4.6 Article

Mechanisms of the Water-Gas Shift Reaction Catalyzed by Ruthenium Carbonyl Complexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 120, 期 15, 页码 2408-2419

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.6b00301

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20603021]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi [2013011009-6]
  3. Undergraduate Training Programs for Innovation and Entrepreneurship of Shanxi Province [105088, 2015537, WL2015CXCY-SJ-01]
  4. Shanxi Normal University [SD2015CXXM-80, WL2015CXCY-YJ-18]
  5. Teaching Reform Project of Shanxi Normal University [WL2015JGXM-YJ-13]
  6. High School 131 Leading Talent Project of Shanxi
  7. Graduate Project for Education and Innovation of Shanxi Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density functional theory (DFT) is employed to study the water-gas shift (WGS) reaction in the gas phase for two complexes, Ru-3(CO)(12) and Ru(CO)(5). Here we report four mechanisms of ruthenium carbonyl complexes catalyzed for WGS reaction. The energetic span model is applied to evaluate efficiency of the four catalytic pathways. Our results indicate that mechanism C and D show a good catalytic behavior, which is in agreement with results from the literature. The mechanism C and D not only include the important intermediate Ru-3(CO)(11)H- but also exclude the energy-demanding OH- desorption and revise an unfavorable factor of the previous mechanism. Two complexes along mechanisms B have the highest turnover frequency (TOF) values. The trinudear carbonyl complexes-Ru-3(CO)(12) is preferred over mononuclear carbonyl Ru(CO)(5) by comparing TOF due to the fact that metal metal cooperativity can enhance activity to the WGS reaction. In this work, the nature of interaction between transition states and intermediates is also analyzed by the detailed electronic densities of states, and we further clarify high catalytic activity of ruthenium carbonyl complexes as well. Our conclusions provide a guide to design catalysts for the WGS reaction.

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