1. Introduction
Recently, CO
2 reduction and recycling has become one of the most research topics in neutral carbon economics due to the serious impact on global climate change led by the growing CO
2 emissions[
1,
2].To migrate the increasing authropogenic CO
2, methods like CO
2 capture, utilization and storage (CCUS)had been engaged [
3]. Among these methods, the conversion of CO
2 with “green hydrogen” (hydrogen originates from sustainable energy, like wind, solar. Etc.) into synthetic natural gas (SNG) has been considered as one of the most promising and practical approaches for CO
2 utilization[
4,
5]. SNG, as a high value-added fuel product, plays a vital role as a raw material in the synthesis of syngas and many chemical products[
6]. CO
2 hydrogenation to SNG reaction, which was also called Sabatier reaction, displayed a great potential in “Power to Gas” process[
7]. However, this reaction went through an eight-electron process for CO
2 reduction into methane, which suffered an significant kinetic limitations [
8]. To solve this puzzle, a catalytic material could achieve high reaction rates was required. Ni-based catalysts with high reaction activity and low-cost, aroused extensive interest of researchers[
9]. While, in practical application, Ni-based catalysts always suffered from inferior activity at low temperatures[
10]. Compared to CO
2 methanation reaction in a higher-temperature, the low-temperature CO
2 methanation showed advantages in two different aspects: (I) The competitive reaction like reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction could be effectively reduced at low temperatures, and the catalysts obtained a high CH
4 selectivity. (II) The sintering and carbon deposition problems of the catalyst usually occurred at high temperatures, low temperature condition was conducive to the catalysts stability[
11,
12,
13]. Therefore, improving the low temperature activity of Ni-based catalysts is a current research hotspot[
14].
Hydrotalcite (HT) was a kind of natural or synthetic ordered materials, which consisted of positively charged two-dimensional sheets of mixed hydroxides, and charge-compensating anions placed between the layers[
15]. They were expressed as [M
2+1–xM
3+x(OH)
2] (A
n-)
x/n · mH
2O. (M
2+ and M
3+ were divalent and trivalent metals, respectively; x was the mole ratio of M
3+/(M
2++M
3+), A
n− was the interlayer anion)[
7].The unique supramolecular structure provided great potential to disperse and tune active sites at the atomic scale[
16]. Introduce a proportion of alkaline elements into the HT precursor could obtain a tunable alkaline site structure and promote the CO
2 adsorption, which would benefit for the CO
2-involving reaction. For instance, the addition of Mg element could improve the catalyst basic properties, result in the increase of the CO
2 adsorption capacity[
17]. Moreover, small-size and heat-stable metal nanoparticles were highly dispersed on the calcined HT precursor surface after reduction, thus the catalyst stability and reducibility would get enhanced [
10]. For example, Guo et al. synthesized the hydrotalcite-derived NiMgAl catalyst exhibited the excellent catalytic activity with CO
2 conversion of 91.8% at 250℃[
18]. Therefore, it was a promising approach by fabricating the alkaline-assisted hydrotalcite-derived materials to obtain the efficient low-temperature catalyst for CO
2 methanation.
However, traditional NiMgAl catalyst derived from hydrotalcite also suffered from strong metal-support interaction[
19], thus a long-time H
2 reduction process was needed to enhance reducibility. To overcome this drawback, quite a few reports were found to introduce a second metal (such as Mn, La and Y) to replace partial Mg element [
20,
21], thereby regulating the metal-support interaction. As reported by our group, the doping of Mn element could efficiently regulated the Ni and Mg(Mn)AlOx interaction, surface content of Ni
0 species, and basic property[
11]. Dominik Wierzbicki et al. supposed La could soften the interaction between Ni and the HT matrix, lead to the increase of Ni-species reducibility [
22]. Sun et al. found the incorporation the 0.4 wt% Y strongly decreased the metallic nickel particle size and increased the medium-strength basic sites[
23].
