Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 17, pp 11400–11416 | Cite as

Ethanol steam reforming: understanding changes in the activity and stability of Rh/MxOy catalysts as function of the support

  • Thenner S. RodriguesEmail author
  • Felipe A. e Silva
  • Eduardo G. Candido
  • Anderson G. M. da Silva
  • Rafael dos S. Geonmonond
  • Pedro H. C. Camargo
  • Marcelo Linardi
  • Fabio C. Fonseca
Chemical routes to materials
  • 208 Downloads

Abstract

We reported herein a systematic investigation on how the nature of the support affected the catalytic performances of Rh nanoparticles. The prepared catalysts were denoted as Rh/MxOy, where M corresponded to Ce, Ti, Si, Zn, and Al, and Rh was Rh3+ reduction to Rh nanoparticles on the surface of oxides. This strategy was performed in a single step using urea as a mediator and in the absence of any other stabilizer or capping agent. The Rh nanoparticles displayed relatively similar sizes, shapes, and uniform distribution over the supports, differing only in terms of the nature of the support. This strongly affected the metal–support interaction between Rh nanoparticles and the respective oxides, leading to significant differences in their catalytic performances toward the ethanol steam reforming. Here, not only the catalytic activity (in terms of ethanol conversion) was affected, but both the selectivity and stability were also influenced by the nature of the oxide support. Interestingly, the reaction paths as well as the deactivation profile were completely changed as function of the employed support. Such differences were associated with differences in the oxygen storage, oxygen mobility, and acidity/basicity of the supports. We believe that our results can contribute to the development and understanding of Rh-supported catalysts for the applications toward gas-phase transformations such as the ethanol steam reforming reaction.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by FAPESP (Grant Nos. 2014/09087-4, 2014/50279-4, and 2015/26308-7). F.C.F, M.L., and P.H.C.C. thank the CNPq for their research fellowships. T.S.R. (scholarship 2017/04929-5) and A.G.M.S. thank FAPESP for their fellowships. E.G.C. and F.A.S. thank CNPq for their fellowships. R.S.G. thanks CAPES for his fellowship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. P.H.C. Camargo is an editor of this journal. He was not involved in any aspect of the review process and not permitted to see any information about the review process on the editorial management system.

Supplementary material

10853_2019_3660_MOESM1_ESM.docx (6.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 6796 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Haryanto A, Fernando S, Murali N, Adhikari S (2005) Current status of hydrogen production techniques by steam reforming of ethanol: a review. Energy Fuels 19:2098–2106.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0500538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ni M, Leung DYC, Leung MKH (2007) A review on reforming bio-ethanol for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 32:3238–3247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.04.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moretti E, Storaro L, Talon A et al (2015) Ceria–zirconia based catalysts for ethanol steam reforming. Fuel 153:166–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaidya PD, Wu Y-J, Rodrigues AE (2019) Chapter 13: Kinetics of ethanol steam reforming for hydrogen production. In: Basile A, Iulianelli A, Dalena F, Veziroğlu TNBT-E (eds) Ethanol science and engineering. Elsevier, pp 341–354Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma YC, Kumar A, Prasad R, Upadhyay SN (2017) Ethanol steam reforming for hydrogen production: latest and effective catalyst modification strategies to minimize carbonaceous deactivation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:89–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinton N, Vidal MV, Signoretto M et al (2017) Ethanol steam reforming on nanostructured catalysts of Ni, Co and CeO2: influence of synthesis method on activity, deactivation and regenerability. Catal Today 296:135–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2017.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Contreras JL, Salmones J, Colín-Luna JA et al (2014) Catalysts for H2 production using the ethanol steam reforming (a review). Int J Hydrog Energy 39:18835–18853.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Llorca J, Homs N, Sales J, de la Piscina PR (2002) Efficient production of hydrogen over supported cobalt catalysts from ethanol steam reforming. J Catal 209:306–317.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcat.2002.3643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riani P, Garbarino G, Lucchini MA et al (2014) Unsupported versus alumina-supported Ni nanoparticles as catalysts for steam/ethanol conversion and CO2 methanation. J Mol Catal A Chem 383–384:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcata.2013.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varga E, Pusztai P, Ovari L et al (2015) Probing the interaction of Rh, Co and bimetallic Rh–Co nanoparticles with the CeO2 support: catalytic materials for alternative energy generation. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:27154–27166.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CP03549J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coronel L, Múnera JF, Tarditi AM et al (2014) Hydrogen production by ethanol steam reforming over Rh nanoparticles supported on lanthana/silica systems. Appl Catal B Environ 160:254–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2014.