An investigation on catalytic performance and reaction mechanism of RuMn/meso-TiO2 derived from RuMn intermetallic compounds for methyl ethyl ketone oxidation

Efficient hydrodeoxygenation of guaiacol to phenol over Ru/Ti–SiO2 catalysts: the significance of defect-rich TiOx species

“…4a, in which the peak at 284.6 eV was assigned to the strong signal of carbon and the one at around 279.8 eV to Ru 0 . 32,33 The Ru 3d 5/2 signal at 281.6 eV was related to Ru 2+ species. 34 Ru δ+ species were dominant on Ru/SiO 2 .…”

Mn-Promoted Ru-Based Catalysts for Enhanced Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis of Olefins from Syngas

“…X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results for various RuMn catalysts are displayed in Figures and S3. For the reduced catalysts, the XPS Ru 3d spectra at BE = 284.6 eV were fitted with C 1s, and the XPS peak at BE = 280.3–280.7 eV corresponded to the surface Ru 0 species . The peak intensity of the surface Ru 0 species became weak with a further increase in the Mn content, which might be due to the coverage of the Mn promoter on Ru sites.…”

“…For the reduced catalysts, the XPS Ru 3d spectra at BE = 284.6 eV were fitted with C 1s, and the XPS peak at BE = 280.3−280.7 eV corresponded to the surface Ru 0 species. 26 The peak intensity of the surface Ru 0 species became weak with a further increase in the Mn content, which might be due to the coverage of the Mn promoter on Ru sites. In addition, compared with the Ru catalyst, the binding energy of Ru 3d in RuMn slightly decreased by 0.1−0.2 eV, indicating that the Mn promoter affects the electronic structure of Ru.…”

Heterostructured Metal–Organic Frameworks/Polydopamine Coating Endows Polyetheretherketone Implants with Multimodal Osteogenicity and Photoswitchable Disinfection

“…Both plots display the typical type‐IV isotherms with pronounced H1 hysteresis loops, indicating that samples own mesoporous structures with uniform pore size. [ 28 ] SIM@ZIF‐8 has a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller surface area of 961 m 2 g −1 and a total pore volume of 0.86 cm 3 g −1 , which are both lower than that of ZIF‐8 (1737 m 2 g −1 , 1.35 cm 3 g −1 ). Figure S1f, Supporting Information, reveals the Barrett–Joyner–Halenda pore size distribution plot of ZIF‐8 and SIM@ZIF‐8, and their dominant pore sizes are about 51 and 48 nm, respectively.…”