4.8 Article

Getting insight into the influence of SO2 on TiO2/CeO2 for the selective catalytic reduction of NO by NH3

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 589-598

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.10.029

关键词

NH3-SCR; TiO2/CeO2; SO2 resistance; in situ DRIFT; Sulfates

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21273110, 21203091]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [2013009111005]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2010CB732300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of inverse TiO2/CeO2 catalysts were prepared by the impregnation method and their catalytic performances for the selective catalytic reduction of NO by NH3 have been tested with and without SO2 and/or H2O. Compared with the normally discussed CeO2/TiO2 catalyst, the advantage of inverse TiO2/CeO2 catalyst was not only shown a good low temperature catalytic activity (150-250 degrees C), but also exhibited much better SO2 resistance performances with the existence of 200 ppm SO2 and/or 5 vol.% H2O at 300 degrees C. Furthermore, SO2 had more significant inhibitory effect on catalytic activity than H2O based on the configuration differences of Ce-Ti-based catalysts. These catalysts were investigated by means of TG-DTA, XRD, BET, in situ DRIFT, XPS and H-2-TPR. The results demonstrated that the sulfation of these samples under reactive conditions mainly generated three different kinds of sulfate species including NH4HSO4, surface and bulk-like metal sulfates (mainly interacted with cerium species). The formed metal sulfates blocked the active sites of Ce-O-Ti and resulted in the deactivation of CeO2/TiO2. Although metal sulfates were also formed over TiO2/CeO2, NH3-SCR could still proceed and that was similar as the reaction system with the use of sulfated CeO2 as the catalyst. Meanwhile, the interactions between SO2 and Ce-Ti-based catalysts were discussed in detail and an adsorption model of SO2 was proposed. (C) 2014 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

4.8
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