4.6 Article

Preparation of Ni-Mo-S catalysts by hydrothermal method and their hydrodeoxygenation properties

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 495, 期 -, 页码 8-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2015.01.041

关键词

Ni-Mo-S; p-Cresol; Hydrodeoxygenation; Synergistic effect; Remote control model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21306159, 21376202]
  2. Specialized research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20124301120009]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [13JJ4048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unsupported Ni-Mo-S catalysts with different Ni/(Ni + Mo) molar ratio were prepared by hydrothermal method using ammonium heptamolybdate and thiocarbamide as materials. The resultant catalysts were characterized by X-ray diffraction, nitrogen physisorption and transmission electron microscopy, and their activities were measured using the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of p-cresol as a probe reaction. The addition of Ni promoter caused a reduction in the surface area. The peaks attributed to NiS2 on catalyst surface became noticeable as the Ni content increased in the catalyst. The catalyst with an optimal Ni/(Ni + Mo) molar ratio (0.3) exhibited the highest activity (99.8% deoxgenation degree at 300 degrees C and 4.0 MPa hydrogen pressure for 6 h). The HDO of p-cresol on these prepared Ni-Mo-S catalysts proceeded with two parallel routes: hydrogenation-dehydration (HYD) and direct deoxygenation (DDO), and HYD/DDO closely related to the Ni/(Ni + Mo) molar ratio in the catalyst, the HDO reaction temperature and H-2 pressure. The comparison of Ni-Mo-S with MoS2-NiS2 (prepared by two hydrothermal method) and MoS2+NiS2 (prepared by physically mixing separately MoS2 and NiS2) indicated that the high HDO activity of Ni promoted MoS2 catalyst was attributed to the synergistic effect of MoS2 and NiS2 rather than the formation of Ni-Mo-S phase, which could be well explained by the remote control model. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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