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li T, Zhang J, Xie X et al (2015) Montmorillonite-supported Ni nanoparticles for efficient hydrogen production from ethanol steam reforming. Fuel 143:55–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moraes TS, Neto RCR, Ribeiro MC et al (2015) Effects of ceria morphology on catalytic performance of Ni/CeO2 catalysts for low temperature steam reforming of ethanol. Top Catal 58:281–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-015-0369-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vargas JC, Ivanova S, Thomas S et al (2012) Influence of gold on Ce–Zr–Co fluorite-type mixed oxide catalysts for ethanol steam reforming. Catalysts 2:121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim H, Gu Y, Oyama ST (2012) Studies of the effect of pressure and hydrogen permeance on the ethanol steam reforming reaction with palladium- and silica-based membranes. J Membr Sci 396:119–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kourtelesis M, Panagiotopoulou P, Verykios XE (2015) Influence of structural parameters on the reaction of low temperature ethanol steam reforming over Pt/Al2O3 catalysts. Catal Today 258:247–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2014.12.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Remiro A, Ochoa A, Arandia A et al (2019) On the dynamics and reversibility of the deactivation of a Rh/CeO2ZrO2 catalyst in raw bio-oil steam reforming. Int J Hydrog Energy 44:2620–2632.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moraes TS, Borges LEP, Farrauto R, Noronha FB (2018) Steam reforming of ethanol on Rh/SiCeO2 washcoated monolith catalyst: stable catalyst performance. Int J Hydrog Energy 43:115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bosko ML, Ferreira N, Catena A et al (2018) Catalytic behavior of Ru nanoparticles supported on carbon fibers for the ethanol steam reforming reaction. Catal Commun 114:19–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2018.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Augusto BL, Noronha FB, Fonseca FC et al (2014) Nickel/gadolinium-doped ceria anode for direct ethanol solid oxide fuel cell. Int J Hydrog Energy 39:11196–11209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.05.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fajardo H, Longo E, Mezalira D et al (2010) Influence of support on catalytic behavior of nickel catalysts in the steam reforming of ethanol for hydrogen production. Environ Chem Lett 8:79–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-008-0195-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lovón ASP, Lovón-Quintana JJ, Almerindo GI et al (2012) Preparation, structural characterization and catalytic properties of Co/CeO2 catalysts for the steam reforming of ethanol and hydrogen production. J Power Sources.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.05.066 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soykal II, Sohn H, Ozkan US (2012) Effect of support particle size in steam reforming of ethanol over Co/CeO2 catalysts. ACS Catal 2:2335–2348.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cs3004159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moura JS, Souza MOG, Bellido JDA et al (2012) Ethanol steam reforming over rhodium and cobalt-based catalysts: effect of the support. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:3213–3224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.10.112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choong CKS, Chen L, Du Y et al (2017) The role of metal–support interaction for CO-free hydrogen from low temperature ethanol steam reforming on Rh–Fe catalysts. Phys Chem Chem Phys 19:4199–4207.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP05934A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rodrigues TS, da Silva AGM, Gonçalves MC et al (2015) AgPt hollow nanodendrites: synthesis and uniform dispersion over SiO2 support for catalytic applications. ChemNanoMat.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cnma.201500025 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    da Silva AGM, Rodrigues TS, Taguchi LSK et al (2016) Pd-based nanoflowers catalysts: controlling size, composition, and structures for the 4-nitrophenol reduction and BTX oxidation reactions. J Mater Sci 51:603–614.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-015-9315-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodrigues TS, da Silva AHM, da Silva AGM et al (2016) Hollow AgPt/SiO2 nanomaterials with controlled surface morphologies: is the number of Pt surface atoms imperative to optimize catalytic performances? Catal Sci Technol 6:2162–2170.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CY01415H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodrigues TS, Da Silva AGM, Gonçalves MC et al (2016) Catalytic properties of AgPt nanoshells as a function of size: larger outer diameters lead to improved performances. Langmuir 32:9371–9379.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b01783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kisukuri CM, Palmeira DJ, Rodrigues TS et al (2016) Bimetallic nanoshells as platforms for metallo- and biometallo-catalytic applications. ChemCatChem 8:171–179.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.201500812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    da Silva AGM, Rodrigues TS, Haigh SJ, Camargo PHC (2017) Galvanic replacement reaction: recent developments for engineering metal nanostructures towards catalytic applications. Chem Commun 53:7135–7148.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CC02352A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gu D, Tseng JC, Weidenthaler C et al (2016) Gold on different manganese oxides: ultra-low-temperature CO oxidation over colloidal gold supported on bulk-MnO2 nanomaterials. J Am Chem Soc 138:9572–9580.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b04251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    da Silva AGM, Kisukuri CM, Rodrigues TS et al (2016) MnO2 nanowires decorated with Au ultrasmall nanoparticles for the green oxidation of silanes and hydrogen production under ultralow loadings. Appl Catal B Environ 184:35–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zanella R, Giorgio S, Henry CR, Louis C (2002) Alternative methods for the preparation of gold nanoparticles supported on TiO2. J Phys Chem B 106:7634–7642.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0144810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yentekakis IV, Goula G, Kampouri S et al (2018) Ir-catalysed nitrous oxide (N2O) decomposition: effect of ir particle size and metal–support interactions. Catal Lett 148:341–347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-017-2233-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yentekakis IV, Goula G, Hatzisymeon M et al (2019) Effect of support oxygen storage capacity on the catalytic performance of Rh nanoparticles for CO2 reforming of methane. Appl Catal B Environ 243:490–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.10.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang N, Bent SF (2017) Investigation of inherent differences between oxide supports in heterogeneous catalysis in the absence of structural variations. J Catal 351:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2017.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palma V, Castaldo F, Ciambelli P, Iaquaniello G (2014) CeO2-supported Pt/Ni catalyst for the renewable and clean H2 production via ethanol steam reforming. Appl Catal B Environ 145:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.01.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yoo JB, Kim HS, Kang SH et al (2014) Hollow nickel-coated silica microspheres containing rhodium nanoparticles for highly selective production of hydrogen from hydrous hydrazine. J Mater Chem A 2:18929–18937.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA03550J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    da Silva AGM, Batalha DC, Rodrigues TS et al (2018) Sub-15 nm CeO2 nanowires as an efficient non-noble metal catalyst in the room-temperature oxidation of aniline. Catal Sci Technol 8:1828–1839.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CY02402A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wu Z, Li M, Howe J et al (2010) Probing defect sites on CeO2 nanocrystals with well-defined surface planes by Raman spectroscopy and O2 adsorption. Langmuir 26:16595–16606.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la101723w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frost RL, Kristof J, Rintoul L, Kloprogge JT (2000) Raman spectroscopy of urea and urea-intercalated kaolinites at 77 K. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 56:1681–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-1425(00)00223-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang Y, Peng X, Shi J et al (2012) Highly selective fluorescent chemosensor for Zn2+ derived from inorganic–organic hybrid magnetic core/shell Fe3O4@SiO2 nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett 7:86.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-7-86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Karunakaran C, Anilkumar P, Gomathisankar P (2011) Photoproduction of iodine with nanoparticulate semiconductors and insulators. Chem Cent J 5:31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-5-31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hussain M, Ahmad M, Nisar A et al (2014) Enhanced photocatalytic and electrochemical properties of Au nanoparticles supported TiO2 microspheres. New J Chem 38:1424–1432.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3NJ01525D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    da Silva AGM, Rodrigues TS, Candido EG et al (2018) Combining active phase and support optimization in MnO2-Au nanoflowers: enabling high activities towards green oxidations. J Colloid Interface Sci 530:282–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.06.089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Haruta M (1997) Novel catalysis of gold deposited on metal oxides. Catal Surv Asia 1:61–73.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019068728295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Patil NS, Uphade BS, McCulloh DG et al (2004) Styrene epoxidation over gold supported on different transition metal oxides prepared by homogeneous deposition–precipitation. Catal Commun 5:681–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catcom.2004.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Diaz E, Mohedano AF, Casas JA et al (2016) On the performance of Pd and Rh catalysts over different supports in the hydrodechlorination of the MCPA herbicide. Appl Catal B Environ 186:151–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.12.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pal P, Pahari SK, Sinhamahapatra A et al (2013) CeO2 nanowires with high aspect ratio and excellent catalytic activity for selective oxidation of styrene by molecular oxygen. RSC Adv 3:10837–10847.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RA23485A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Silva AGM, Rodrigues TS, Dias A et al (2014) Ce1−xSmxO1.9-[small delta] nanoparticles obtained by microwave-assisted hydrothermal processing: an efficient application for catalytic oxidation of [small alpha]-bisabolol. Catal Sci Technol 4:814–821.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3CY00788J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Córdoba G, Viniegra M, Fierro JLG et al (1998) TPR, ESR, and XPS Study of Cu2+ ions in sol–gel-derived TiO2. J Solid State Chem 138:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jssc.1997.7690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gualteros JAD, Garcia MAS, da Silva AGM et al (2019) Synthesis of highly dispersed gold nanoparticles on Al2O3, SiO2, and TiO2 for the solvent-free oxidation of benzyl alcohol under low metal loadings. J Mater Sci 54:238–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2827-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gao Q, Xu B, Tong Q, Fan Y (2016) Selective hydrogenolysis of raw glycerol to 1,2-propanediol over Cu–ZnO catalysts in fixed-bed reactor. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 80:215–220.