4.6 Article

Potassium hydride-intercalated graphite as an efficient heterogeneous catalyst for ammonia synthesis

期刊

NATURE CATALYSIS
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 222-230

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41929-022-00754-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)-Vici [16.130.344]
  2. European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (ERC-2014-CoG) [648991]
  3. initiative 'Computational Sciences for Energy Research' from Shell
  4. NWO [15CSTT05]
  5. NWO Exact and Natural Sciences
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [648991] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a transition-metal-free catalyst-potassium hydride-intercalated graphite, which can activate dinitrogen at lower temperatures and pressures, and shows comparable performance to classical noble metal catalysts in ammonia synthesis reactions.
Due to the high energy needed to break the N N bond (945 kJ mol(-1)), a key step in ammonia production is the activation of dinitrogen, which in industry requires the use of transition metal catalysts such as iron (Fe) or ruthenium (Ru), in combination with high temperatures and pressures. Here we demonstrate a transition-metal-free catalyst-potassium hydride-intercalated graphite (KH0.19C24)-that can activate dinitrogen at very moderate temperatures and pressures. The catalyst catalyses NH3 synthesis at atmospheric pressure and achieves NH3 productivity (mu mol(NH)(3) g(cat)(-1) h(-1)) comparable to the classical noble metal catalyst Ru/MgO at temperatures of 250-400 degrees C and 1 MPa. Both experimental and computational calculation results demonstrate that nanoconfinement of potassium hydride between the graphene layers is crucial for the activation and conversion of dinitrogen. Hydride in the catalyst participates in the hydrogenation step to form NH3. This work shows the promise of light metal hydride materials in the catalysis of ammonia synthesis.

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