4.8 Article

Plastic Waste Conversion over a Refinery Waste Catalyst

期刊

ANGEWANDTE CHEMIE-INTERNATIONAL EDITION
卷 60, 期 29, 页码 16101-16108

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/anie.202104110

关键词

Aromatics; coke formation; fluid catalytic cracking; plastic recycling; polypropylene

资金

  1. Netherlands Center for Multiscale Catalytic Energy Conversion (MCEC)
  2. NWO Gravitation program - Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of the government of the Netherlands
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skodowsk-Curie grant [801359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking catalyst can effectively convert polypropylene, and through separate testing, the limitations of transmission have been revealed. The equilibrium catalyst produced the same aromatic content as the fresh catalyst, but with less coke formation, likely due to reduced activity of the zeolite domains and enhanced cracking activity of the matrix.
Polypropylene (PP) makes up a large share of our plastic waste. We investigated the conversion of PP over the industrial Fluid Catalytic Cracking catalyst (FCC-cat) used to produce gasoline from crude oil fractions. We studied transport limitations arising from the larger size of polymers compared to the crude oil-based feedstock by testing the components of this catalyst separately. Infrared spectroscopy and confocal fluorescence microscopy revealed the role of the FCC matrix in aromatization, and the zeolite Y domains in coking. An equilibrium catalyst (ECAT), discarded during FCC operation as waste, produced the same aromatics content as a fresh FCC-cat, while coking decreased significantly, likely due to the reduced accessibility and activity of the zeolite domains and an enhanced cracking activity of the matrix due to metal deposits present in ECAT. This mechanistic understanding provides handles for further improving the catalyst composition towards higher aromatics selectivity.

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

4.8
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