4.6 Article

Counteracting Rapid Catalyst Deactivation by Concomitant Temperature Increase during Catalytic Upgrading of Biomass Pyrolysis Vapors Using Solid Acid Catalysts

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal10070748

关键词

phosphorus; HZSM-5; gamma-Al2O3; biomass; catalytic fast pyrolysis; catalyst activity

资金

  1. Danish Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program (EUDP) [12,454]
  2. Mike and Jean Steffenson Chair
  3. Iowa Energy Center, Iowa Economic Development Authority [17-IEC-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The treatment of biomass-derived fast pyrolysis vapors with solid acid catalysts (in particular HZSM-5 zeolite) improves the quality of liquid bio-oils. However, due to the highly reactive nature of the oxygenates, the catalysts deactivate rapidly due to coking. Within this study, the deactivation and product yields using steam-treated phosphorus-modified HZSM-5/gamma-Al(2)O(3)and bare gamma-Al(2)O(3)was studied with analytical Py-GC. While at a fixed catalyst temperature of 450 degrees C, a rapid breakthrough of oxygenates was observed with increased biomass feeding, this breakthrough was delayed and slower at higher catalyst temperatures (600 degrees C). Nevertheless, at all (constant) temperatures, there was a continuous decrease in the yield of oxygen-free hydrocarbons with increased biomass feeding. Raising the reaction temperature during the vapor treatment could successfully compensate for the loss in activity and allowed a more stable production of oxygen-free hydrocarbons. Since more biomass could be fed over the same amount of catalyst while maintaining good deoxygenation performance, this strategy reduces the frequency of regeneration in parallel fixed bed applications and provides a more stable product yield. The approach appears particularly interesting for catalysts that are robust under hydrothermal conditions and warrants further investigations at larger scales for the collection and analysis of liquid bio-oil.

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