Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis

, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp 315–331 | Cite as

Molecular reaction kinetics model for the hydrodeoxygenation of low boiling point phenolic compounds in coal tar with Ni–Ce/SiO2 catalysts

  • Liuyi Pan
  • Menglong Niu
  • Yulong He
  • Yong Dan
  • Wenhong LiEmail author
  • Qingwei Kong
  • Limin Lu


In this study, 27 groups of hydrogenation experiments were carried out in a single-tube fixed-bed reactor using 9 phenolic compounds extracted from coal tar (fraction before 240 °C) as raw materials. Based on the experimental results, a set of molecular reaction kinetics model which involve 21 compounds and 33 chemical reactions was established. In this paper, the Runge–Kutta method was used to solve the dynamic equations, and the BFGS algorithm (a quasi-Newton optimization algorithm) is used to optimize the parameters of the dynamic model. The whole calculation process was completed on MATLAB software. The experimental results show that the maximum error of the model for predicting phenolic, unsaturated hydrocarbon and saturated hydrocarbon content in products is less than 5%, while the maximum error for predicting single substance is less than 10%. It could be calculated that the optimum temperature for hydrodeoxygenation of phenolic compounds is 633 K, which aims to retain aromatic hydrocarbons.


Hydrodeoxygenation Phenols Kinetic model Ni–Ce/SiO2 catalysts Reaction network 


Supplementary material

11144_2019_1612_MOESM1_ESM.docx (109 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 108 kb)


  1. 1.
    Li D, Li Z, Li W, Liu Q, Feng Z, Fan Z (2013) Hydrotreating of low temperature coal tar to produce clean liquid fuels. Anal Appl Pyrolysis 100:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li C, Suzuki K (2010) Resources, properties and utilization of tar. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sun M, Ma X, Yao Q, Wang R, Ma Y, Feng G, Shang J, Xu L, Yang Y (2011) GC-MS and TG-FTIR study of petroleum ether extract and residue from low temperature coal tar. Energy Fuels 25:1140–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niu M, Sun X, Li D, Cun W, Bai X, Zhang X, Li W (2017) The hydrodeoxygenation, hydrogenation, hydrodealkylation and ring-opening reaction in the hydrotreating of low temperature coal tar over Ni–Mo/γ-Al2O3 catalyst. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 121:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kan T, Wang HY, He HX, Li CS, Zhang SJ (2011) Experimental study on two-stage catalytic hydroprocessing of middle-temperature coal tar to clean liquid fuels. Fuel 90:3404–3409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollas GM, Lappas AA, Iatridis DK, Vasalos IA (2007) Five-lump kinetic model with selective catalyst deactivation for the prediction of the product selectivity in the fluid catalytic cracking process. Catal Today 127:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meng X, Xu C, Gao J, Li L (2006) Catalytic pyrolysis of heavy oils: 8-lump kinetic model. Appl Catal A 301:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng S, Wang J, Zhu Y, Zheng L, Ding F, Yang L, Yui S (2002) A new approach to determining product selectivity in gas oil cracking using a four-lump kinetic model. Energy Fuels 16:593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dave NC, Duffy GJ, Udaja P (1993) A four-lump kinetic model for the cracking/coking of recycled heavy oil. Fuel 72:1331–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu YH, Zhang YH, Dan Y, Yuan Y, Zhang L, Li WH, Li D (2015) Optimization of reaction variables and macrokinetics for the hydrodeoxygenation of full range low temperature coal tar. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 116:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sun J, Li D, Yao R, Sun Z, Li X, Li W (2015) Modeling the hydrotreatment of full range medium temperature coal tar by using lumping kinetic approach. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 114:451–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niu M, Zheng H, Sun X, Zhang S, Li D, Qiao J, Li W (2017) Kinetic model for low-temperature coal tar hydrorefining. Energy Fuels 31:5441–5447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valencia D, Klimova T (2012) Kinetic study of NiMo/SBA-15 catalysts prepared with citric acid in hydrodesulfurization of dibenzothiophene. Catal Commun 21:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kallinikos LE, Jess A, Papayannakos NG (2010) Kinetic study and H2S effect on refractory DBTs desulfurization in a heavy gas oil. J Catal 269:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castillo-Araiza CO, Chávez G, Dutta A, Reyes JADL, Nuñez S, García-Martínez JC (2015) Role of Pt–Pd/γ-Al2O3, on the HDS of 4,6-DMBT: kinetic modeling & contribution analysis. Fuel Process Technol 132:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niu ML, Sun XH, Gao R, Li D, Cui WG, Li WH (2016) Effect of dephenolization on low-temperature coal tar hydrogenation to produce fuel oil. Energy Fuels 30:10215–10221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wandas R, Surygala J, Śliwka E (1996) Conversion of cresols and naphthalene in the hydroprocessing of three-component model mixtures simulating fast pyrolysis tars. Fuel 75:687–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Messenger L, Attar A (1979) Thermodynamics of the transformations of oxygen-and sulphur-containing functional groups during coal liquefaction in hydrogen and hydrogen donor. Fuel 58:655–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Romero Y, Richard F, Brunet S (2010) Hydrodeoxygenation of 2-ethylphenol as a model compound of bio-crude over sulfided Mo-based catalysts: promoting effect and reaction mechanism. Appl Catal B 98(3):213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gevert SB, Eriksson M, Eriksson P (1994) Direct hydrodeoxygenation and hydrogenation of 2,6- and 3,5-dimethylphenol over sulphided CoMo catalyst. Appl Catal A 117(2):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Souza PMD, Lei N, Borges LEP (2014) Role of oxophilic supports in the selective hydrodeoxygenation of m-cresol on Pd catalysts. Catal Lett 144(12):2005–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramage MP, Graziani KR, Krambeck FJ (1980) Development of mobils kinetic reforming model. Chem Eng Sci 35:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Froment GF (1987) The kinetic of complex catalytic reactions. Chem Eng Sci 42:1073–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jenkins JH, Stephens TW (1980) Kinetics of catalytic reforming. Hydrocarb Process 59:163–167Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levenspiel O (1972) Experimental search for a simple rate equation to describe deactivating porous catalyst particles. J Cata 25:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hong Y, Wang Y (2017) Elucidation of reaction mechanism for, m-cresol hydrodeoxygenation over Fe based catalysts: a kinetic study. Catal Commun 100:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hachemi I, Murzin DY (2017) Kinetic modeling of fatty acid methyl esters and triglycerides hydrodeoxygenation over nickel and palladium catalysts. Chem Eng J 334:2201–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Qadar SA, Wiser WH, Hill GR (1968) Kinetics of hydrocracking of low temperature coal tar. Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Prepr 12:28–46Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gonc¸alves VOO, De Souza PM, Da Silva VT (2017) Kinetics of the hydrodeoxygenation of cresol isomers over Ni2P/SiO2: proposals of nature of deoxygenation active sites based on an experimental study. Appl Catal B 205:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liuyi Pan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Menglong Niu
    • 3
  • Yulong He
    • 1
  • Yong Dan
    • 1
  • Wenhong Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Qingwei Kong
    • 4
  • Limin Lu
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Chemical EngineeringNorthwest UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Chemistry & Chemical EngineeringBaoji University of Arts and SciencesBaojiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.College of Chemistry & Chemical EngineeringXi’an Shiyou UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Xi’an HengXu Science and Technology Development Co. LtdXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations