Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A series of novel, active and easily synthesized nickel phosphide catalysts were prepared by means of temperature-programmed reduction (TPR) of Ni(HPO 3 H) 2, and the role of the support on Ni 2 P formation and catalytic activity was studied. For this purpose four catalysts with a nickel loading of 10 wt % were synthesized by using two mesoporous supports, MCM-41 and zirconium doped MCM-41 (MCM-SiZr), as well as two commercial supports, SiO 2 (Cab-osil) and γ-Al 2 O 3 . The dibenzothiophene (DBT) hydrodesulfurization (HDS) activity was measured for these Ni 2 P based catalysts, displaying good activity. All catalysts reached high DBT conversion values at high temperatures, with the DDS (direct desulfurization) route being favored, i.e. yielding mainly biphenyl (BP). Silica supported catalysts, Ni 2 P-10 (Si) and Ni 2 P-10 (Cab), proved highly stable with time on stream (48 h) with conversion values close to 100%. More acidic supports provided lower conversion values and underwent deactivation. Thus, Ni 2 P-10 (Zr) catalyst only presents a constant conversion of 80% after 48 h of reaction, but when the support is γ-Al 2 O 3 deactivation occurs. Further, the analysis of the spent catalyst revealed the presence of sulfur on the surface, possibly forming a phosphosulfide phase. A poor result is obtained with Ni 2 P-10 (Al), which undergoes deactivation with time on stream. This is due to both a lower proportion of the Ni 2 P phase being present on the surface and the possible formation of NiS under the reaction conditions used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cecilia et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: