3.8 Article

Bifunctional catalyst with high efficiency for converting hydrocarbons: The enhanced diffusion between micro and meso-pores

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2023.123536

关键词

Hydrocracking; Catalysts; Diffusivity; Activity; Selectivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the influences of distance and catalyst diffusivities on hydrocracking behaviors. The results showed that the diffusivities of catalysts with both Y zeolite and Al2O3 were significantly improved, with the NiW/Y-A catalyst exhibiting the best diffusivity. The properties of active metals and acidity played a crucial role in the catalyst's adsorption ability. Additionally, a closer distance between the hydrogenation and cracking centers led to higher selectivity, liquid yield, and stability of catalysts. These findings provide a potential new method for designing catalysts with high activities and selectivities.
The influences of the distance between the hydrogenation center and cracking center and diffusivities of catalysts on hydrocracking behaviors were investigated. It was initially found that, compared with the catalysts with only micromeso-Y zeolite or meso-Al2O3, the diffusivities of combined catalysts with both Y zeolite and Al2O3 could be significantly improved. The NiW/Y-A catalyst presents the best diffusivity due to the introduction of pure meso-Al2O3. The property of active metals and acidity play an important role on the adsorption ability of catalyst. The n-dodecane hydrocracking results showed that the NiW/Y-A catalyst with the lowest dispersion degree of metals, acidity and proportion of active WS2 phase presented the highest activity due to its superior diffusivity. The results also revealed that a closer distance between the hydrogenation and cracking centers leads to a higher selectivity of iso-cracking, liquid yield and better stability of catalysts. The above findings provide a potential novel method for designing catalysts with high activities and selectivities.

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

3.8
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