CeO2 and Co3O4–CeO2 nanoparticles were synthesized, thoroughly characterized, and evaluated in the COPrOx reaction. The CeO2 nanoparticles were synthesized by the diffusion-controlled precipitation method with ethylene glycol. A notably higher yield was obtained when H2O2 was used in the synthesis procedure. For comparison, two commercial samples of CeO2 nanoparticles (Nyacol®)—one calcined and the other sintered—were also studied. Catalytic results of bare CeO2 calcined at 500 °C showed a strong influence of the method of synthesis. Despite having similar BET area values, the CeO2 synthesized without H2O2 was the most active sample. Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts with three different Co/(Co + Ce) atomic ratios, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5, were prepared by the wet impregnation of the CeO2 nanoparticles. TEM and STEM observations showed that impregnation produced mixed oxides composed of small CeO2 nanoparticles located both over the surface and inside the Co3O4 crystals. The mixed oxide catalysts prepared with a cobalt atomic ratio of 0.5 showed methane formation, which started at 200 °C due to the reaction between CO2 and H2. However, above 250 °C, the reaction between CO and H2 became important, thus contributing to CO elimination with a small H2 loss. As a result, CO could be totally eliminated in a wide temperature range, from 200 to 400 °C. The methanation reaction was favored by the reduction of the cobalt oxide, as suggested by the TPR experiments. This result is probably originated in Ce–Co interactions, related to the method of synthesis and the surface area of the mixed oxides obtained.
CeO2 Co3O4 Temperature Program Reduction Methanation Reaction Temperature Program Reduction Profile
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from UNL, ANPCyT, and CONICET. Thanks are given to María Fernanda Mori for the XPS measurements and to Esther María Fixman for the BET measurements and her advice on the technique.
Bion N, Epron F, Moreno M, Mariño F, Duprez D (2008) Preferential oxidation of carbon monoxide in the presence of hydrogen (PROX) over noble metals and transition metal oxides: advantages and drawbacks. Top Catal 51:76–88. doi:10.1007/s11244-008-9116-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konysheva EY, Francis SM (2013) Identification of surface composition and chemical states in composites comprised of phases with fluorite and perovskite structures by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Appl Surf Sci 268:278–287. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2012.12.079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggio E, Jobbágy M, Moreno M, Laborde M, Mariño F, Baronetti G (2011) Influence of the calcination temperature on the structure and reducibility of nanoceria obtained from crystalline Ce(OH)CO3 precursor. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:15899–15905. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.09.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesinger MC, Payne BP, Grosvenor AP, Lau LWM, Gerson AR, Smart RSC (2011) Resolving surface chemical states in XPS analysis of first row transition metals, oxides and hydroxides: Cr, Mn, Fe, Co and Ni. Appl Surf Sci 257:2717–2730. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.10.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razeghi A, Khodadadi A, Ziaei-Azad H, Mortazavi Y (2010) Activity enhancement of Cu-doped ceria by reductive regeneration of CuO–CeO2 catalyst for preferential oxidation of CO in H2-rich streams. Chem Eng J 164:214–220. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.07.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen Y, Liu D, Yang L et al (2013) Ternary composite oxide catalysts CuO/Co3O4–CeO2 with wide temperature-window for the preferential oxidation of CO in H2-rich stream. Chem Eng J 234:88–98. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konsolakis M, Sgourakis M, Carabineiro SAC (2015) Surface and redox properties of cobalt-ceria binary oxides: on the effect of Co content and pretreatment conditions. Appl Surf Sci. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.02.188Google Scholar
Marbán G, López I, Valdés-Solís T, Fuertes AB (2008) Highly active structured catalyst made up of mesoporous Co3O4 nanowires supported on a metal wire mesh for the preferential oxidation of CO. Int J Hydrog Energy 33:6687–6695. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liotta LF, Di Carlo G, Pantaleo G, Venezia AM, Deganello G (2006) Co3O4/CeO2 composite oxides for methane emissions abatement: relationship between Co3O4–CeO2 interaction and catalytic activity. Appl Catal B 66:217–227. doi:10.1016/j.apcatb.2006.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan C-F, Chen H, Hu R-R et al (2014) Synthesis of mesoporous Co–Ce oxides catalysts by glycine-nitrate combustion approach for CO preferential oxidation reaction in excess H2. Int J Hydrog Energy 39:18695–18701. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar