4.8 Article

Facile hydrothermal synthesis of nanorod-structured Mo0.6W0.4O3 catalyst for olefin hydrogenation with high activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS
卷 360, 期 -, 页码 213-220

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2018.02.004

关键词

Hydrothermal synthesis; Molybdenum-tungsten oxides; Nanorod-structure; Olefin hydrogenation; Hydrogen bronze materials

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21233006, 21473164, 21603195]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities [CUGL170405]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China [2015CFA129]
  4. Major project of technical innovation of Hubei Province [2017AAA126]
  5. Open Foundation of Teaching Laboratory of China University of Geosciences [SKJ2016042, SKJ2016034, SKJ2018036]
  6. China University of Geosciences (Wuhan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report a facile hydrothermal synthesis of nanorod-structured molybdenum-tungsten oxides as an efficient catalyst for olefin hydrogenation. The catalytic activity was demonstrated through hydrogenation of cyclohexene used as a model system. The as-prepared material was confirmed as a new phase (Mo0.6W0.4O3) via a series of characterizations, instead of a simple mixture of MoO3 and WO3. The Mo0.6W0.4O3 catalyst displays excellent catalytic activity with 100% conversion of cyclohexene in 3 h, which is much higher than that of pure MoO3 and pure WO3 synthesized with the same method. It was found that hydrogen bronze (HxMo0.6W0.4O3) was formed during the hydrogenation process, and the catalytic performance was positively correlated with the hydrogen content. The obtained nanorod-structured Mo0.6W0.4O3 without loading any noble metal exhibits much higher catalytic activity than a Pd/MoO3 catalyst. The results demonstrate that the nanorod-structured molybdenum-tungsten oxide may be a strong contender for serving as an efficient hydrogenation catalyst alternative to precious metals. (C) 2018 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