4.6 Review

A naphtha reforming process development methodology based on the identification of catalytic reactivity descriptors

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 18, 页码 7243-7260

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c9nj05349b

关键词

-

资金

  1. IFPEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several major refining catalytic processes show a strong dependence of overall performances upon catalyst formulations and their structure. This observation is particularly true in naphtha catalytic reforming for which the product distribution is sensitive to slight changes in active phase formulations. This review presents different issues encountered in naphtha reforming that are related to active phase formulation changes. Two research and development approaches are usually proposed. (i) Rationalise the development of new catalytic formulations in order to increase selectivity towads valuable products. (ii) Design simulators that would guide operation in order to maintain process performances. Current limitations to a faster process development come from the disjunction between kinetic modelling and catalyst optimisation. This critical review is not an extensive analysis of existing naphtha reforming kinetic modelling methodologies or advances in catalytic behaviour elucidation. Rather, it proposes an original and pragmatic process development approach aimed at merging catalyst development with kinetic modelling through the identification of effective and measurable catalytic descriptors. The specificities of the structure-property relationships of naphtha reforming catalysts are reviewed and taken into account in order to list potential catalytic descriptors for this process. A focus is made on a current bottleneck faced in the description of the active phase which lies in understanding the role of the proximity and the interaction between acid and metallic sites in the balance between different bi-functional pathways. A variety of experimental approaches that can be used to measure these naphtha reforming active phase catalytic descriptors are presented and compared.

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