Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor

Myriam Frey; David Édouard; Anne-Cécile Roger

doi:10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002

GeCat 2014: Advances and prospects in heterogeneous catalysis

Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor

Myriam Frey ¹ ; David Édouard ^2,³ ; Anne-Cécile Roger ¹

¹ ICPEES, UMR 7515, UMR 7515, Group “Energy and Fuels for a Sustainable Development”, 25, rue Becquerel, 67087 Strasbourg, France
² University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study (USIAS), 67000 Strasbourg, France
³ Laboratoire d’automatique et de génie des procédés (LAGEP), Université Claude-Bernard Lyon-1, UMR CNRS 5007, 43, boulevard du 11-Novembre-1918, 69622 Villeurbanne, France

Comptes Rendus. Chimie, GECat 2014 – Advances and prospects in heterogeneous catalysis, Volume 18 (2015) no. 3, pp. 283-292.

Résumé

Here, we present a preliminary study to choose a catalyst with enough catalytic activity at temperatures below 250 °C, in order to study heat transfer in a platelet milli-reactor (PMR) with an infrared camera and a commercial window inserted on the top of our reactor that only withstands a maximal temperature of 250 °C. The higher methane productivity of foam catalysts compared to powder catalysts was revealed. Foam catalysts, all impregnated with the same amount of active phase (Ni + Ru) and with different coatings, were compared to SiC only impregnated with Ni + Ru. The different coatings studied were: carbon nanofibers (CNF), ceria–zirconia (CZ) and the combination of both. Both CNF and CZ washcoats were able to increase the low specific surface area of the SiC foam. Moreover, the presence of ceria–zirconia was proven to be essential for ensuring high methane productivities. The catalyst combining both CNF and CZ showed the best results.

Métadonnées

Reçu le : 2014-06-30
Accepté le : 2015-01-06
Publié le : 2015-02-07

DOI : 10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002

Mots-clés : Structured milli-reactors, Foam, Carbon nanofibers, CO₂ hydrogenation, Methanation, Ceria–zirconia

Affiliations des auteurs :

Myriam Frey ¹ ; David Édouard ^{2, 3} ; Anne-Cécile Roger ¹

¹ ICPEES, UMR 7515, UMR 7515, Group “Energy and Fuels for a Sustainable Development”, 25, rue Becquerel, 67087 Strasbourg, France
² University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study (USIAS), 67000 Strasbourg, France
³ Laboratoire d’automatique et de génie des procédés (LAGEP), Université Claude-Bernard Lyon-1, UMR CNRS 5007, 43, boulevard du 11-Novembre-1918, 69622 Villeurbanne, France

@article{CRCHIM_2015__18_3_283_0,
     author = {Myriam Frey and David \'Edouard and Anne-C\'ecile Roger},
     title = {Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor},
     journal = {Comptes Rendus. Chimie},
     pages = {283--292},
     publisher = {Elsevier},
     volume = {18},
     number = {3},
     year = {2015},
     doi = {10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002},
     language = {en},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Myriam Frey
AU  - David Édouard
AU  - Anne-Cécile Roger
TI  - Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor
JO  - Comptes Rendus. Chimie
PY  - 2015
SP  - 283
EP  - 292
VL  - 18
IS  - 3
PB  - Elsevier
DO  - 10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002
LA  - en
ID  - CRCHIM_2015__18_3_283_0
ER  -

%0 Journal Article
%A Myriam Frey
%A David Édouard
%A Anne-Cécile Roger
%T Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor
%J Comptes Rendus. Chimie
%D 2015
%P 283-292
%V 18
%N 3
%I Elsevier
%R 10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002
%G en
%F CRCHIM_2015__18_3_283_0

Myriam Frey; David Édouard; Anne-Cécile Roger. Optimization of structured cellular foam-based catalysts for low-temperature carbon dioxide methanation in a platelet milli-reactor. Comptes Rendus. Chimie, GECat 2014 – Advances and prospects in heterogeneous catalysis, Volume 18 (2015) no. 3, pp. 283-292. doi : 10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002. https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/chimie/articles/10.1016/j.crci.2015.01.002/

Version originale du texte intégral

Le texte intégral ci-dessous peut contenir quelques erreurs de conversion par rapport à la version officielle de l'article publié.

1 Introduction

Carbon dioxide has always been present in the atmosphere in small quantities. There are natural sources responsible for its presence (breathing, fermentation, fires, volcanoes, decomposition of organic matter…), but also anthropogenic ones (combustion of fossil sources and biomass, industries, agriculture…), the contribution of which being massively and constantly increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is one of the gases responsible for the greenhouse effect. In order to reduce the CO₂ production or its emission into the atmosphere, a lot of research projects about capture and storage emerged [1].

Another pathway to reduce these emissions is the valorisation of CO₂ by transformation into valuable chemical compounds, like methane or longer hydrocarbon species, methanol, esters, ethers… [2].

The production of methane using CO₂ as a reactant is therefore a suitable way to contribute to the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions through chemical recycling. Using conventional electricity, made for example from fossil fuel, would be nonsense, contrary to the power-to-gas concept where the excess of energy mainly produced by wind parks or solar-electric generation is used. The hydrogen necessary for the methanation reaction is produced by water electrolysis and reacts with carbon dioxide to produce methane that can be directly injected into the natural gas grid. Few projects are already at the state of demonstration project, for example the ENERTAG project (2011) [3], which uses excess energy from wind parks to produce hydrogen combined with a biogas plant to produce biomethane, or Audi (2013) [4] with a power-to-gas facility of 6 MW to produce methane for their new gas powered cars.

The methanation reaction was discovered by Sabatier and Senderens in 1902 [5,6], who studied the hydrogenation reaction of CO and CO₂ on nickel or cobalt. Since then many studies on metallic elements of group VIII (Fe [7], Rh [8,9], Ru [10,11], Co [12] or Ni [9,13–19]) supported on oxides (TiO₂, CeO₂, ZrO₂, Al₂O₃, SiO₂, La₂O₃, La₂O₃/SiC [18]…) or mixed oxides [9,18–21] were published.

During the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide into methane (1), other side products like alkanes (2), alkenes (3), and CO through Reverse Water Gas Shift reaction (4) can be formed:

{CO}_{2} + 4 H_{2} = {CH}_{4} + 2 H_{2} O

(1)

n {CO}_{2} + (3 n + 1) H_{2} = C_{n} H_{2 n + 2} + 2 n H_{2} O

(2)

n {CO}_{2} + (3 n) H_{2} = C_{n} H_{2 n} + 2 n H_{2} O

(3)

{CO}_{2} + H_{2} = CO + 2 H_{2} O

(4)

Most of the studies that can be found in the literature about this reaction were done using powder catalysts in a fixed-bed reactor. The use of cellular foam instead of powder in a fixed-bed has many advantages such as a high surface/volume ratio, low pressure drop, a better control of the reaction conditions and an intensification of mass and heat transfer [22–24]. The last one is very interesting for the intensification of the methanation reaction. Effectively, the exothermicity of this reaction is partly responsible for the catalyst deactivation by enhancing the sintering of metallic particles.

The cellular foams used in this work, made of β-SiC and provided by SICAT [25], are synthesized using a shape memory synthesis developed by Ledoux et al. [26]. The use of β-SiC foams have some advantages: SiC is chemically inert, has a good mechanical and thermal resistance and presents a high thermal conductivity for a ceramic matrix. β-SiC shows however one major disadvantage, its low specific surface area (approx. 20 m²·g⁻¹) which is due to its method of preparation that requires high temperatures. However, Édouard et al. [27] reported that by growing nanofibers on the foam's surface, the specific surface area can be increased up to 50 m²·g⁻¹.

A new kind of platelet milli-reactor (PMR), shown on Fig. 1, has been developed by our institute for the intensification of catalytic processes like the dehydration of methanol into dimethylether [28,29], the oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane and ammoxidation of propane [30] and the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis [31]. But, up to date, no industrial processes have been reported using microreactors or PMR despite their advantages compared to conventional reactor. The PMR used in this study is composed of a metallic host structure where a cellular β-SiC foam with or without carbon nanofibers (CNF), impregnated with a catalyst, is inserted into a central channel (18 mm × 5 mm × 24 mm), as shown in Fig. 1. This PMR is used in order to enhance the methanation reaction by combining the advantages of milli-reactors and β-SiC foam support.

Fig. 1
(Color online.) Drawing of the platelet milli-reactor (PMR) developed for this study with a single central channel of 18 × 5 × 24 mm.

The final objective of our work is to study the heat transfer of the highly exothermal carbon dioxide methanation reaction. In order to study the heat transfer, an infrared camera will be used and a commercial window inserted on the top of the PMR. The window used only stands a maximal temperature of 250 °C. Therefore, in this paper, we will present the preliminary studies made to choose a catalyst with enough catalytic activity at temperatures below 250 °C (10–20%). First, catalytic tests in a fixed-bed were made on powder catalyst, then on fragments of impregnated β-SiC foam, in order to choose which active phase will be deposited on the foams that will be tested in the PMR.

Nickel-based catalysts were chosen because they are efficient for CO₂ methanation in term of activity and selectivity [9,21], and are less expensive than ruthenium-based catalysts also used for methanation. A ceria–zirconia support, that has already been studied by our institute [32,33] and proven to show high conversion rates, methane selectivity and stability, was employed. Two powder catalysts impregnated with 10 w% of Ni and 0.1 wt% of Ru were compared: CZ_p (CZ being Ce₂Zr₂O₈) and SiC’_p. Six SiC foam-based catalysts (cell size 2700 μm, strut size 226 μm, window diameter 1146 μm, porosity 0.9), whose detailed compositions are summarized in Table 1, were also studied. The first one, SiC’_f, was a SiC foam impregnated with 10 w% of Ni and 0.1 wt% of Ru and was compared to SiC’_p catalyst to investigate the difference between foam and powder catalysts regarding the catalytic activity. The second one, 27CZ_f, was a SiC foam with 27 wt% loading of ceria–zirconia and 2.5 wt% of Ni and 0.025wt% of Ru to have the same Ni/CZ ratio (1/9) than powder catalyst CZ_p. It will allow us to investigate the difference between foam and powder catalysts regarding the catalytic activity in the case of ceria–zirconia-based catalysts. The amount of active phase was set to 2.5 wt% of Ni and 0.025 wt% of Ru, to compare the foam catalysts studied. The third catalyst studied, SiC_f, was a SiC foam only loaded with the Ni and Ru active phases. The fourth catalyst studied, 15CNF_f, was a SiC foam with 15 wt% loading of carbon nanofibers to study the influence of those CNF on the catalyst's activity. A SiC foam with 1 wt% of CZ was also synthesized, 1CZ_f, to compare the effect of CNF and a ceria–zirconia-based catalyst with lower CZ content. Finally, 1CZ/15NFC_f; loaded with 15 wt% of CNF covered with 1 wt% of CZ, was synthesized to investigate the combined influence of CNF and ceria–zirconia.

Catalysts	wt% SiC	wt% CZ	wt% CNF	wt% Ni	wt% Ru
	SiC’_p	89.9	–	–	10	0.1

	CZ_p	–	89.9	–	10	0.1

	SiC’_f	89.9	–	–	10	0.1

	SiC_f	97.5	–	–	2.5	0.025

	15CNF_f	82.5	–	15	2.5	0.025

	1CZ_f	96.5	1	–	2.5	0.025

	27CZ_f	82.5	–	27	2.5	0.025

	1CZ/15CNF_f	81.5	1	15	2.5	0.025

2 Experimental

2.1 Catalyst preparation

2.1.1 Synthesis of Ce₂Zr₂O₈

Ce₂Zr₂O₈ was synthesized using a “pseudo sol–gel” method. The starting salts, cerium acetate (III) and zirconium acetylacetonate (IV), were dissolved separately in propionic acid (100 °C), in order to obtain a solution of 0.12 mol·L⁻¹ and generate the desired metallic propionates. Both solutions were then mixed and heated under reflux for 2 h in order to give mixed propionates. A distillation under progressive vacuum is made to evaporate the solvent and leads, through oligomerization, to the formation of a resin. Finally, this resin was calcined for 6 h at 500 °C in the air.

2.1.2 Powder catalyst impregnation of Ni + Ru

An amount of 10 wt% of Ni⁰ and 0.1 wt% of Ru⁰ were loaded over these supports using the incipient wetness impregnation method with nickel nitrate hexahydrate and ruthenium acetylacetonate dissolved in ethanol. The catalyst was then dried at 100 °C for 2 h and calcined at 500 °C for 6 h in the air (heating rate 2 °C min⁻¹).

2.1.3 β-SiC pre-treatment

The β-SiC foams were first calcined at 900 °C for 2 h in the air in order to generate a natural SiO₂–SiO_xC_y washcoat layer [27] allowing a better anchoring of the active phase.

2.1.4 CNF synthesis

The cellular foams were impregnated with 3 wt% of Ni⁰ using an ethanolic solution of Ni(NO₃)₂·6H₂O, dried at 100 °C for 2 h and calcined at 350 °C in the air for 2 h (heating rate 2 °C min⁻¹). The synthesis of CNF was performed in a quartz tubular reactor (inner diameter 30 mm, length 600 mm). The sample was first reduced under a hydrogen flow (100 mL·min⁻¹) for 1 h at 400 °C (heating rate 3.5 °C min⁻¹). The temperature was increased to 680 °C (heating rate 3.5 °C min⁻¹) and the gas flow changed to the reaction mixture H₂/ethane (50 mL·min⁻¹ and 100 mL·min⁻¹) for 2 h to generate the CNF. The temperature was then returned to ambient under argon. Finally, the samples were sonicated for 15 min to eliminate the CNF that are not well anchored.

2.1.5 Ceria–zirconia coating

The samples coated with ceria–zirconia, were dipped into a saturated propionic acid solution of pseudo sol-gel (cationic concentration of 0.94 M), dried overnight at 100 °C, and calcined for 6 h at 500 °C in the air. This step was repeated four times in order to have 30 wt% of CZ on the foam. A solution of 0.094 M and one dipping step was necessary to have 1 wt% of CZ on the SiC foam and SiC foam covered with carbon nanofibers.

2.1.6 Foam impregnation with Ni + Ru

The samples were impregnated with 2.5 wt% of Ni⁰ and 0.025 wt% of Ru⁰ by dipping them into an ethanolic solution of nickel nitrate hexahydrate and ruthenium acetylacetonate, and then dried at 100 °C for 2 h. The samples without CNF were calcined at 500 °C for 6 h in the air and the sample with CNF were first calcined at 200 °C for 2 h in the air, and after that, at 500 °C for 6 h under Ar.

2.2 Characterization

The specific surface area (SSA), average pore size and diameter of the different catalysts were determined by the Brunauer–Emmet–Teller (BET) method using N₂ adsorption–desorption measurements at 77 K (Micromeritics ASAP 2420). Prior to N₂ adsorption, the sample was outgassed at 250 °C for 3 hours to desorb moisture adsorbed on the surface and inside the porous network.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs were only used on the fragments to measure the diameter of CNF and to investigate the homogeneity of the CNF network and coating on the foam surface. SEM micrographs were taken with a JEOL FEG 6700F microscope.

