4.6 Article

Gram-scale ruthenium catalysts templated on halloysite nanotubes and MCM-41/halloysite composite for removal of aromatics from gasoline fraction

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 47, 期 25, 页码 12015-12026

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3nj01709e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gram-scale Ru-containing catalysts templated on structured mesoporous silica were synthesized using wetness impregnation under microwave irradiation. The catalytic properties for the hydrogenation of aromatic-rich feed were studied, and it was found that each material had its own advantage under specific operating conditions. The Ru/HNT and Ru/MCM-41/HNT catalysts showed the best performance for the removal of aromatics at temperatures of 60-100 degrees C and 60-80 degrees C, respectively, while maintaining the octane numbers.
Gram-scale Ru-containing catalysts templated on structured mesoporous silica of MCM-41 type reinforced with natural aluminosilicate halloysite nanotubes (HNT), as well as their analogues based on pristine halloysite, were synthesized by wetness impregnation under microwave irradiation. The structural properties and elemental composition of the catalysts were studied by TEM, XRD, TPR-H-2, and XRF. Textural characteristics were determined by low-temperature nitrogen adsorption/desorption. The catalytic properties in hydrogenation of aromatic-rich model feed and gasoline fraction were studied in batch reactors in the temperature range of 60-150 degrees C, under hydrogen pressure of 3 MPa, and a substrate/Ru molar ratio of 2000 for 3 h. Comparing the results of the catalytic tests, we can conclude that each material has its own advantage for the treatment of aromatic-rich feed under specific operating conditions. The Ru/HNT and Ru/MCM-41/HNT catalysts performed best in the 60-100 degrees C and 60-80 degrees C temperature regions, respectively, for the removal of aromatics, e.g. benzene, to meet ecological restrictions while retaining the octane numbers.

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