Advertisement

Rod-like and mushroom-like Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts derived from Ce-1,3,5-benzene tricarboxylic acid for CO preferential oxidation: effects of compositions and morphology

  • Chunlei GuEmail author
  • Yingyu Li
  • Yue Mo
  • Jinqi Lan
  • Yancong Jiang
  • Shubo Feng
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Rod-like and mushroom-like Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts were synthesized using CeBTC MOFs as self-sacrifice templates. The two kinds of Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts with different shapes were characterized by SEM, TEM, N2 physical-sorption, XRD, TPR, Raman, XPS. The effects of compositions and morphology on the catalytic activity were investigated. The catalytic activities of Co3O4–CeO2 are correlated with the results of SEM, TEM, N2 physical-sorption, XRD, TPR, Raman, XPS to give insights into the catalytic sites. The results indicate the obtained Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts exhibit rod-like and mushroom-like, replicating the morphology of CeBTC templates. The catalytic activities of Co3O4–CeO2 were arranged in this sequence: Co1Ce > Co6Ce > Co2Ce > Co4Ce > Co8Ce, regardless their different catalyst morphology. The mushroom-like catalysts are superior to the rod-like ones due to their high surface areas and small Co3O4 crystal sizes. The sequence of catalytic activity versus Co/Ce ratio are coincidence with the order of Co–Ce synergistic interaction and Co3+/Co deduced from results of XRD, TPR, Raman, XPS. This evidence revealed that the Co–Ce synergistic interaction and Co3+ ions are responsible for the high activity of Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts. The highest CO conversion of 99% catalyst was achieved over M-Co1Ce catalyst with 12.5% CO2 and 15% H2O at 215 °C, 20,000 mL g−1 h−1. In addition, CO conversion of M-Co1Ce catalyst maintained more than 99% for 54 h in the atmosphere of simulated reformate at 20,000 mL g−1 h−1, suggesting the M-Co1Ce catalyst demonstrates potential in practice application.

Keywords

Metal organic frameworks CO preferential oxidation Cobalt oxide Ceria Template 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial supports from National Natural Science Foundation of China (21406053), Natural Science Foundation of Hebei province of China (B2014208141) are gratefully appreciated. In addition, the authors acknowledged Engineering Research Center of Catalytic Oxidation Process and Technology of Shijiazhuang Hebei Province.

