Next Article in Journal
Novel Approaches for Biocorrosion Mitigation in Sewer Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Partitioning Hückel–London Currents into Cycle Contributions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploiting In-Situ Characterization for a Sabatier Reaction to Reveal Catalytic Details

Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, 4356 Communications Drive, Norcross, GA 30093, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 17 August 2021 / Revised: 23 September 2021 / Accepted: 27 September 2021 / Published: 8 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Catalysis)

Abstract

:
In situ characterization of catalysts provides important information on the catalyst and the understanding of its activity and selectivity for a specific reaction. TPX techniques for catalyst characterization reveal the role of the support on the stabilization and dispersion of the active sites. However, these can be altered at high temperature since sintering of active species can occur as well as possible carbon deposition through the Bosch reaction, which hinders the active species and deactivates the catalyst. In situ characterization of the spent catalyst, however, may expose the causes for catalyst deactivation. For example, a simple TPO analysis on the spent catalyst may produce CO and CO2 via a reaction with O2 at high temperature and this is a strong indication that deactivation may be due to the deposition of carbon during the Sabatier reaction. Other TPX techniques such as TPR and pulse chemisorption are also valuable techniques when they are applied in situ to the fresh catalyst and then to the catalyst upon deactivation.

1. Introduction

The in-situ Catalyst Characterization System (ICCS) [1,2] from Micromeritics and the Cirrus MKS [3] mass spectrometer prove to be a very powerful system when combined with the Micromeritics Flow Reactor (FR) [1]. The ICCS allows a complete characterization of the catalyst in situ. For example, a necessary technique often used is temperature programmed reactions (TPX) [4]. This technique reveals important properties of the catalyst, such as the effects of the support material in stabilizing the active species to minimize sintering, a quantitative analysis to determine the quantity of the oxide used as active species, the active particle size that can easily be estimated by the mechanism of reduction shown by the TPR profile, etc. Another technique that should also be used for characterization is pulse chemisorption. This reveals the percentage of the active particles exposed for the reaction and thus predicts the activity and selectivity of the catalyst. For example, this can be implemented to reevaluate the catalyst, if deactivation or poisoning of the catalyst is suspected due to the reaction conditions.
A mass spectrometer connected to the exhaust of the flow reactor was utilized for online detection and quantification of the reaction products. The Cirrus II MKS mass spectrometer is a reliable system capable of detecting up to 200 amu and was equipped with a heated capillary that provides temperature control up to a maximum of 150 °C. The temperature controlled capillary prevents unwanted condensation vapor products and allows for the accurate sampling of the product mixture. The combination of these three instruments creates a powerful toolset for researchers in catalysis and provides catalyst characterization and evaluation all on one single system (Figure 1).
CO 2 + 2 H 2 C + 2 H 2 O .
2 CO 2 + 5 H 2 CH 4 + CO + 3 H 2 O
CO 2 + H 2 CO + H 2 O
CH 4 + CO 2 2 CO + 2 H 2
CO + H 2 C + H 2 O
A typical Sabatier [5] reaction for the conversion of carbon dioxide to methane (CO2 + 4H2 ⇌ CH4 + 2H2O) was selected to demonstrate the capabilities for this combination of instruments. This reaction is widely used and well established, converting CO2 under the effect of hydrogen to more useful products such as CH4 and syngas (CO + H2).
Based on the numerous publications [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14] on this subject, it can be found that different activity and selectivity of the catalyst can be observed by varying the reaction conditions. Several possible reactions can take place when reducing CO2 with hydrogen as a function of pressure and temperature: For example, the first reaction shown on the right is the formation of carbon (graphite) via the Bosch reaction [15]. The overall reaction is a two-step reaction with a fast reverse water gas shift reaction, which is then followed by a rate limiting step as shown below.
CO 2 + H 2 CO + H 2 O
CO + H 2 C + H 2 O

