2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2012.10.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation of the problems with using gas adsorption to probe catalyst pore structure evolution during coking

Abstract: A common approach to try to understand the mechanism of coking in heterogeneous catalysts is to monitor the evolution of the pore structure using gas adsorption analysis of discharged pellets. However, the standard methods of analysis of gas adsorption data, to obtain pore-size distributions, make the key assumption of thermodynamically-independent pores. This assumption neglects the possibility of co-operative adsorption phenomena, which will shown to be a critical problem when looking at coking catalysts. In… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
(20 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An additional technique, which is gaining popularity, is thermoporometry. However, these techniques have problems with pore-pore interaction phenomena affecting the accuracy of the pore size distributions for disordered solids that are particularly acute for coked catalysts (Gopinathan et al, 2013). However, these issues, which will be described in more detail below, can be overcome by the novel integrated method used in this paper (Shiko et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An additional technique, which is gaining popularity, is thermoporometry. However, these techniques have problems with pore-pore interaction phenomena affecting the accuracy of the pore size distributions for disordered solids that are particularly acute for coked catalysts (Gopinathan et al, 2013). However, these issues, which will be described in more detail below, can be overcome by the novel integrated method used in this paper (Shiko et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%