4.6 Article

Reducibility Studies of Ceria, Ce0.85Zr0.15O2 (CZ) and Au/CZ Catalysts after Alkali Ion Doping: Impact on Activity in Oxidation of NO and CO

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal12050524

关键词

reducibility; ceria; cerium-zirconium mixed oxide; Au catalysts; CO oxidation; alkali metal ions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of these studies was to investigate the influence of alkali metal ions on the properties of nanogold catalysts supported on ceria-zirconia. The addition of alkali metal ions affected the reducibility of the catalysts, but did not have a significant impact on the activity in CO oxidation. However, the alkali metal ions suppressed the activity of the system in CO oxidation.
The aim of these studies was to perform thorough research on the influence of alkali metal ions (Li, Na, K and Cs) on the properties of nanogold catalysts supported on ceria-zirconia. The addition of alkali metal ions onto CeO2 further affected the reducibility, which was not noted for the Zr-doped support (Ce0.85Zr0.15O2). Despite the substantial impact of alkali metal ions on the reducibility of ceria, the activity in CO oxidation did not change much. In contrast, they do not have a large effect on the reducibility of Au/CZ but suppressed the activity of this system in CO oxidation. The results show that for CO oxidation, the negative effect of potassium ions is greater than that of sodium, which corresponds to the shift in the T-max of the reduction peak towards higher temperatures. The negative effect of Li+ and Cs+ spans 50% CO conversion. The negative effect was visible for CO oxidation in both the model stream and the complex stream, which also contained hydrocarbons and NO. In the case of NO oxidation to NO2, two temperature regimes were observed for Au + 0.3 at% K/CZ, namely in the temperature range below 350 degrees C; the effect of potassium ions was beneficial for NO oxidation, whereas at higher temperatures, the undoped gold catalyst produced more NO2.

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

4.6
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