4.6 Article

Effects of Promoters on the Structure, Performance, and Carbon Deposition of Ni-Al2O3 Catalysts for CO2-CH4 Reforming

Journal

ACS OMEGA
Volume 6, Issue 25, Pages 16381-16390

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00918

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region [2018D01C034]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of Ni-Al2O3 catalysts modified with different metal elements (Ca, Co, and Ce) was studied, with Co-Ni-Al2O3 catalyst showing the best performance and Ce-Ni-Al2O3 catalyst having the least carbon deposition. Ca-Ni-Al2O3 catalyst exhibited poor carbon resistance.
Modified Ni-Al2O3 catalysts with Ca, Co, and Ce species as promoters were prepared by the combustion method, and the structure, morphology, reduction characteristic, and CO2-CH4 reforming of the catalysts were discussed by X-ray diffraction (XRD), H-2-temperature-programmed reduction (H-2-TPR), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) mapping, NH3-temperature-programmed desorption (NH3-TPD), N-2 adsorption-desorption, thermogravimetric-differential thermal analysis (TG-DTG), and temperature-programmed hydrogenation (TPH) methods. The crystal size of Ni on Ca-Ni-Al2O3 was 16.97 nm, and the active component and additive were distributed well in the catalyst. Co-Ni-Al2O3 presented a surface area of 65.70 m(2).g(-1) and a pore diameter of 161.60 nm. Ce-Ni-Al2O3 showed relatively stable nickel-aluminum spinel (NiAl2O4), which could not be easily reduced to the active component Ni. Evaluation results demonstrated that the performance of the catalysts followed the order Co-Ni-Al2O3 > Ca-Ni-Al2O3 > Ni-Al2O3 > Ce-Ni-Al2O3. Carbon deposition analysis showed that the carbon resistance of Ca-Ni-Al2O3 was poor and graphitic carbon was generated on the catalyst. However, Ce-Ni-Al2O3 showed less carbon deposition, which might have resulted from the lower activity of the catalyst.

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