4.7 Article

High performance of bulk Mo2N and Co3Mo3N catalysts for hydrogen production from ammonia: Role of citric acid to Mo molar ratio in preparation of high surface area nitride catalysts

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 8006-8020

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.044

关键词

Hydrogen production; Ammonia decomposition; High surface area nitride catalysts; Citric acid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen production from ammonia decomposition was studied using a series of unsupported high surface area molybdenum nitride (Mo2N) and cobalt promoted molybdenum nitride (3%Co-Mo2N) catalysts prepared with citric acid (CA) as a chelating agent. To elucidate the influence of citric acid amount in preparation conditions on the structure and catalytic activity, we prepared catalysts with different citric acid to Mo molar ratios i.e. CA/Mo = 1, 2, 3 and 4. The catalytic activity was evaluated in the temperature range of 300-600 degrees C at atmospheric pressure. The catalytic activity of the tested samples has changed in the following order of CA/Mo atomic ratio of 1 < 2 < 3 > 4. Therefore, the catalyst prepared by using CA/Mo ratio = 3 showed the highest catalytic activity. BET, XRD, XPS, SEM and TEM-EDS techniques were been used to characterize the catalysts. The increased activity of Mo2N-3:1 and 3%Co-Mo2N-3:1 catalysts was due to increased surface area, decreased particle size and increased relative proportions of Mo2N and Co3Mo3N phases. The ammonia conversion for 3%Co-Mo2N catalyst was increased from 75 to 97% at 550 degrees C with the increase of CA/Mo ratio from 1 to 3. This enrichment of activity in 3%Co-Mo2N-3:1 catalyst is due to increased dispersion of Co3Mo3N microstructure on gamma-Mo2N platelets confirmed by SEM and TEM results. No deactivation was observed for any catalysts investigated in this study for ammonia decomposition. (C) 2017 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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