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) experiments were performed from ambient to 1000 °C (heating rate 10 °C min⁻¹) in the air on the SiC foam to quantify the CNF synthesized.

X-ray diffraction patterns (XRD) were recorded on a Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer with a LynxEye detector and Ni filtered Cu Kα radiation (1.5418 Å) over a 2θ range of 25–100° and a position-sensitive detector using a step size of 0.012° and a step time of 0.5 s. The crystallite size of the samples was evaluated from X-ray broadening by using the Debye–Scherrer equation [34].

Hydrogen temperature-programmed reduction (H₂-TPR) on the powder samples was performed to evaluate the reducibility of the catalyst using a Micromeretics AutoChem II. TPR measurements were carried out on 100–150 mg of catalyst, loaded in a quartz U-tube and heated from room temperature to 900 °C (15 °C min⁻¹) under a flow of 10% H₂/Ar (50 mL·min⁻¹).

2.3 Catalytic test

The powder catalysts were sieved to use only the 125–200-μm fraction. The foam catalysts were fragmented and shaped to a cylinder with the same diameter than the reactor and a height of 5.5 mm. Carbon dioxide hydrogenation into methane was carried out under atmospheric pressure in a fixed-bed tubular reactor made of quartz (inner diameter 6.8 mm). The reaction temperature was monitored by using a thermocouple located inside the reactor. The Gas Hourly Space Velocity (GHSV) was set to 10,000 h⁻¹ and the formula used was: $G H S V = \frac{Q}{V}$ , Q is the flow rate (L·h⁻¹), and V is the apparent volume of the catalytic bed (L).

The gas flow rate was set to 25 mL·min⁻¹. For powders, the mass of catalyst was adjusted depending on its apparent density. The V value taken for the foam fragments was directly determined by calculating the volume taken (foam and volume taken by the empty cells) by the cylindrical fragment inserted into the quartz reactor.

The catalyst was pre-reduced in an 80:20 H₂:N₂ stream (46 mL·min⁻¹) at 400 °C (heating rate: 2 °C min⁻¹) for 6 h. The reactivity of the catalyst was followed at different temperatures: 150, 200, 250, 300, 350 and 400 °C (heating rate: 2 °C min⁻¹) under a stoichiometric flow of reactants: H₂/CO₂ (4:1), and N₂ as an internal standard. The molar ratio of H₂:CO₂:N₂ was 36:9:10, with a flow rate of 25 mL·min⁻¹. The feed and products were analyzed at every temperature using a programmable micro-chromatograph (Agilent M200H, TCD detector, alumina poraplot and molecular sieve 5-Å columns). The CO₂ conversion and CH₄ selectivity were defined as follows:

X_{{CO}_{2}} (%) = (1 - \frac{A_{C O_{2}}}{A_{{CO}_{2}} + A_{{CH}_{4}} + A_{CO} + 2 A_{C_{2} H_{6}}}) \times 100

S_{{CH}_{4}} (%) = (\frac{A_{C H_{4}}}{A_{{CO}_{2}} + A_{{CH}_{4}} + A_{CO} + 2 A_{C_{2} H_{6}}}) \times 100

X is the conversion, S the selectivity, and A the surface areas of the peaks obtained by chromatography and corrected by their corresponding gas response factors. The liquid phase was analyzed at the end of the reaction with a gas chromatograph (Agilent 6890N, SolGelWax column).

The methane productivity was also determined and defined as the amount of CH₄ moles produced per hour per gram of active phase (Ni + Ru).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Characterization

All the catalysts (Fig. 2) show a set of reflections at 37°, 43° et 63°C, assigned to NiO (NiO, JCPD card No. 01-089-7131), except 15CNF_f that has reflections at 44° and 52°, assigned to Ni⁰, due to the calcinations step under Ar. The reflections assigned to nickel crystallites are naturally less intense for the foams due to the smaller amount of nickel present. RuO₂ is not detected by XRD, because of the amount of metal present on the catalysts being under the detection limit of the apparatus.

Fig. 2
(Color online.) Powder diffractogram of the catalysts studied.

The XRD patterns (Fig. 2) of CZ_p show the presence of the fluorite cubic structure (Ce_0.4Zr_0.6O₂, JCPD card No. 00-038-1439), usually observed for ceria–zirconia mixed oxide with high contents of ceria [35,36]. Reflections corresponding to (111), (200), (220), (311), (222) and (400) planes are observed. Furthermore, no CeO₂ or ZrO₂ segregation phases are detected. This indicates that zirconia is completely incorporated into the ceria lattice, forming a homogeneous solid solution. The X-ray powder diffractograms of SiC’_p, SiC_f and SiC’_f (diffractograms of foams not presented because it is similar to SiC’_p) also show the presence of a fluorite cubic structure corresponding to β-SiC (β-SiC, JCPD card No. 00-001-1119). Reflections corresponding to (111), (200), (220), (311), (222) and (400) planes are observed. The natural SiO washcoat cannot be seen by XRD.

The XRD pattern of 1CZ_f also shows that ceria–zirconia and SiC have both a fluorite cubic structure, but the peaks are broader and seem to be split, which indicates the presence of other peaks. Not all the crystallites are present as a mixed oxide, some segregations may have occurred.

XRD results are summarized in Table 2. The crystallite size of SiC varies from 27 to 31 nm. The size of ceria–zirconia particles are of 6.6 nm for the powder catalyst and 3.8 nm for the ceria–zirconia deposited on the SiC foam. The nickel particles are of 25 and 33 nm, respectively for SiC’_p and CZ_p. In the case of SiC_f, 15CNF_f and 1CZ_f, the sizes of nickel particles are similar: 18–19 nm. The lattice parameters of SiC crystallites are also similar and vary between 4.35 and 4.36 Å. In the case of the ceria–zirconia catalysts, the lattice parameter of the powder and the foam catalyst are respectively of 5.268 and 5.353. The higher value of the second one is due to the presence of the segregated phases observed on the powder diffractogram.

Catalyst	XRD	BET
		D_SiC (nm)	D_CZ (nm)	D_NiO (nm)	D_RuO2 (nm)	a_SiC (Å)	a_CZ (Å)	D_pores (nm)	V_pores (cm³/g)	SSA (m²/g)
	SiC’_p	31.2	–	24.9	nd	4.352	–	17.8	0.13	6

	CZ_p	–	7.1	33.5	nd	–	5.268	4.4	0.05	31

	SiC’_f	31.2	–	24.9	nd	4.352	–	17.3	0.19	10

	SiC_f	31.4	–	18.6	–	4.357	–	15.2	0.12	25

	15CNF_f	27.6	nd	18.1	nd	4.356	nd	12.2	0.15	40

	1CZ_f	31.2	4.9	nd	nd	4.360	5.306	13.8	0.11	27

	27CZ_f	25.6	3.8	18.4	nd	4.363	5.353	7.1	0.08	29

	1CZ/15CNF_f	31.9	nd	20.9	nd	4.357	nd	11.8	0.14	40

The BET results are summarized in Table 2. The SiC powder catalyst, SiC’_p, has a specific surface area of 6 m² g⁻¹, which is the lowest value observed. The SSA value of CZ_p is much higher: 31 m² g⁻¹. The coating of foams with ceria–zirconia slightly increases their surface area from 25 m² g⁻¹ to 27 and 29 m² g⁻¹ respectively for 1CZ_f and 27CZ_f. The foams covered with CNF have the highest surface area values: 40 m² g⁻¹. The pore size of the SiC is of 18 and 15 nm respectively for the powder and foam catalyst. The pore size decreases when covered by nanofibers. This phenomenon is even more important for the foam coated with ceria–zirconia, with pore sizes of 14 and 7 nm for 1CZ_f and 27CZ_f. The pore size seems to get closer to the value of powder ceria–zirconia: 4.4 nm. The pore volume values seem to be slightly higher when the foam is covered with carbon nanofibers, whereas those value decrease when the quantity of ceria–zirconia washcoat increases, the latter being due to the low pore volume values of ceria–zirconia synthesized by the pseudo sol-gel method.

