4.6 Article

Cobalt-aluminum mixed oxides prepared from layered double hydroxides for the total oxidation of benzene

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 507, 期 -, 页码 130-138

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2015.09.038

关键词

Layered double hydroxides; Cobalt oxide; Mixed oxide; Volatile organic comiiounds; Catalytic total oxidation

资金

  1. Scientific Research Funds of Fuzhou University [0040-650021, 0041-600866]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2015J01050]
  3. Industry-University Research Cooperation of Fujian Provincial Education Department [JAI2023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of Co-Al mixed oxides were prepared by co-precipitation method via Co-Al layered double hydroxides (LDHs) as precursors. The influence of chemical compositions of Co-Al LDHs on the structural and physicochemical properties of Co-Al mixed oxides as well as their catalytic performance for benzene total oxidation was investigated. The samples were characterized by using ICP, N-2 physical adsorption, XRD, TG-DTA, SEM, TEM, Raman, H-2-TPR, and XPS techniques. The characterization results showed that calcination of Co-Al LDHs gave rise to Co(Co, Al)(2)O-4 spinel-like mixed oxide as the main phase. The crystallite size of Co(Co, Al)(2)O-4 spinel (6 19 nm) decreased with decreasing the Co/AI molar ratio, suggesting the inhibition of crystal growth by the incorporation of Al3+ ions in the spinel phase. A drastic change in the state of Co-Al mixed oxide occurred at Co/Al = 6, as indicated by H-2-TPR and XPS. In benzene total oxidation, the activity of Co-Al mixed oxide increased with increasing the Co/Al molar ratio, with the highest activity at Co/Al = 5; further increase in the Co/Al molar ratio to 6 led to significant decrease in the activity, properly caused by the change of surface state of mixed oxide. The 50 h long-term stability test revealed that the optimized Co-Almixed oxide was stable for the total oxidation of benzene. (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