Professional Documents
Culture Documents
School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Institute of Chemical Processes, Seoul National University, Shinlim-dong, Kwanak-ku, Seoul
151-744, South Korea
b
Department of Environmental Engineering and Energy, Myongji University, Nam-dong, Cheoin-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 449-728, South
Korea
article info
abstract
Article history:
different Zr/Al molar ratio (X) were prepared by a single-step epoxide-driven solegel
method, and they were applied to the hydrogen production by steam reforming of ethanol.
7 November 2012
The effect of Zr/Al molar ratio of Ni-AZ-X catalysts on their physicochemical properties
and catalytic activities was investigated. Textural and chemical properties of Ni-AZ-X
catalysts were strongly influenced by Zr/Al molar ratio. Surface area of Ni-AZ-X catalysts
decreased with increasing Zr/Al molar ratio due to the lattice contraction of ZrO2 caused by
Keywords:
the incorporation of Al3 into ZrO2. Interaction between nickel oxide species and support
Hydrogen production
(Al2O3eZrO2) decreased with increasing Zr/Al molar ratio through the formation of NiO
increasing Zr/Al molar ratio due to the loss of acid sites of Al2O3 by the addition of ZrO2.
catalyst
Acidity of Ni-AZ-X catalysts served as a crucial factor determining the catalytic perfor-
mance in the steam reforming of ethanol; an optimal acidity was required for maximum
Acidity
production of hydrogen. Among the catalysts tested, Ni-AZ-0.2 (Zr/Al 0.2) catalyst with
an intermediate acidity exhibited the best catalytic performance in the steam reforming of
ethanol.
Copyright 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
1.
Introduction
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
298 K
174 kJ/mol)
(1)
(2)
(3)
49 kJ/mol)
(4)
(5)
(6)
41.2 kJ/mol)
1377
2.
Experimental
2.1.
Preparation of mesoporous NieAl2O3eZrO2 xerogel
catalysts
A series of mesoporous NieAl2O3eZrO2 xerogel catalysts with
different Zr/Al molar ratio were prepared by a single-step
epoxide-driven solegel method, according to the similar
methods reported in the literatures [18,19]. Known amounts of
aluminum precursor (aluminum nitrate nonahydrate, SigmaeAldrich, 98%) and zirconium precursor (zirconium oxynitrate hydrate, SigmaeAldrich, 99%) were dissolved in
ethanol (58 ml). The total amount of two precursors was
0.04 mol. An appropriate amount of nickel precursor (nickel
nitrate hexahydrate, SigmaeAldrich, 97%) was then dissolved
in the solution containing aluminum and zirconium precursors with vigorous stirring. Propylene oxide (29 ml) as a gelation agent was then added into the resulting solution. Upon
maintaining the solution for a few minutes, deprotonation of
hydrated metal salts and subsequent cross-linking of metal
ion complex occurred for the formation of NieAl2O3eZrO2
composite gel. After the gel was aged for 2 days, it was washed
with ethanol two times in order to minimize the destruction of
pore structure of the catalyst by removing foreign substances
in the gel with ethanol. The product was then dried at 80 C in
a convection oven for 5 days. The resulting powder was finally
calcined at 550 C for 5 h to obtain a mesoporous
NieAl2O3eZrO2 xerogel catalyst. The prepared mesoporous
NieAl2O3eZrO2 xerogel catalysts were denoted as Ni-AZ-X
(X 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4), where X represented Zr/Al molar
ratio. Nickel loading of Ni-AZ-X catalysts was fixed at 10 wt%.
2.2.
Characterization
Nitrogen adsorptionedesorption isotherms of Ni-AZ-X catalysts were obtained with an ASAP-2010 (Micromeritics)
instrument. Chemical compositions of Ni-AZ-X catalysts were
determined by ICP-AES (ICPS-1000IV, Shimadzu) analyses.
Crystalline structures of calcined and reduced catalysts were
investigated by XRD (D-Max2500-PC, Rigaku) measurements
using Cu-Ka radiation (l 1.541
A) operated at 50 kV and
100 mA. In order to examine the interaction between nickel
species and support, temperature-programmed reduction
(TPR) measurements were conducted in a conventional flow
system with a moisture trap connected to a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) at temperatures ranging from room
temperature to 1000 C with a ramping rate of 5 C/min. For
the TPR measurements, a mixed stream of H2 (2 ml/min) and
1378
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
2.3.
Hydrogen yield %
Si;carboncontaining
FEtOH;in FEtOH;out
100
FEtOH;in
FH2 ;out
100
3 FEtOH;in FEtOH;out
Ni-AZ-0.4
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0
3.1.
0.6
0.8
1.0
Fig. 1 e Nitrogen adsorptionedesorption isotherms of NiAZ-X (X [ 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) catalysts calcined at
550 C.
isotherm measurements as represented in Fig. 1. All the NiAZ-X catalysts exhibited type-IV isotherms with H2-type
hysteresis loops, indicating the presence of well-developed
mesopores [20]. Detailed physicochemical properties of NiAZ-X (X 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) catalysts are summarized in
Table 1. The observed Zr/Al molar ratios of Ni-AZ-X catalysts
were quite similar to the designed values. Surface area of NiAZ-X catalysts decreased with increasing Zr/Al molar ratio.