Besides the Mn, La,Y species, Ce, as a rare earth oxide, had also been a very attractive promoter for the CO
2 methanation due to its extraordinary ability to enhance metal dispersion as well as the thermal stability of the support [
24,
25]. Dębek R et al. found CeO
2 had a promoting effect on increasing surface basicity of the catalyst, which was attributed to the its high mobile oxygen capacity and redox activity [
26]. Reducing CO
2 to CO process was the rate-determining step of CO
2 methanation. In addition, the oxygen vacancy provided by the CeO
2 could create an additional driving force for this process in the reducing atmosphere [
27]. Zhang et al. considered that Ce
3+ cations located in the AlCeO
3 solid solution could greatly promote the adsorption and activation of CO
2 and facilitate the formation of the intermediate, therefore the CO
2 conversion was significantly accelerated at low reaction temperatures[
28]. In dry reforming of methane (DRM) reaction, Radosław Debek et al. incorporated Ce-species into the NiMgAl catalysts, which was found to promote the nickel species reducibility and introduce new strong oxygen species (low coordinated) and more medium-strength basic sites (Lewis acid-base pairs) [
15,
29].
Furthermore, a recent literature compared different Ni content (10.3, 16.2, 27.3, 36.8, 42.5 wt.%) on the performance of hydrotalcite-derived catalysts, the optimum Ni content was 42.5wt%. This result confirmed the higher amount of Ni introduced led to smaller crystallites, better reducibility and CO
2 adsorption capacity of the catalysts. H
2-TPR proved the Ni and hydrotalcite matrix interaction weakened with the increasing Ni contents, which had a positive effect on the catalytic activity[
30]. However, according to our knowledge, quaternary hydrotalcite-derived Ce-containing Ni-Ce catalysts had not been widely used in CO
2 methanation. Herein, our goal was to study the structure-performance relationships between them. We prepared a series of Ce-promoted Ni/MgAlOx catalysts through co-precipitation method in this study. The low-temperature catalytic performance was investigated by varying Ce content from 0, 1, 5 to 10wt%. The optimal sample displayed superior CO
2 methanation activity with 80% CO
2 conversion at low temperature 250℃, and the CH
4 selectivity was close to 100%. Meanwhile the CO
2 conversion (91.7%) was not deactivated upon 80h operation at 300℃. Extensive characterization methods (XRD, BET, ICP SEM, TEM, XPS, H
2-TPR, CO
2-TPD) were used to deeply analyze the promoting effect of Ce on influencing the catalyst structure, morphology, surface properties, metal-support interaction, performances during CO
2 methanation.
2. Experimental
2.1. Catalyst Synthesis
All of the hydrotalcite precursors were prepared by the co-precipitation method. Ni content was kept at 40wt % and the Mg/Al molar ratio was fixed at 1 in all samples, while the loading of Ce varied from 0, 1, 5 to 10wt%. Firstly, the mixture of Ni(NO3)2·6H2O, Mg(NO3)2·6H2O, Al(NO3)3·9H2O, Ce(NO3)3·6H2O was dissolved in the deionized water to form a solution at 0.4 M. Then the mixed nitrate solution was added dropwise into a flask containing 280mL sodium carbonate solution (0.25M) at 60℃ under vigorous stirring. At the same time, keeping the slurry PH at 9.5-10 by adding the sodium hydroxide solution (1M). After co-precipitation, the slurry was vigorous stirred at 60℃ for 1h and then aged for 18 h at 60℃. The solid product was obtained by filtration, washed with deionized water for three times, dried at 60℃ overnight, and named as NiCe0-HT (without Ce), NiCex-HT (x=1,5,10). Finally, the obtained hydrotalcite precursors were calcined at 500℃ for 4 h, and labeled as NiCex-C (x=0,1,5,10).
