4.6 Review

Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane: Common Principles and Mechanistic Aspects

期刊

CHEMCATCHEM
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 3196-3217

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cctc.201200966

关键词

CH activation; dehydrogenation; heterogeneous catalysis; membranes; reaction mechanisms

资金

  1. TUM Graduate School
  2. Faculty Graduate Center Chemistry (FGCH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing demand for light olefins and the changing nature of basic feedstock has stimulated substantial research activity into the development of new process routes. Steam cracking remains the most industrially relevant pathway, but other routes for light-olefin production have emerged. Fluid catalytic cracking only produces ethene in minor concentrations. Challenged by marked catalyst deactivation, in contrast, catalytic dehydrogenation ethane up opens a more selective route to ethene. The oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) of ethane, which couples the endothermic dehydration of ethane with the strongly exothermic oxidation of hydrogen, would potentially be the most attractive alternative route because it avoids the need for excessive internal heat input, but also consumes valuable hydrogen. In this Review, the current state of the ODH of ethane is compared with other routes for light-olefin production, with a focus on the catalyst and reactor system variants. New catalyst systems and reactor designs have been developed to improve the industrial competitiveness of the ODH reaction of ethane. The current state of our fundamental understanding of the ODH of light alkanes, in particular in terms of catalyst and reactor development, is critically reviewed. The proposed mechanisms and the nature of the active site for the ODH reaction are described and discussed in detail for selected promising catalysts. The reported catalytic performance and the possible limitations of these ODH catalysts will be examined and the performance of the emerging approaches is compared to the currently practiced methods.

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