| Literature DB >> 29719767 |
Nor Fazila Khairudin1, Mohd Farid Fahmi Sukri1, Mehrnoush Khavarian1, Abdul Rahman Mohamed1.
Abstract
Dry reforming of methane (DRM) is one of the more promising methods for syngas (synthetic gas) production and co-utilization of methane and carbon dioxide, which are the main greenhouse gases. Magnesium is commonly applied in a Ni-based catalyst in DRM to improve catalyst performance and inhibit carbon deposition. The aim of this review is to gain better insight into recent developments on the use of Mg as a support or promoter for DRM catalysts. Its high basicity and high thermal stability make Mg suitable for introduction into the highly endothermic reaction of DRM. The introduction of Mg as a support or promoter for Ni-based catalysts allows for good metal dispersion on the catalyst surface, which consequently facilitates high catalytic activity and low catalyst deactivation. The mechanism of DRM and carbon formation and reduction are reviewed. This work further explores how different constraints, such as the synthesis method, metal loading, pretreatment, and operating conditions, influence the dry reforming reactions and product yields. In this review, different strategies for enhancing catalytic activity and the effect of metal dispersion on Mg-containing oxide catalysts are highlighted.Entities:
Keywords: carbon formation; catalyst development; dry reforming of methane; magnesium catalyst; mechanism
Year: 2018 PMID: 29719767 PMCID: PMC5905271 DOI: 10.3762/bjnano.9.108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beilstein J Nanotechnol ISSN: 2190-4286 Impact factor: 3.649
Figure 1Methane decomposition equilibrium in the presence of inert gas at different temperatures. Reprinted with permission from [64], copyright 2002 Taylor and Francis Group.
Figure 2A schematic diagram of the DRM reaction on Ni metal. Adapted from [73].
Figure 3Schematic diagram of carbon species removal by CO2 over (a) Fe–Ni catalyst [28] and (b) Co–Mo–MgO/MWCNT nanocomposite. [69]. (Cs: deposited carbon far from metals, Os: surface oxygen, OL: lattice oxygen, Cm: carbon deposited on metals). Reprinted with permissions from [28] and [69], copyright 2016 and 2014, respectively, Elsevier.
Figure 4The partial pressure effect of (a) CO2 and (b) CH4 on the rate of CH4 reforming; PCO2 = 90 kPa. Reprinted with permission from [3], copyright 2011 Elsevier.
Activation energies of various catalysts for DRM [3].
| Catalyst | Activation energy of CH4 (kJ/mol) | Activation energy of CO2 (kJ/mol) | Ref. | |
| Ni–Co/MgO–ZrO2 | 700–800 | 52.9 | 48.1 | [ |
| Ni/Al2O3 | 500–700 | 50.9 | 56.1 | [ |
| Ni/MgO | 450–550 | 92.1 | 87.9 | [ |
| Ni/CaO–Al2O3 | 620–690 | 106.8 | 98.8 | [ |
Figure 5XPS spectra of O 1s of the catalysts. (NCMZ = Ni–Co/MgO–ZrO2, NMZ = Ni/MgO–ZrO2, CMZ = Co/MgO–ZrO2). Reprinted with permission from [52], copyright 2010 Elsevier.
Figure 6The reforming rates of DRM over the Ni–Co/Al–Mg-O catalyst affected by the (a) CO2 partial pressure and (b) CH4 partial pressure at different temperatures. Reprinted from [86], copyright 2009 American Chemical Society.
Figure 7The formation rates of CO affected by (a) CH4 partial pressure and (b) CO2 partial pressure at different temperatures. Reprinted from [86], copyright 2009 American Chemical Society.
Figure 8The formation rates of H2 affected by (a) CH4 partial pressure and (b) CO2 partial pressure at different temperatures. Reprinted from [86], copyright 2009 American Chemical Society.
