The Effect of Aluminum Source on Performance of Beta-Zeolite as a Support for Hydrocracking Catalyst

In this paper, three different kinds of aluminum sources (sodium aluminate, aluminum sulfate and aluminum isopropylate) were used for preparing of nano beta-zeolite. The as synthesized zeolites were mixed with the as prepared amorphous silica-alumina to produce the supports for hydrocracking catalyst. The prepared supports were used for preparation of NiMo/silica alumina-nano beta-zeolite by impregnation method. The influence of the aluminum source for preparation of beta-zeolite on the performance of the prepared catalysts has been studied. The samples were thoroughly characterized by X-Ray diffraction method (XRD), field emission-scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM), N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms (BET), temperature programmed desorption (TPD) and temperature programmed reduction (TPR) methods. The catalysts performance was evaluated by vacuum gas oil (VGO) hydrocracking at 390 oC in a fixed bed reactor. The XRD patterns showed that the beta-zeolite samples obtained from the present methods were pure and highly crystalline and the crystal size of the prepared zeolites were in nanometer scale. Crystallite size of nano beta-zeolite synthesized by aluminum isopropylate [Al(iPrO)3] was smaller than those of prepared by the other aluminum sources. The catalyst containing this zeolite with higher surface area (231 m2/g) and more available acid sites (1.66 mmol NH3/g) possessed higher activity and selectivity to gas oil (71.9 %). Copyright © 2018 BCREC Group. All rights reserved Received: 25th April 2018; Revised:22nd July 2018; Accepted: 29th July 2018 How to Cite: Hadi, M., Aghabozorg, H.R., Bozorgzadeh, H.R., Ghasemi, M.R. (2018). The Effect of Aluminum Source on Performance of Beta-Zeolite as a Support for Hydrocracking Catalyst. Bulletin of Chemical Reaction Engineering & Catalysis, 13 (3): 543-552 (doi:10.9767/bcrec.13.3.2570.543-552) Permalink/DOI: https://doi.org/10.9767/bcrec.13.3.2570.543-55

Propane-1,2-diaminium bis­(pyridine-2,6-dicarboxyl­ato-κ3 O 2,N,O 6)mercurate(II) dihydrate

In the title compound, (C3H12N2)[Hg(C7H3NO4)2]·2H2O, the HgII ion is coordinated by four O and two N atoms of two pyridine-2,6-dicarboxyl­ate (pydc) ligands in a distorted octa­hedral environment. The structure contains two uncoordinated water mol­ecules. In the crystal, N—H⋯O, O—H⋯O and weak C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and π–π stacking inter­actions between the pyridine rings of the pydc ligands, with a centroid–centroid distance of 3.4582 (18) Å, stabilize the structure

Bis(propane-1,2-diammonium) benzene-1,2,4,5-tetra­carboxyl­ate dihydrate

In the crystal of the title hydrated molecular salt, 2C3H12N2 2+·C10H2O8 4−·2H2O, the packing is stabilized by extensive N—H⋯O and O—H⋯O hydrogen-bonding inter­actions involving all three species, forming a supra­molecular three-dimensional structure. The tetraanion is generated by inversion

Bis(2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-triazin-1-ium) hexa­aqua­cobalt(II) bis­[bis­(pyridine-2,6-dicarboxyl­ato)cobaltate(II)] tetra­hydrate

The title compound, (C3H7N6)2[Co(H2O)6][Co(C7H3NO4)2]2·4H2O, or (tataH)2[Co(H2O)6][Co(pydc)2]2·4H2O (where tata is 2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-triazine and pydc is pyridine-2,6-dicarboxylic acid), was obtained by reaction of Co(NO3)2·6H2O with the proton-transfer compound (tataH)2(pydc) in aqueous solution. The [Co(pydc)2]2− anion is a six-coordinate CoII complex with a distorted octa­hedral coordination geometry. The structure also contains hexa­aqua­cobalt(II) cations (site symmetry ), (tataH)+ cations and uncoordinated water mol­ecules. The two(pydc)2− ligands in each [Co(pydc)2]2− anion are almost perpendicular to each other [dihedral angle between their mean planes = 82.3 (1)°]. There is extensive O—H⋯O, N—H⋯N, O—H⋯N and C—H⋯O hydrogen bonding in the structure, as well as π–π stacking between (pydc)2− ligands with an inter­planar distance of 3.484 (15) Å