This might be due to the increased textural density of Ni-AZ-X
catalysts caused by the addition of ZrO2 into NieAl2O3
composite [21]. The lowest surface area of Ni-AZ-0.4 catalyst
could be explained by higher surface energy of Zr4 than Al3;
the coalescence of structure occurred for the minimization of
surface energy, resulting in the decrease of surface area
[22,23]. However, pore volume and average pore diameter of
Ni-AZ-X catalysts showed no consistent trend with respect to
Zr/Al molar ratio.
(7)
(8)
(9)
0.4
Zr/Al
molar
ratioa
Surface
area
(m2/g)b
Pore
volume
(cm3/g)c
Average
pore
diameter (nm)d
Ni-AZ-0
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.4
0
0.07
0.15
0.25
0.39
339
336
320
292
214
0.66
0.62
0.63
0.49
0.28
5.5
5.3
5.7
5.0
3.9
ni Fi;carbon-containing product
100
product %
2 FEtOH;in FEtOH;out
3.
0.2
a
b
c
d
1379
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
486
ZrO2 (1 1 1)
NiAl2O4
Ni-AZ-0.4
3.2.
568
572
464
Ni-AZ-0.3
585
454
Ni-AZ-0.2
590
Ni-AZ-0.1
638
Ni-AZ-0
200
400
600
Temperature
800
1000
(oC)
NiO
Ni (1 1 1) Ni (2 0 0)
Ni (2 2 0)
Ni-AZ-0.4
Ni-AZ-0.4
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0
Ni-AZ-0
20
30
40
50
60
2 Theta (degree)
70
80
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2 Theta (degree)
Fig. 4 e XRD patterns of Ni-AZ-X (X [ 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and
0.4) catalysts reduced at 550 C.
1380
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
Fig. 5 e TEM images of (a) Ni-AZ-0, (b) Ni-AZ-0.2, and (c) Ni-AZ-0.4 catalysts reduced at 550 C, and EDX maps with
distribution of (I) Ni, (II) Al, and (III) Zr.
3.4.
Ni-AZ-0.4
3.3.
Crystalline structure and metal dispersion of
reduced Ni-AZ-X catalysts
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0
100
1381
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
200
Ni-AZ-0
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.4
131
124
101
86
79
160
Hydrogen yield (%)
Catalyst
120
3.5.
Hydrogen production by steam reforming of ethanol
over Ni-AZ-X catalysts
Ni-AZ-0.4
80
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.1
40
Ni-AZ-0
0
0
Fig. 7 shows the hydrogen yields with time on stream over NiAZ-X (X 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) catalysts in the steam
reforming of ethanol at 500 C. Both Ni-AZ-0 and Ni-AZ-0.1
catalysts experienced a catalytic deactivation resulting from
the significant carbon deposition on the catalyst surface
(Table 3). However, Ni-AZ-X (X 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) catalysts
showed a stable performance with time on stream. It is
believed that the addition of ZrO2 improved the catalytic
stability by inhibiting coke formation [12].
Detailed catalytic performance of Ni-AZ-X (X 0, 0.1, 0.2,
0.3, and 0.4) catalysts in the steam reforming of ethanol at
500 C after a 900 min-reaction is summarized in Table 3.
Complete conversion of ethanol was achieved in all the
catalysts under the conditions of high reaction temperature
and excess amount of steam. This is in good agreement with
the previous reports [6,36]. Selectivity for C2H4 over Ni-AZ-X
catalysts decreased in the order of Ni-AZ-0 (9.8%) > Ni-AZ-0.1
(1.6%) > Ni-AZ-0.2 (0%) Ni-AZ-0.3 (0%) Ni-AZ-0.4 (0%). This
can be explained by the fact that large amount of acid sites in
the supports promoted the dehydration of ethanol to ethylene
via one-step elimination mechanism [37]. The amount of
carbon deposition decreased in the order of Ni-AZ0 (28.8%) > Ni-AZ-0.1 (21.5%) > Ni-AZ-0.2 (3.5%) > Ni-AZ-0.3
(2.6%) > Ni-AZ-0.4 (1.3%) (Table 3). This might be because ZrO2
in the Ni-AZ-X catalysts hindered both ethanol dehydration
reaction (Eq. (2)) and ethylene formation reaction related to
coking [38]. It was also observed that CO/CO2 molar ratio
increased with increasing Zr/Al molar ratio (with decreasing
acidity) in the order of Ni-AZ-0 (0.045) < Ni-AZ-0.1 (0.049) z NiAZ-0.2 (0.053) Ni-AZ-0.3 (0.053) < Ni-AZ-0.4 (0.240). This
200
400
600
800
1000
Time (min)
Fig. 7 e Hydrogen yields with time on stream in the steam
reforming of ethanol over Ni-AZ-X (X [ 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and
0.4) catalysts at 500 C. All the catalysts were reduced at
550 C for 3 h prior to the reaction.
Table 3 e Catalytic performance of Ni-AZ-X catalysts in the steam reforming of ethanol at 500 C after a 900 min-reaction.
