4.6 Article

Bronsted-NH4+ mechanism versus nitrite mechanism: new insight into the selective catalytic reduction of NO by NH3

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 453-460

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0cp00256a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20525311, 20503022, 20433030, 20973139]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [2005CB221408, 2007CB815206]
  3. Key Science & Technology Specific Projects of Fujian Province [2009HZ0002-1]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China [2009J05035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NO by NH3 over V2O5-based catalysts is used worldwide to control NOx emission. Understanding the mechanisms involved is vital for the rational design of more effective catalysts. Here, we have performed a systematic density functional theory (DFT) study of a SCR reaction by using cluster models. Three possible mechanisms have been considered, namely (i) a Lewis acid mechanism, (ii) a Bronsted acid mechanism and (iii) a nitrite mechanism. Our calculations down-play the significance of mechanism (i) due to its high barrier as well as the incorrect reaction order. On the other hand, our calculations demonstrate that both mechanisms (ii) and (iii) can lead to a first order reaction with respect to NO with the predicted barriers being consistent with the experimental observations. Thus, we conclude: there exists two competitive pathways for SCR. Mechanism (ii) is dominant when the Bronsted acidity of the catalysts is relatively strong, while mechanism (iii) becomes important when Bronsted acidity is weak or absent. Importantly, we demonstrate that the latter two mechanisms share a common feature where N-N bond formation is ahead of N-H bond cleavage, in contrast to that in mechanism (i). Such a sequence provides an effective way to reduce the side reaction of ammonia combustion since the relatively strong N-N bond has already been formed.

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