4.7 Article

Regeneration of three-way automobile catalysts using biodegradable metal chelating agent-S, S-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid (S, S-EDDS)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 186, 期 2-3, 页码 999-1006

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.089

关键词

Three-way catalysts; Biodegradable chelating agents; EDDS; Extraction; Catalyst regeneration

资金

  1. Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation [TEXNO/0603/09, DIDAKTOR/DISEK/0308/33]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regeneration of the activity of three-way catalytic converters (TWCs) was tested for the first time using a biodegradable metal chelating agent (S. S-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid (S, S-EDDS). The efficiency of this novel environmentally friendly solvent in removing various contaminants such as P. Zn, Pb, Cu and S from commercial aged three-way catalysts, and improving their catalytic performance towards CO and NO pollutants removal has been investigated. Four samples of catalysts from the front and rear inlets of two different TWCs with different mileages and aged under completely different driving conditions were investigated. The catalysts were characterized using various techniques, such as X-ray diffraction (XRD), Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area measurements (N-2 adsorption at 77 K). Quantitative ICP-MS analyses and SEM-EDS studies show the removal of Zn. P and Pb. SEM-EDS images obtained at low magnification (50 mu m) showed considerable differences in the surface morphology and composition after washing with S, S-EDDS. However, XRD studies indicated neither little to no removal of major contaminant compound phases nor major structural changes due to washing. Correspondingly, little or no enhancement in BET surface area was observed between the used and washed samples. Light-off curves show that the regeneration procedure employed can effectively improve the catalytic performance towards NO pollutant. (C) 2010 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

4.7
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