Advertisement

Transactions of Tianjin University

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 169–184 | Cite as

Preparation of CeO2-Modified Mg(Al)O-Supported Pt–Cu Alloy Catalysts Derived from Hydrotalcite-Like Precursors and Their Catalytic Behavior for Direct Dehydrogenation of Propane

  • Yingxia Li
  • Jiaxin Li
  • Xiao Yang
  • Xitao Wang
  • Yanhong Xu
  • Lihong ZhangEmail author
Research Article
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

A series of PtCuCeMgAl quintuple hydrotalcite-like compounds with different Ce contents were synthesized by one-pot method. After calcining and reduction, CeO2-modified Mg(Al)O-supported Pt–Cu alloy catalysts were obtained. To understand the effect of Cu and Ce, the structure and physico-chemistry properties of the catalysts were characterized and analyzed, and the catalytic behaviors were investigated in a direct dehydrogenation of propane to propene. The results show that the Pt4+, Cu2+, and Ce3+ ions can be incorporated into the brucite-like layers and the Ce content significantly affects the interaction strength between Pt and Cu and the dehydrogenation performance of propane. Under the reaction conditions, the highest propane conversion (45%) with 89% selectivity to propene and a 40% propene yield were achieved with a 0.3 wt% Ce-modified PtCu/Mg(Al)O catalyst. The improved catalytic performance is related to the easy formation of Pt–Cu alloy phase, excellent resistance to sintering, and coke deposits of active components modified by CeO2.

Keywords

Ce modification Pt–Cu alloy Propane dehydrogenation High dispersion Anti-sintering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21776214), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20161166), and the State Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering.

