4.6 Article

Controlling the distribution of aluminum in a Cu-zeolite catalyst by seed-assisted synthesis to improve its NH3-SCR activity

期刊

CATALYSIS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 24, 页码 7470-7480

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2cy00745b

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (MSIP)
  2. [NRF-2016R1A5A1009592]
  3. [NRF-2022R1A2C3013253]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a seed-assisted strategy was used to modulate the Al distribution in a KFI-type zeolite, resulting in improved activity for the NH3-SCR reaction. By altering the Al distribution, the proportion of paired Al sites was increased, leading to different coordination environments and enhanced proximity among Cu ions. The seed-assisted Cu-KFI catalysts showed superior intrinsic NH3-SCR activity, especially at low temperatures (200-250 degrees C), due to the regulated cation-framework interactions.
Modulating the Al sites in zeolites has been regarded as a promising but difficult strategy for designing high-performance catalysts for various reactions. To this end, a simple seed-assisted strategy was devised in this study to tune the Al distribution in a KFI-type zeolite for improving its activity for the selective catalytic reduction of NOx with NH3 (NH3-SCR). The seed-assisted approach aided in modifying the Al distribution, which increased the proportion of paired Al sites in the KFI zeolite. The resulting distribution of Al sites led to different coordination environments of the Cu ions and enhanced proximity among the Cu ions in the KFI cage due to weaker interactions with the framework. Regulating the cation-framework interactions by altering the Al distribution promoted the redox cycle of the Cu ions in the seed-added Cu-KFI catalysts, which enabled their superior intrinsic NH3-SCR activity compared to that of the Cu-KFI parent catalyst, especially at low temperatures (200-250 degrees C).

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