-
15
-
-
85034343184
-
-
Switz., WO2006106483A1
-
L. Saudan, P. Dupau, J.-J. Riedhauser, P. Wyss and S. A. Firmenich, Switz., WO2006106483A1, 2006.
-
(2006)
-
-
Saudan, L.1
Dupau, P.2
Riedhauser, J.-J.3
Wyss, P.4
Firmenich, S.A.5
-
16
-
-
85034338220
-
-
Switz., WO2006106484A1
-
L. Saudan, P. Dupau, J.-J. Riedhauser, P. Wyss and S. A. Firmenich, Switz., WO2006106484A1, 2006.
-
(2006)
-
-
Saudan, L.1
Dupau, P.2
Riedhauser, J.-J.3
Wyss, P.4
Firmenich, S.A.5
-
20
-
-
85034346159
-
-
Switz., US20100280273A1
-
L. Saudan, P. Dupau, J.-J. Riedhauser, P. Wyss and S. A. Firmenich, Switz., US20100280273A1, 2010.
-
(2010)
-
-
Saudan, L.1
Dupau, P.2
Riedhauser, J.-J.3
Wyss, P.4
Firmenich, S.A.5
-
26
-
-
35748941673
-
-
I. Makarovsky G. Markel A. Hoffman O. Schein A. Finkelstien T. Brosh-Nissimov Z. Tashma T. Dushnitsky A. Eisenkraft Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2007 9 750-752.
-
(2007)
Isr. Med. Assoc. J.
, vol.9
, pp. 750-752
-
-
Makarovsky, I.1
Markel, G.2
Hoffman, A.3
Schein, O.4
Finkelstien, A.5
Brosh-Nissimov, T.6
Tashma, Z.7
Dushnitsky, T.8
Eisenkraft, A.9
-
28
-
-
75749097360
-
-
S. Rauch B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink M. E. Kylander D. J. Weiss A. Martinez-Cortizas D. Heslop C. Olid T. M. Mighall H. F. Hemond Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010 44 881-887.
-
(2010)
Environ. Sci. Technol.
, vol.44
, pp. 881-887
-
-
Rauch, S.1
Peucker-Ehrenbrink, B.2
Kylander, M.E.3
Weiss, D.J.4
Martinez-Cortizas, A.5
Heslop, D.6
Olid, C.7
Mighall, T.M.8
Hemond, H.F.9
-
30
-
-
85034386678
-
-
The fact that the hydrogen uptake data presented here do not directly correspond to the stoichiometries of the quantitative yields as determined by GC (see Table 1) reflects the strongly non-linear response of the non-ideal hydrogen/toluene gas phase composition in the reactor headspace as a function of total pressure at the reaction temperature, which lies above the boiling point of toluene. E.g., a 6-fold increase in conversion as a function of time (entries 4 and 5, Table 1) does not translate to the same amount of pressure drop in the reactor, which shows an only 3-fold increase in apparent uptake. This is because the mole fraction of hydrogen in the gas phase decreases exponentially with decreasing pressure. For a quantitative treatment of this phenomenon see
-
The fact that the hydrogen uptake data presented here do not directly correspond to the stoichiometries of the quantitative yields as determined by GC (see Table 1) reflects the strongly non-linear response of the non-ideal hydrogen/toluene gas phase composition in the reactor headspace as a function of total pressure at the reaction temperature, which lies above the boiling point of toluene. E.g., a 6-fold increase in conversion as a function of time (entries 4 and 5, Table 1) does not translate to the same amount of pressure drop in the reactor, which shows an only 3-fold increase in apparent uptake. This is because the mole fraction of hydrogen in the gas phase decreases exponentially with decreasing pressure. For a quantitative treatment of this phenomenon see.
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
85034385794
-
-
1H NMR spectra used to make the peak assignments are given in the ESI
-
1H NMR spectra used to make the peak assignments are given in the ESI.
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
85034329257
-
-
When the removal of the heterogeneous catalyst was performed under Ar atmosphere, the conversion of hexyl hexanoate reached 71%
-
When the removal of the heterogeneous catalyst was performed under Ar atmosphere, the conversion of hexyl hexanoate reached 71%.
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
85034346933
-
-
Pressure drops refer to the initial and final pressure in the reactor at room temperature before and after the reaction, i.e., at temperatures well below the boiling points of the liquid components of the reaction mixture. In contrast to the data presented in Fig. 1, in this case the pressure drops do directly reflect the stoichiometric hydrogen uptake
-
Pressure drops refer to the initial and final pressure in the reactor at room temperature before and after the reaction, i.e., at temperatures well below the boiling points of the liquid components of the reaction mixture. In contrast to the data presented in Fig. 1, in this case the pressure drops do directly reflect the stoichiometric hydrogen uptake.
-
-
-
|