4.6 Article

Role of intermediates in reaction pathways from ethene to hydrocarbons over H-ZSM-5

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 538, 期 -, 页码 207-220

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2017.03.013

关键词

Ethene oligomerization; Surface intermediates; Hydrocarbon pool; H-ZSM-5 catalyst; Isotope experiments; TAP reactor

资金

  1. Research Board of Ghent University (BOF) [B/09947/02]
  2. Long Term Structural Methusalem Funding by the Flemish Government
  3. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme P7/5-Belgian State-Belgian Science Policy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insight in ethene to hydrocarbon transformation over a H-ZSM-5 catalyst was obtained by means of temporal analysis of products (TAP) in the temperature range 598-698 K with pulses of higher olefins, dienes, cyclodienes and aromatics. Pulses of propene, 1-butene and 1-hexene allowed to identify the cracking routes from ethene oligomerization products. When pulsing benzene or ethylbenzene, only accumulation of aromatics occurred. In-situ temperature programmed desorption (TPD) experiments after pulsing identified aromatics as long-lived surface species. The role of intermediates was assessed by means of pre-adsorption of the different feeds before pulsing ethene, in so-called pump-probe experiments. Butene enhanced propene formation, while all other olefins favored butene production via aliphatic surface intermediates. The latter were also intermediates in the conversion of hexadiene to butene and aromatics, while cyclohexadiene was converted to propene and aromatics via aromatic surface intermediates. In contrast to ethylbenzene pulses alone, aromatics alkylation participated towards light olefin production via sidechain/paring mechanisms. Isotope experiments of (C2H4)-C-13 over a catalyst coked during continuous flow experiments with C-12 only showed scrambling in both propene and butene products, stressing the role of long-lived aromatic surface intermediates. (C) 2017 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

4.6
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