4.7 Article

CuPd bimetallic catalyst with high Cu/Pd ratio and its application in CO2 hydrogenation

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 544, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.148974

关键词

Cu-Pd bimetallic catalyst; CO2 hydrogenation; Geometric effect; Phase separation; DFT

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21606017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the surface and catalytic properties of a Cu-Pd bimetallic catalyst with a high Cu/Pd ratio for CO2 hydrogenation, comparing it with monometallic catalysts. The interactions between Cu and Pd were found to improve dispersion and reduction properties, with both geometric and electronic effects present in the bimetallic catalyst. The catalytic performance was similar between Cu/SiO2 and CuPd/SiO2 when normalized to surface Cu sites, with CuPd/SiO2 showing enhanced activity mainly due to geometric effects.
The surface and catalytic properties Cu-Pd bimetallic catalyst with a high Cu/Pd ratio of 33.5 was investigated for the hydrogenation of CO2 and was compared with the corresponding monometallic catalysts. The catalysts were synthesized by the incipient-wetness impregnation method, characterized by N-2-physisorption, XRD, TPR, CO pulse titration, N2O chemisorption, CO2-TPD, and FT-IR of adsorbed CO, and were evaluated in a fixed-bed reactor. The interaction between Cu and Pd results in a better dispersion of both Cu and Pd atoms and facilitates the reduction properties. Phase separation of Pd1Cu3 alloy and Cu appears over the bimetallic catalyst, while at some part of the catalysts, isolated Pd sites exist over the Cu-rich particles. Both geometric and electronic effects are present over the bimetallic catalyst. The catalytic performances are found to be similar over Cu/SiO2 and CuPd/SiO2 when normalized to the surface Cu sites. Specifically, CuPd/SiO2 shows enhanced activity than Cu/SiO2 mainly due to the geometric effect, whereas the electronic effect is weak for the catalytic performance.

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