4.8 Article

Rational design of zeolite Y supported oxalate and borohydride ligands functionalized Cu catalysts for CO2 conversion to specialty chemicals

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 312, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121381

关键词

Copper nanoparticles; Oxalate ligands; Borohydride ligands; CO2 hydrogenation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of oxalate and borohydride ligands functionalization on the properties and activity of zeolite Y-supported copper nanoparticles in CO2 hydrogenation. The functionalization resulted in differences in physicochemical properties and activity, with oxalate showing higher methanol yield and borohydride showing higher dimethyl ether yield. Additionally, the functionalization effectively minimized CO formation.
This study investigates the effect of oxalate and borohydride ligands functionalization on the properties and activity of zeolite Y (ZY) supported copper nanoparticles in CO2 hydrogenation to specialty chemicals. The ZY-supported copper oxalate (CuX-ZY) and copper borohydride (CuB-ZY) catalysts exhibited a drastic difference in physicochemical properties compared to a benchmark copper supported on ZY (Cu-ZY) catalyst without any functionalization. The average Cu particle sizes are 7.74, 0.69, and 0.57 nm for Cu-ZY, CuX-ZY, and CuB-ZY, respectively. The smaller the copper oxide particle sizes, the higher the reduction temperatures to the metallic state due to strong-metal-support-interactions. The CO2 conversions (XCO2) at 270 degrees C are 28.3%, 26.4%, and 14.6%, for CuX-ZY, CuB-ZY, and Cu-ZY which aligns with the trend of basic site-strength, Cu particle sizes, and Cu dispersion of the catalysts. While methanol yield was maximum at 70.5 g(product) g(cat)(-1)center dot min(-1) over CuX-ZY, the dimethyl ether was maximum at 48.9 g(product) g(cat)(-1)center dot min(-1) over CuB-ZY. Furthermore, the oxalate and borohydride functionalization were effective in minimizing CO formation.

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