4.6 Article

Synthesis, characterization and catalytic activity of ruthenium-doped cobalt catalysts

Journal

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
Volume 341, Issue 1-2, Pages 35-42

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2007.12.034

Keywords

mesoporous MSU; cobalt catalysts; tetralin hydrogenation; hydrogenolysis/hydrocracking; sulphur tolerance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cobalt-based catalysts doped with different amounts of ruthenium supported on Zr-MSU type materials were studied in the hydrogenation and hydrogenolysis/hydrocracking of tetralin at different temperatures. The catalytic tests were carried out in a high-pressure fixed-bed continuous-flow stainless steel catalytic reactor operating at a pressure of 6.0 MPa. Textural, structural, acidic and metallic properties were studied by XRD, XPS, H-2-TPR, NH3-TPD and Elemental Chemical Analysis. Five catalysts were prepared with 10 wt% of cobalt and a ruthenium loading ranging from 0.5 to 5 wt%, along with a monometallic ruthenium catalyst with 3 wt% of metal, for comparison. From catalysts characterization, no interaction between cobalt and ruthenium can be established, however, the presence of ruthenium influences the reducibility of cobalt. Ruthenium-doped catalysts not only improve the catalytic activity of monometallic cobalt and ruthenium ones, but also ruthenium acts as a trap for sulphur organic molecules, preserving cobalt particles from sulphur poisoning and thus maintaining their high hydrogenation activity. The catalyst with a ruthenium loading of 3 wt% is found to be the most active, both, with or without sulphur in the feed. The most striking improvement of ruthenium-doped catalyst properties is their greater resistance to sulphur molecules than in the case of monometallic cobalt catalysts, which are otherwise rapidly deactivated under the same experimental conditions. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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