The H₂-TPR results of the powder catalysts and of their corresponding supports are shown in Fig. 3 and summarized in Table 3. The reducibility of ceria–zirconia before impregnation is of 79% and of 76% after impregnation, assuming that all the Ni + Ru present is reduced into Ni⁰ and Ru⁰. One reduction peak at 360 °C can be attributed to the reduction of surface Ce³⁺ into Ce⁴⁺ according to the literature [37]. The peak at 381 °C can be attributed to the reduction of NiO particle of weak interaction with the ceria–zirconia support and the peak at 505 °C to the reduction of NiO particle of strong interaction with the ceria–zirconia support [38,39]. Another set of peaks is present between 164 °C and 220 °C. It is probably part of NiO and Ce³⁺ that is reduced at lower temperature due to their interaction with ruthenium particles, which renders their reduction easier. H₂-TPR of SiC powder shows practically no H₂ consumption, whereas for the reduction of the SiC’_p catalyst, hydrogen consumption is nearly twice the amount needed to reduce all the NiO and RuO₂ present. This higher consumption can be explained by a hydrogen spillover effect from the Ni + Ru metallic site to the SiO₂-SiO_xC_y sites of the washcoat [40]. In order to reduce most of the NiO and RuO₂ particles, a reduction at 400 °C of the catalyst is needed. Therefore, for the reactions made in the PMR, the foam will be reduced ex situ first, in a quartz tubular reactor, and afterwards a second reduction step at 220 °C inside the PMR to reduce the possible NiO layer formed on the metallic particles during the transfer of the foam from the tubular reactor into the PMR.

Fig. 3
(Color online.) Hydrogen temperature-programmed reduction (H₂-TPR) of the powder catalysts studied and their corresponding supports.

Catalyst	H₂ consumption (mmol/g)	H₂ theoretical consumption by Ni + Ru (mmol/g)	Ce³⁺/Ce_tot after TPR
CZ_support	1.33	–	0.79

CZ_p	2.87	1.51	0.76

SiC_support	0.04	–	–

SiC’_p	2.81	1.72	–

SEM micrographs of the foams of 27CZ_f (Fig. 4), 15CNF_f and 1CZ/15CNF_f (Fig. 5) were taken before impregnation with Ni + Ru. Fig. 4a and Fig. 5a clearly show that the struts have a triangular shape and are hollow, which is distinctive for foams synthesized with the shape memory synthesis method described by Pham-Huu et al. [41]. Fig. 4a and b show that the whole surface of the foam is coated with CZ. The thickness of the coating was measured using Fig. 4c, giving an average thickness of 27 μm.

Fig. 4
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs of 27 ceria–zirconia (CZ)_f before impregnation with Ni + Ru.

Fig. 5
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrographs: a and b: foam 15 carbon nanofibers (CNF)F_f; c and d: ceria–zirconia (CZ)/15CNF_f (both before impregnation with Ni + Ru).

Fig. 5a and b show that the foams with CNF are entirely covered with a dense network of carbon nanofibers, without closing cells or windows. The CNF diameters are between 20 and 50 nm, which is usually observed for carbon nanofibers grown over nickel particles using ethane [42]. In the case of foams with carbon nanofibers coated with ceria–zirconia, it can be observed in Fig. 5c that part of ceria–zirconia forms aggregates on the surface of the foam. However the nanofibers diameter measured using Fig. 5d are now between 30 and 80 nm, which clearly indicates that there is a washcoat of ceria–zirconia over the CNF.

3.2 Catalytic test

A study of the catalytic activity as a function of the temperature was made for all the catalysts mentioned previously and the results of CO₂ conversion rates and productivity are displayed in Figs. 6 and 7. For each test, the mass of Ni + Ru involved (depending on the catalyst density and composition) as well as the methane selectivities and side products at 250, 300 and 400 °C are presented in Table 4.

Fig. 6
(Color online.) a: CO₂ conversion values of the powder catalysts and their corresponding foam catalysts studied at Gas Hourly Space Velocity (GHSV) 10,000·h⁻¹ and thermodynamic values calculated for CO₂ conversion at various temperatures; b: CH₄ productivity values of the catalysts studied at GHSV 10,000·h⁻¹ for various temperatures.

Fig. 7
(Color online.) a: CO₂ conversion values of the foam catalysts studied at GHSV 10,000·h⁻¹ and thermodynamic values calculated for CO₂ conversion at various temperatures; b: CH₄ productivity values of the catalysts studied at Gas Hourly Space Velocity (GHSV) 10,000·h⁻¹ for various temperatures.

Catalyst	m_Ni+Ru (mg)	Temperature (°C)	X_CO2	S_CH4	S_CO	S_C2H6	P_CH4
	SiC’_p	14.4	250	5.0	94.0	4.7	0.4	0.04
			300	29.6	93.9	6.0	0.0	0.21
			400	76.2	98.4	1.4	0.0	0.57

	CZ_p	28.5	250	35.5	98.3	0.4	1.0	0.13
			300	77.3	99.5	0.3	0.2	0.30
			400	82.2	99.3	0.8	0.0	0.31

	SiC_p–CZ_p (70-30)	4.4	250	5.8	93.5	3.1	1.5	0.1
			300	28.2	96.8	2.3	0.9	0.7
			400	72.0	98.0	1.9	0.1	1.8

	SiC’_f	11.7	250	2.5	87.2	12.5	0.0	0.02
			300	14.3	87.7	12.2	0.0	0.12
			400	69.9	93.9	4.3	0.0	0.62

	SiC_f	1.3	250	0.6	74.5	23.3	0.0	0.04
			300	3.2	79.3	20.7	0.0	0.21
			400	37.5	76.6	23.1	0.0	2.42

	15CNF_f	1.5	250	1.3	88.1	13.3	0.0	0.09
			300	7.1	87.3	12.7	0.0	0.46
			400	48.6	86.5	12.7	0.0	3.13

	1CZ_f	1.3	250	2.1	99.3	2.8	0.7	0.18
			300	9.9	97.1	2.6	0.3	0.80
			400	46.4	92.3	8.3	0.0	3.58

	27CZ_f	2.4	250	8.3	97.5	2.1	0.5	0.37
			300	31.6	98.1	1.7	0.2	1.42
			400	59.8	96.4	3.9	0.0	2.63

	1CZ/15CNF_f	1.7	250	6.3	97.7	1.9	0.4	0.39
			300	27.5	97.7	3.1	0.2	1.73
			400	65.1	96.2	3.8	0.0	4.03

Regarding the powder catalysts studied (Fig. 6), the CO₂ conversion rates and methane selectivity at 250 °C are of 35.5% and 98.3% for CZ_p while SiC’_p those values are of 5.0% and 94%. The same trend is observed for higher temperatures. The ceria–zirconia-based catalyst is better than SiC.

