4.8 Article

Carbon nanofibre-supported palladium catalysts as model hydrodechlorination catalysts

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 272, 期 1, 页码 158-168

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2010.03.001

关键词

Tetrachloroethene; Hydrogenolysis; Carbon activation; Hydrogenation; CNF surface chemistry; XPS speciation

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry for Science and Technology [CTQ2005-09105-C04-04/PPQ]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different carbon nanoflbre-supported palladium catalysts (Pd/CNF) were prepared and tested for tetrachloroethylene hydrodechlorination. Catalyst properties were varied by changing metal loading (0.5% and 1% wt.), preparation procedure (aqueous or organic solutions), and support chemistry (parent or HNO(3)-oxidised CNFs). Fresh and used (during 108,000 s at 0.5 MPa, 523 K, 24 g s mmol(-1) space time) catalysts were characterised by TEM, XRD, TPD, TPO-MS, nitrogen physisorption, and XPS. Results obtained indicate that the preparation method (using aqueous or organic precursor) plays a key role both in the intrinsic activity of the catalysts (higher for aqueous solutions), and catalyst deactivation (also faster for aqueous solutions). The surface chemistry of the support, influenced by the surface activation and the preparation procedure, markedly affects the Pd(2+)/Pd(0) ratio (found to be optimal at about 0.3-0.6) and chlorine concentration, these parameters determining the catalysts performance. In general terms, aqueous precursors lead to the highest initial activity (maximum initial TOF of 18 s(-1), whereas the maximum initial TOF for catalysts prepared from organic precursor is of 5.6 s(-1)) and faster deactivation (minimum TOF(108,000s)/TOF(0) of 0.06 and 038, respectively). Deactivation causes were observed to be different in both cases: coke formation for the aqueous precursor and chlorine poisoning for the organic-phase precursor. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据