Philip J. Wallis

Assessing and improving the catalytic activity of K-10 montmorillonite

K-10 montmorillonite, commonly used as a heterogeneous acid catalyst, was found to vary in the extent of acid-treatment, with some batches exhibiting significantly reduced catalytic activity in Bronsted acid-catalysed reactions. K-10 was thus further treated with HCl of varying concentrations to increase its activity in acid-catalysed reactions. Acid-treated clays exhibited significant enhancements in catalytic activity in three test reactions; tetrahydropyranylation of ethanol, diacetylation of benzaldehyde and esterification of succinic anhydride. Acid-treatment of K-10 was shown to result in protonation, and loss of layer stacking of the clay structure, as determined by powder X-ray diffraction, inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES), diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) specific surface area measurements. Quantifiable physical changes to the K-10 correlated with measurable increases in catalytic activity. Standard procedures for assessing acid-treated montmorillonite clay catalysts, such as K-10, and procedures for obtaining the most effective catalyst for acid-catalysed reactions, involving analytical and synthetic techniques, were devised.

Oxidative coupling revisited: solvent-free, heterogeneous and in water

Fe(III) treated K-10 montmorillonite and FeCl3 (both hydrated and anhydrous) are compared as catalysts for oxidative coupling of phenol substrates under a range of conditions. While the commonly reported coupling of 2-naphthol proceeds under a range of conditions, other substrates are far less readily coupled. Counterintuitively, biphasic reactions of poorly water soluble substrates in contact with aqueous solutions of FeCl3 are the most universally applicable conditions while many homogeneous reaction mixtures yield little or no coupling product. Fe(III) treated K-10 proved to be a poor catalyst for oxidative coupling of most substrates. Comparison of coupling conditions provides a framework for optimisation of green methodologies using oxidative coupling catalysts.

Learning from collaborative research on sustainably managing fresh water: implications for ethical research–practice engagement

Since the mid-2000s, there has been increasing recognition of the promise of collaborative research and management for addressing complex issues in sustainably managing fresh water. A large variety of collaborative freshwater research and management processes is now evident around the world. However, how collective knowledge development, coproduction, or cocreation is carried out in an ethical manner is less well known. From the literature and our experiences as applied, transdisciplinary researchers and natural resource management practitioners, we seek to describe and explore these aspects of empirical cases of collaborative freshwater research and management. Drawing on cases from Indigenous community-based natural resource management in northern Australia, flood and drought risk management in Bulgaria, water management and climate change adaptation in the Pacific, and regional catchment and estuary management in Victoria and New South Wales in Australia, we identify lessons to support improved collaborative sustainable freshwater management research and practice. Cocreation represents an emerging approach to participation and collaboration in freshwater management research–practice and can be seen to constitute four interlinked and iterative phases: coinitiation, codesign, coimplementation, and coevaluation. For freshwater researchers and managers and their collaborators, paying attention to these phases and the ethical dilemmas that arise within each phase will support the cocreation of more effective and ethical research–practice through: sensitizing collaborators to the need for reflexivity in research–practice, proposing action research codesign as a method for managing emergent questions and outcomes, and supporting more equitable outcomes for collaborators through an emphasis on coevaluation and collaborative articulation of the links between research outputs and practice outcomes.

Mechanisms for inclusive governance

How mechanisms for inclusive governance are understood is built on the framing choices that are made about governance and that which is being governed. This chapter unpacks how governance can be understood and considers different historical and contemporary framings of water governance. A framing of “governance as praxis” is developed as a central element in the chapter. What makes governance inclusive is explored, drawing on theoretical, practical and institutional aspects before elucidating some of the different mechanisms currently used or proposed for creating inclusive water governance (though we argue against praxis based on simple mechanism). Finally, the factors that either constrain or enable inclusive water governance are explored with a focus on systemic concepts of learning and feedback.

We mustn't waste water while taking action on climate change

Credit: Landcare Mallee/Malcolm Thompson under CC BY-NC 2.5 AU As our new research published in Climatic Change shows, some activities aimed at tackling greenhouse emissions can also consume large amounts of water. In a water-poor country like Australia, this can make a real difference in the relative economic attractiveness of these strategies. In particular, wide-scale planting of trees to store carbon can be very water-intensive, and we should therefore consider carefully where we do it. However, there is good news too. Reducing our electricity demand through energy efficiency and shifting to renewable sources can not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also our water footprint too. Burning coal for electricity consumes water, so if we can reduce this demand and shift to more sustainable technology, more water may become available for the environment and other uses.