4.7 Article

3D porous catalysts for Plasma-Catalytic dry reforming of Methane: How does the pore size affect the Plasma-Catalytic Performance?

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 464, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.142574

关键词

Plasma catalysis; Dry reforming; 3D porous catalysts; Effect of pore size; Dielectric barrier discharge reactor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of pore size on plasma catalysis is still unknown. In this study, 3D porous Cu and CuO with different pore sizes were prepared and compared in plasma-catalytic dry reforming. It was found that smaller pores led to higher conversion rates of CH4 and CO2, which provides valuable references for future research on plasma catalysts.
The effect of pore size on plasma catalysis is crucial but still unclear. Studies have shown plasma cannot enter micropores and mesopores, so catalysts for traditional thermocatalysis may not fit plasma catalysis. Here, 3D porous Cu and CuO with different pore sizes were prepared using uniform silica particles (10-2000 nm) as templates, and compared in plasma-catalytic dry reforming. In most cases, the smaller the pore size, the higher the conversion of CH4 and CO2. Large pores reachable by more electrons did not improve the reaction efficiency. We attribute this to the small surface area and large crystallite size, as indicated by N2-sorption, mercury intrusion and XRD. While the smaller pores might not be reachable by electrons, due to the sheath formed in front of them, as predicted by modeling, they can still be reached by radicals formed in the plasma, and ions can even be attracted into these pores. An exception are the samples synthesized from 1 mu m silica, which show better performance. We believe this is due to the electric field enhancement for pore sizes close to the Debye length. The performances of CuO and Cu with different pore sizes can provide references for future research on oxide sup-ports and metal components of plasma 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

4.7
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