The differences between foam and powder catalysts have been investigated, comparing SiC catalysts, SiC’_p and SiC’_f, and ceria–zirconia-based catalysts, 27CZ_f and CZ_p diluted with SiC powder giving a 30-70 CZ_p–SiC_p ratio in order to have the same chemical composition as that of 27CZ_f (72.5 wt% SiC, 27 wt% CZ, 2.5 wt% Ni and 0.025 wt% Ru). The results are presented in Fig. 6 and in Table 4. At 250 °C, the CO₂ conversion values of SiC’_p and SiC’_f are respectively of 5.0% and 2.5%. The same trend can be observed at higher temperatures: for similar compositions, the powder catalyst is always more active than the foam catalyst. For the ceria–zirconia-based catalysts, the powder (CZ_p–SiC_p) and foam catalysts (27CZ_f) have respectively CO₂ conversion values of 5.8 and 8.3% at 250 °C. For higher temperatures (400 °C), the powder catalyst shows higher CO₂ conversion rates with values of 72.0% against 59.8% for 27CZ_f.

The foam catalysts seem to have lower conversion rates, but in order to compare powder and foam catalysts, the parameter kept unchanged is the apparent volume of the catalytic bed. Therefore, the catalyst loading is less important due to the lower density of foams compared to powders. Consequently, a better comparison between foam and powder can be made if the productivity results are considered (Fig. 6 and Table 4). In the case of SiC’_p and SiC’_f, both curves are superimposed. The ceria–zirconia-based foam (27CZ_f) has productivity values that range from 0.37 to $2.63 {mol}_{{CH}_{4}} \cdot {g_{Ni + Ru}}^{- 1} \cdot h^{- 1}$ between 250 °C and 400 °C against 0.1 to $1.8 {mol}_{{CH}_{4}} \cdot {g_{Ni + Ru}}^{- 1} \cdot h^{- 1}$ for the CZ/SiC mixture. Finally, at 250 °C, the methane selectivities of SiC’_p and SiC’_f are respectively of 94.0% and 87.2%, while the CO selectivities are of 4.7% and 12.5%. In the case of ceria–zirconia, at 250 °C, the foam catalyst has respectively methane and CO selectivities of 97.5% and 2.1%, and the SiC/CZ mixture 93.5% and 3.1%.

To conclude, the productivities of SiC’_p and SiC’_f are similar, while the CO selectivities are higher for the foam catalyst SiC’_f. In the case of ceria-based-catalysts, 27CZ_f clearly shows the best productivity values and higher methane selectivities than the powder catalyst (CZ_p–SiC_p).

Fig. 7 and Table 4 allow us to compare the influence of ceria–zirconia, carbon nanofibers and carbon nanofibers combined with ceria–zirconia washcoats on the carbon dioxide methanation reaction. The conversion values of SiC_f (Fig. 7a), 15CNF_f, 1CZ_f and 27CZ_f at 250 °C are respectively of 0.6%, 1.3%, 2.1% and 8.3% and their productivity values (Fig. 7b) from 250 °C to 300 °C are 0.04–0.21, 0.09–0.46, 0.18–0.80, and 0.39–1.42 mol_CH4·g_Ni+Ru⁻¹·h⁻¹. The presence of carbon nanofibers has a positive effect on the catalyst's activity and ceria–zirconia seems to have a higher effect on the conversion rates. Moreover, the methane selectivities of SiC_f, 1CZ_f, 27CZ_f and 15CNF_f are respectively of 75–79%, 92–99%, 96–98% and 87–88%. Catalyst SiC_f has the lowest methane productivity and CO₂ conversion rates and more than 20% of selectivity for CO, which is too high to consider a direct injection of these reaction products into the natural gas transmission network. The CO₂ conversion rates of 15CNF_f are higher than for SiC_f, but the average CO selectivity of 13% is still too high. Still, those results show the beneficial effect of the carbon nanofibers on the catalytic activity by increasing the conversion rates and lowering the selectivity for CO. The CO₂ conversion values of 27CZ_f are higher and its productivity better due to the higher selectivity in methane and consequently lower CO selectivity (2–4%). Decreasing the ceria–zirconia loading to 1 wt% (1CZ_f) shows similar conversion values than for 15CNF_f, but higher methane productivities and selectivities than for 15CNF_f.

Catalyst 1CZ/15CNF_f was prepared to see if a combined effect of ceria–zirconia and carbon nanofibers could be achieved. For this catalysts, the CO₂ conversion rates are of 6.3% at 250 °C, which is close to the values of 27CZ_f (8.3%), and the methane selectivities of 96–98% are the same as for 27CZ_f. However, the productivity values of 0.39–1.73 mol_CH4·g_Ni+Ru⁻¹·h⁻¹ ranging from 250 °C to 300 °C are higher for 1CZ/15CNF_f than 27CZ_f ( $0.18 - 0.80 {mol}_{{CH}_{4}} \cdot {g_{Ni + Ru}}^{- 1} \cdot h^{- 1}$ ). The comparison of 1CZ/15CNF_f and 1CZ_f, which both have the same ceria–zirconia loading, shows that the CO₂ conversion rate, which is of 2.1% and 6.3% at 250 °C for 1CZ/15CNF_f and 1CZ_f, respectively, is higher for 1CZ/15CNF_f. Moreover, the same trend is observed for productivity values of 0.39–4.03 and $0.18 - 3.58 {mol}_{{CH}_{4}} \cdot {g_{Ni + Ru}}^{- 1} \cdot h^{- 1}$ for 1CZ/15CNF_f and 1CZ, respectively.

Consequently, the catalyst that will be used for the heat transfer study through infrared imaging is 1CZ/15CNF_f.

The conversion rate of the chosen catalyst at 250 °C is of 6.3%. This value seems low, but the catalytic tests were performed in a quartz tubular reactor with a bed apparent volume of 0.15 cm³ and a flow rate of 1.5 L·h⁻¹ in order to have a GHSV of 10,000·h⁻¹, high enough to allow a better comparison of the catalyst without being limited by the thermodynamic equilibrium. The bed volume in the PMR will be of 1.1 cm³, the flow rates will vary from 2 to 5 L·h⁻¹; consequently the GHSV will be lowered between 1800 to 4600 h⁻¹. Therefore, the residence time will be much higher and the catalyst activity will be higher; the conversion rates at 250 °C are thus expected to be higher than 6%.

4 Conclusion

The objective of this work was to develop a catalyst with enough catalytic activity at temperatures below 250 °C (CO₂ conversion rate of 10–20%) in order to study the heat transfer in a PMR filled with cellular foam using an infrared camera.

The specific surface area of the commercial SiC foam was successfully increased either by coating the foam with ceria–zirconia or by growing carbon nanofibers on the foam. The beneficial effect on the catalytic activity of ceria–zirconia and carbon nanofibers on the SiC foam was also revealed. Furthermore, the ceria–zirconia catalysts showed higher conversion rates and the presence of ceria–zirconia was proven to be necessary in order to have the lowest CO selectivity values and therefore the highest methane productivity. Finally, combining the positive effect of ceria–zirconia and carbon nanofibers gave the best productivity results and therefore, the catalyst 1CZ/15CNF_f was chosen for the heat transfer study.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ANR (ANR2010JCJC90401 SIMI9 ‘Millimatrix) and the Région Alsace for their financial support.

Bibliographie

[1] F. Lecomte; P. Broutin; E. Lebas Le captage du CO₂ : des technologies pour réduire les émissions à effet de serre, Technip, Paris, 2009

[2] J. Wambach; A. Baiker; A. Wokaun Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 1 (1999), p. 5071

[3] https://www.enertrag.com/fr/developpement-de-projet/la-centrale-hybride.html, 27/06/2014.

