4.8 Article

Improved activity and stability in CO oxidation of bimetallic Au-Cu/TiO2 catalysts prepared by deposition-precipitation with urea

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 363-377

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.04.039

关键词

CO oxidation; Gold; Copper; Bimetallic catalysts

资金

  1. CONACYT, Mexico [130407]
  2. PAPIIT, UNAM, Mexico [103513]
  3. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, CONACYT, Mexico [M10-P01]
  4. ECOS-Nord program, France [M10-P01]
  5. CONACYT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Au-Cu bimetallic catalysts supported on TiO2 were prepared for the first time by sequential deposition-precipitation with the urea method, copper first then gold. Au-Cu catalysts with four different Au:Cu atomic ratios were synthesized (1:0.4 to 1:1.2). This method allowed quantitative deposition of both copper and gold and the formation of small metal particles. Characterization by TPR and by DRIFTS coupled with CO adsorption showed that when the samples were activated in air at 300 degrees C gold was present in metallic form, copper in the form of an oxide, and Au and Cu were in interaction, probably forming a Au/CuO/TiO2 system. When the catalysts were activated in hydrogen at 300 degrees C, the metal particles were smaller (2 nm) and bimetallic. The activation of Au-Cu catalysts in air at 300 degrees C produced more active catalysts than the activation under hydrogen at the same temperature. However, whatever the activation procedure, the highest catalytic activity in CO oxidation was obtained for the catalyst with an Au:Cu ratio of 1:0.9. This calcined catalyst also presented a TOF almost 3 times higher and a better temporal stability than monometallic gold catalysts in the reaction of CO oxidation at 20 degrees C. Compared to monometallic catalysts, the better catalytic results obtained with calcined Au-Cu/TiO2 indicate a promoting effect between gold and copper oxide in the reaction of CO oxidation. (C) 2013 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

4.8
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