4.6 Article

Ce0.9Fe0.1O1.97/Ag: a cheaper inverse catalyst with excellent oxygen storage capacity and improved activity towards CO oxidation

期刊

CATALYSIS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 402-410

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c3cy00722g

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSFC [21025104, 21271171, 91022018]
  2. NBRP of China [2011CBA00501, 2013CB632405]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Noble-metal-supported metal oxides (e. g., Au/CeO2, Pd/Al2O3, etc.) are popular as efficient catalysts for many important catalytic reactions, while their high price and easy deactivation restrict their broad application. Herein, we initiate a double substitution methodology to acquire catalysts with merits of excellent catalytic activity, high stability, and relatively low cost. For this purpose, a Au/CeO2 catalyst was used as reference, and the noble metal Au was completely replaced by the cheaper Ag, meanwhile the rare earth ion, Ce4+ of the CeO2 support was partially substituted by the transition metal ion, Fe3+. This inversely supported catalyst, Ce0.9Fe0.1O1.97/Ag, was prepared by a two-step method based on co-precipitation and a subsequent liquid-phase reduction. Systematic characterizations demonstrate that Ag nanoparticles with a diameter of around 50 nm were wrapped by Ce0.9Fe0.1O1.97 layers. Between the Ag nanoparticles and Ce0.9Fe0.1O1.97 layer, there existed a strong interaction. When this sample was tested as a catalyst for CO oxidation, a full conversion temperature of 150 degrees C was achieved at a space velocity of 24 000 ml h(-1) g(-1) cat, showing a catalytic activity comparable to that previously reported in the literature on the known catalyst Au@CeO2 measured at a lower space velocity of 15 000 ml h(-1) g(-1) cat. More strikingly, this catalyst showed a superb catalytic stability and enhanced oxygen storage capacity. The introduction of smaller F-e3+ into the CeO2 lattice and the strong interactions between Ag and Ce0.9Fe0.1O1.97 strongly improved the stability and catalytic performance.

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