4.6 Article

Effect of cofeeding n-butane with methanol on aromatization performance and coke formation over a Zn loaded ZSM-5/ZSM-11 zeolite

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS A-GENERAL
卷 470, 期 -, 页码 15-23

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcata.2013.10.036

关键词

Methanol; n-Butane; Aromatization; Cofeeding; Coke

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21376235]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aromatization performance of cofeeding n-butane with methanol was investigated in a fixed bed reactor over a Zn loaded ZSM-5/ZSM-11 zeolite. Coke deposited on the catalyst was characterized by TG, TPO, FTIR and Raman technique. During the 48 h life-test under the conditions of 510 degrees C, 0.4 MPa, WHSV (CH2) = 2 h(-1), pure n-butane reaction performance of the catalyst changes little, but high LPG and low aromatics yields are obtained. Only under the suitable n-butane/methanol ratio, the relatively good aromatics selectivity can be obtained and maintained during the reaction process. Compared with methanol aromatization, the integrated process exhibits a much slower rate of deactivation. Addition of methanol in n-butane inhibits the dry gas production while promotes the LPG production. Water generated from methanol dehydration may occupy the catalytic active sites for olefins aromatization over the catalyst and thus suppress the production of total aromatics. In fact, water mainly suppresses benzene formation and this inhibiting effect increases with n-butane content in the feed, in contrast to its promoting effect on formation of C-8 and C-9 aromatics. Increasing methanol content in the feed, a simultaneous increase in coke content of the spent catalyst and preference for coke deposition in micropore is observed. Furthermore, the fraction of aliphatics in coke decreases, while those of less-condensed aromatics and polyaromatics incease, which is associated with the increased deactivation of catalyst. Crown Copyright (C) 2013 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

4.6
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