2. Experimental Procedures, Materials and Methods

Traditionally, nickel supported catalysts are used for methanation. Here, 1.5 g of 13% CuO alumina supported commercial catalyst from Sigma-Aldrich Batch # MKCM8623 was used for all of the above mentioned reactions. A fresh sample was used for each experiment in order to avoid the effect of sintering and carbon deposition that can take place at elevated temperature and thus reduce the activity of the catalysts in subsequent analysis.
The FR-100 PID-Micromeritics microreactor was used for these experiments and the hot box temperature was set to 120 °C to avoid condensation of reaction products. The liquid–gas separator (L/G) was set at 4 °C to condense and trap the water produced during the reaction before it enters the mass spectrometer capillary system.
A mixture of 200 mL/min of hydrogen and 50 mL/min of CO2 was used as a feed for the Sabatier reaction.
After loading the catalyst into the 9-mm SS reactor and prior to any reaction studies, the ICCS was used to perform a TPR for the quantification of CuO and to obtain the reduction profile. This also establishes the reduction mechanism of the oxide (Figure 2). The reduction profile produced a peak related to the consumption of hydrogen by the oxide, which was of 22 mL of H2 and that corresponds to 13% by weight of the oxide on the catalyst. The temperature at the peak maximum for the reduction was observed at 200 °C.
The first in situ TPR shown in Figure 2 ensures that under these conditions the oxide was completely reduced to copper metal, which is one among the active elements for the Sabatier reaction. The TPR was performed under 10% H2/Ar flow at 100 mL/min to 550 °C at 10 °C/min using the ICCS; TCD signal was collected.
The reaction conditions are unique to these experiments. The temperature was increased with a ramping rate of 2 °C/min from room temperature up to 600 °C. The reaction products were monitored online by the mass spectrometer as the temperature increased. The mass spectrometer was set to monitor the following mass per charge signals: 2, 28, 44, and 16, which correspond to H2, CO, CO2, and CH4, respectively. The continuous monitoring of these signals allows users to visualize the reaction steps as a function of the temperature profile during the reaction.
This study was conducted to observe the effect of pressure on the reaction products of the reduction of CO2. Four different experiments were carried out under the same gas mixture, sample size, and ramping temperature, but at different pressures.
The conversion was measured as the difference in intensities of CO2 taken at the beginning and at the end of each experiment at 600 °C.
TPO analysis was conducted after the reaction of up to 600 °C using a flow of 100 mL/min of 10% Oxygen balance Helium. Mass per charge signals for O2 (32), CO2 (44), CO (28), and H2O (18) were collected. This test was performed to identify if carbon formation occurred at higher temperature. A TPR and a TPO analyses were also carried out on the fresh catalyst for comparison with the TPO profile done on the used catalyst. Differences between the two TPO profiles will reveal the presence of carbon deposition on the sample, if any.

3. Results

Reduction of CO2 at atmospheric pressure:
Figure 3 corresponds to a mass spectrum at atmospheric pressure that includes signals for both reactants: CO2 and H2 as well as main products: CO and CH4. It can be observed that, at atmospheric pressure, the reaction does not produce CH4; only CO and water were produced. Conversion of CO2 into products under the effect of H2 produced the following intensities for both products (CO and CH4). For CO, it was 192 (au), while it was zero for CH4. There was no signal for water on the spectrum, as water was trapped by the liquid/gas separator (L/G).
Water was produced during the reaction and separated from reaction products via condensation using the liquid/gas separator (L/G). The condensed phase was collected in a beaker and the quantity of the water could be used in the final mass balance for the reaction (Figure 4).
Figure 5 represents signals for both reactants (CO2 + H2) at 10 bar of pressure. By the contrast at 10 bar, CH4 was produced as shown on the spectrum by the signal of 16 amu. Water was trapped by the (L/G) separator for all experiments. This figure shows the production of CH4 as well as CO. Conversion of CO2 at 10 bar produced intensities for CO and CH4 of 260 (au) and 210 (au), respectively. It can be concluded that the activity at 10 bar was somehow moderate to produce the main product (CH4) and was of 1.3 times higher for CO at 600 °C.
Figure 6 represents signals for the reaction at 20 bar. It can be observed from these results that as the pressure increases, the production of CH4 increases as well. All studied reactions produced water and CO. This reaction produced intensities for CO and CH4 of 310 (au) and 430 (au), respectively. The production of CH4 was doubled as the pressure changed from 10 to 20 bar and was of 1.2 times higher for CO.
Figure 7 represents signals for the products at 30 bar. It was observed that increasing the pressure from 20 to 30 bar did not enhance the production of CH4. Intensities for CO and CH4 were of 170 (au) and 375 (au), respectively. However, it was observed that a larger amount of water was produced in this case, as it was seen dripping out from the L/G separator.
Figure 8: This figure illustrates the intensity of each product at 600 °C for these four reactions as a function of pressure increase from atmospheric pressure up to 30 bar.

