Impregnated and Co-precipitated Pd–Ga2O3, Pd–In2O3 and Pd–Ga2O3–In2O3 Catalysts: Influence of the Microstructure on the CO2 Selectivity in Methanol Steam Reforming

22Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Abstract: To focus on the influence of the intermetallic compound—oxide interface of Pd-based intermetallic phases in methanol steam reforming (MSR), a co-precipitation pathway has been followed to prepare and subsequently structurally and catalytically characterize a set of nanoparticulate Ga2O3- and In2O3-supported GaPd2 and InPd catalysts, respectively. To study the possible promoting effect of In2O3, an In2O3-doped Ga2O3-supported GaPd2 catalyst has also been examined. While, upon reduction, the same intermetallic compounds are formed, the structure of especially the Ga2O3 support is strikingly different: rhombohedral and spinel-like Ga2O3 phases, as well as hexagonal GaInO3 and rhombohedral In2O3 phases are observed locally on the materials prior to methanol steam reforming by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Overall, the structure, phase composition and morphology of the co-precipitated catalysts are much more complex as compared to the respective impregnated counterparts. However, this induces a beneficial effect in activity and CO2 selectivity in MSR. Both Ga2O3 and In2O3 catalysts show a much higher activity, and in the case of GaPd2–Ga2O3, a much higher CO2 selectivity. The promoting effect of In2O3 is also directly detectable, as the CO2 selectivity of the co-precipitated supported Ga2O3–In2O3 catalyst is much higher and comparable to the purely In2O3-supported material, despite the more complex structure and morphology. In all studied cases, no deactivation effects have been observed even after prolonged time-on-stream for 12 h, confirming the stability of the systems. Graphical Abstract: The presence of a variety of distinct supported intermetallic InPd and GaPd2 particle phases is not detrimental to activity/selectivity in methanol steam reforming as long as the appropriate intermetallic phases are present and they exhibit optimized intermetallic-support phase boundary dimensions. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rameshan, C., Lorenz, H., Armbrüster, M., Kasatkin, I., Klötzer, B., Götsch, T., … Penner, S. (2018). Impregnated and Co-precipitated Pd–Ga2O3, Pd–In2O3 and Pd–Ga2O3–In2O3 Catalysts: Influence of the Microstructure on the CO2 Selectivity in Methanol Steam Reforming. Catalysis Letters, 148(10), 3062–3071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-018-2491-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free