4.8 Article

Regeneration of sulfur-poisoned Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts: Copper speciation and catalytic performance evaluation

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 299, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120626

关键词

Cu-CHA; DeSOx; NH3-SCR; NO2; NOx ratio; N2O selectivity

资金

  1. Singapore Ministry of Education [MOE-2018-T2-1-121]
  2. Swedish Energy Agency [38364-1]
  3. Scania CV AB
  4. Volvo Group Trucks Technology
  5. Umicore Denmark ApS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regeneration of sulfur-poisoned Cu-SSZ-13 catalyst via temperature ramp in an inert atmosphere followed by holding under oxidizing conditions at 500 degrees C restores significant activity for NOx conversion under different SCR conditions. Analysis of copper speciation shows different behavior of sulfur-free Cu species in fresh and regenerated catalysts, contributing to the development of regeneration strategies for Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts.
Regeneration of a sulfur-poisoned Cu-SSZ-13 catalyst via a temperature ramp in an inert atmosphere with subsequent holding under oxidizing conditions at 500 degrees C restores significant activity for NOx conversion under standard, fast, and NO2-rich SCR conditions. The N2O selectivity of the regenerated catalyst is higher than for the fresh catalyst under NO2-rich SCR conditions at 280 degrees C, while the opposite was observed for the standard and fast SCR conditions. Analysis of copper speciation showed that sulfur-free Cu species have different conditiondependent behavior in the fresh and regenerated catalysts. Heating the poisoned catalyst in an oxidizing atmosphere transforms a portion of ammonium sulfates into stable metal sulfates, while heating under inert or reducing conditions leads to more effective desulfation without the formation of stable metal sulfates. Reducing conditions result in desulfation at lower temperatures compared to inert conditions. These results contribute to the further development of regeneration strategies for Cu-SSZ-13 catalysts.

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

4.8
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