4.7 Article

Methanation of carbon dioxide over Ni/CeO2 catalysts: Effects of support CeO2 structure

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 25, 页码 16108-16117

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.154

关键词

Carbon dioxide; Catalytic hydrogenation; Methanation; Ni catalyst; Mesoporous structure

资金

  1. Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology [cstc2014jcyjA90019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CeO2, which were prepared by hard-template method, soft-template method, and precipitation method, were used as support to prepare Ni/CeO2 catalysts (named as NCT, NCS, and NCP catalysts, respectively). The prepared catalysts were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET). Hydrogen temperature-programmed reduction (H-2-TPR) was also used to study the reducibility of the support nickel precursors. Moreover, CO2 catalytic hydrogenation methanation was used to investigate the catalytic properties of the prepared NCT, NCS, and NCP catalysts. H-2-TPR and XRD results showed that the NiO can be reduced by H-2 to produce metal Ni species, and the surface oxygen species existing on the surface of the support CeO2 can also be reduced by H2 to form surface oxygen vacancies. Low-angle XRD, TEM, and BET results indicated that the NCT and NCS catalysts had developed mesoporous structure and high specific surface area of 104.7 m(2) g(-1) and 53.6 m(2) g(-1), respectively. The NCT catalyst had the highest CO2 methanation activity among the studied NCT, NCS, and NCP catalysts. The CO2 conversion and CH4 selectivity of the NCT catalyst can reach 91.1% and 100% at 360 degrees C and atmospheric pressure. The NCP catalyst, which had low specific surface area and low porosity, performed less CO2 conversion and higher CH4 selectivity than the NCT and NCS catalysts till 400 degrees C. (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