4.7 Article

Petcoke-derived functionalized activated carbon as support in a bifunctional catalyst for tire oil hydroprocessing

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 239-247

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.12.030

关键词

Tire oil; Hydroprocessing; Hydrodesulfurization; Activated carbon; Naphtha; Diesel

资金

  1. Ministry of Economy and Competitivity of the Spanish Government [CTQ2010-19623, CTQ2012-35192]
  2. ERDF funds
  3. Basque Government [SAIOTEK SA-2011/00098, SA-2013/00173, IT748-13]
  4. University of the Basque Country [UFI 11/39]
  5. Basque Government research-training grant [BFI2010-223]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The catalytic performance of three NiMo catalysts supported on tailored activated carbon (AC) supports has been studied for the hydroprocessing of tire oil for sulfur removal and conversion of heavier fractions towards lighter naphtha and diesel production. The supports have been obtained through physical activation of petcoke for different times, and in some cases functionalized via acid treatment with HNO3. The hydroprocessing runs have been carried out in a fixed bed reactor working in trickle bed regime at 275-375 degrees C, 65 bar and a space time of 0.16 h. The catalyst properties have been measured by ICP-AES, N-2 adsorption-desorption isotherms, TPR, and tert-butylamine adsorption-desorption (TPD). A preliminary catalyst screening using a synthetic mixture of model compounds of tire oil was used to select the most active catalyst. This catalyst, which contained a support activated for 9 h and functionalized with HNO3, had an HDS conversion of up to 99.9%. In the hydroprocessing of real tire oil, the same NiMo/AC catalyst reached a steady sulfur removal of 96.3% and a heavy gasoil lump removal higher than 11 wt%, with complete olefin hydrogenation and a decreased content of naphthenes and aromatics in the products. The cetane number of the diesel fraction was also enhanced with this catalyst (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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