Comparison study of the effect of CeO₂-based carrier materials on the total oxidation of CO, methane, and propane over RuO₂

Abstract

The effect of the carrier material on the intrinsic activity of three catalytic total oxidation reactions, namely CO oxidation as well as methane and propane combustion over highly dispersed RuO2...

Comparative Study of the Catalytic Oxidation of Hydrocarbons on Platinum and Palladium Wires and Nanoparticles

“…At the same time, C 2 H 6 is more active than CH 4 on Pt and Pd. This difference in activation may be attributed to the fact that the first reaction step forming the alkyl group requires less energy in the case of C 2 H 6 than in the CH 4 case . The comparison presented here for the four fuels on both Pt and Pd is new to the literature.…”

“…This difference in activation may be attributed to the fact that the first reaction step forming the alkyl group requires less energy in the case of C 2 H 6 than in the CH 4 case. 78 The comparison presented here for the four fuels on both Pt and Pd is new to the literature. Still, we consider partially similar studies in the literature.…”

Supported RuxIr1‐xO2 Mixed Oxides Catalysts for Propane Combustion: Resistance Against Water Poisoning

“…Ruthenium is known to be one of the most active elements in the activation of C−H and C−C bonds, [21] thus making it a promising and less expensive alternative to Pt for the removal of higher hydrocarbons. In several studies the excellent activity of Ru‐based catalysts in propane combustion has been demonstrated [22–27] . For example, for the same feed gas and gas hourly space velocity, the activity of Ru/CeO 2 sample is 1.5 times higher than that that of Pt/ZSM−S catalysts at 200 °C [25,28] .…”

“…In several studies the excellent activity of Ru-based catalysts in propane combustion has been demonstrated. [22][23][24][25][26][27] For example, for the same feed gas and gas hourly space velocity, the activity of Ru/CeO 2 sample is 1.5 times higher than that that of Pt/ ZSMÀ S catalysts at 200 °C. [25,28] However, Ru-based catalysts tend to deactivate via loss of active surface area by sintering or by transformation into volatile RuO 4 at higher temperatures.…”

Oxidative Redispersion-Derived Single-Site Ru/CeO2 Catalysts with Mobile Ru Complexes Trapped by Surface Hydroxyls Instead of Oxygen Vacancies

“…Given that the RuO 2 –support interface is directly involved in the activation of hydrocarbon molecules, − literature teaches that Ru catalysts with reducible supports are better hydrocarbon oxidizers, and Ru/CeO 2 is usually considered more reactive for hydrocarbon combustion compared to other Ru catalysts. − For example, at the same feed gas and gas hourly space velocity, the propane turnover frequencies over Ru/CeO 2 were reported to be 3.8 and 1.8 times higher than those over Ru/γ-Al 2 O 3 and Ru/ZrO 2 at 210 °C, respectively . Within such a framework, the size of supported RuO 2 is of great importance because the atomic species and small clusters give rise to longer RuO 2 perimeters and added RuO 2 –CeO 2 interfacial sites, which may therefore benefit more from the support reducibility in contrast to larger supported RuO 2 particles. , A conventional strategy to obtain Ru/CeO 2 catalysts with maximized Ru dispersion is reducing the Ru loading amount to, e.g., ≤0.25 wt %. , Such loadings are, however, significantly lower than those in commercial oxidation catalysts (e.g., 1 wt % Pt/γ-Al 2 O 3 ) and may lead to limited overall catalytic performance per unit reactor volume or area in large-scale processes.…”