4.4 Article

Mono- and Bimetallic Ni-Co Catalysts in Dry Reforming of Methane

期刊

CHEMISTRYSELECT
卷 6, 期 14, 页码 3424-3434

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/slct.202100686

关键词

methane; dry reforming; heterogeneous catalysis; supported catalysts; nickel; cobalt; alumina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bimetallic Ni-Co catalysts supported on theta-Al2O3 showed higher activity and stability in dry methane reforming compared to monometallic catalysts, with smaller metal particle sizes contributing to increased initial hydrogen formation activity.
Several bimetallic Ni-Co catalysts supported on theta-Al2O3 together with 10 wt % Ni and 10 wt % Co on theta-Al2O3 were prepared via the incipient wetness method, characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), nitrogen adsorption, transmission electron microscopy, temperature programmed reduction, temperature programmed CO2 desorption, Fourier Transformed Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) with pyridine adsorption-desorption and tested in dry methane reforming at 700 degrees C in a fixed bed reactor. According to XRD the metal oxide crystallite sizes decreased from 20 nm for 10 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3 to 13 nm for 5 wt % Ni-5 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3, which also showed formation of a mixed oxide alloy. The unit cell parameters for spinel in the fresh catalyst and fcc metal formed during the reaction followed the Vegard's rule. Although monometallic 10 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3 exhibited high hydrogen consumption, desorption temperature was also high resulting in a rather low activity of 10 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3 in comparison to bimetallic 5 wt % Ni-5 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3. The latter exhibited the highest initial activity for hydrogen formation due to its relatively small metal particle size. This catalyst suffered, however, from extensive coking. The most stable catalyst was 10 wt % Ni/theta-Al2O3 for which the hydrogen yield decreased form 56 % to 45 % during 100 h time-on-stream. For this catalyst no sintering occurred, opposite to 10 wt % Co/theta-Al2O3.

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

4.4
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