2.2. Catalytic Experiments
CO
2 methanation reaction was performed in a miniature fixed-bed reactor at atmospheric pressure. 200 mg catalyst (40-60 mesh) mixed with 500 mg quartz sand were placed in the quartz tube (inner diameter of 6mm and a length of 40cm). Prior to the catalyst evaluation, the catalysts were reduced under 30ml/min H
2 at 700 ℃ for 2 h. After reduction, the catalyst bed was cooled down in the N
2 atmosphere to 180 ℃, then the mixture of 40ml/min H
2 and 10ml/min CO
2 (H
2: CO
2=4:1, GHSV=15000 ml/ g/ h) was introduced into the reactor. The catalytic test was carried out in the temperature range of 200-350 ℃ at a temperature interval of 25℃. The gas products were analyzed by an on-line SP-7890 gas chromatogram equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) (fitted with a TDX01 column). Taking the CO
2 conversion (
XCO2) and the CH
4 selectivity (
SCH4) as indicators to evaluate the activity of the catalysts, which were calculated by the following equations[
31]:
where “
FCO2, in” and “
FCO2, out” refer to the inlet CO
2 gas flow and the outlet CO
2 gas flow respectively, “
FCH4, out” refer to the outlet CH
4 gas flow, mL/min.
The equations of CO
2 conversion rate (R
CO2, μmolCO
2/(g
cats)) and Turnover frequency (TOF, h
-1) are as follows[
32,
33].
where V
m represents the gas molar volume of 22.4 L/mol under standard conditions,
XCO2 refers to the conversion of CO
2 at 225 °C (X
CO2<15%), m denotes the quality of the catalyst (g)[
11,
34]
where δ represents the methane yield and
represents the molar amount of nickel atoms located on the catalyst surface, which is calculated by the nickel dispersion equation (D, %) based on the size of Ni nanoparticles after reduction (TEM reault).
The apparent activation energy of the catalyst was measured according to Arrhenius equation:
where k is the reaction rate, k
0 is the pre-exponential factor, Ea is the apparent activation energy of the reaction, R is the gas reaction constant (8.314 J/(mol·K)), and T is the reaction temperature. The experimental conditions were carefully selected to obtain the catalytic data with CO
2 conversion below 15% for activation energy calculation, which effectively excluded the influence of diffusion limit[
34].
2.3. Characterization of Catalysts
Powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement was performed on Rigaku Ultma IV device equipped with a copper-based anode (Cu Kα radiation, λ=0.154 nm). The instrument settings were 35 kV× 30 mA. It operated in the 2θ range from 5° to 85° with the scanning speed of 2°·min -1, to identify the crystal phase and morphology of the sample.
The hydrogen temperature-programmed reduction (H2-TPR) measurement was performed on a TP-5080 instrument equipped with a TCD detector (Tian jing, Xian quan) to investigate the reduction performance of the catalyst. Firstly, 50mg catalyst was placed in the quartz tube, then 30ml/min N2 was put into the instrument for 1 h at 200 ℃ to remove the physical adsorbed impurities on the catalyst surface. After cooling down to 50 ℃ under argon, 28ml/min 10% H2/N2 mixture was introduced to reduce the catalyst, and the system was kept at 50 ℃ for 40min until the baseline was stable. Then the reactor temperature was linearly increased from 50℃ to 800℃ at a heating rate of 5℃/min.
The carbon dioxide temperature-programmed desorption (CO2-TPD) was carried out on a Auto Chem II 2920 apparatus to determine the basic sites on catalyst surface. Firstly, 0.1g catalyst was placed in the quartz tube, 30ml/min H2/Ar was put into the device for 10 min at room temperature to remove the residual gas in the tube. Then the catalyst was reduced in H2/Ar at 700℃ for 2 h. After that, the sample was cooled down to 50℃ in N2 atmosphere. After CO2 adsorption of the catalyst for 1h, N2 was put into to the system to remove the remained CO2 in the gas phase and the physically adsorbed CO2 on the catalyst surface. Finally, the system was heated from 50℃ to 800℃ at a linear heating rate of 10℃/min to desorb the chemisorbed CO2 on the catalyst surface.
