4.4 Article

LOW-TEMPERATURE FISCHER-TROPSCH SYNTHESIS USING PLASMA-SYNTHESIZED NANOMETRIC CO/C AND FE/C CATALYSTS

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 94, 期 8, 页码 1504-1515

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cjce.22537

关键词

plasma; carbon; irone; cobalt; catalyst; Fischer-Tropsch

资金

  1. Canadian BiofuelNet National Centre of Excellence (NCE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, two analogous nanometric catalysts consisting of carbon-supported cobalt or iron (Co/C and Fe/C) were synthesized by plasma and tested for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) in a continuously-stirred tank slurry reactor (CSTSR). Being pyrophoric in nature, these new materials were reduced in situ at 673 K (400 degrees C) for 24 h using pure H-2 gas. The FTS reaction was conducted at 493 K (220 degrees C), 2000 kPa pressure, and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 3600 mL . g(cat)(-1) . h(-1) for 24 h, using a feed stream of 0.6 L/L (60 vol %) H-2 and 0.3 L/L (30 vol %) CO, with 0.1 L/L (10 vol %) Ar for mass balance determination. Devoid of promoters and under similar reaction conditions, the Co/C catalyst showed higher CO conversion (42 %) than the Fe/C (25 %), benchmarked against the commercial Fe-NanoCat 1 (32 %). Co/C was more selective toward gasoline production, while Fe/C was more selective toward the diesel fraction. From transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis, no significant change in the mean particle size (similar to 12 nm) was observed in the plasma-synthesized catalysts before and after FTS reaction, implying that the catalysts did not sinter. Additionally, there were no internal mass transport limitations in these catalysts, making them favourable for FTS. Besides metallic species, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis indicated the presence of carbides in fresh catalysts (Fe3C in Fe/C and Co3C in Co/C). Magnetite (Fe3O4) was the most prevalent phase in the used Fe-NanoCat 1 sample, a phase that was below the detection limits of XRD in the used plasma-synthesized Fe/C sample.

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

4.4
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