References

  1. 1.
    Baek J, Yun HJ, Yun D et al (2012) Preparation of highly dispersed chromium oxide catalysts supported on mesoporous silica for the oxidative dehydrogenation of propane using CO2: insight into the nature of catalytically active chromium sites. ACS Catal 2(9):1893–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun PP, Siddiqi G, Chi M et al (2010) Synthesis and characterization of a new catalyst Pt/Mg(Ga)(Al)O for alkane dehydrogenation. J Catal 274(2):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long LL, Xia K, Lang WZ et al (2017) The comparison and optimization of zirconia, alumina, and zirconia-alumina supported PtSnIn trimetallic catalysts for propane dehydrogenation reaction. J Ind Eng Chem 51:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Im J, Choi M (2016) Physicochemical stabilization of Pt against sintering for a dehydrogenation catalyst with high activity, selectivity, and durability. ACS Catal 6(5):2819–2826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang YW, Zhou YM, Qiu AD et al (2006) Propane dehydrogenation on PtSn/ZSM-5 catalyst: effect of tin as a promoter. Catal Commun 7(11):860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang YW, Zhou YM, Huang L et al (2011) Sn-modified ZSM-5 as support for platinum catalyst in propane dehydrogenation. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(13):7896–7902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang T, Jiang F, Liu G et al (2016) Effects of Ga doping on Pt/CeO2–Al2O3 catalysts for propane dehydrogenation. AIChE J 62(12):4365–4376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ma ZX, Wu ZW, Miller JT (2017) Effect of Cu content on the bimetallic Pt–Cu catalysts for propane dehydrogenation. Catal Struct React 3(1–2):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shen LL, Xia K, Lang WZ et al (2017) The effects of calcination temperature of support on PtIn/Mg(Al)O catalysts for propane dehydrogenation reaction. Chem Eng J 324:336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han ZP, Li SR, Jiang F et al (2014) Propane dehydrogenation over Pt–Cu bimetallic catalysts: the nature of coke deposition and the role of copper. Nanoscale 6(17):10000–10008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu X, Lang WZ, Long LL et al (2014) Improved catalytic performance in propane dehydrogenation of PtSn/γ-Al2O3 catalysts by doping indium. Chem Eng J 247:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shi L, Deng GM, Li WC et al (2015) Al2O3 nanosheets rich in pentacoordinate Al3+ ions stabilize Pt–Sn clusters for propane dehydrogenation. Angew Chem Int Edit 54(47):13994–13998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wegener EC, Wu Z, Tseng HT et al (2018) Structure and reactivity of Pt–In intermetallic alloy nanoparticles: highly selective catalysts for ethane dehydrogenation. Catal Today 299:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu CL, Xu HY, Ge QJ et al (2007) Properties of the metallic phase of zinc-doped platinum catalysts for propane dehydrogenation. J Mol Catal A Chem 266(1–2):80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xia K, Lang WZ, Li PP et al (2016) The influences of Mg/Al molar ratio on the properties of PtIn/Mg(Al)O-x catalysts for propane dehydrogenation reaction. Chem Eng J 284:1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veldurthi S, Shin CH, Joo OS et al (2012) Promotional effects of Cu on Pt/Al2O3 and Pd/Al2O3 catalysts during n-butane dehydrogenation. Catal Today 185(1):88–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Lima SM, da Silva AM, da Costa LOO et al (2009) Study of catalyst deactivation and reaction mechanism of steam reforming, partial oxidation, and oxidative steam reforming of ethanol over Co/CeO2 catalyst. J Catal 268(2):268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee Y, He G, Akey AJ et al (2011) Raman analysis of mode softening in nanoparticle CeO2−δ and Au–CeO2−δ during CO oxidation. J Am Chem Soc 133(33):12952–12955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilieva L, Pantaleo G, Ivanov I et al (2006) Gold catalysts supported on CeO2 and CeO2–Al2O3 for NOx reduction by CO. Appl Catal B Environ 65(1–2):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mi JX, Gao YN, Zhang JC et al (2018) Effect of Ce modification on the structural and catalytic property of Co–Mo/Mg(Al)O catalyst for water-gas shift reaction. Appl Catal A Gen 553:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ren HP, Song YH, Wang W et al (2015) Insights into CeO2-modified Ni–Mg–Al oxides for pressurized carbon dioxide reforming of methane. Chem Eng J 259:581–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang YW, Xue MW, Zhou YM et al (2016) Propane dehydrogenation over Ce-containing ZSM-5 supported platinum-tin catalysts: Ce concentration effect and reaction performance analysis. RSC Adv 6(35):29410–29422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang YW, Zhou YM, Shi JJ et al (2014) Comparative study of bimetallic Pt–Sn catalysts supported on different supports for propane dehydrogenation. J Mol Catal A Chem 381:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Llorca J, Homs N, León J et al (1999) Supported Pt–Sn catalysts highly selective for isobutane dehydrogenation: preparation, characterization and catalytic behavior. Appl Catal A Gen 189(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang CM, Zhai ZJ, Li XL et al (2015) Highly efficient and robust Mg0.388Al2.408O4 catalyst for gas-phase decarbonylation of lactic acid to acetaldehyde. J Catal 329:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akporiaye D, Jensen SF, Olsbye U et al (2001) A novel, highly efficient catalyst for propane dehydrogenation. Ind Eng Chem Res 40(22):4741–4748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu J, Peng ZM, Sun PP et al (2014) n-Butane dehydrogenation over Pt/Mg(In)(Al)O. Appl Catal A Gen 470:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Redekop EA, Galvita VV, Poelman H et al (2014) Delivering a modifying element to metal nanoparticles via support: Pt–Ga alloying during the reduction of Pt/Mg(Al, Ga)Ox catalysts and its effects on propane dehydrogenation. ACS Catal 4(6):1812–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nivangune NT, Ranade VV, Kelkar AA (2017) MgFeCe ternary layered double hydroxide as highly efficient and recyclable heterogeneous base catalyst for synthesis of dimethyl carbonate by transesterification. Catal Lett 147(10):2558–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shannon RD (1976) Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystall A 32:751–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang LH, Li F, Evans DG et al (2010) Cu–Zn–(Mn)–(Fe)–Al layered double hydroxides and their mixed metal oxides: physicochemical and catalytic properties in wet hydrogen peroxide oxidation of phenol. Ind Eng Chem Res 49:5959–5968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Basile F (2000) Synthesis and thermal evolution of hydrotalcite-type compounds containing noble metals. Appl Clay Sci 16:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yamaguchi K (1999) Mg–Al mixed oxides as highly active acid–base catalysts for cycloaddition of carbon dioxide to epoxides. J Am Chem Soc 121:4526–4527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Millange F, Walton RI, O’Hare D (2000) Time-resolved in situ X-ray diffraction study of the liquid-phase reconstruction of Mg–Al–carbonate hydrotalcite-like compounds. J Mater Chem 10:1713–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prescott HA, Li ZJ, Kemnitz E et al (2005) Application of calcined Mg–Al hydrotalcites for Michael additions: an investigation of catalytic activity and acid–base properties. J Catal 234(1):119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li D, Wang L, Koike M et al (2011) Steam reforming of tar from pyrolysis of biomass over Ni/Mg/Al catalysts prepared from hydrotalcite-like precursors. Appl Catal B Environ 102(3–4):528–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang L, Li D, Watanabe H et al (2014) Catalytic performance and characterization of Co/Mg/Al catalysts prepared from hydrotalcite-like precursors for the steam gasification of biomass. Appl Catal B Environ 150–151:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li D, Koike M, Wang L et al (2014) Regenerability of hydrotalcite-derived nickel–iron alloy nanoparticles for syngas production from biomass tar. Chemsuschem 7(2):510–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jabłońska M, Nothdurft K, Nocuń M et al (2017) Redox-performance correlations in Ag–Cu–Mg–Al, Ce–Cu–Mg–Al, and Ga–Cu–Mg–Al hydrotalcite derived mixed metal oxides. Appl Catal B Environ 207:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li D, Cai YB, Chen CQ et al (2016) Magnesium–aluminum mixed metal oxide supported copper nanoparticles as catalysts for water–gas shift reaction. Fuel 184:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zhao XY, Luo BB, Long R et al (2015) Composition-dependent activity of Cu–Pt alloy nanocubes for electrocatalytic CO2 reduction. J Mater Chem A 3(8):4134–4138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liu JJ, Zou SH, Xiao LP et al (2014) Well-dispersed bimetallic nanoparticles confined in mesoporous metal oxides and their optimized catalytic activity for nitrobenzene hydrogenation. Catal Sci Technol 4(2):441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qiao PS, Zou SH, Xu SD et al (2014) A general synthesis strategy of multi-metallic nanoparticles within mesoporous titania via in situ photo-deposition. J Mater Chem A 2(41):17321–17328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kam R, Scott J, Amal R et al (2010) Pyrophoricity and stability of copper and platinum based water–gas shift catalysts during oxidative shut-down/start-up operation. Chem Eng Sci 65(24):6461–6470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ozawa M, Takahashi-Morita M, Kobayashi K et al (2017) Core–shell type ceria zirconia support for platinum and rhodium three way catalysts. Catal Today 281:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barrabés N, Frare A, Föttinger K et al (2012) Pt–Cu bimetallic catalysts obtained from layered double hydroxides by an anion-exchange route. Appl Clay Sci 69:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Miyata T, Li D, Shiraga M et al (2006) Promoting effect of Rh, Pd and Pt noble metals to the Ni/Mg(Al)O catalysts for the DSS-like operation in CH4 steam reforming. Appl Catal A Gen 310:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Choudhary H, Ebitani K (2016) Hydrotalcite-supported PdPt-catalyzed aerobic oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid in water. Chem Lett 45(6):613–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cho EJ, Oh SJ (1997) Unoccupied states and the charge transfer in Cu–Pt alloys studied by bremsstrahlung isochromat spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J Korean Phys Soc 31(2):323–328Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kleiman GG, Sundaram VS, Rogers JD et al (1981) X-ray photoemission spectroscopy of Pt–Cu: a canonical alloy. Phys Rev B 23(7):3177–3185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yu CL, Ge QJ, Xu HY et al (2006) Effects of Ce addition on the Pt–Sn/γ-Al2O3 catalyst for propane dehydrogenation to propylene. Appl Catal A Gen 315:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Redekop EA, Saerens S, Galvita VV et al (2016) Early stages in the formation and burning of graphene on a Pt/Mg(Al)Ox dehydrogenation catalyst: a temperature- and time-resolved study. J Catal 344:482–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tianjin University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yingxia Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiaxin Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiao Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xitao Wang
    • 1
  • Yanhong Xu
    • 3
  • Lihong Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Chemical Engineering and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.Tianjin Key Laboratory of Applied Catalysis Science and TechnologyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  3. 3.Department of Materials EngineeringXuzhou College of Industrial TechnologyXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations