4.7 Article

Effect of combining Al, Mg, Ce or La oxides to extracted rice husk nanosilica on the catalytic performance of NiO during COX-free hydrogen production via methane decomposition

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 42, 期 15, 页码 9858-9872

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.049

关键词

Rice husk silica; Hydrogen production; Methane decomposition; Catalyst supports; Carbon nanomaterials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amorphous nanosilica powder was extracted from rice husk and used as a catalyst support as well as a starting material for the preparation of different binary oxides, i.e., SiO2 Al2O3, SiO2 MgO, SiO2-CeO2 and SiO2 La2O3. A series of supported nickel catalysts with the metal loading of 50 wt % were prepared by wet impregnation method and evaluated in methane decomposition to COx -free hydrogen production. The fresh and spent catalysts were extensively characterized by different techniques. Among the evaluated catalysts, both Ni/SiO2 Al2O3 and Ni/SiO2 La2O3 catalysts were the most active with an over-all H-2 yield of ca. 80% at the initial period of the reaction. This distinguishable higher catalytic activity is mainly referred to the presence of free mobile surface NiO and/or that NiO fraction weakly interacted with the support easily reducible at low temperatures. The Ni/ SiO2-CeO2 catalyst has proven a great potential for application in the hydrogen production in terms of its catalytic stability. The formation of MgxNi(1-x)O solid solution caused the Ni/ SiO2-MgO catalyst to lose its activity and stability at a long reaction time. Various types of carbon materials were formed on the catalyst surface depending on the type of support used. TEM images of as -deposited carbon showed that multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and graphene platelets were formed on Ni/SiO2, while only MWCNTs were deposited on all binary oxide supported Ni catalysts. (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