4.7 Article

Improving the denitration performance and K-poisoning resistance of the V2O5-WO3/TiO2 catalyst by CO4+ and Zr4+ co-doping

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 95-104

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-2067(18)63184-5

关键词

V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO(2 )catalyst; Co-doping; K-poisoning; NH3-SCR; Reaction mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21876168, 21507130]
  2. Key Projects for Common Key Technology Innovation in Key Industries in Chongqing [cstc2016zdcy-ztzx0020-01]
  3. Chongqing Science & Technology Commission [cstc2016jcyjA0070, cstckjcxljrcl3]
  4. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Catalysis and Functional Organic Molecules from Chongqing Technology and Business University [1456029]
  5. Graduate Innovation Project of Chongqing Technology and Business University [yjscxx201803-028-22]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO2, V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO2, and V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO2 catalysts were synthesized to improve the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) performance and the K-poisoning resistance of a V2O5-WO3/TiO2 catalyst. The physicochemical properties were investigated by using XRD, BET, NH3-TPD, H-2-TPR, and XPS, and the catalytic performance and K-poisoning resistance were evaluated via a NH3-SCR model reaction. Ce4+ and Zr4+ co-doping were found to enhance the conversion of NOx, and exhibit the best K-poisoning resistance owing to the largest BET-specific surface area, pore volume, and total acid site concentration, as well as the minimal effects on the surface acidity and redox ability from K poisoning. The V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO2 catalyst also presents outstanding H2O + SO2 tolerance. Finally, the in situ DRIFTS reveals that the NH3-SCR reaction over the V2O5-WO3/TiO2-CeO2-ZrO2 catalyst follows an L-H mechanism, and that K poisoning does not change the reaction mechanism. (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