4.6 Article

Dry Reforming of Methane Using Ni Catalyst Supported on ZrO2: The Effect of Different Sources of Zirconia

Journal

CATALYSTS
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal11070827

Keywords

coke; CO2 reforming of CH4; different sources of zirconia support; Ni catalyst

Funding

  1. National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (MAARIFAH), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [13-PET1056-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to elucidate the influence of various sources of ZrO2 on the performance of catalysts. Results showed that catalysts from different sources exhibited differences in surface area, basicity, average particle size, etc.
Dry reforming of methane (DRM) has a substantial potential to provide a cost-effective process and in reducing greenhouse gases. Its application has been hindered by carbon deposition and instability problems. The use of an appropriate catalyst is influenced by the support type. The objective of this investigation is to elucidate the effect of different sources of ZrO2 support. Four kinds of ZrO2, namely RC-100 and Z-3215, MKnano, and ELTN were acquired from Japan, Canada, and China, respectively. The catalyst samples were analyzed by BET, XRD, TPR, TPD, TEM, TGA, TPO, FT-IR, and Raman. The analysis of the structural properties displayed that all Ni-supported catalysts, regardless of their source, are mesoporous and that 5Ni-RC-100 possessed the highest BET surface area of 17.7 m(2)/g and 5Ni-MKnano had the lowest value of BET 3.16 m(2)/g. In the TPD and TEM analysis, the 5Ni-RC-100 catalyst presented the highest intensity of basicity and the minimum average particle size of 3.35 nm, respectively. The 5Ni-RC-100 catalyst outperformed 5Ni-ELTN by exhibiting 44% higher CH4 conversion; however, 5Ni-RC-100 gave the highest weight loss in the TGA analysis of 66%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available