4.7 Article

Effects of Ni particle size on amination of monoethanolamine over Ni-Re/SiO2 catalysts

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 567-579

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(19)63302-4

关键词

Particle size effects; Monoethanolamine; Amination reaction; Ni-Re/SiO2; Turn over frequency

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21273227]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB17000000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ni-Re/SiO2 catalysts with controllable Ni particle sizes (4.5-18.0 nm) were synthesized to investigate the effects of the particle size on the amination of monoethanolamine (MEA). The catalysts were characterized by various techniques and evaluated for the amination reaction in a trickle bed reactor at 170 degrees C, 8.0 MPa, and 0.5 h(-1) liquid hourly space velocity of MEA (LHSVMEA) in NH3/H-2 atmosphere. The Ni-Re/SiO2 catalyst with the lowest Ni particle size (4.5 nm) exhibited the highest yield (66.4%) of the desired amines (ethylenediamine (EDA) and piperazine (PIP)). The results of the analysis show that the turnover frequency of MEA increased slightly (from 193 to 253 h(-1)) as the Ni particle sizes of the Ni-Re/SiO2 catalysts increased from 4.5 to 18.0 nm. Moreover, the product distribution could be adjusted by varying the Ni particle size. The ratio of primary to secondary amines increased from 1.0 to 2.0 upon increasing the Ni particle size from 4.5 to 18.0 nm. Further analyses reveal that the Ni particle size influenced the electronic properties of surface Ni, which in turn affected the adsorption of MEA and the reaction pathway of MEA amination. Compared to those of small Ni particles, large particles possessed a higher proportion of high-coordinated terrace Ni sites and a higher surface electron density, which favored the amination of MEA and NH3 to form EDA. (C) 2019, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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