Activation energies of various catalysts [86].
| Catalyst | Activation energy of CH4 (kJ/mol) | Activation energy of CO2 (kJ/mol) | Activation energy of CO (kJ/mol) | Activation energy of H2 (kJ/mol) | Ref. | |
| Ni–Co/Al–Mg–O | 650–750 | 69.4 | 25.9 | 61.8 | 85.1 | [ |
| Ni/Al2O3 | 500–700 | 50.9 | 56.1 | 80.5 | – | [ |
| Ni/CaO–Al2O3 | 620–690 | 106.8 | 98.8 | 103 | 147.4 | [ |
Literature summary on the development and process conditions of Mg-containing oxide catalysts in DRM. PM: Preparation method; W: metal loading; CC: calcination conditions; RC: reaction conditions; SV: space velocity.
| Catalyst | PM | W (wt %) | CC | RC | Conversion | ||||
| CH4 (%) | CO2 (%) | H2/CO | Carbon | Ref. | |||||
| Ni–Ce/Mg–Al | carbonate | Ni/Mg: 2/1a | 90 | 95 | 1.2– | – | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO | impregnation | Ni: | 97.15 | 98.1 | 1.1 | – | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO | dielectric barrier discharge plasma | Ni: 10 wt % | 46 | 52 | 0.84 | 3.9 wt % | [ | ||
| Pt–Ni–Mg/ | co- | Pt/Ni/Mg: (0.2–2)/8/8 wt % | ≈10 | ≈20 | 0.23 | no coke deposited | [ | ||
| Ni–Co/ | surfactant- | Ni: 3, | 80 | 84 | 0.97 | 0.89 mgC/gcatalyst | [ | ||
| Ni/ZrO2–MgO | co- | MgO: | 30 | 32 | – | 0.26–0.31 | [ | ||
| Ni–Mg/Al2O3 | reverse microemulsion | Ni/Mg: | 58 | 69 | 0.67 | 0.5 wt % | [ | ||
| Ni/Al203–MgO | sol–gel | Ni: 10 wt % | 93– | 97– | 0.5– | – | [ | ||
| Ni/Al203–MgO | impregnation | Ni: 10 wt % | 83– | 85– | 0.38– | – | [ | ||
| Ni–MgO–Al2O3 | sol–gel | Ni: 15 wt %, MgO/(MgO+Al2O3) 0–1a | 83.6– | 88.8– | – | 13 wt % | [ | ||
| Ni–MgO–Al2O3 | co- | Ni: 15 wt %, MgO/(MgO+Al2O3) 0–1a | 83.6 | 88.8 | – | – | [ | ||
| Ni–Mg/SiO2 | impregnation | Ni: 10 wt %, | 74.6 | 78.6 | 1.49 | 6.56 wt % | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO/γ-Al2O3 | cold plasma | Ni: 12 wt %, | 78– | 74 | – | 5 wt % | [ | ||
| NiO/MgO | impregnation | NiO/MgO 20:100b | 85– | 90– | – | – | [ | ||
| Ni–Mg–Al | co- | Ni/Mg 1–5a | 95– | 49– | – | 2.8–3.7 wt % | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO | wet impregnation | Ni: 8.8 wt % | 84 | – | – | – | [ | ||
| La–NiMgAl | co- | Ni: 2.1 wt % | 25– | 32.5– | – | 0–0.06 gC/gcatalyst·h | [ | ||
| NiCoMg/Al2O3 | co- | Ni: 3, Co: 3, Mg: 3 wt % | 95.1 | 96.2 | 0.982 | 1.3 wt % | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO | wetness impregnation | Ni: | 25– | 27– | 0.64– | – | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO (111) | impregnation | Ni: | 28– | 40– | – | – | [ | ||
| Ni–CeO2/MgO | surfactant- | Ni: | 27– | 30– | – | – | [ | ||
| Ni/MgO | surfactant- | Ni: | 67.5– | 62.4– | 0.58– | – | [ | ||
| NiMgAl | sol–gel | Ni: 5 wt %, | 55 | 80 | 1.2 | – | [ | ||
| Ni0.5Mg2.5Al0.9La0.1O4.5 | co- | La: 0.04–0.15a | 96 | 90 | 1.1 | 20.8 wt % | [ | ||
amolar ratio; bweight ratio.
