4.6 Article

Ethanol steam reforming over Co/CeO2 catalysts: Investigation of the effect of ceria morphology

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 449, 期 -, 页码 47-58

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2012.09.038

关键词

EXAFS; Cobalt; Morphology; Ceria; Ethanol steam reforming

资金

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-FG36-05GO15033]
  2. Dow Chemical Company
  3. State of Illinois
  4. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-ACO2-06CH11357]
  5. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Co catalysts supported on ceria supports with different morphologies such as nano-rods (NR) and nano-cubes (NC) were investigated in regard to their activity for ethanol steam reforming. Ceria supports were prepared using the hydrothermal method where the particle shape is manipulated by controlling the pH and pressure of the precipitation environment. Structural characterization with TEM and XRD showed the two morphologies to be similar in particle size, but different in the exposure of different crystal planes. The nano-cubes had a higher exposure of the (1 1 0) plane, which is known to have a higher affinity for creating anion vacancies and surface defects. Controlled atmosphere X-ray absorption fine structure analysis, temperature programmed reduction/oxidation, dispersion measurements and steady-state reaction performance tests showed significant differences between the two catalysts. Co catalysts supported on nanocubes showed higher reducibility compared to those supported on nanorods or commercial supports of similar particle size. These catalysts also showed high H-2 and CO2 yields in the 400-500 degrees C range whereas Co/CeO2 (NR) had limited carbon cleavage activity and were only active for dehydrogenation and dehydration. The superior performance of Co/CeO2 (NC) catalysts is thought to be due to a combination of factors, including improved metal dispersion, increased reducibility and higher oxygen mobility. (C) 2012 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