughan, D., Strohmaier, K (1988). Mazzite. In Verified Syntheses of Zeolitic Materials, 2nd
edition 276-277
[42] Corma, A. (2002) State of the art and future challenges of zeolites as catalysts. Journal of
Catalysis 216, 298-312
[43] Treacy, M., Higgins, J. Collection of Simulated XRD Powder Patterns for Zeolites, 4th edition.