4.8 Article

Chemical deactivation by phosphorous under lean hydrothermal conditions over Cu/BEA NH3-SCR catalysts

期刊

APPLIED CATALYSIS B-ENVIRONMENTAL
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 251-263

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.08.041

关键词

NH3 SCR; NOx reduction; Cu/BEA catalysts; P poisoning; Deactivation

资金

  1. Chalmers Initiative Transport
  2. Swedish foundation for strategic research [F06-0006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To obtain a better understanding of the deactivation of SCR catalysts that may be encountered due to the presence of P-containing impurities in diesel exhausts, the effects induced by P over Cu/BEA NH3-SCR catalysts were studied as functions of the temperature of poisoning and P concentration in the feed. Cu/BEA catalysts with different Cu loadings (4 and 1.3 wt% Cu) were exposed to P by controlled evaporation of H3PO4 in the presence of 8% O-2 and 5% H2O at 573 and 773K. The reaction studies were performed by NH3-storage/TPD, NH3/NO oxidation and standard NH3-SCR. In addition, a combination of several characterisation techniques (ICP-AES, BET surface area, pore size distribution, H-2-TPR and XPS) was applied to provide useful information regarding the mechanism of P deactivation. Pore condensation of H3PO4 in combination with pore blocking was observed. However, the measured overall deactivation was found to occur mostly by chemical deactivation reducing the number of the active Cu species and hence deteriorating the redox properties of the Cu/BEA catalysts. The process of P accumulation on the surface preferentially occurs on the over exchanged Cu active sites with the formation of phosphate species. This is likely the reason for the more severe deactivation of the 4% Cu/BEA compared to 1.3% Cu/BEA. Further, the higher NOx reduction performance at 773K of the P-poisoned Cu/BEA catalysts was found to originate from the lower selectivity towards NH3 oxidation, which occurs predominately on the over-exchanged sites. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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