Supplementary material

11144_2019_1693_MOESM1_ESM.doc (4.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 4830 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Das HS, Tan CW, Yatim AHM (2017) Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: a review on power conditioning units and topologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76(Supplement C):268–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avgouropoulos G, Ioannides T (2008) TPD and TPSR study of CO interaction with CuO–CeO2 catalysts. J Mol Catal A 296(1–2):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park ED, Lee D, Lee HC (2009) Recent progress in selective CO removal in a H2-rich stream. Catal Today 139(4):280–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gamarra D, Cámara AL, Monte M, Rasmussen SB, Chinchilla LE, Hungría AB, Munuera G, Gyorffy N, Schay Z, Corberán VC, Conesa JC, Martínez-Arias A (2013) Preferential oxidation of CO in excess H2 over CuO/CeO2 catalysts: characterization and performance as a function of the exposed face present in the CeO2 support. Appl Catal B 130–131:224–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gu C, Lu S, Miao J, Liu Y, Wang Y (2010) Meso-macroporous monolithic CuO–CeO2/g/a-Al2O3 catalysts for CO preferential oxidation in hydrogen-rich gas: Effect of loading methods. Int J Hydrog Energy 35(12):6113–6122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jia AP, Deng Y, Hu GS, Luo MF, Lu JQ (2016) Kinetic and activity study of CO oxidation over CuO–MnOx–CeO2 catalysts. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 117(2):503–520.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-015-0947-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu Y, Takei T, Ohashi H, He H, Zhang X, Haruta M (2009) Pretreatments of Co3O4 at moderate temperature for CO oxidation at − 80 °C. J Catal 267(2):121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guo Q, Liu Y (2008) MnOx modified Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts for the preferential oxidation of CO in H2-rich gases. Appl Catal B 82(1–2):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan CF, Chen H, Hu R-R, Huang S, Luo W, Guo C, Li M, Li W (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(32):18695–18701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo Q, Chen S, Liu Y, Wang Y (2010) Stability of Co–Ce-Mn mixed-oxide catalysts for CO preferential oxidation in H2-rich gases. Chem Eng J 165(3):846–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aspromonte SG, Mizrahi MD, Alonso E, Ramallo-López JM, Boix AV (2017) Co/MCM41 catalyst in the COProx reaction prepared by supercritical CO2 reactive deposition. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 239:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2016.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qwabe LQ, Friedrich HB, Singh S (2015) Preferential oxidation of CO in a hydrogen rich feed stream using Co–Fe mixed metal oxide catalysts prepared from hydrotalcite precursors. J Mol Catal A 404–405:167–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcata.2015.04.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bao T, Zhao Z, Dai Y, Lin X, Jin R, Wang G, Muhammad T (2012) Supported Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts on modified activated carbon for CO preferential oxidation in H2-rich gases. Appl Catal B 119–120:62–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2012.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao Z, Bao T, Li Y, Min X, Zhao D, Muhammad T (2014) The supported CeO2/Co3O4–MnO2/CeO2 catalyst on activated carbon prepared by a successive-loading approach with superior catalytic activity and selectivity for CO preferential oxidation in H2-rich stream. Catal Commun 48:24–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2014.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rood SC, Ahmet HB, Gomez-Ramon A, Torrente-Murciano L, Reina TR, Eslava S (2019) Enhanced ceria nanoflakes using graphene oxide as a sacrificial template for CO oxidation and dry reforming of methane. Appl Catal B 242:358–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu C, Ding T, Gao W, Ma K, Tian Y, Li X (2017) CuO/CeO2 catalysts synthesized from Ce-UiO-66 metal-organic framework for preferential CO oxidation. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(27):17457–17465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.02.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang W, Li Y, Zhang R, He D, Liu H, Liao S (2011) Metal-organic framework as a host for synthesis of nanoscale Co3O4 as an active catalyst for CO oxidation. Catal Commun 12(10):875–879.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2011.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gu C, Qi R, Wei Y, Zhang X (2018) Preparation and performances of nanorod-like inverse CeO2–CuO catalysts derived from Ce-1,3,5-benzene tricarboxylic acid for CO preferential oxidation. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 124(2):651–667.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-018-1374-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park JE, Park ED (2014) Effects of surface area of Co–Mn–O catalysts on the selective CO oxidation in H2. Catal Lett 144(4):607–614.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-013-1185-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu Z, Zhou R, Zheng X (2008) Preferential oxidation of CO in excess hydrogen over a nanostructured CuO–CeO2 catalyst with high surface areas. Catal Commun 9(13):2183–2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davó-Quiñonero A, Navlani-García M, Lozano-Castelló D, Bueno-López A, Anderson JA (2016) Role of hydroxyl groups in the preferential oxidation of CO over copper oxide–cerium oxide catalysts. ACS Catal 6(3):1723–1731.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.5b02741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cecilia JA, Arango-Díaz A, Franco F, Jiménez-Jiménez J, Storaro L, Moretti E, Rodríguez-Castellón E (2015) CuO–CeO2 supported on montmorillonite-derived porous clay heterostructures (PCH) for preferential CO oxidation in H2-rich stream. Catal Today 253(Supplement C):126–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2015.01.