4.7 Article

Performance of supported Mg0.15V2O5.152.4H2O nanowires in dehydrogenation of propane

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 193, 期 -, 页码 391-395

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.04.060

关键词

Nanowires; VMgO; Dehydrogenation; Propane; Propylene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Catalytic dehydrogenation of propane has recently received considerable attention because of the increasing demand for propane. In this present work, the catalytic performances of layered nanowires of Mg(0.15)V(2)O(5.15)2.4H(2)O with equal weight of either Al2O3 or SiO2 were investigated in propane dehydrogenation and compared with the bulk commercial V2O5, at atmospheric pressure and temperature range of 500-600 degrees C. Both dehydrogenation and cracking reactions products were obtained; which suggested sites of different relativities. The catalysts exhibited propylene, ethylene, ethane and methane as primary products. The highest propylene yield of 17% was obtained in the presence of Al2O3. The nanowire samples exhibited higher selectivity to propylene than bulk samples at similar level of propane conversions. For the nanowire samples, the conversion increased (1-3%) while selectivity to propylene decreased (96-87%). At low propane conversions (<1%), the primary products were propylene and ethylene. As the conversion increased, methane was also formed. But not observable amount of ethane was recorded. In the same partial pressure range (0.14-0.43 atm), the bulk samples exhibited lower level of propane conversions (0.2-1.2%) and insignificant change in selectivity to propylene (71-73%). In this case, propylene, ethylene and methane are primary products. Although cracking is only observable at conversion higher than 1% on the nanosized samples, the bulk sample exhibited cracking products even at lower conversions. This implies that the nanowire sample exhibited better performance due to lower population of sites that lead to cracking reactions. (C) 2012 Elsevier By. 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

4.7
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