Advertisement

H2S Poisoning and Regeneration of a Nickel Spinellized Catalyst Prepared from Waste Metallurgical Residues, During Dry Autothermal Methane Reforming

  • Frank Blondel Dega
  • Nicolas AbatzoglouEmail author
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this work was to test the resistance to H2S of the nickel upgraded slag oxides (Ni-UGSO), a recent patented catalyst prepared from a negative value metallurgical residue. A previous lab-scale (0.3 g of catalyst) study highlighted that at atmospheric pressure the optimal conditions of autothermal methane reforming, using the Ni-UGSO catalyst are molar CH4/CO2 = 3, CH4/O2 = 2, at 850 °C and GHSV = 4500 ml/h/kg(STP). The present work was performed at these conditions and studied Ni-UGSO deactivation when exposed to 275 ppm of H2S. Two regeneration methods have been assessed: self-regeneration and the regeneration by calcination. At the test conditions, the deactivation of Ni-UGSO took approximatively 2 h with an exponential decrease of CH4 conversion from 92 to 44% (steady state value) and proved reversible. With the regeneration by calcination method, the full activity of the catalyst has been recovered while the self-regeneration led to a partial recovery of the initial activity (77% CH4 conversion). In presence of H2S, Ni-UGSO did not completely deactivate because : (1) its activity is due to a synergistic effect of many elements (not only Ni0) and (2) H2S feeding created a stable equilibrium between Ni0 and NiS, leading to a steady state where Ni-UGSO did not completely lose its activity. In the self-regeneration regime, the lack of H2S along with the reduction environment leads to a conversion of the majority of NiS into Ni0; since a part of NiS remained, this type of regeneration is partial. As opposed to the above, the oxidative calcination regime worked better because, in presence of oxygen, all sulfur is removed as SO2 and SO3, while calcination leads to the reformation of the initial Ni-UGSO structure through Ni spinellization. This new catalyst appears as a potential good competitor of those described in the literature and used in industry, because, while most of them deactivate completely in presence of H2S, Ni-UGSO, in presence of 275 ppm of H2S loose partly its activity. Its high resistance to hydrogen sulphide and its easy regeneration are highlighted in this article.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Spinel Regeneration Nickel Calcination Deactivation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank FRQNT (Fonds de Recherche du Québec: Nature & Technologies) and the company Rio-Tinto Iron and Titanium (RTIT) for the financial support of this project. Special thanks to Dr. Mostafa Chamoumi, post-doctoral fellow in the GRTPC & P (Groupe de recherches sur les technologies et procédés de conversion & pharmaceutiques) of the Université de Sherbrooke, for his scientific and technical support as well as Mr. Guillaume Hudon and Yves Pépin of RTIT for providing the catalyst support (UGSO).

Authors contribution

The contribution of the technicians Mr. Stéphane Gutierrez and Mr. Carl Saint-Louis of CCM of Université de Sherbrooke (Centre de caractérisation des matériaux) are also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Jing G, Zhaoyin H, Hui L, Zheng X (2011) Chapter 7—dry (CO2) reforming. Elsevier, New York, pp 191–221Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kale GR, Doke S, Anjikar A (2017) Process thermoneutral point in dry autothermal reforming for CO2 utilization. J CO2 Util 18: 318–25Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bychkov VY, Tyulenin YP, Firsova AA, Shafranovsky EA, Gorenberg AY, Korchak VN (2011) Carbonization of nickel catalysts and its effect on methane dry reforming. Appl Catal A Gen 453:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madloch S, Bmwi MCG, March A (2018) DryRef II—energy-efficient production of synthesis gas by dry reforming at industrial scale. DECHEMA FORSCHUNGSINSTITUT, BMWi (03E71282E), 1st April 2015–31st March 2018Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanchard J, Achouri I, Abatzoglou N (2016) H2S poisoning of NiAl2O4/Al2O3-YSZ catalyst during methane dry reforming. Can J Chem Eng 94(4):650–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li L, Howard C, King DL, Gerber M, Dagle R, Stevens D (2010) Regeneration of sulfur deactivated Ni-based biomass syngas cleaning catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(20):10144–10148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank BD, Mostafa C, Braidy N, Abatzoglou N (2019) Autothermal dry reforming of methane with a nickel spinellized catalyst prepared from a negative value metallurgical residue. Renew Energy 138:1239–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gao Y, Jianga J, Menga Y, Yana F, Aihemaitia A (2018) A review of recent developments in hydrogen production via biogas dry reforming. Energy Convers Manage 171:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hashemnejad SM, Parvari M (2011) Deactivation and regeneration of nickel-based catalysts for steam-methane reforming. Chin J Catal 32(1):273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sapountzi FM, Zhao C, Boréave A, Retailleau-Mevel L, Niakolas D, Neofytidisband C, Vernoux P (2018) Sulphur tolerance of Au-modified Ni/GDC during catalytic methane steam reforming. Catal Sci Technol 8:1578–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elbaba IF, Williams PT (2014) Deactivation of nickel catalysts by sulfur and carbon for the pyrolysis-catalytic gasification/reforming of waste tires for hydrogen production. Energy Fuels 28(3):2104–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Izquierdo U, García-García I, Gutierrez Á, Arraibi J, Barrio V, Cambra J, Arias P (2018) Catalyst deactivation and regeneration processes in biogas tri-reforming process. The effect of hydrogen sulfide addition. Catalysts 8(1):12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prasad BVRSN, Janardhanan VM (2013) Modeling sulfur poisoning of Ni-based anodes in solid oxide fuel cells. J Electrochem Soc 161(3):F208–F213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Long RQ, Monfort SM, Arkenberg GB, Matter PH, Swartz SL (2012) Sulfur tolerant magnesium nickel silicate catalyst for reforming of biomass gasification products to syngas. Catalysts 2(4):264–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hua B, Yan N, Li M, Sun YF, Chen J, Zhang YQ, Li J, Etsell T, Sarkar P, Luo JL (2016) Toward highly efficient: in situ dry reforming of H2S contaminated methane in solid oxide fuel cells via incorporating a coke/sulfur resistant bimetallic catalyst layer. J Mater Chem A 4(23):9080–9087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadooghi P, Rauch R (2013) Sulfur deactivation effects on catalytic steam reforming of methane produced by biomass gasification. Fuel Process Technol 110:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Appari S, Bauri R, Jayanti S, Deutschmann O, Janardhanan VM (2013) A micro-kinetic model for catalyst deactivation and regeneration during steam reforming of biogas on Ni. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39(1):297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Navadol L, Shivanahalli R, Wattana S, Thanaporn P, Suwit P (2004) Effects of H2S, CO2, and O2 on catalytic methane steam reforming over Ni catalyst on CeO2 and Al2O3 supports. Sustain Energy Environ 9:129–133Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hepola J, Simell P (1997) Sulfur poisoning of nickel-based hot gas cleaning catalysts in synthetic gasification gas. Catal Deactiv 111:471–478Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Misture ST, McDevitt KM, Glass KC, Edwards DD, Howe JY, Rector KD, He H, Vogel SC (2015) Sulfur-resistant and regenerable Ni/Co spinel-based catalysts for methane dry reforming. Catal Sci Technol 5(9):4565–4574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chamoumi M, Abatzoglou N, Blanchard J, Iliuta MC, Larachi F (2017) Dry reforming of methane with a new catalyst derived from a negative value mining residue spinellized with nickel. Catal Today 291:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Song P, Wen D, Guo ZX, Korakianitis T (2008) Oxidation investigation of nickel nanoparticles. Phys Chem Chem Phys 10:5057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bali A, Blanchard J, Chamoumi M, Abatzoglou N (2018) Bio-oil steam reforming over a mining residue functionalized with Ni as catalyst: Ni-UGSO. Catalysts 8:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boris VL (2002) Mechanism and kinetics of thermal decomposition of carbonates. Thermochemica Acta 386:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Navarro CR, Agudo ER, Luque A, Navarro ABR, Huertas MO (2009) Thermal decomposition of calcite: mechanism of formation and textural evolution of CaO nanocrystals. Am Mineral 14:578–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tomaszewicz E, Kotfica M (2004) Mechanism and kinetics of thermal decomposition of nickel (II) sulfate (IV) hexahydrate. J Therm Anal Calorim 77:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang Q, Lü J, Ma L, Lu C, Liu W, Li X (2013) Study on deactivation by sulfur and regeneration of Pd/C catalyst in hydrogenation of N-(3-nitro-4-methoxyphenyl) acetamide. Chin J Chem Eng 21(6):622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Argyle M, Bartholomew C (2015) Heterogeneous catalyst deactivation and regeneration: a review. Catalysts 5(1):145–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Braidy N, Bastien S, Blanchard J, Fauteux-Lefebvre C, Achouri IE, Abatzoglou N (2017) Activation mechanism and microstructural evolution of a YSZ/Ni–alumina catalyst for dry reforming of methane. Catal Today 291:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnological EngineeringUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations