Two Cu/SSZ-13 selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts with distinct Si/Al ratios and isolated Z 2 Cu and ZCuOH distributions are prepared for in situ electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopic studies. These in situ studies include dehydration, titration of dehydrated samples with NO+O 2 and NH 3, titration of NH 3 -saturated samples with NO+O 2, and finally steady-state standard NH 3 -SCR reaction. During dehydration, EPR-active hydrated ZCuOH loses H 2 O ligands and becomes EPR-silent due to a pseudo Jahn–Teller effect; a portion of ZCuOH also undergoes autoreduction to ZCu(I) species, a process that also induces EPR invisibility. During NO+O 2 treatment of dehydrated samples, ZCu(I) species are oxidized to Cu(II)–NO 3 – species, regaining EPR visibility. During NH 3 titration, EPR-silent dehydrated ZCuOH can also regain EPR visibility by coordinating with NH 3 ligands. During NO+O 2 titration of NH 3 -saturated samples, EPR-active Cu contents first decrease due to Cu(II) reduction to Cu(I) and then increase due to Cu(II)–NO 3 – species formation. However, the Cu(II)–NO 3 – formation chemistry is substantially slower for the Si/Al = 36 catalyst. In steady-state SCR studies, the EPR-active content decreases with increasing temperature in the kinetically controlled low-temperature regime and becomes largely invariant in the mass transfer-limited regime. Importantly, Cu sites in the SCR more active Si/Al = 6 catalyst display substantially higher EPR visibility than the SCR less active Si/Al = 36 catalyst at any reaction temperatures tested. The higher Cu loading for the former catalyst is believed to be the key for this difference.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: