11.07.2015 Views

Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of Russian ...

Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of Russian ...

Boreskov Institute of Catalysis of the Siberian Branch of Russian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

OP-III-13The reforming reaction was carried outby feeding CH 3 OH toge<strong>the</strong>r with Ar as asweep gas at 200-300 °C, using an effectivetube length <strong>of</strong> 0.8 m (heated zone). As shownin Table 1, with <strong>the</strong> bare alumina tube(Run 1), CH 4 conversion was nil.Al20 μmAl 2 O 3100 nm(a) Cross section (b) Inner surfaceFig. 2. SEM images <strong>of</strong> anode oxidized <strong>of</strong> aluminum.With a loading level <strong>of</strong> 2.8 mg/m-tubeTable1 Results <strong>of</strong> SRM using wall tube reactorcombined weight <strong>of</strong> Cu and Zn oxides,aCatalyst preparationmethanol conversion <strong>of</strong> 23.9% wasImpregCH3OH H2Catalyst W/F cobserved. If <strong>the</strong> catalyst adsorption time wasRun -nationconv. mmolweight g.h/moltime repe% /hprolonged from 2 to 12 h, <strong>the</strong> loading levelmg/m bh -titionincreased from 2.8 to 4.5 mg/ m-tube at 8 h,with an increase in CH 3 OH conversion to60.2% (Run 5). Since elongation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>catalyst loading time did not significantlyincrease <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> loading, catalystloading process was repeated as shown inRuns 6-9. With increasing repetitionnumber, catalyst loading increased. Whenimpregnation procedures were repeated fourtimes, <strong>the</strong> loading level reached to12.4 mg/m-tube, leading to methanolconversion <strong>of</strong> 45.5% and 98.8% at 200 °Cand 250 °C, respectively, with a very lowCO selectivity at 200 °C (Runs 9, 10).Thus wall tube reactor was found to exhibit an excellent performance in <strong>the</strong> SRM.selectivity%COCO21 d 0 0 00 0 0.2 00.0 0.0 00.02 d 2 1 02.8 0.10 23.9 28.3 3.2 91.53 d 4 1 03.3 0.12 38.7 36.8 2.1 96.54 d 8 1 04.5 0.17 58.7 70.1 2.0 96.55 d 12 1 04.5 0.17 60.2 70.1 2.2 97.36 8 1 04.5 0.17 28.2 22.7 0.3 99.67 8 2 06.2 0.23 78.1 62.9 0.8 99.28 8 3 08.3 0.31 89.8 72.3 1.3 98.69 e 8 4 12.4 0.46 45.5 36.2 0.0 99.910 8 4 12.4 0.46 98.8 75.8 2.0 97.911 8 4 12.4 0.28 97.2 126 2.1 97.912 8 4 12.4 0.20 82.7 151 1.6 98.313 8 4 12.4 0.15 73.3 187 1.1 98.814 8 4 12.4 0.12 61.3 213 1.3 98.6a: Reaction temperature: 250 o C, time: 1h, Ar: 30 ml/min,Steam/Carbon = 1.0b: Total weight <strong>of</strong> CuO and ZnO,c: W/F: catlyst weight(g) / feed methanol (mol/h)d: Reaction temperature: 300 o Ce: Reaction temperature: 200 o CReferences1. C. Cao, G. Xia, J. Holladay, E. Jones, and Y. Wang, Appl. Catal. A; Gen., 2004, 262, 19.2. A. Karim, J. Bravo, and A. Datye, Appl. Catal. A; Gen., 2005, 281, 101. .3. J.C. Genley, K.L. Riechmann, E.G. Seebauer, and R.I. Masel, J. Catal., 2004, 227, 26.4. H. Masuda and K. Fukuda, Science, 1995, 268, 1466.116

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!