Bis(9-amino­acridinium) bis­(pyridine-2,6-dicarboxyl­ato)cuprate(II) trihydrate

The asymmetric unit of the title compound, (C13H11N2)2[Cu(C7H3NO4)2]·3H2O or (9-aminoAcr)[Cu(pydc)2]·3H2O, contains a Cu(pydc)2 (pydc = pyridine-2,6-dicarboxyl­ate) anion, two protonated 9-amino­acridine (9-aminoAcr)+ counter-ions and three uncoordinated water mol­ecules. The anion contains a six-coordinated Cu(II) atom within a distorted octa­hedral geometry. Non-covalent inter­actions i.e. N—H⋯O and O—H⋯O hydrogen bonds and inter­molecular π–π contacts between the pyridine rings [centroid–centroid distance = 3.7773 (13) Å] and acridine rings [centroid–centroid distance = 3.4897 (13), 3.7784 (14) and 3.8627 (15) Å] result in the formation of a three-dimensional network

Cytotoxicity of Nanoliposomal Cisplatin Coated with Synthesized Methoxypolyethylene Glycol Propionaldehyde in Human Ovarian Cancer Cell Line A2780CP

Purpose: To evaluate the cytotoxicity of pegylated nanoliposomal cisplatin on human ovarian cancer cell line A2780CP.Methods: Synthesized methoxypolyethylene glycol (mPEG) propionaldehyde was characterized by 1Hnuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and used as coating agent for the preparation of liposomal nanodrug formulation by reverse phase evaporation method. The characteristics of the nanoparticles were evaluated by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Encapsulation efficiency was determined spectrometrically at 214.42 nm by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP-OES). The cytotoxicity of both pegylated nanoliposomal and free cisplatin were evaluated by 3- [4, 5 dimethyl-2-thiazolyl] -2, 5- diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and expressed as half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50).Results: The mean diameter and zeta potential of drug-loaded liposomal particles and empty nanoliposomes were 125 ± 2.9 nm and -16.6 mV, 108 ± 2.2 nm and -27.2 mV, respectively, while the cytotoxicity (IC50) of free cisplatin and nanodrug formulation were 93.6 ± 3.1 μg/mL and 67.8 ± 2.3 μg/mL, respectively. In vitro toxicological results indicate that the formulation exhibited approximately 1.4-fold cytotoxicity compared with the free drug. Drug encapsulation efficiency of the nanoliposomes was approximately 98 ± 1 %.Conclusion: The findings show that the cytotoxicity of pegylated nanoliposomal cisplatin is higher than that of free cisplatin in human ovarian cancer cell line A2780CP. In vivo studies are, however, required to ascertain its therapeutic potentials.Keywords: Liposome, Nanodrug, Ovarian cancer, Polyethylene glycol, Cisplatin, Drug delivery, Cytotoxicit

The role of polyethylene glycol size in chemical spectra, cytotoxicity, and release of PEGylated nanoliposomal cisplatin

This study aimed to synthesize methoxy polyethylene glycol propionaldehyde (mPEG20,000-ALD) for the preparation of PEGylated nanoliposomal cisplatin. Nanocarriers such as liposomes are developed for a wide range of drug delivery systems. PEG with high molecular weight (Mw) is used to coat the liposomes. In this study, simulated Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of mPEG-ALD were obtained using density functional theory (DFT) calculations and then compared with actual FTIR spectrum of mPEG20,000-ALD (Mw = 20 kDa). We found that the intensity of C = O stretching vibration at 1,700 cm−1 related to the carbonyl functional group of mPEG20,000-ALD was very weak. The results of DFT calculations of mPEG-ALD showed that by increasing the Mw of mPEG-ALD, the intensity of C = O stretching vibration related to the carbonyl functional group of mPEG-ALD was decreased, so we concluded the hypothesis of decreasing the intensity of C = O stretching vibration at 1,700 cm−1 as a result of increasing the Mw of mPEG-ALD. In vitro release of cisplatin showed that the percentages of released cisplatin from PEGylated nanoliposomal cisplatin and free cisplatin were determined to be 46 ± 2% and 97 ± 3% after 35 h, respectively. Cytotoxicity of free cisplatin and PEGylated nanoliposomal cisplatin was evaluated and related half-maximal inhibitory concentration on human ovarian cancer cell line A2780CP was obtained to be 76.6 ± 3.1 and 46.6 ± 2.3 μg/mL, respectively