4.7 Article

Effect of boron doping on the performance of Ni/Biochar catalysts for steam reforming of toluene as a tar model compound

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105033

关键词

Ni; biochar catalysts; Boron doping; Toluene; Steam reforming; Stability

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFB1501403]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51776134, 22078220, 21808153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boron doping significantly extended the lifetime of Ni/BC catalysts by interacting with Ni and biochar support simultaneously. It reduced the gasification consumption rate of the biochar support by transforming K into more stable borates, inhibiting the desorption of CO and CO2, and forming B2O3 as an active site blocker. Additionally, boron doping also decreased coke deposition on the Ni particles.
Biochar-supported nickel (Ni/BC) catalysts have potential applications in steam reforming of tar during biomass gasification. However, the industrial application of Ni/BC catalysts is restricted by their rapid deactivation caused by the gasification of biochar support and deposition of carbon on the active Ni metal. In this study, the effect of boron doping was explored on the performance of Ni/BC catalysts in steam reforming of toluene as a tar model compound. A series of Ni/BC and boron-doped Ni/BC catalysts were prepared by impregnating Ni salts on raw and acid-washed biomass as the starting materials and used in steam reforming of toluene as the tar model compound. It was found that boron doping significantly prolonged the lifetime of Ni/BC catalysts by interacting with Ni and the biochar support simultaneously. It is believed that boron doping lowered the gasification consumption rate of the biochar support in three ways: transforming the inherent K into more stable borates, inhibiting the desorption of CO and CO2, and forming B2O3 as the active site blocker. Furthermore, boron doping also reduced coke deposition on the Ni particles.

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