4.6 Article

The effect of noble metals on catalytic methanation reaction over supported Mn/Ni oxide based catalysts

期刊

ARABIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 632-643

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.06.009

关键词

Carbon dioxide; Manganese-nickel oxide; Noble metal; Methanation; Natural gas

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education [01H79]
  2. University Teknologi Malaysia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon dioxide (CO2) in sour natural gas can be removed using green technology via catalytic methanation reaction by converting CO2 to methane (CH4) gas. Using waste to wealth concept, production of CH4 would increase as well as creating environmental friendly approach for the purification of natural gas. In this research, a series of alumina supported manganese nickel oxide based catalysts doped with noble metals such as ruthenium and palladium were prepared by wetness impregnation method. The prepared catalysts were run catalytic screening process using in-house built micro reactor coupled with Fourier Transform Infra Red (FTIR) spectroscopy to study the percentage CO2 conversion and CH4 formation analyzed by GC. Ru/Mn/Ni(5:35:60)/Al2O3 calcined at 1000 degrees C was found to be the potential catalyst which gave 99.74% of CO2 conversion and 72.36% of CH4 formation at 400 degrees C reaction temperature. XRD diffractogram illustrated that the supported catalyst was in polycrystalline with some amorphous state at 1000 degrees C calcination temperature with the presence of NiO as active site. According to FESEM micrographs, both fresh and used catalysts displayed spherical shape with small particle sizes in agglomerated and aggregated mixture. Nitrogen Adsorption analysis revealed that both catalysts were in mesoporous structures with BET surface area in the range of 46-60 m(2)/g. All the impurities have been removed at 1000 degrees C calcination temperature as presented by FTIR, TGA-DTA and EDX data. (C) 2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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