(2hx) Combined Synthetic and Kinetic Approaches for Understanding Catalytic Processes

Research Interests: Modern standards of living (through plastics and pharma), agricultural productivity (through synthetic fertilizer), cheap and abundant fuels for transportation (by cracking and reforming) are all enabled by various catalytic processes. Despite the importance of this broader discipline (heterogeneous catalysis), after a century of research, crucial open questions remain. To address these questions, investigators take multiple approaches emphasizing certain aspects of catalysis such as theory, material preparation and characterization, or kinetics, in addition to a myriad of other emphases and techniques to address some facet of this naturally multi-dimensional problem.

My previous work during graduate school, under Profs. J. Regalbuto and J. Monnier, focused on rational methods for catalyst synthesis, using various techniques to characterize these materials, including in situ and operando x-ray diffraction techniques, and relating their characteristics with catalytic performance. During this time, we developed and refined methods, based on electrostatic adsorption and electroless deposition, to make bimetallic and trimetallic supported metal catalysts having tightly controlled composition, size, and distribution. These materials were evaluated for diverse reactions, for example, showing enhanced activity in the case of Cu/Pt for methanol electrooxidation (for direct methanol fuel cells) and enhanced stability against sintering/agglomeration in the presence of an oxidizing environment, in the case of Pt/Ir.

To further augment my skills, I pursued postdoctoral studies under Prof. E. Iglesia, with extensive focus on kinetics, and the application of this approach to elucidating reaction mechanisms and proper evaluation of activity and selectivity trends on different supported metals for CO₂ conversion. In this work I have attempted to combine both kinetic and synthetic approaches to understand this catalytic process. For example, in one of our recent studies, we used catalyst preparation and characterization techniques to create a suite of well-defined supported Ru catalysts of varied size, and then used the kinetic approach to evaluate the activity and selectivity of these materials for CO₂ reduction to CO and CH₄, and interpret selectivity trends considering underlying reaction mechanisms.

For future work, in the immediate term, I would like to continue to study CO₂ conversion, with an eye towards developing a viable process and catalyst for long-chain hydrocarbon production directly from CO₂ and H₂. Longer term, I hope to revisit partial oxidation catalysis (especially oxidative dehydrogenation, ODH), to address some lingering questions regarding the unique activity and selectivity of the M1-phase mixed MoVNbTe oxide catalyst, and boron-containing materials, for ODH. In all of these cases, the combined synthetic and kinetic approaches will guide the direction of research.

In my view, greater progress is made in chemistry by taking a collaborative, instead of competitive, approach. I hope to expand my own understanding of the theoretical and computational focus of catalysis, and welcome collaboration with those who specialize in this area, in the future.

Teaching Interests: There are two opposing, and yet necessary, schools of thought pertaining to post-secondary education. One approach stresses college as preparation of the mind, and emphasizes a generalist curriculum to those ends; the other stresses college as a training ground for a distinct and applied work, and likewise focuses subject matter and methods of teaching to that goal. It is my view that healthy tension and balance between these two approaches make for a strong department. Chemical engineering education (and the STEM disciplines more broadly) tend to the latter of these approaches. It is my desire to bring the “preparation of the mind” approach to my classroom to rebalance the overemphasis on the latter. I intend to do this by instructional methodology emphasizing mastery of fundamental principles (via lecture and demonstration) and project-based application of these principles to solving an applied engineering problem (through collaboration, design, and experimentation), the latter of which will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction and student uptake of material.

Additionally, it is critical to meet students where they are in their educational journey. Each individual brings their own successes and struggles to the classroom, and it is the job of the educator to build on the strengths and build up the weak spots for the individual students. This is essential to creating a successful and inclusive classroom for all. This is particularly true for underrepresented groups in chemical engineering, including, but not limited to, those from historically disadvantaged backgrounds, sexual and gender minorities, and first generation college students. This obviates the “one size fits all” approach to lectures and labs; more work on the part of the instructor, but absolutely worth it, considering the severe cost of letting students fall through the cracks unnoticed and underserved.

During graduate school, I was a teaching assistant for upper-level undergraduate mass transfer. In this capacity, I led homework help and test preparation sessions, in addition to traditional office hours, to give students multiple opportunities for instruction. Additionally, I helped write and grade exams, and used feedback from these two sources to help guide additional help and instruction in struggle areas.

Mentorship is also a crucial part of the educator’s job. In the lab, I advised three undergraduate students over three different research projects. For every student, each project was a micro study of the educational process: teaching the fundamentals of the project, encouraging self-direction and exploration within the goals of the project, culminating with a final conclusion and presentation of what was learned. These students and their projects were also a valuable learning experience, for myself, in how to guide and advise undergraduate students one-on-one. These experiences teaching, both in the lab and in the classroom, were immensely rewarding, and guided my desire to seek a position in an academic environment.

I am particularly interested in teaching chemical engineering fundamentals, reaction engineering, and mass transfer, in addition to any course pertaining to catalysis. Given its importance in the broader discipline, I hope to integrate chemistry and catalysis with existing courses in the classroom. Moreover, I hope to develop upper-level lab units (for unit operations class, for example) which allow students to evaluate catalytic reactions for themselves, if department resources permit.