4. Results upon Deactivation, and Data Interpretation

Figure 9 shows a temperature programmed oxidation (TPO) profile on the spent catalyst. Comparisons with the TPO profile done on the fresh material after reduction (Figure 12) would indicate if there was any carbon formation from CO2 at high temperature. Carbon deposition on the surface of the catalyst could block access to the active sites for the reaction. Oxidation of carbon during TPO at high temperature produces CO and/or CO2. The TPO profile shows several peaks (Figure 9) up to 300 °C, and some of them were not identified by the mass spectrum. CO and CO2 signals were only monitored for this experiment to verify carbon deposition. Water was separated through a −12 °C Peltier cold trap on the ICCS. However, the wide peak that appeared at about 450 °C was identified to be CO2, as shown by the mass spectrum (Figure 10).
For better interpretation of the results especially on the TPO profile of the spent catalyst, a fresh sample of the catalyst was reduced through TPR up to 650 °C (Figure 11). This analysis was immediately followed by a TPO analysis (Figure 12). The latest TPO profile mainly showed two different peaks. One peak is at about 150 °C which could be related to some consumption of O2 as shown by the mass spectrum (Figure 13), and another peak is at about 450 °C which was not identified by the mass spectrum and could be related to the oxidation of some remaining salt traces that were used for the preparation of the catalyst. When this latter profile is compared with the TPO profile shown at Figure 9 (spent catalyst), it clearly identifies different components, if any, and that were retained or produced during the reaction. When the mass spectrum of the fresh catalyst (Figure 13) is compared to the mass spectrum of the spent catalyst (Figure 10), it clearly shows that the spent catalyst may have carbon deposition resulting from the Bosch reaction at high temperatures. The mass spectrum of the fresh catalyst did not show the same pattern as illustrated by the TPO profile (Figure 12), which suggests the presence of non-identified ions from the fresh catalyst. It can be concluded from this last result that if the reaction time would have been extended, the catalyst would have been slowly deactivated as carbon would keep building on the surface of the catalyst blocking the entrance to the active area within the catalyst pores, and thus reducing diffusion and deactivating the catalyst.