[4] E. Meza Audi opens 6MW power-to-gas facility http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/audi-opens-6-mw-power-to-gas-facility_100011859/

[5] P. Sabatier; J.-B. Senderens C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 134 (1978), p. 514

[6] P. Sabatier; J.-B. Senderens C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 134 (1902), p. 689

[7] W. Makowski; R. Dziembaj J. Mol. Catal., 91 (1994), p. 353

[8] A. Beuls; C. Swalus; M. Jacquemin; G. Heyen; A. Karelovic; P. Ruiza Appl. Catal., B Environ., 113–114 (2012), p. 2

[9] F. Ocampo; B. Louis; L. Kiwi-Minsker; A.-C. Roger Appl. Catal., A Gen., 392 (2011), p. 36

[10] S. Sharma; Z. Hu; P. Zhang; E.W. McFarland; H. Metiu J. Catal., 278 (2011), p. 297

[11] S. Fujita; N. Takezawa Chem. Eng. J., 68 (1997), p. 63

[12] Y. Zhang; G. Jacobs; D.E. Sparks; M.E. Dry; B.H. Davis Catal. Today, 71 (2002), p. 411

[13] H. Song; J. Yang; J. Zhao; L. Chou Chinese J. Catal., 31 (2010), p. 21 (Chinese version)

[14] C. Bartholomew J. Catal., 65 (1980), p. 390

[15] A.E. Aksoylu; Z. Misirli; Z.I. Önsan Appl. Catal., A Gen., 168 (1998), p. 385

[16] S. Tada; T. Shimizu; H. Kameyama; T. Haneda; R. Kikuchi Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 37 (2012), p. 5527

[17] M. Cai; J. Wen; W. Chu; X. Cheng; Z. Li J. Nat. Gas Chem., 20 (2011), p. 318

[18] G. Zhi; X. Guo; Y. Wang; G. Jin; X. Guo Catal. Commun., 16 (2011), p. 56

[19] F.-W. Chang; M.-S. Kuo; M.-T. Tsay; M.-C. Hsieh Appl. Catal., A Gen., 247 (2003), p. 309

[20] H. Takano; K. Izumiya; N. Kumagai; K. Hashimoto Appl. Surf. Sci., 257 (2011), p. 8171

[21] F. Ocampo; B. Louis; A.-C. Roger Appl. Catal., A Gen., 369 (2009), p. 90

[22] K.P. Jackel Microsystem Technology for Chemical and Biological Microreactors, Mainz, 20–21 February, 1995: Organized by Dechema and Imm, Dechema (1996)

[23] M.W. Losey; M.A. Schmidt; K.F. Jensen Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40 (2001), p. 2555

[24] O. Wörz; K.-P. Jäckel; T. Richter; A. Wolf Chem. Eng. Technol., 24 (2001), p. 138

[25] http://www.sicatcatalyst.com/.

[26] J.-M. Ledoux; J.-L. Guille; S. Hantzer; D. Dubots Process for the Production of Silicon Carbide with a Large Specific Surface Area and Use for High Temperature Catalytic Reactions, Patent No. US4914070 A, 1990

[27] D. Édouard; S. Ivanova; M. Lacroix; E. Vanhaecke; C. Pham; C. Pham-Huu Catal. Today, 141 (2009), p. 403

[28] S. Ivanova; E. Vanhaecke; S. Libs; B. Louis; C. Pham-Huu; M. Ledoux Déshydratation du methanol en diméthyléther employant des catalyseurs a base d’une zeolithe supportee sur du carbure de silicium, Patent No. PCT/FR2007/002017, 2008

[29] Y. Liu; S. Podila; D.L. Nguyen; D. Édouard; P. Nguyen; C. Pham; M.J. Ledoux; C. Pham-Huu Appl. Catal., A Gen., 409–410 (2011), p. 113

[30] T.T. Nguyen; L. Burel; D.L. Nguyen; C. Pham-Huu; J.M.M. Millet Appl. Catal., A Gen., 433–434 (2012), p. 41

[31] Y. Liu; D. Édouard; L.D. Nguyen; D. Begin; P. Nguyen; C. Pham; C. Pham-Huu Chem. Eng. J., 222 (2013), p. 265

[32] P.A.U. Aldana; F. Ocampo; K. Kobl; B. Louis; F. Thibault-Starzyk; M. Daturi; P. Bazin; S. Thomas; A.C. Roger Catal. Today, 215 (2013), p. 201

[33] F. Ocampo Développement de catalyseurs pour la réaction de méthanation du dioxyde de carbone, Université de Strasbourg, France, 2011 (PhD Thesis)

[34] H.P. Klug; L.E. Alexander X-Ray Diffraction Procedures, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1956

[35] A.E. Nelson; K.H. Schulz Appl. Surf. Sci., 210 (2003), p. 206

[36] A. Kozlov J. Catal., 209 (2002), p. 417

[37] H. Yao J. Catal., 86 (1984), p. 254

[38] A.M. Diskin; R.H. Cunningham; R.M. Ormerod Catal. Today, 46 (1998), p. 147

[39] M.A. Małecka; L. Kępiński; W. Miśta J. Alloys Compd., 451 (2008), p. 567

[40] W.C. Conner; J.L. Falconer Chem. Rev., 95 (1995), p. 759

[41] C. Pham-Huu; N. Keller; G. Ehret; M.J. Ledoux J. Catal., 200 (2001), p. 400

[42] N.A. Jarrah; J.G. van Ommen; L. Lefferts J. Mater. Chem., 14 (2004), p. 1590