Catalyst
Ethanol
conversion (%)
Hydrogen
yield (%)
Selectivity
for C2H4 (%)
CO/CO2
molar ratio
Amount of carbon
deposition (wt%)a
Ni-AZ-0
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0.2
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.4
100
100
100
100
100
104
123
137
130
119
9.8
1.6
0
0
0
0.045
0.049
0.053
0.053
0.240
28.8
21.5
3.5
2.6
1.3
1382
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
140
140
Ni-AZ-0.2
b
Ni-AZ-0.3
Ni-AZ-0.1
Ni-AZ-0.4
110
Ni-AZ-0.3
130
120
Ni-AZ-0.2
130
Ni-AZ-0.1
120
Ni-AZ-0.4
110
Ni-AZ-0
Ni-AZ-0
100
100
90
90
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Fig. 8 e Hydrogen yields over Ni-AZ-X (X [ 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) catalysts in the steam reforming of ethanol obtained after
a 900 min-reaction, plotted as a function of (a) Zr/Al molar ratio and (b) acidity of the catalyst.
4.
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Global Frontier R&D Program
on Center for Multiscale Energy System funded by the
National Research Foundation under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea (20110031575).
references
i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 8 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 7 6 e1 3 8 3
1383
[26] Breval E, Deng Z, Chiou S, Pantano CG. Sol-gel prepared Nialumina composite materials. J Mater Sci 1992;27:1464e8.
[27] Kim P, Joo JB, Kim H, Kim W, Kim Y, Song IK, et al.
Preparation of mesoporous Ni-alumina catalyst by one-step
sol-gel method: control of textural properties and catalytic
application to the hydrodechlorination of o-dichlorobenzene.
Catal Lett 2005;104:184e9.
[28] Seo JG, Youn MH, Park S, Lee J, Lee SH, Lee H, et al. Hydrogen
production by steam reforming of LNG over Ni/Al2O3eZrO2
catalysts: effect of ZrO2 and preparation method of
Al2O3eZrO2. Korean J Chem Eng 2008;25:95e8.
[29] Youn MH, Seo JG, Cho KM, Jung JC, Kim H, La KW, et al. Effect
of support on hydrogen production by auto-thermal
reforming of ethanol over supported nickel catalysts. Korean
J Chem Eng 2008;25:236e8.
[30] Pines H, Haag WO. Alumina: catalyst and support. I.
Alumina, its intrinsic acidity and catalystic activity. J Am
Chem Soc 1960;82:2471e83.
[31] Krokidis X, Raybaud P, Gobichon AE, Rebours B, Euzen P,
Toulhoat H. Theoretical study of the dehydration process of
boehmite to g-Alumina. J Phys Chem B 2001;105:5121e30.
[32] Kim Y, Kim C, Kim P, Yi J. Effect of preparation conditions on
the phase transformation of mesoporous alumina. J Noncryst Solids 2005;351:550e6.
[33] Onfroy T, Li W-C, Schuth F, Knozinger H. Surface chemistry
of carbon-templated mesoporous aluminas. Phys Chem
Chem Phys 2009;11:3671e9.
[34] Kwak JH, Hu JZ, Kim DH, Szanyi J, Peden CHF. Pentacoordinated Al3 ions as preferential nucleation sites for BaO
on g-Al2O3: an ultra-high-magnetic field 27Al MAS NMR
study. J Catal 2007;251:189e94.
[35] Cutrufello MG, Ferino I, Monaci R, Rombi E, Solinas V. Acidbase properties of zirconium, cerium and lanthanum oxides
by calorimetric and catalytic investigation. Top Catal 2002;
19:225e40.
[36] Wang W, Wang YQ. Thermodynamic analysis of steam
reforming of ethanol for hydrogen generation. Int J Energy
Res 2008;32:1432e43.
[37] Mattos LV, Jacobs G, Davis BH, Noronha FB. Production of
hydrogen from ethanol: review of reaction mechanism and
catalyst deactivation. Chem Rev 2012;112:4094e123.
[38] Choong CKS, Huang L, Zhong Z, Lin J, Hong L, Chen L. Effect
of calcium addition on catalytic ethanol steam reforming of
Ni/Al2O3: II. Acidity/basicity, water adsorption and catalytic
activity. Appl Catal A Gen 2011;407:155e62.
P, Levec J, Pintar A. Effect of structural and acidity/
[39] Djinovic
basicity changes of CuOeCeO2 catalysts on their activity for
water-gas shift reaction. Catal Today 2008;138:222e7.
[40] Rangel MC, Berrocal GP, Maciel CG, Assaf JM. Comparison
between zirconia and alumina supports for nickel-based
catalysts for hydrogen production. Adv Chem Res 2011;10:
341e59.