5. Conclusions

The combination of these three instruments becomes a very powerful tool for researchers, especially for those who work in the catalysis field. The results presented here demonstrated that the ICCS can perform a complete in situ characterization of the catalysts before and after the reaction. The TPR analysis not only ensured a complete reduction of the catalyst prior to the reaction, but also revealed several important pieces of information about the catalyst, including: Quantity of the oxides present on the catalyst, reduction temperature that is related to the nature of the active sites and their interaction with the support; estimation of the homogeneity/heterogeneity of active particles indicated by the width of the produced peaks, etc. However, the characterization of the catalyst after reaction is also a mandatory task that often needs to be performed. The tests after reaction, such as the TPO demonstrated here, will help reveal the causes of the catalyst deactivation. Typically, this occurs either due to sintering of active particles and loss of active area for reaction, or by carbon formation via the Bosch reaction at elevated temperatures that block the pores and reduce the diffusion of the reactants to the inner pores where the active species are vastly present.
Online monitoring by the mass spectrometer of the reaction’s products permits the users to follow the different steps of the reaction as the temperature is slowly increased. This process not only reveals the optimal reaction conditions, but also actively monitors the possible deactivation of the catalyst under serious circumstances of pressure and temperature. Thus, it permits the operator, in cases when it is needed, to adjust the reaction conditions before the catalyst is completely deactivated. The obtained results shown by the mass spectrometer demonstrated that the Sabatier reaction requires a pressure of at least 30 bar and high temperature to produce the desired product. These results showed no production of CH4 at atmospheric pressure and only carbon monoxide and water were produced as co-products. It was also observed by the TPO analysis that carbon was formed at high temperatures that can deactivate the catalyst with a longer reaction time. Only CO2 was produced for this experiment, which could be related to the fact that copper would possibly be a good catalyst to oxidize CO into CO2.
The different peaks that were not identified by either TPR or TPO could be due to the presence of some remaining traces from the salts used to prepare the catalyst.
Further characterization techniques would have been also implemented for a wider and more comprehensive study of this catalyst. Pulse of N2O for example, would have revealed the dispersion of the active species and the possibility of sintering at high temperature that is required by the reaction.
It can be concluded from this partial study that the combination of a mass spectrometer and the ICCS instrument, when connected to the Micromeritics FR micro-reactors series, become a very powerful and useful tool to perform in situ characterization and test the catalyst before and after deactivation, which is the mandatory information in catalysis that is required for the study of any reaction.
Note: The Sabatier reaction studied in this note was only for illustration purposes. It was not intended to find the optimum condition and/or the best catalyst, but to demonstrate the importance and efficacy of the use of these instruments connected together and to render them a ONE powerful tool for researchers in catalysis.

