| Literature DB >> 32411666 |
Anis H Fakeeha1,2, Samsudeen Olajide Kasim1, Ahmed Aidid Ibrahim1, Abdulrhman S Al-Awadi1, Eman Alzahrani3, Ahmed Elhag Abasaeed1, Ahmed E Awadallah4, Ahmed Sadeq Al-Fatesh1.
Abstract
A leading method for hydrogen production that is free of carbon oxides is catalytic methane decomposition. In this research, Fe and Fe-Ni supported catalysts prepared by the wet impregnation method were used in methane decomposition. The effects of doping the parent support (ZrO2) with La2O3 and WO3 were studied. It was discovered that the support doped with La2O3 gave the best performance in terms of CH4 conversion, H2 yield, and stability at the test condition, 800°C and 4,000-ml h-1 g-1 cat. space velocity. The addition of Ni significantly improved the performance of all the monometallic catalysts. The catalysts were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET), temperature-programmed reduction/oxidation (TPR/TPO), thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA), and microscopy (SEM and Raman) techniques. Phases of the different forms of Fe were identified by XRD. BET showed a drastic decline in the specific surface area of the catalysts with respect to the supports. TPR profiles revealed a progressive change in the valency of Fe in its combined form to the zero valence-free metal. The La2O3-promoted support gave the best performance and maintained good stability during the time on stream.Entities:
Keywords: Fe; Fe–Ni; La2O3 + ZrO2; Raman spectra; WO3 + ZrO2; graphitization; hydrogen; methane conversion
Year: 2020 PMID: 32411666 PMCID: PMC7201101 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2020.00317
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Figure 1XRD diffractograms for the Fe and Fe–Ni supported catalysts.
N2 physisorption results for the supports.
| ZrO2 | 325 | 29.7 |
| 10%WO3+ZrO2 | 112 | 3.70 |
| 9%La2O3+ZrO2 | 67.3 | 4.04 |
N2 physisorption results for the synthesized catalysts.
| 40%Fe/ZrO2 | 11.23 | 36.88 | 0.09 |
| 40%Fe/La2O3+ZrO2 | 16.34 | 30.14 | 0.11 |
| 40%Fe/WO3+ZrO2 | 21.75 | 20.33 | 0.10 |
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ZrO2 | 7.16 | 43.55 | 0.06 |
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ | 21.12 | 27.37 | 0.13 |
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ | 23.36 | 18.19 | 0.01 |
Figure 2Adsorption–desorption isotherms.
Figure 3Pore size distribution of Fe and Fe–Ni supported catalysts.
Figure 4Temperature-programmed reduction (TPR) profiles of the single metal and bimetallic supported catalysts.
Quantitative analysis of H2 consumption during H2-TPR.
| 40%Fe/ZrO2 | 363 | 692.53 | 5117.28 |
| 628 | 4192.77 | ||
| 743 | 231.98 | ||
| 40%Fe/La2O3+ZrO2 | 383 | 213.13 | 4531.15 |
| 594 | 4184.96 | ||
| 754 | 126.86 | ||
| 981 | 6.20 | ||
| 40%Fe/WO3+ZrO2 | 496 | 150.96 | 5487.09 |
| 578 | 30.42 | ||
| 744 | 5305.71 | ||
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ZrO2 | 351 | 1786.02 | 8037.23 |
| 533 | 6251.21 | ||
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ | 528 | 7328.56 | 7328.56 |
| 20%Fe+20%Ni/ | 533 | 7713.91 | 7713.91 |
Figure 5SEM images of fresh calcined catalysts. (a) 40%Fe/ZrO2; (b) 40%Fe/La2O3 + ZrO2; (c) 40%Fe/WO3 + ZrO2; (d) 20%Fe + 20%Ni/ZrO2; (e) 20%Fe + 20%Ni/WO3 + ZrO2; and (f) spent 40%Fe/ZrO2.
Figure 6CH4 conversion for the catalysts under investigation.
Figure 7H2 yield for the catalysts under investigation.
Comparison of catalytic performance with published results.
| 40%Fe/Al2O3 | 750 | 6,000 | 75 | Qian et al., |
| Ni-Fe/Al2O3 | 800 | 75,000 | 60 | Tezel et al., |
| 2.5Ni-Y/SiO2 | 800 | 60,000 | 9 | Karaismailoglu et al., |
| 55Ni/MgO | 600 | 48,000 | 65 | Rastegarpanah et al., |
| 40%Fe/La2O3+ZrO2 | 800 | 4,000 | 79 | Present work |
| 20%Fe+Ni/La2O3+ZrO2 | 800 | 4,000 | 92 | Present work |
GHSV, Gas Hourly Space Velocity.
Figure 8Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) results for Fe/ZrO2, Fe/La2O3 + ZrO2, and Fe/WO3 + ZrO2 and their corresponding bimetallic catalysts.
Figure 9Temperature-programmed oxidation (TPO) profiles for the spent catalysts.
Figure 10Raman spectra for the used samples.
Figure 11XRD diffractograms of the reduced catalysts.