4.7 Article

Structural/surface characterization and catalytic evaluation of rare-earth (Y, Sm and La) doped ceria composite oxides for CH3SH catalytic decomposition

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 390, 期 -, 页码 959-967

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.08.129

关键词

CeO2-based composite oxides; Rare earth; Oxygen vacancies; Surface basicity; CH3SH decomposition

资金

  1. NSFC (National Natural Science Foundation of China) [U1402233, 21267011, 21667016]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201508530240]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of rare earth (Y, Sm and La) doped ceria composite oxides and pure CeO2 were synthesized and evaluated by conducting CH3SH catalytic decomposition test. Several characterization studies, including XRD, BET, Raman, H-2-TPR, XPS, FT-IR, CO2-TPD and CH3SH-TPD, were undertaken to correlate structural and surface properties of the obtained ceria-based catalysts with their catalytic performance for CH3SH decomposition. More oxygen vacancies and increased basic sites exhibited in the rare earth doped ceria catalysts. Y doped ceria sample (Ce(0.75)Yo(0.25)O(2-delta)), with a moderate increase in basic sites, contained more oxygen vacancies. More structural defects and active sites could be provided, and a relatively small amount of sulfur would accumulate, which resulted in better catalytic performance. The developed catalyst presented good catalytic behavior with stability very similar to that of typical zeolite-based catalysts reported previously. However, La doped ceria catalyst (Ce(0.75)Yo(0.25)O(2-delta)) with the highest alkalinity was not the most active one. More sulfur species would be adsorbed and a large amount of cerium sulfide species (Ce2S3) would accumulate, which caused deactivation of the catalysts. The combined effect of increased oxygen vacancies and alkalinity led to the catalytic stability of Ce(0.75)Yo(0.25)O(2-delta) sample was comparable to that of pure CeO2 catalyst. (C) 2016 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