The N2 adsorption-desorption analysis was carried out on the ASAP 2020 analyzer at -196℃. All samples were degassed at 300℃ for 6 h before the analysis to desorb contaminants and moisture. The specific surface area was characterized by adsorption isotherm according to the multiple Brunauere-Emmette-Teller (BET) equation. The pore size distribution and average pore diameter were determined by the Barrette-Joynere-Halenda (BJH) model. Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES) was carried out by an Agilent 5110(OES) equipment to conduct elemental analysis of the catalysts.
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements were performed over a Thermo Scientific K-Alpha spectrometer equipped with Monochromated Al Kα X-ray source, (hυ =1486.6 eV, 12 kV, 6 mA). The binding energy standard was C1s=284.80eV.
ZEISS Sigma 30 scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to study the morphology of the catalyst precursor. The acceleration voltage was 3 kV and the magnification was 5W and 10W times. Moreover the morphology, metal dispersion and lattice spacing of the calcined and reduced catalysts were characterized by field emission transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which was performed on FEI Tecnai G2 F20 instrument with an acceleration voltage of 200 kV.
Figure 1.
XRD patterns of the hydrotalcite-like precursors NiCex-HT (a) and the mixed oxides NiCex-C (b).
Figure 1.
XRD patterns of the hydrotalcite-like precursors NiCex-HT (a) and the mixed oxides NiCex-C (b).
Figure 2.
N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms (a) and distributions of pore size of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 2.
N2 adsorption-desorption isotherms (a) and distributions of pore size of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 3.
SEM images of (a) (c) NiCe0-HT, (b) (d) NiCe5-HT.
Figure 3.
SEM images of (a) (c) NiCe0-HT, (b) (d) NiCe5-HT.
Figure 4.
TEM and HRTEM images of the catalysts (a) NiCe0-C, (b) NiCe1-C, (c) NiCe5-C, (d) NiCe10-C.
Figure 4.
TEM and HRTEM images of the catalysts (a) NiCe0-C, (b) NiCe1-C, (c) NiCe5-C, (d) NiCe10-C.
Figure 5.
Metal particle-size distribution over the reduced by TEM images (a) NiCe0-C, (b) NiCe1-C, (c) NiCe5-C, (d) NiCe10-C.
Figure 5.
Metal particle-size distribution over the reduced by TEM images (a) NiCe0-C, (b) NiCe1-C, (c) NiCe5-C, (d) NiCe10-C.
Figure 6.
H2-TPR profiles of NiCex-C (x=0,1,5,10) catalysts.
Figure 6.
H2-TPR profiles of NiCex-C (x=0,1,5,10) catalysts.
Figure 7.
CO2-TPD profiles of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 7.
CO2-TPD profiles of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 8.
XPS spectrum of Ni 2p3/2 (a) and Ce3d (b) of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 8.
XPS spectrum of Ni 2p3/2 (a) and Ce3d (b) of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Figure 9.
CO2 conversion (a) and (b) CH4 selectivity of NiCex-C catalysts with temperature range from 200-350℃, GHSV=15000 mL/gcat/h H2 /CO2 =4 (molar ratio), 50 mL/min, 200 mg catalyst.
Figure 9.
CO2 conversion (a) and (b) CH4 selectivity of NiCex-C catalysts with temperature range from 200-350℃, GHSV=15000 mL/gcat/h H2 /CO2 =4 (molar ratio), 50 mL/min, 200 mg catalyst.
Figure 10.
stability for CO2 methanation over the NiCe5-C catalyst at 300℃. Reaction conditions: H2/ CO2 = 4: 1, GHSV = 15000 mL/gcat/h, 0.1Mpa.
Figure 10.
stability for CO2 methanation over the NiCe5-C catalyst at 300℃. Reaction conditions: H2/ CO2 = 4: 1, GHSV = 15000 mL/gcat/h, 0.1Mpa.
Figure 11.
Arrehnius plots for the NiCe0-C and NiCe5-C catalysts.
Figure 11.
Arrehnius plots for the NiCe0-C and NiCe5-C catalysts.
Figure 12.
(a) Effect of Ce content on the medium-strength basic sites and CO2 conversion (T=225℃) (b) The relationship between medium-strength basic sites and TOF (T=225℃).
