4.7 Article

Synthesis gas production from carbon dioxide reforming of methane over Ni-MgO catalyst: Combined effects of titration rate during co-precipitation and CeO2 addition

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.106877

关键词

Carbon dioxide reforming of methane; Titration rate; Ni-MgO-CeO2; Oxygen vacancy concentration; Ni dispersion

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea - Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea [2017M1A2A2044372]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M1A2A2044372] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ni-MgO and Ni-MgO-CeO2 catalysts prepared by co-precipitation at different titration rates were applied to carbon dioxide reforming of methane. The titration rate affected the physical properties of NM catalysts and also the chemical properties of NMC catalysts. The NMC catalyst prepared at a fast titration rate exhibited the highest catalytic performance in CDR.
The Ni-MgO (NM) and Ni-MgO-CeO2 (NMC) catalysts prepared by co-precipitation at different titration rates have been applied to carbon dioxide reforming of methane (CDR). The effects of titration rates on the catalytic properties and reaction behaviors of the catalyst were varied significantly depending on the CeO2 addition. The titration rate mainly influenced the physical properties, such as Ni crystallite size and Ni dispersion, in NM catalysts, but for the NMC catalysts, chemical properties, such as oxygen storage capacity, also were affected. Regarding the change of titration rates, the NM catalysts exhibited the difference of activity, but NMC catalysts showed the difference of activity as well as stability. As a result, the NMC catalyst prepared at fast titration rate achieved the highest catalytic CDR performance at 800 degrees C and a high gas hourly space velocity of 720,000 mL.g(-1).L-1.

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