Cité par

Xiangli Liu; Yiqing Zeng; Jiahao Chen; Zhaoxiang Zhong; Weihong Xing Research progress on the monolithic catalyst for hydrogenation of CO2 to methane, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, Volume 80 (2025), p. 184 | DOI:10.1016/j.cjche.2025.02.002
Mahendra Kumar Meena; Shalini Biswas; Prakash Biswas Hydrogenation of CO2 to synthetic natural gas (SNG) with 100 | DOI:10.1039/d4re00587b
Jungpil Kim Ni Catalysts for Thermochemical CO2 Methanation: A Review, Coatings, Volume 14 (2024) no. 10, p. 1322 | DOI:10.3390/coatings14101322
Yoran De Vos; Arie J.J. Koekkoek; Giuseppe Bonura; Serena Todaro; Monika Kus; Alexander Vansant; Gijsbert Gerritsen; Catia Cannilla; Hendrikus C.L. Abbenhuis; Vesna Middelkoop 3D printed CuZnAl2O3-based catalysts for direct CO2 hydrogenation to DME, optimization and scale up, Materials Science and Engineering: B, Volume 310 (2024), p. 117759 | DOI:10.1016/j.mseb.2024.117759
Xin Tang; Chuqiao Song; Haibo Li; Wenyu Liu; Xinyu Hu; Qiaoli Chen; Hanfeng Lu; Siyu Yao; Xiao-nian Li; Lili Lin Thermally stable Ni foam-supported inverse CeAlOx/Ni ensemble as an active structured catalyst for CO2 hydrogenation to methane, Nature Communications, Volume 15 (2024) no. 1 | DOI:10.1038/s41467-024-47403-4
Michal Neškudla; Lukáš Jeníček; Jan Malaťák Determining the Suitability of Various Surface Treatment Methods with the Control of Blasting Time with Respect to the Quality of Powder Coating, Acta Technologica Agriculturae, Volume 26 (2023) no. 2, p. 92 | DOI:10.2478/ata-2023-0013
Pallavi Jain; A. Geetha Bhavani Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Useful Chemicals and its Thermodynamics, Carbon Dioxide Utilization to Sustainable Energy and Fuels (2022), p. 311 | DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-72877-9_16
Lourdes Hurtado; Abhinav Mohan; Ulrich Ulmer; Reyna Natividad; Athanasios A. Tountas; Wei Sun; Lu Wang; Boeun Kim; Mohini M. Sain; Geoffrey A. Ozin Solar CO2hydrogenation by photocatalytic foams, Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 435 (2022), p. 134864 | DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2022.134864
Zhihao Liu; Xinhua Gao; Bo Liu; Qingxiang Ma; Tian-sheng Zhao; Jianli Zhang Recent advances in thermal catalytic CO2 methanation on hydrotalcite-derived catalysts, Fuel, Volume 321 (2022), p. 124115 | DOI:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124115
Nikolay Evdokimenko; Zhanna Yermekova; Sergey Roslyakov; Olga Tkachenko; Gennady Kapustin; Denis Bindiug; Alexander Kustov; Alexander S. Mukasyan Sponge-like CoNi Catalysts Synthesized by Combustion of Reactive Solutions: Stability and Performance for CO2 Hydrogenation, Materials, Volume 15 (2022) no. 15, p. 5129 | DOI:10.3390/ma15155129
Riccardo Balzarotti; Giovanni Drago Ferrante; Cristina Italiano; Massimo Laganà; Lorraine F. Francis; Antonio Vita; Cinzia Cristiani; Lidia Pino RhNi/CeO2 catalytic activation of alumina open cell foams by dip-spin coating for the CO2 methanation of biogas, Surface and Coatings Technology, Volume 441 (2022), p. 128563 | DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2022.128563
Tri Truong-Huu; Cuong Duong-Viet; Hy Duong-The; Jean-Mario Nhut; Thierry Romero; Lai Truong-Phuoc; Housseinou Ba; Lam Nguyen-Dinh; Cuong Pham-Huu Radiofrequency-driven selective oxidation of H2S on hierarchical metal-free catalyst containing defects, Applied Catalysis A: General, Volume 620 (2021), p. 118171 | DOI:10.1016/j.apcata.2021.118171
Lilian D. Ramírez-Valencia; Esther Bailón-García; Francisco Carrasco-Marín; Agustín F. Pérez-Cadenas From CO2 to Value-Added Products: A Review about Carbon-Based Materials for Electro-Chemical CO2 Conversion, Catalysts, Volume 11 (2021) no. 3, p. 351 | DOI:10.3390/catal11030351
Giulia Tuci; Yuefeng Liu; Andrea Rossin; Xiangyun Guo; Charlotte Pham; Giuliano Giambastiani; Cuong Pham-Huu Porous Silicon Carbide (SiC): A Chance for Improving Catalysts or Just Another Active-Phase Carrier?, Chemical Reviews, Volume 121 (2021) no. 17, p. 10559 | DOI:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00269
Peter Strucks; Luisa Failing; Stefan Kaluza A Short Review on Ni‐Catalyzed Methanation of CO2: Reaction Mechanism, Catalyst Deactivation, Dynamic Operation, Chemie Ingenieur Technik, Volume 93 (2021) no. 10, p. 1526 | DOI:10.1002/cite.202100049
Wei Keen Fan; Muhammad Tahir Recent trends in developments of active metals and heterogenous materials for catalytic CO2 hydrogenation to renewable methane: A review, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, Volume 9 (2021) no. 4, p. 105460 | DOI:10.1016/j.jece.2021.105460
Samrand Saeidi; Sara Najari; Volker Hessel; Karen Wilson; Frerich J. Keil; Patricia Concepción; Steven L. Suib; Alírio E. Rodrigues Recent advances in CO2 hydrogenation to value-added products — Current challenges and future directions, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Volume 85 (2021), p. 100905 | DOI:10.1016/j.pecs.2021.100905
Rongxin Zhang; Huanhao Chen; Yibing Mu; Sarayute Chansai; Xiaoxia Ou; Christopher Hardacre; Yilai Jiao; Xiaolei Fan Structured Ni@NaA zeolite supported on silicon carbide foam catalysts for catalytic carbon dioxide methanation, AIChE Journal, Volume 66 (2020) no. 11 | DOI:10.1002/aic.17007
Karim Ghaib 3D CFD Simulation of Reaction Cells, Cooling Cells, and Manifolds of a Flatbed Reactor for CO2 Methanation, Chemical Engineering Technology, Volume 43 (2020) no. 10, p. 1994 | DOI:10.1002/ceat.202000254
Waqar Ahmad; Ali Al-Matar; Reyad Shawabkeh; Zaheer Aslam; Izhar A. Malik; Hafiz M. Irshad Cu-K/Al2O3 based catalysts for conversion of carbon dioxide to methane and carbon monoxide, Chemical Engineering Communications, Volume 207 (2020) no. 7, p. 946 | DOI:10.1080/00986445.2019.1631815
Karim Ghaib Entwicklung des Katalysatorbetts in einem Flachbettreaktor zur CO2‐Methanisierung, Chemie Ingenieur Technik, Volume 92 (2020) no. 3, p. 238 | DOI:10.1002/cite.201900087
Israf Ud Din; Maizatul S. Shaharun; A. Naeem; Mshari A. Alotaibi; Abdulrahman I. Alharthi; Qazi Nasir Effect of reaction conditions on the activity of novel carbon nanofiber-based Cu/ZrO2 catalysts for CO2 hydrogenation to methanol, Comptes Rendus. Chimie, Volume 23 (2020) no. 1, p. 57 | DOI:10.5802/crchim.6
Huong Lan Huynh; Zhixin Yu CO2 Methanation on Hydrotalcite‐Derived Catalysts and Structured Reactors: A Review, Energy Technology, Volume 8 (2020) no. 5 | DOI:10.1002/ente.201901475
Matteo Ambrosetti; Riccardo Balzarotti; Laura Fratalocchi; Mauro Bracconi; Gianpiero Groppi; Enrico Tronconi Structured Catalysts and Non-conventional Reactor Designs for Energy Applications, Heterogeneous Catalysis for Energy Applications (2020), p. 361 | DOI:10.1039/9781788019576-00361
Nisar Ali; Muhammad Bilal; Muhammad Shahzad Nazir; Adnan Khan; Farman Ali; Hafiz M.N. Iqbal Thermochemical and electrochemical aspects of carbon dioxide methanation: A sustainable approach to generate fuel via waste to energy theme, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 712 (2020), p. 136482 | DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136482
Stefan Neuberg; Helmut Pennemann; Vetrivel Shanmugam; Raphael Thiermann; Ralf Zapf; Wojciech Gac; Magdalena Greluk; Witold Zawadzki; Gunther Kolb CO2 Methanation in Microstructured Reactors – Catalyst Development and Process Design, Chemical Engineering Technology, Volume 42 (2019) no. 10, p. 2076 | DOI:10.1002/ceat.201900132
