4.7 Article

A comparison of Cu/CeO2 catalysts prepared via different precipitants/digestion methods for single stage water gas shift reactions

Journal

CATALYSIS TODAY
Volume 388, Issue -, Pages 237-246

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2020.06.067

Keywords

Precipitation/digestion method; Cerium hydroxyl carbonate; Cerium precursor; Incipient wetness impregnation method; Cu dispersion; Oxygen storage capacity

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2019R1C1C1005022]
  2. Korea Ministry of Environment as Waste to Energy-Recycling Human Resource Development Project [YL-WE-19-001]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019R1C1C1005022] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CeO2 supports were synthesized using different methods and nano-sized CeO2 supports were prepared through pre-calcination. Among the prepared catalysts, Cu/CeO2-CHC showed the highest CO conversion due to its highest Cu dispersion and oxygen storage capacity.
CeO2 supports have been synthesized through a different precipitation/digestion method with various cerium precursors (cerium hydroxide (CH), cerium hydroxy carbonate (CHC), cerium carbonate (CC)). Nano-sized CeO2 supports with a high BET surface area were prepared through the pre-calcination of cerium precursors. 20 wt.% of Cu was loaded onto the prepared CeO2 supports through an incipient wetness impregnation method. Among the prepared catalysts, Cu/CeO2-CHC yielded the highest CO conversion between the temperature range from 200 to 360 degrees C. This result was primarily due to possessing the highest Cu dispersion and a high oxygen storage capacity (OSC). In addition, the 20 wt.% Cu/CeO2 catalyst exhibited 100 % CO2 selectivity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available