4.8 Article

Reactivity and stability investigation of supported molybdenum oxide catalysts for the hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of m-cresol

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 331, 期 -, 页码 86-97

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2015.07.034

关键词

Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO); Lignin-derived oxygenates; m-Cresol; Supported molybdenum oxides; Metal-support interaction; Biomass conversion

资金

  1. British Petroleum (BP) through the MIT Energy Initiative Advanced Conversion Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vapor-phase hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of m-cresol is investigated at 593 K and H-2 pressures <= 1 bar for supported catalysts comprised of 10 wt% MoO3 dispersed over SiO2, gamma Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, and CeO2. Reactivity data show that all catalysts selectively cleave C-O bonds without saturating the aromatic ring, thus effectively transforming m-cresol into toluene at moderate to high conversions. MoO3/ZrO2 and MoO3/TiO2 feature the highest initial site time yields (23.4 and 13.9 h(-1), respectively) and lowest first-order deactivation rate constants (0.013 and 0.006 h(-1), respectively) of all catalysts tested after ca. 100 h on stream. Characterization studies demonstrate that the supports play an important role in stabilizing partially reduced, coordinatively unsaturated (CU) sites in surface oligomeric Mo moieties. Post-reaction X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy shows that the catalysts with higher activity feature larger proportions of intermediate oxidation species (Mo5+ and Mo3+). In contrast, the catalysts with lower reactivity show different oxidation states: bulk MoO3 features mostly Mo4+ and metallic Mo species, while MoO3/CeO2 features a high proportion of Mo6+ species. An inverse correlation is established between the catalyst activity and both the maximum hydrogen consumption temperature obtained during temperature programmed reduction, and the support cation electronegativity (with the exception of MoO3/CeO2). (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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