4.6 Article

Hierarchical Porous g-C3N4 Coupled Ultrafine RuNi Alloys as Extremely Active Catalysts for the Hydrolytic Dehydrogenation of Ammonia Borane

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 8, 期 22, 页码 8458-8468

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c03009

关键词

Hierarchical porous g-C3N4; Ultrafine RuNi alloys; Heterogeneous nanocatalysts; Hydrolytic dehydrogenation; Ammonia borane

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (CN) [U1304203, 21908203]
  2. 111 Project (CN) [B12015]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019T120637]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province (CN) [162300410258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is a crucial and urgent task to develop high performance catalysts for the hydrolysis of ammonia borane (NH3BH3, AB), which is presently thought to be an effective strategy for hydrogen generation. In this work, we immobilize the ultrafine RuNi alloy nanoparticles in the network of hierarchical porous g-C3N4 thin sheets with a facile adsorption-in situ reduction method. The structural and physicochemical properties of the as-prepared catalysts are studied using various techniques. The influence of different molar ratios of Ru to Ni in the catalysts on the hydrolytic dehydrogenation rate of AB is investigated to optimize the best one. The detailed reaction kinetics and the enhancing effect of NaOH with different dosages on the hydrolysis rate are studied through a series of experiments. Catalyzed by the optimal catalysts (denoted as Ru0.5Ni0.5/p-g-C3N4), the hydrolysis reaction is first-order and near zero-order relative to the Ru and AB concentrations, respectively. The corresponding turnover frequency reaches 840.3 min(-1), and the apparent activation energy is as low as 14.1 kJ mol(-1), which are greatly superior to many similar or counterpart catalysts previously reported. The results indicate the potential of the bimetallic alloy catalysts for the hydrolytic dehydrogenation of hydrogen storage materials.

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