Haibin Ma; Kui Ma; Junyi Ji; Siyang Tang; Changjun Liu; Wei Jiang; Hairong Yue; Bin Liang Graphene intercalated Ni-SiO2/GO-Ni-foam catalyst with enhanced reactivity and heat-transfer for CO2 methanation, Chemical Engineering Science, Volume 194 (2019), p. 10 | DOI:10.1016/j.ces.2018.05.019
Myriam Frey; Thierry Romero; Anne-Cécile Roger; David Edouard An intensification of the CO2 methanation reaction: Effect of carbon nanofiber network on the hydrodynamic, thermal and catalytic properties of reactors filled with open cell foams, Chemical Engineering Science, Volume 195 (2019), p. 271 | DOI:10.1016/j.ces.2018.11.028
Manuel Romero-Sáez; Leyla Y. Jaramillo; Wilson Henao; Unai de la Torre Nanomaterials for CO2 Hydrogenation, Emerging Nanostructured Materials for Energy and Environmental Science, Volume 23 (2019), p. 173 | DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-04474-9_4
Thanh-Son Nguyen; Yousef Swesi; David Edouard; Pascal Fongarland Platelet Millireactor Filled with Open Cell Foam-Supported Pt Nanoparticles for a Three-Phase Catalytic System, Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, Volume 58 (2019) no. 22, p. 9352 | DOI:10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01438
S. Pérez; E. Del Molino; V. L. Barrio Modeling and Testing of a Milli-Structured Reactor for Carbon Dioxide Methanation, International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, Volume 17 (2019) no. 11 | DOI:10.1515/ijcre-2018-0238
Vesna Middelkoop; Antonis Vamvakeros; Dieter de Wit; Simon D.M. Jacques; Simge Danaci; Clement Jacquot; Yoran de Vos; Dorota Matras; Stephen W.T. Price; Andrew M. Beale 3D printed Ni/Al2O3 based catalysts for CO2 methanation - a comparative and operando XRD-CT study, Journal of CO2 Utilization, Volume 33 (2019), p. 478 | DOI:10.1016/j.jcou.2019.07.013
Simge Danaci; Lidia Protasova; Vesna Middelkoop; Nachiketa Ray; Michel Jouve; Alain Bengaouer; Philippe Marty Scaling up of 3D printed and Ni/Al2O3coated reactors for CO2methanation, Reaction Chemistry Engineering, Volume 4 (2019) no. 7, p. 1318 | DOI:10.1039/c9re00092e
Antonio Vita; Cristina Italiano; Lidia Pino; Patrizia Frontera; Marco Ferraro; Vincenzo Antonucci Activity and stability of powder and monolith-coated Ni/GDC catalysts for CO2 methanation, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, Volume 226 (2018), p. 384 | DOI:10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.12.078
Cristina Italiano; Muhammad Arsalan Ashraf; Lidia Pino; Carmen Williana Moncada Quintero; Stefania Specchia; Antonio Vita Rh/CeO2 Thin Catalytic Layer Deposition on Alumina Foams: Catalytic Performance and Controlling Regimes in Biogas Reforming Processes, Catalysts, Volume 8 (2018) no. 10, p. 448 | DOI:10.3390/catal8100448
Juan C. Navarro; Miguel A. Centeno; Oscar H. Laguna; José A. Odriozola Policies and Motivations for the CO2 Valorization through the Sabatier Reaction Using Structured Catalysts. A Review of the Most Recent Advances, Catalysts, Volume 8 (2018) no. 12, p. 578 | DOI:10.3390/catal8120578
Jeremías Martínez; Edgar Hernández; Salvador Alfaro; Ricardo López Medina; Guadalupe Valverde Aguilar; Elim Albiter; Miguel A. Valenzuela High Selectivity and Stability of Nickel Catalysts for CO2 Methanation: Support Effects, Catalysts, Volume 9 (2018) no. 1, p. 24 | DOI:10.3390/catal9010024
Simge Danaci; Lidia Protasova; Frans Snijkers; Wim Bouwen; Alain Bengaouer; Philippe Marty Innovative 3D-manufacture of structured copper supports post-coated with catalytic material for CO 2 methanation, Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification, Volume 127 (2018), p. 168 | DOI:10.1016/j.cep.2018.03.023
Jens Artz; Thomas E. Müller; Katharina Thenert; Johanna Kleinekorte; Raoul Meys; André Sternberg; André Bardow; Walter Leitner Sustainable Conversion of Carbon Dioxide: An Integrated Review of Catalysis and Life Cycle Assessment, Chemical Reviews, Volume 118 (2018) no. 2, p. 434 | DOI:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00435
Muhammad Younas; Sumathi Sethupathi; Leong Loong Kong; Abdul Rahman Mohamed CO2 methanation over Ni and Rh based catalysts: Process optimization at moderate temperature, International Journal of Energy Research, Volume 42 (2018) no. 10, p. 3289 | DOI:10.1002/er.4082
Sakhon Ratchahat; Masao Sudoh; Yuji Suzuki; Wataru Kawasaki; Ryo Watanabe; Choji Fukuhara Development of a powerful CO2 methanation process using a structured Ni/CeO2 catalyst, Journal of CO2 Utilization, Volume 24 (2018), p. 210 | DOI:10.1016/j.jcou.2018.01.004
Karim Ghaib; Fatima-Zahrae Ben-Fares Power-to-Methane: A state-of-the-art review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 81 (2018), p. 433 | DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.004
Hélène Olivier‐Bourbigou; Céline Chizallet; Franck Dumeignil; Pascal Fongarland; Christophe Geantet; Pascal Granger; Franck Launay; Axel Löfberg; Pascale Massiani; Françoise Maugé; Armelle Ouali; Anne‐Cécile Roger; Yves Schuurman; Nathalie Tanchoux; Denis Uzio; François Jérôme; Daniel Duprez; Catherine Pinel The Pivotal Role of Catalysis in France: Selected Examples of Recent Advances and Future Prospects., ChemCatChem, Volume 9 (2017) no. 12, p. 2029 | DOI:10.1002/cctc.201700426
Myriam Frey; Alain Bengaouer; Genevieve Geffraye; David Edouard; Anne‐Cécile Roger Aluminum Open Cell Foams as Efficient Supports for Carbon Dioxide Methanation Catalysts: Pilot‐Scale Reaction Results, Energy Technology, Volume 5 (2017) no. 11, p. 2078 | DOI:10.1002/ente.201700188
Hao Wang; Jianhua Shen; Jianfei Huang; Tengjing Xu; Jingrun Zhu; Yihua Zhu; Chunzhong Li Atomically dispersed Au catalysts supported on CeO2 foam: controllable synthesis and CO oxidation reaction mechanism, Nanoscale, Volume 9 (2017) no. 43, p. 16817 | DOI:10.1039/c7nr06665a
Simge Danaci; Lidia Protasova; Jasper Lefevere; Laurent Bedel; Richard Guilet; Philippe Marty Efficient CO 2 methanation over Ni/Al 2 O 3 coated structured catalysts, Catalysis Today, Volume 273 (2016), p. 234 | DOI:10.1016/j.cattod.2016.04.019
Myriam Frey; Thierry Romero; Anne-Cécile Roger; David Edouard Open cell foam catalysts for CO 2 methanation: Presentation of coating procedures and in situ exothermicity reaction study by infrared thermography, Catalysis Today, Volume 273 (2016), p. 83 | DOI:10.1016/j.cattod.2016.03.016
Karim Ghaib; Korbinian Nitz; Fatima‐Zahrae Ben‐Fares Chemical Methanation of CO2: A Review, ChemBioEng Reviews, Volume 3 (2016) no. 6, p. 266 | DOI:10.1002/cben.201600022
Muhammad Younas; Leong Loong Kong; Mohammed J. K. Bashir; Humayun Nadeem; Areeb Shehzad; Sumathi Sethupathi Recent Advancements, Fundamental Challenges, and Opportunities in Catalytic Methanation of CO2, Energy Fuels, Volume 30 (2016) no. 11, p. 8815 | DOI:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01723
Stefan Rönsch; Jens Schneider; Steffi Matthischke; Michael Schlüter; Manuel Götz; Jonathan Lefebvre; Praseeth Prabhakaran; Siegfried Bajohr Review on methanation – From fundamentals to current projects, Fuel, Volume 166 (2016), p. 276 | DOI:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.111
Kechao Zhao; Weihan Wang; Zhenhua Li Highly efficient Ni/ZrO2 catalysts prepared via combustion method for CO2 methanation, Journal of CO2 Utilization, Volume 16 (2016), p. 236 | DOI:10.1016/j.jcou.2016.07.010
Waqar Ahmad; Ali Al-Matar; Reyad Shawabkeh; Adeem Rana An experimental and thermodynamic study for conversion of CO2 to CO and methane over Cu-K/Al2O3, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, Volume 4 (2016) no. 3, p. 2725 | DOI:10.1016/j.jece.2016.05.019

Cité par 52 documents. Sources : Crossref

Commentaires - Politique