4.6 Article

Product tunable behavior of carbon nanotubes-supported Ni-Fe catalysts for guaiacol hydrodeoxygenation

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 529, 期 -, 页码 20-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2016.10.011

关键词

Ni-Fe catalysts; Hydrodeoxygenation; Guaiacol; Cyclohexane; Phenol

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21303141, 21403178, 21473145, 91545115]
  2. Program for Innovative Research Team in Chinese Universities [IRT_14R31]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bimetallic Ni-Fe nanoparticles supported on carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are prepared and evaluated for the catalytic hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of a lignin-derived model compound guaiacol. Appropriate combination of Ni and Fe affords high activity and significantly enhances selectivity to cyclohexane or phenol, whereas monometallic Ni and Fe catalysts display poor activities or Selectivities. The product tunable behavior of guaiacol HDO is found to be dependent on Ni/Fe atomic ratios. Cyclohexane and phenol are the Major products over Ni-5-Fe-1/CNT with Ni/Fe atomic ratio at 5/1 and Ni-1-Fe-5/CNT with Ni/Fe atomic ratio at 1/5, respectively. Characterization results confirm that Ni-Fe alloys are formed and elicit synergistic effects on the HDO performance. The selectivity-switchable performance of Ni-Fe/CNT can be assigned to the synergism between Ni domains, where H-2 can be easily activated, and Fe domains, which exhibited strong oxophilicity. The bimetallic catalysts give an enhanced stability without significant sintering of metal nanoparticles, while the monometallic catalysts show obvious deactivation due to the agglomeration of metal, nanoparticles. Further results reveal that the conversion of guaiacol depends on not only the chemical state but also the size of the metallic nanoparticles. The catalysts with appropriate Ni/Fe atomic ratio and smaller particle perform better hydrogenolysis Of C-O bonds, resulting in high selectivity to cyclohexane or phenol. (C) 2016 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