Figure 9(a) Schematic illustration of the two synthesis methods for the MgO basic sites formation on SBA-15, (b) TPH profiles of spent catalysts after 40 h stability test. Reprinted with permission from [119], copyright 2013 Elsevier.
The average particle diameter, Dp, of Ni0 and the carbon content in the catalysts after reaction [19]. ME = microemulsion method; IM = impregnation method. DRM = dry reforming of methane; DRP = dry reforming of propane.
| Catalyst | DRM | DRP | ||
| C content (wt %)b | C content (wt %)b | |||
| NiMg/Al2O3 IM | 20 | 13 | 25 | 26 |
| NiMg/Al2O3 ME | 16 | 0.5 | 16 | 5 |
aCalculated by the Scherrer equation; bObtained by elemental analysis.
Figure 10(a) CH4 conversion, (b) CO2 conversion, (c) H2/CO ratio of catalysts with different nickel loadings in the DRM reaction, CH4/CO2 1:1 and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 1.8 × 104 mL/h·gcat. Reprinted with permission from [108], copyright 2014 Elsevier.
Figure 11Stability of CH4 conversion over Ni/MgO catalysts with different Ni loadings (5% to 15%) in a DRM reaction at 700 °C, CH4/CO2 1:1, and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 1.8 × 104 mL/h·gcat. Reprinted with permission from [108], copyright 2014 Elsevier.
Figure 12Effect of MgO loading on (a) CH4, (b) CO2 conversion and (c) H2/CO molar ratio over various MgO loadings (5, 10, 25 wt %). Reprinted from [38], copyright 2014, Springer Nature.
Figure 13Conversion of methane (a) and carbon dioxide (b) on N55M11 calcined at different temperatures (■) 400 °C, (●) 600 °C and (▲) 800 °C and reduced at 700 °C. SBET as a function of the calcination temperature. Reprinted with permission from [92], copyright 2006 Elsevier.
Figure 14The effect of reaction temperature on catalyst performance: (a) CH4 conversion, (b) CO2 conversion, at feed ratio CH4/CO2 1:1, gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 36000 mL/h·g, P = 1.01 × 105 Pa. Reprinted with permission from [109], copyright 2015 Elsevier.
Influence of feed ratio on the catalytic performance of 5 wt % Ni/MgO catalysts in DRM reaction at 700 °C and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 1.0 × 104 mL/h·gcat [111].
| Feed ratio CO2/CH4 | CH4 conversion (%) | CO2 conversion (%) | H2/CO |
| 3:1 | 97.2 | 62.4 | 0.58 |
| 2:1 | 89.3 | 69.3 | 0.65 |
| 1:1 | 81.6 | 83.8 | 0.80 |
| 1:2 | 67.5 | 89.5 | 0.97 |
Influence of feed ratio on the activity of a 10 wt % Ni/MgO catalyst in the DRM reaction at 700 °C and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) of 1.8 × 104 mL/h·gcat [108].
| Feed ratio CO2/CH4 | CH4 conversion (%) | CO2 conversion (%) | H2/CO |
| 1:2 | 60.42 | 81.95 | 0.91 |
| 1:1 | 69.07 | 77.35 | 0.80 |
| 1.5:1 | 78.40 | 66.13 | 0.77 |
| 2:1 | 86.29 | 59.56 | 0.64 |
Figure 15Influence of gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) on the catalyst performance of 20 wt % Ni/3 wt % MgO–Al2O3 catalyst at a feed ratio CH4/CO2 1:1, T = 650 °C. Reprinted with permission from [70], copyright 2014 Elsevier.
Effect of gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) on the activity of a 10 wt % Ni/MgO catalyst in DRM reaction at 700 °C and molar ratio of CH4/CO2 1:1 [108].
| GHSV 104 (mL/h·gcat) | CH4 conversion (%) | CO2 conversion (%) |
| 0.6 | 83.75 | 86.77 |
| 0.9 | 80.16 | 84.33 |
| 1.2 | 75.60 | 80.36 |
| 1.5 | 66.14 | 70.75 |
| 1.8 | 63.36 | 68.99 |
| 2.4 | 58.88 | 64.61 |