## 2 Results and Discussion
### Catalytic Tests
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Runs**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Oxidant**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BzOH:Oxidant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**T (\({}^{\circ}\)C)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Catalyst**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(C\) (\%) 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(S\) (\%) 2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Y (\%) 3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TON 4**} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline run 1 & H2O2 & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 1.30 & 30.8 & 0.40 & 3.23 \\ run 2 & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 23.2 & 75.6 & 17.5 & 49.5 \\ run 3 & DTBP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 1.30 & 32.0 & 0.42 & 3.17 \\ run 4 [5] & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 14.1 & 92.0 & 13.0 & 30.1 \\ run 5 [6] & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 14.5 & 59.7 & 8.60 & 35.8 \\ run 6 & TBHP & 2:1 & 70 & 10 & 19.7 & 80.3 & 15.9 & 48.8 \\ run 7 & TBHP & 1:2 & 70 & 10 & 27.7 & 64.5 & 17.8 & 68.4 \\ run 8 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 10 & 38.5 & 56.5 & 21.7 & 95.1 \\ run 9 & TBHP & 1:1 & 90 & 10 & 52.5 & 40.8 & 21.4 & 129.6 \\ run 10 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 5 & 33.7 & 64.3 & 21.7 & 160.3 \\ run 11 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 15 & 63.7 & 31.9 & 20.3 & 103.5 \\ run 12 [7] & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 5 & 0.35 & 100.0 & 0.35 & n.a. [8] \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Conversion, calculated from Equation (11). 2 BzD selectivity, calculated from Equation (12). 3 BZD yield, calculated from Equation (13). 4 Turnover number, calculated from Equation (14). 5 Acetonitrile as solvent. 6 Isopropanol as solvent. 7 Si-MCM-41 as catalyst. 8 Not available.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Catalytic performance optimization of Ce-MCM-Cl for benzyl alcohol oxidation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Runs**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Oxidant**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BzOH:Oxidant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**T (\({}^{\circ}\)C)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Catalyst**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(C\) (\%) 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(S\) (\%) 2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(Y\) (\%) 3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TON 4**} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline run 1 & H2O2 & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 0.80 & 50.0 & 0.40 & 1.85 \\ run 2 & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 33.6 & 65.4 & 22.0 & 74.0 \\ run 3 & DTBP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 2.00 & 70.0 & 1.40 & 4.39 \\ run 4 [5] & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 15.1 & 89.0 & 13.4 & 27.3 \\ run 5 [6] & TBHP & 1:1 & 70 & 10 & 7.00 & 99.0 & 6.93 & 15.4 \\ run 6 & TBHP & 2:1 & 70 & 10 & 25.8 & 74.9 & 19.4 & 56.8 \\ run 7 & TBHP & 1:2 & 70 & 10 & 34.6 & 63.5 & 22.0 & 76.1 \\ run 8 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 10 & 54.3 & 48.7 & 26.4 & 119.4 \\ run 9 & TBHP & 1:1 & 90 & 10 & 60.2 & 41.0 & 24.7 & 132.3 \\ run 10 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 5 & 35.9 & 57.1 & 20.5 & 151.8 \\ run 11 & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 15 & 43.0 & 50.0 & 21.5 & 62.2 \\ run 12 [7] & TBHP & 1:1 & 80 & 10 & 0.50 & 100.0 & 0.50 & n.a. [8] \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Conversion, calculated from Equation (11). 2 BzD selectivity, calculated from Equation (12). 3 BZD yield, calculated from Equation (13). 4 Turnover number, calculated from Equation (14). 5 Acetonitrile as solvent. 6 Isopropanol as solvent. 7 Si-MCM-41 as catalyst. 8 Not available.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Catalytic performance optimization of Ce-MCM-Cl for benzyl alcohol oxidation. Next, the effect of temperature was studied, increasing it from 70 to 80 and 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C (runs 8 and 9). With increasing temperature, significant enhancements in \(C\) were obtained (up to 60.2% and 52.5% for Ce-MCM-Cl and Ce-MCM-NO\({}_{3}\), respectively), but with concomitant decreases in \(S\) (close to 41% for both materials at 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C). In addition, improvements in \(Y\) and \(TON\) were significant, especially at 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C (26.4% and 119.4 mol molcat\({}^{-1}\) for Ce-MCM-Cl, and 21.7% and 95.1 mol molcat\({}^{-1}\) for Ce-MCM-NO\({}_{3}\)).