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09168451.2015.1088372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Deng T, Liu H (2013) Promoting effect of SnOx on selective conversion of cellulose to polyols over bimetallic Pt–SnOx/Al2O3 catalysts. Green Chem 15:116–124.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C2GC36088H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gac W, Zawadzki W, Słowik G et al (2016) Chromium-modified zinc oxides. J Therm Anal Calorim 125:1205–1215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-016-5586-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    da Silva AHM, Rodrigues TS, da Silva AGM et al (2017) Systematic investigation of the effect of oxygen mobility on CO oxidation over AgPt nanoshells supported on CeO2, TiO2 and Al2O3. J Mater Sci 52:13764–13778.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1481-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Huang C, Ma Z, Miao C et al (2017) Catalytic decomposition of N2O over Rh/Zn–Al2O3 catalysts. RSC Adv 7:4243–4252.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA25388A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang C, Zheng T, Lu J et al (2017) Three-way catalytic reactions on Rh-based catalyst: effect of Rh/ceria interfaces. Appl Catal A Gen 544:30–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2017.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chen G, Guo C-Y, Huang Z, Yuan G (2011) Synthesis of ethanol from syngas over iron-promoted Rh immobilized on modified SBA-15 molecular sieve: effect of iron loading. Chem Eng Res Des 89:249–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Li F, Qian W (2017) Effect of Fe impregnation sequence on ethanol synthesis from syngas over Mn and Fe promoted Rh/γ-Al2O3. Appl Petrochem Res 7:161–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13203-017-0189-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Steil MC, Nobrega SD, Georges S et al (2017) Durable direct ethanol anode-supported solid oxide fuel cell. Appl Energy 199:180–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Klouz V, Fierro V, Denton P et al (2002) Ethanol reforming for hydrogen production in a hybrid electric vehicle: process optimisation. J Power Sources 105:26–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(01)00922-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mattos LV, Jacobs G, Davis BH, Noronha FB (2012) Production of hydrogen from ethanol: review of reaction mechanism and catalyst deactivation. Chem Rev 112:4094–4123.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cr2000114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Karim AM, Su Y, Sun J et al (2010) A comparative study between Co and Rh for steam reforming of ethanol. Appl Catal B Environ 96:441–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.02.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    da Silva AAA, Bion N, Epron F et al (2017) Effect of the type of ceria dopant on the performance of Ni/CeO2 SOFC anode for ethanol internal reforming. Appl Catal B Environ 206:626–641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.01.069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nobrega SD, Gelin P, Georges S et al (2014) A fuel-flexible solid oxide fuel cell operating in gradual internal reforming. J Electrochem Soc 161:F354–F359.  https://doi.org/10.1149/2.107403jes CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gupta A, Waghmare UV, Hegde MS (2010) Correlation of oxygen storage capacity and structural distortion in transition-metal-, noble-metal-, and rare-earth-ion-substituted CeO2 from first principles calculation. Chem Mater 22:5184–5198.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cm101145d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kehoe AB, Scanlon DO, Watson GW (2011) Role of lattice distortions in the oxygen storage capacity of divalently doped CeO2. Chem Mater 23:4464–4468.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cm201617d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Batista MS, Santos RKS, Assaf EM et al (2003) Characterization of the activity and stability of supported cobalt catalysts for the steam reforming of ethanol. J Power Sources 124:99–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(03)00599-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ferencz Z, Erdőhelyi A, Baán K et al (2014) Effects of support and Rh additive on Co-based catalysts in the ethanol steam reforming reaction. ACS Catal 4:1205–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cs500045z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dhiman R, Johnson E, Skou EM et al (2013) SiC nanocrystals as Pt catalyst supports for fuel cell applications. J Mater Chem A 1:6030–6036.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3TA10238F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Calles AJ, Carrero A, Vizcaíno JA, Lindo M (2015) Effect of Ce and Zr addition to Ni/SiO2 catalysts for hydrogen production through ethanol steam reforming. Catalysts 5:58–76.  https://doi.org/10.3390/catal5010058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cavallaro S, Mondello N, Freni S (2001) Hydrogen produced from ethanol for internal reforming molten carbonate fuel cell. J Power Sources 102:198–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(01)00800-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thenner S. Rodrigues
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Felipe A. e Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eduardo G. Candido
    • 1
  • Anderson G. M. da Silva
    • 3
  • Rafael dos S. Geonmonond
    • 3
  • Pedro H. C. Camargo
    • 3
  • Marcelo Linardi
    • 1
  • Fabio C. Fonseca
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares, IPEN-CNEN/SPSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Nanotechnology Engineering Program, Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, COPPEFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Departamento de Química Fundamental, Instituto de QuímicaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations