4.8 Article

CeO2 Aerogel-Induced Resilience of Catalytic Ni(OH)2 under Oxidizing Conditions

Journal

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
Volume 34, Issue 12, Pages 5644-5653

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.2c00950

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office of Naval Research
  2. National Research Council
  3. ONR [N0001420WX01405]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CeO2 aerogel-supported Ni(OH)(2) nanoparticles demonstrate superior activity and stability in CO oxidation reaction. The intimate contact between Ni(OH)2 NPs and the bonded nanoparticulate CeO2 network prevents the conversion to NiO. CO has lower adsorption energy on Ni(OH)(2) compared to NiO, resulting in reduced poisoning of active surface sites.
Nickel-based heterogeneous catalysts are economical alternatives to traditional Pt or Au-based materials, but their specific activity and stability fall short of these precious metals. Many questions remain regarding the active Ni phase for CO oxidation and how the supporting oxide affects its activity and stability under operating conditions. We demonstrate that CeO2 aerogel-supported Ni(OH)(2) nanoparticles (NPs) show superior activity compared to Ni(OH)(2) NPs supported by commercial, nanometric CeO2 powder or TiO2 aerogels. Ex situ X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and X-ray absorption near-edge spectroscopy reveal that intimate contact between Ni(OH)2 NPs and the bonded nanoparticulate CeO2 network prevents the conversion to NiO seen with larger aerogel-supported aggregates of Ni(OH) 2 NPs and unsupported Ni(OH)(2) NPs. The best stability and activity per mole of Ni is achieved at 2.5 wt % Ni(OH)(2) on the CeO2 aerogel, which converts 95% of CO at 200 degrees C and maintains activity after 12 h of continuous reaction under dry or humid feedstreams. Computational analysis indicates that CO has far lower adsorption energy on Ni(OH)(2) compared to NiO, resulting in less poisoning of the active surface sites.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available