Figure 12.
(a) Effect of Ce content on the medium-strength basic sites and CO2 conversion (T=225℃) (b) The relationship between medium-strength basic sites and TOF (T=225℃).
Table 1.
Detail information of textural properties of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Table 1.
Detail information of textural properties of the NiCex-C catalysts.
Sample |
SBETa(m2/g) |
Vpb(cm3/g) |
Dpc(nm) |
Nid% |
Cee% |
Mg/Alf
|
NiCe0-C |
127.7 |
0.24 |
6.41 |
44.5 |
0.0 |
1.5 |
NiCe1-C |
215.0 |
0.25 |
6.25 |
40.5 |
0.79 |
1.5 |
NiCe5-C |
176.9 |
0.26 |
5.24 |
40.1 |
4.07 |
1.5 |
NiCe10-C |
169.0 |
0.29 |
4.37 |
42.3 |
8.70 |
1.4 |
Table 2.
Fitting analysis and parameters of CO2-TPD for all reduced NiCex-C samples.
Table 2.
Fitting analysis and parameters of CO2-TPD for all reduced NiCex-C samples.
Samples |
Reduction temperature (℃) |
|
Relative content (%) |
|
α |
β |
γ |
|
α |
β |
γ |
NiCe0-C |
108 |
173 |
277 |
|
16.1 |
36.2 |
47.7 |
NiCe1-C |
100 |
145 |
250 |
|
13.9 |
35.5 |
50.6 |
NiCe5-C |
117 |
170 |
264 |
|
11.9 |
30.3 |
57.8 |
NiCe10-C |
103 |
154 |
245 |
|
14.3 |
40.5 |
45.2 |
Table 3.
Surface basic sites density results of CO2-TPD for all reduced NiCex-C samples.
Table 3.
Surface basic sites density results of CO2-TPD for all reduced NiCex-C samples.
Samples |
Weak-strength basic sites (α+β) (mmol CO2/gcat) |
Medium-strength basic sites (γ) (mmol CO2/gcat) |
CO2-adsorption amount (mmol CO2/gcat) |
NiCe0-C |
0.48 |
0.43 |
0.91 |
NiCe1-C |
0.59 |
0.61 |
1.20 |
NiCe5-C |
0.58 |
0.79 |
1.37 |
NiCe10-C |
0.44 |
0.36 |
0.80 |
Table 4.
XPS result of Ni0 and Ce3+ relative content for the NiCex-C catalysts.
Table 4.
XPS result of Ni0 and Ce3+ relative content for the NiCex-C catalysts.
Samples |
Relative content (%) |
Ni0/(Ni0+Ni2+) |
Ce3+/(Ce3++ Ce4+) |
NiCe0-C |
31.5 |
0.0 |
NiCe1-C |
34.7 |
19.6 |
NiCe5-C |
40.5 |
23.2 |
NiCe10-C |
34.1 |
18.8 |
Table 5.
Comparison of catalytic performance of NiCex-C (x= 0, 1, 5,10) catalysts in.CO2 methanation at 225℃.
Table 5.
Comparison of catalytic performance of NiCex-C (x= 0, 1, 5,10) catalysts in.CO2 methanation at 225℃.
Samples |
Conversion (%) |
Selectivity (%) |
RCO2(μmolCO2/gcat/s) |
TOF(h-1) |
|
|
CH4
|
CO |
|
|
NiCe0-C |
3.4 |
98.7 |
1.3 |
1.26 |
0.39 |
NiCe1-C |
6.6 |
98.9 |
1.1 |
2.43 |
0.65 |
NiCe5-C |
13.9 |
99.8 |
0.2 |
5.17 |
1.19 |
NiCe10-C |
2.0 |
98.9 |
1.1 |
0.73 |
0.22 |
Reaction conditions: T=225℃ (conversion < 15%), GHSV=15000 mL/gcat/h H2/CO2 =4 (molar ratio), 50 mL/min, 200 mg catalyst. |