4.8 Article

A general method for determining the role of spectroscopically observed species in reaction mechanisms: Analysis of coverage transients (ACT)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 263, 期 2, 页码 359-371

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2009.02.028

关键词

Hydrodenitrogenation; Mechanism, transient coverage analysis; In situ FTIR; Pyridine; 2,3,4,5-Tetrahydropyridine; Nickel phosphide

资金

  1. US Department of Energy
  2. Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-FG02-963414669]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A kinetic method is described to determine the role of adsorbed intermediates in heterogeneous reaction mechanisms. The method, denoted as analysis of coverage transients (ACT), involves comparing the time response of a spectroscopically observed species in an inert gas and a reactive gas to differentiate between adsorption-desorption processes and reaction. The method is applied in a kinetic study of pyridine hydrodenitrogenation (HDN) on a 12.2 wt% silica-supported nickel phosphide (Ni(2)p/SiO2) catalyst at 423 K and atmospheric pressure. In situ Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) measurements of pyridine adsorbed on Ni2P revealed the formation of a pyridinium surface intermediate. The concentration of the pyridinium intermediate increased with pyridine partial pressure and decreased in the presence of hydrogen. suggesting that it was a reaction intermediate. However, transient and steady-state kinetic measurements showed that the rate of reaction of the intermediate did not correspond to the overall reaction rate, and it is concluded that the pyridinium intermediate is not directly involved in the HDN reaction of pyridine over Ni2P. The studies demonstrate that mere observation of an adsorbed surface species at reaction conditions is not sufficient to prove that it is a reaction intermediate. The ACT method has potential as it can be used with any type of spectroscopy, as long as the surface coverage can be calibrated. (C) 2009 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