4.5 Review

Carbon-Based Materials as Catalyst Supports for Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: A Review

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MATERIALS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2020.617432

Keywords

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; synthesis gas (syngas); catalysts; carbon supports; catalytic performance

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (MICIU) [RTI2018-097555-B-I00]
  2. FEDER [RTI2018-097555-B-I00]
  3. Junta de Andalucia [UMA18-FEDERJA-110]
  4. MICIU [IJC2019-041222-I, FPU18/02796]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review thoroughly examines the use of carbon-based materials as catalyst supports for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, discussing key factors to consider and summarizing relevant literature from the past 20 years. Various aspects such as carbon textural properties, support modification, catalyst preparation methods, metal particle characteristics, stability, and performance are highlighted and discussed. The main conclusions, advantages, limitations, and future perspectives of utilizing carbon catalyst supports for FTS are outlined.
The use of carbon-based materials as catalyst supports for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) is thoroughly reviewed. The main factors to consider when using a carbonaceous catalyst support for FTS are first discussed. Then, the most relevant and recent literature on the topic from the last 2 decades is reviewed, classifying the different examples according to the carbon structure and shape. Some aspects such as the carbon textural properties, carbon support modification (functionalization and doping), catalyst preparation methods, metal particle size and location, catalyst stability and reducibility, the use of promoters, and the catalyst performance for FTS are summarized and discussed. Finally, the main conclusions, advantages, limitations, and perspectives of using carbon catalyst supports for FTS are outlined.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available