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gurbani A, Ayastuy JL, González-Marcos MP, Gutiérrez-Ortiz MA (2010) CuO–CeO2 catalysts synthesized by various methods: Comparative study of redox properties. Int J Hydrog Energy 35(20):11582–11890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gawade P, Bayram B, Alexander A-MC, Ozkan US (2012) Preferential oxidation of CO (PROX) over CoOx/CeO2 in hydrogen-rich streams: effect of cobalt loading. Appl Catal B 128:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2012.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arango-Diaz A, Cecilia JA, Marrero-Jerez J, Nuñez P, Jiménez-Jiménez J, Rodríguez-Castellón E (2016) Freeze-dried Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts for the preferential oxidation of CO with the presence of CO2 and H2O in the feed. Ceram Int 42(6):7462–7474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.01.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malwadkar S, Bera P, Satyanarayana CVV (2019) Influence of cobalt on the performance of Cu–CeO2 catalysts for preferential oxidation of CO. J Rare Earth.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jre.2019.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang H, Yang W, Lv K, Zhu J, Xia Y, Tang D, Wen L (2018) Effect of the structure of CN/Silica composite support on the catalytic performances of Co3O4 for CO oxidation. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 255(Supplement C):36–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Q, Liu X, Fan W, Wang Y (2011) Manganese-promoted cobalt oxide as efficient and stable non-noble metal catalyst for preferential oxidation of CO in H2 stream. Appl Catal B 102(1–2):207–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.11.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 341:48–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.02.188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cwele T, Mahadevaiah N, Singh S, Friedrich HB (2016) Effect of Cu additives on the performance of a cobalt substituted ceria (Ce0.90Co0.10O2–δ) catalyst in total and preferential CO oxidation. Appl Catal B 182:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.08.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao Z, Lin X, Jin R, Dai Y, Wang G (2011) High catalytic activity in CO PROX reaction of low cobalt-oxide loading catalysts supported on nano-particulate CeO2–ZrO2 oxides. Catal Commun 12(15):1448–1451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2011.05.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yin Y, Liu K, Gao M, Zhang L, Su H, Zeng S (2015) Influence of the structure and morphology of CuO supports on the amount and properties of copper–cerium interfacial sites in inverse CeO2/CuO catalysts. J Mol Catal A 404(Supplement C):193–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcata.2015.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gómez LE, Tiscornia IS, Boix AV, Miró EE (2012) CO preferential oxidation on cordierite monoliths coated with Co/CeO2 catalysts. Int J Hydrog Energy 37(19):14812–14819.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.01.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guo Q, Liu Y (2007) Preferential oxidation of CO in H2 over Co3O4–CeO2 catalysts. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 92(1):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Y, Hu X, Zheng K, Wei X, Zhao Y (2018) Effect of SnO2 on the structure and catalytic performance of Co3O4 for N2O decomposition. Catal Commun 111:70–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2018.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao Z, Lin X, Jin R, Wang G, Muhammad T (2012) MOx (M = Mn, Fe, Ni or Cr) improved supported Co3O4 catalysts on ceria–zirconia nanoparticulate for CO preferential oxidation in H2-rich gases. Appl Catal B 115(Supplement C):53–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2011.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chagas CA, de Souza EF, Manfro RL, Landi SM, Souza MMVM, Schmal M (2016) Copper as promoter of the NiO–CeO2 catalyst in the preferential CO oxidation. Appl Catal B 182:257–265.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.09.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Artiglia L, Orlando F, Roy K, Kopelent R, Safonova O, Nachtegaal M, Huthwelker T, van Bokhoven JA (2017) Introducing time resolution to detect Ce(3 +) catalytically active sites at the Pt/CeO2 interface through ambient pressure X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J Phys Chem Lett 8(1):102–108.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b02314 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zeng S, Liu K, Zhang L, Qin B, Chen T, Yin Y, Su H (2014) Deactivation analyses of CeO2/CuO catalysts in the preferential oxidation of carbon monoxide. J Power Sources 261:46–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jian M, Yu K, Yu Z, Hu X, Zan Q, Yan N (2017) Morphology-dependent properties of Co3O4/CeO2 catalysts for low temperature dibromomethane (CH2Br2) oxidation. Chem Eng J 320:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Turczyniak S, Teschner D, Machocki A, Zafeiratos S (2016) Effect of the surface state on the catalytic performance of a Co/CeO2 ethanol steam-reforming catalyst. J Catal 340:321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2016.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunlei Gu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yingyu Li
    • 1
  • Yue Mo
    • 1
  • Jinqi Lan
    • 1
  • Yancong Jiang
    • 1
  • Shubo Feng
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Chemical and Pharmaceutical EngineeringHebei University of Science and TechnologyShijiazhuangChina
  2. 2.Engineering Research Center of Catalytic Oxidation Process and TechnologyShijiazhuangChina

Personalised recommendations