Author Contributions

Study conception, design, and supervision: S.Y. and J.K.; data collection: S.Y., U.P.K. and H.N.; analysis and interpretation of results: S.Y., U.P.K., H.N. and J.K.; draft manuscript preparation: S.Y.; revision of the manuscript: S.Y., U.P.K., H.N. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Avery Spalding, Marketing department, Micromeritics Instrument Corporation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Micromeritics Instrument Corp. 4356 Communications Drive, Norcross, GA, 30093, USA. Available online: https://www.micromeritics.com/fr-mr-reactor-systems/ (accessed on 17 August 2021).
  2. Process Integral Development Eng & Tech S.L. (PID), Calle de Francisco Gervás, 11, 28108 Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain. Available online: http://www.pidengtech.com/products-and-services/in-situ-catalyst-characterization-system (accessed on 17 August 2021).
  3. MKS Instruments UK Lt, Cowley Way, Crewe, Cheshire CW1 6AG, UK. Available online: https://www.mksinst.com/c/atmospheric-pressure-gas-analyzers (accessed on 17 August 2021).
  4. Webb, P.A.; Orr, C. Analytical Methods in Fine Particle Technology; Micromeritics Instrument Corporation: Norcross, GA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sabatier, P.; Senderens, J.-B. New synthesis of methane. Comptes Rendus 1902, 134, 514–516. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sabatier, P.; Senderens, J.-B. Hydrogénation directe des oxydes du carbone en présence de divers métaux divisés. Comptes Rendus 1902, 134, 689–691. [Google Scholar]
  7. Artz, J.; Muller, T.E.; Thenert, K.; Kleinekorte, J.; Meys, R.; Sternberg, A.; Bardow, A.; Leitner, W. Sustainable conversion of carbon dioxide: An integrated review of catalysis and life cycle assessment. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 434–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Álvarez, A.; Borges, M.; Corral-Perez, J.J.; Giner-Olcina, J.; Hu, L.; Cornu, D.; Huang, R.; Stoian, D.; Urakawa, A. CO2 Activation over catalytic surfaces. ChemPhysChem 2017, 18, 3135–3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Prieto, G. Carbon dioxide hydrogenation into higher hydrocarbons and oxygenates: Thermo-dynamic and kinetic bounds and progress with heterogeneous and homogeneous catalysis. ChemSusChem 2017, 10, 1056–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Kattel, S.; Liu, P.; Chen, J.G. Tuning selectivity of CO2 hydrogenation reactions at the metal/oxide interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 9739–9754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. IEA Report. Global CO2 Emission in 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019 (accessed on 11 February 2020).
  12. Gorre, J.; Ruoss, F.; Karjunen, H.; Schaffert, J.; Tynjälä, T. Cost benefits of optimizing hydrogen storage and methanation capacities for power-to-gas plants in dynamic operation. Appl. Energy 2020, 257, 113967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Frontera, P.; Macario, A.; Ferraro, M.; Antonucci, P. Supported catalysts for CO2 methanation: A review. Catalyst 2017, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rendón-Calle, A.; Low, Q.H.; Hong, S.H.L.; Builes, S.; Yeo, B.S.; Calle-Vallejo, F. How symmetry factors cause potential- and facet-dependent pathway shifts during CO2 reduction to CH4 on Cu electrodes. Appl. Catal. 2021, 285, 119776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wilson, R.B. Fundamental Investigation of the Bosch Reaction; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The set of 3 instruments connected together.
Figure 1. The set of 3 instruments connected together.
Chemistry 03 00084 g001
Figure 2. TPR profile on the 13% CuO catalyst.
Figure 2. TPR profile on the 13% CuO catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g002
Figure 3. Spectrum of signals at 1 bar.
Figure 3. Spectrum of signals at 1 bar.
Chemistry 03 00084 g003
Figure 4. Water dripping out from the L/G separator.
Figure 4. Water dripping out from the L/G separator.
Chemistry 03 00084 g004
Figure 5. Spectrum of signals at 10 bar.
Figure 5. Spectrum of signals at 10 bar.
Chemistry 03 00084 g005
Figure 6. Spectrum of signals at 20 bar.
Figure 6. Spectrum of signals at 20 bar.
Chemistry 03 00084 g006
Figure 7. Spectrum of signals at 30 bar.
Figure 7. Spectrum of signals at 30 bar.
Chemistry 03 00084 g007
Figure 8. MS signals of the different elements of the reaction.
Figure 8. MS signals of the different elements of the reaction.
Chemistry 03 00084 g008
Figure 9. TPO profile on the spent catalyst.
Figure 9. TPO profile on the spent catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g009
Figure 10. TPO spectrum on the spent catalyst.
Figure 10. TPO spectrum on the spent catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g010
Figure 11. TPR profile on the fresh catalyst.
Figure 11. TPR profile on the fresh catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g011
Figure 12. TPO profile on the fresh catalyst.
Figure 12. TPO profile on the fresh catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g012
Figure 13. TPO spectrum on the fresh catalyst.
Figure 13. TPO spectrum on the fresh catalyst.
Chemistry 03 00084 g013
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yunes, S.; Kim, U.P.; Nguyen, H.; Kenvin, J. Exploiting In-Situ Characterization for a Sabatier Reaction to Reveal Catalytic Details. Chemistry 2021, 3, 1157-1165. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/chemistry3040084

AMA Style

Yunes S, Kim UP, Nguyen H, Kenvin J. Exploiting In-Situ Characterization for a Sabatier Reaction to Reveal Catalytic Details. Chemistry. 2021; 3(4):1157-1165. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/chemistry3040084

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yunes, Simon, Urim Pearl Kim, Hoang Nguyen, and Jeffrey Kenvin. 2021. "Exploiting In-Situ Characterization for a Sabatier Reaction to Reveal Catalytic Details" Chemistry 3, no. 4: 1157-1165. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/chemistry3040084

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop