Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Synthesis of Cobalt-Based Nanoparticles as Catalysts for Methanol Synthesis from CO2 Hydrogenation

Altmetrics

Downloads

193

Views

50

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

30 October 2023

Posted:

31 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The increading emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has urged the scientific community to investigate alternatives to alleviate such emissions being the principal contributor to the greenhouse gas effect. One major alternative is carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) towards the production of value-added chemicals using diverse technologies. This work aims at the study of the catalytic potential of different cobalt-derived nanoparticels for methanol syntheis from carbon dioxide hydrogenation. Thanks to its abundance and cost-efficacy, cobalt can serve as an economical catalyst compared to noble-metal-based catalysts. In this work, we present a systematic comparison among different cobalt and cobalt oxide nanocomposites in terms of their efficiency as catalysts for carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol as well as how different supports can enhance their catalytic capacity. The oxygen vacancies in the cerium oxide act as carbon dioxide adsorption and activation sites, which facilitates a higher methanol production yield.
Keywords: 
Subject: Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Chemical Engineering

1. Introduction

Nowadays, one of the main worldwide concerns is the slow but unstoppable rise in global average temperature, a direct cause of climate change that seems almost unavoidable. The high quantities of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere, of which carbon dioxide emissions are the most important, predict an increase in the Earth’s temperature by 2040 of approximately 1.5 ºC compared to the data recorded at the end of the 19th century [1]. Such predictions have alerted the scientific community to develop protocols to lower carbon dioxide emissions, which can be classified according to whether they are carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture and utilization (CCU) methods. On one hand, CCS methods consist of capturing and storing the gas, and it is so efficient that it could account for almost 20% of the carbon dioxide reduction. Nevertheless, it can result quite costly because industrial-scale installations have to be built. Unfortunately, fossil fuels are still needed as an energy source for this treatment, so carbon dioxide reduction will never be fully completed [2].
On the other hand, CCU results are remarkably interesting, since it does not only deals with the storage of carbon dioxide, but it takes advantage of this gas as a valuable carbon resource for chemical conversion into other products. This is a more viable strategy as it could not only keep the atmospheric concentration at acceptable levels, but also provides high added-value chemical/fuel products, such as methane and methanol [3,4]. Among all the technologies, carbon dioxide hydrogenation has been considered a promising alternative for obtaining some products from carbon dioxide. An attractive possibility is the production of methanol, a chemical compound that has a wide range of applications. For instance, it can be used as a solvent to obtain several chemicals (formaldehyde, acetic acid, etc.), as well as in the conversion process to olefins, which can be used to produce hydrocarbon fuels and their derivatives, which are currently obtained from petroleum [5,6].
The hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to methanol consists of two main competing reactions. The first is the synthesis of methanol from carbon dioxide and hydrogen:
C O 2 + 3 H 2     → C H 3 O H + H 2 O   Equation   1   ∆ H 0 298   K = − 49.5   k J / m o l
The second reaction is the reverse water-gas shift reaction (RWGS), which produces carbon monoxide:
C O 2 + H 2 → C O + H 2 O   Equation   2   ∆ H 0 298   K = 41.2   k J / m o l
Furthermore, catalytic hydrogenation of carbon dioxide into methanol can also occur indirectly from carbon monoxide formed through the RWGS reaction [7]:
C O + 2 H 2 → C H 3 O H     Equation   3   ∆ H 0 298   K = − 90.6   k J / m o l
The synthesis of methanol is thermodynamically favoured at low temperatures and high pressures [8,9].
In recent years, bimetallic catalysts have been extensively investigated due to their chemical, electronic and structural properties, as well as the synergistic effects between metals leading to the catalytic system. Unlike monometallic systems, the bimetallic catalytic system has advantages in terms of selectivity, activity and stability [10]. The catalysts mainly chosen for carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol studies are Cu-Zn based systems, although other bimetallic catalysts such as Pd-Zn, Pd-Ga, Cu-Ni and Ni-Ga have been also investigated [7]. In addition to these mentioned catalysts, methanol has also been obtained using cobalt-based catalysts. Stangeland et al. [11] demonstrated that Co3O4/MnOx was efficient in the production of methanol at mild pressures, but a variety of by-products are also obtained. These authors achieved a 10-fold increase in methanol yield with Co3O4/MnOx catalysts compared to Cu/Zn based catalysts under similar conditions [11]. Wang et al. [12] investigated silica-supported cobalt catalysts with the aim of accelerating the selectivity of the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to methanol, and they showed that the inclusion of silica in the cobalt catalysts improved both carbon dioxide conversion and selectivity towards methanol [12].
One of the key aspects of cobalt-based catalysts is their ability to catalyse various carbon dioxide conversion reactions, including methanation [13,14], synthesis of higher alcohols [15,16] or methanol synthesis [11,12,17,18]. In these investigations, it was shown that the selectivity of these catalysts can be influenced by the use of different supports. In the present study, different supports including zeolite, manganese oxide and cerium oxide have been investigated to increase the catalytic activity of cobalt-based catalysts. It is hypothesiezed that different metal-support interactions between cobalf nanoparticles and the support will enhance the catalytic sites, leading to higher methnaol yield and selectivity. Zeolite is a microporous aluminosilicate with a three-dimensional structure based on SiO4 and AlO4 and it is known for its catalytic and adsorption properties [19]. Cerium oxide is a non-toxic oxide, which is of great importance in catalysis, due to its ability to store and supply oxygen [20,21]. It provides a large number of oxygen vacancies on the surface which can fucntion as sites for adsorption and activation of carbon dioxide. Manganese oxide is a mesoporous support like zeolite and cerium oxide its efffect as support for nanocatalysts used for carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol has not been reported [11].
On the other hand, capping agents are of utmost importance as stabilisers since they counteract the attraction between nanoparticles, thus inhibiting their overgrowth and aggregation. These agents are amphipathic molecules that are characterized by having a polar head group and a non-polar tail, and due to this amphipathic property, they improve the compatibility with other phases. Different types of protection agents have been implemented in the synthesis of nanomaterials (surfactants, polymers, polysaccharides, etc.), aiming to obtain nanoparticles of smaller sizes, which will lead to the highest surface area of the nanoparticles [19,22]. In this study, the agglomeration of the synthesized nanoparticles was controlled by steric stabilisation using polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
The present work is focused on studying the catalytic activity of supported and unsupported cobalt-based nanoparticels. The aim is to evaluate this type of nanomaterials in order to obtain high methanol production yields and high selectivity under mild pressure and temperature conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Sodium borohydride (NaBH4) (99.0%), cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate (CoCl2·6H2O) (99.0%), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) (99.5%), zeolite, cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate (Ce(NO3)3·6H2O (99.0%), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (98.0%), manganese (II) sulphate monohydrate (MnSO4·H2O) (99.0%), and potassium permanganate (KMnO4) (99.5%) were all purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Barcelona, Spain). A mixed-gas bottle of carbon dioxide and hydrogen with a molar ratio of 1:3, respectively, was provided by Carburos Metálicos S.A. (Barcelona, Spain).

2.2. Synthesis of nanocomposites

2.2.1. Co nanoparticles synthesis

Co nanoparticles were synthesized using the chemical reduction method. A total of 1.10 g of cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate was dissolved in a beaker with 100 mL of deionised water with magnetic stirring and nitrogen bubbling to avoid the oxidation of cobalt. After 15 min of stirring, the reducing agent, sodium borohydride, was added. A total of 0.96 g of sodium borohydride was dissolved in 100 mL of deionised water and then added dropwise with a Pasteur pipette. Once the reducing agent was added, the solution was left to stir for 20 min to ensure that all of the cobalt had been reduced [23]. Once the reaction was complete, cobalt nanoparticles were separated from the water using a magnet. The product was washed three times with deionised water to remove any impurities and dried in an oven at 105 ºC overnight. The synthesis of Co nanoparticles with PVP was performed with the same method, but 1.10 g of PVP was added to the cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate solution.

2.2.2. Co3O4 nanoparticles synthesis

Co3O4 nanoparticles were synthesized using the co-precipitation method. Briefly, in 100 mL of deionised water, 0.61 g of cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate was dissolved using magnetic stirring for 20 min and in another 100 mL of deionised water was dissolved the precipitation agent, 0.52 g of sodium carbonate at a concentration of 1 M. The synthesis was performed in a 500 mL Scharlau Minireactor HME-R/500 with mechanical stirring and heating. The 100 mL cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate solution in deionised water was added to the reactor. Then, the NaOH solution was added at a flow rate of 5 mL/min using a peristaltic pump (Watson Marlow SCI 400), and the reaction was carried out at 60 ºC for 5 h with constant stirring at 120 rpm. The product was centrifuged (Beckman Avanti J-20 Centrifuge) three times for 15 min at 5000 rpm to remove any impurities and dried in an oven at 105º C overnight [23]. The synthesis of Co3O4 with PVP was performed with the same method, but 0.62 g of PVP was added to the cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate solution.

2.2.3. MnO2 nanoparticles synthesis

MnO2 nanoparticles were synthesized using the co-precipitation method. In 100 mL of deionised water, 3.12 g of manganese (II) sulphate monohydrate were dissolved and in another 100 mL of deionised water 2.18 g of potassium permanganate were dissolved. The potassium permanganate dissolution was added to the above dissolution dropwise, and the mixture was vigorously stirred in a reactor Scharlau Minireactor HME-R/500 (Barcelona, Spain) at 80 ºC for 5 hours. Then, a sodium hydroxide solution was added dropwise to adjust the pH to 11. Once the reaction was completed, the nanoparticles were centrifuged and washed three times with deionised water. Finally, the nanoparticles obtained were dried at 105 ºC for 12 hours [24].

2.2.4. Co3O4/Zeolite nanocomposite synthesis

To immobilize the Co3O4 nanoparticles onto zeolite the same Co3O4 synthesis described above was followed. In 200 mL of ultrapure water, 1 g of zeolite was dispersed in an ultrasound bath for 15 minutes. Once zeolite was dispersed, it was transferred to the reactor, and the same Co3O4 synthesis procedure was performed.

2.2.5. CeO2 nanoparticle synthesis

CeO2 nanoparticles were synthesized using the co-precipitation method from an aqueous solution of cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate. In 100 mL of deionised water, 5.12 g of cerium (III) nitrate hexahydrate were dissolved, and in another 100 mL of deionised water 1.88 g of the precipitant agent, sodium hydroxide, were dissolved. The synthesis was carried out in a reactor (Scharlau Minireactor HME-R/500) with mechanical agitation. The precursor solution and 100 mL of deionised water was added to the reactor, and then, by a peristaltic pump, the sodium hydroxide solution was added with a 7mL/min flow. Once the entire precipitating agent was added, the dissolution was left agitating for 15 minutes. Eventually, the precipitates obtained were leaked, washed with deionised water three times, and then dried at 105 ºC overnight [25].

2.2.6. Co3O4 /CeO2 nanocomposite synthesis

To immobilize the Co3O4 nanoparticles onto CeO2, the same Co3O4 synthesis procedure was followed. In 200 mL of deionised water, the nanoparticles of CeO2 were scattered in an ultrasound bath for 15 minutes. Once dispersed, the same Co3O4 synthesis procedure was carried out, but first the solution of the CeO2 nanoparticles was transferred to the reactor.

2.2.7. Co3O4 /MnO2 nanocomposite synthesis

Co3O4 nanocomposites were synthesized using the co-precipitation method. The same Co3O4 synthesis procedure followed, but first the previously synthesized MnO2 nanoparticles were dispersed in 200 mL of deionised water in an ultrasound bath for 15 minutes. Subsequently, the same Co3O4 synthesis was followed after the dissolution of MnO2 was added to the reactor.

2.3. Characterization of catalysts

X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to perform a structural analysis of the nanoparticles and their crystallographic structure. The X-ray diffraction patterns were recorded on a diffractometer (PANalytical X’Pert) using Cu-Kα radiation. The measurements were carried out at room temperature in a range of 10.0º - 80.0º on 2θ with a step size of 0.026º. All XRD results were analysed with the simulation of the nanoparticles obtained using the X’Pert High Score (PANalytical) software. A scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (FEI Quanta 650F ESEM) equipped with an energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) source was used to determine the morphology, size distribution and composition of the nanoparticles. Samples were prepared on copper and graphite grids (TED PELLA, Inc., Redding, CA, USA).

2.4. Catalytic activity test

The catalytic experiments were carried out in a stainless-steel-packed bed reactor with an internal diameter of 5.25 mm, a height of 8.90 cm, and, thus, a volume of 1.92 cm3. All samples were calcinated at 500 °C for 4 h and and those containing elemental copper were reduced by a hydrogen flow of 40 mL/min at 350 °C for 2h. A certain amount of catalyst was added and a small amount of glass wool was used at each end of the reactor to avoid possible leakage of the catalysts. In order to investigate the impact of pressure, the work was carried out under two moderate pressure values: 10 and 15 bar. The flow rate of the stoichiometric H2/CO2 mixture was 10 mL/min, and the effect of temperature on the catalytic activity of the catalyts was tested by changing the temperature ranging from 180 to 280 °C. The gas samples were collected using sampling bags (SKC FlexFoil PLUS Sample Bag), and the obtained methanol was analysed in a gas chromatograph (Shimadzu GC-2010) with a flame ionisation detector (FID) using helium as carrier gas. The software used was Chromeleon, the inlet temperature was 260 °C, and the flow was 50 mL/min; the detector temperature was 280 °C. An Agilent 7890B GC System chromatograph served to detect carbon monoxide and dioxide by using a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) with helium as the carrier gas. The software used was OpenLab, the inlet temperature was 120 °C, the inlet flow was 20 mL/min and the detector temperature was 150 °C. To study the catalytic activity, methanol space–time yield (STY) indicating the mass of methanol obtained per mass of catalyst per hour as well as methanol selectivity being the percentage of carbon dioxide that was converted to methanol rather than other products (in this case carbon monoxide) were caclulated accrding to the following equations.
C H 3 O H   S T Y   g k g c a t × h = M a s s   o f   m e t h a n o l   g   f o r m e d W c a t k g × H o u r
C H 3 O H   S e l e c t i v i t y   % =   m o l e s   o f   m e t h a n o l   f o r m e d   n C O 2 i n   − n C O 2 o u t   × 100        

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Structural and morphological characterization of nanomaterials

The XRD patterns obtained for cobalt and cobalt oxide with and without capping aganet (PVP) and their corresponding simulations using PANALYTICAL X’Pert High Score software are presented in Figure 1. As it is shown, the peaks at diffraction angles of 2θ of 19.05º, 31.27º, 36.90º, 38.56º, 44.82º, 55.70º, 59.40º, 65.30º, 74.14º and 77.14º correspond to the (111), (220), (311), (222), (400), (422), (511), (440), (620) and (533) planes of Co3O4 [11,23,26]. Furthermore, the peaks at 2θ of 44.23º (111), 51.52º (200) and 75.85º (220) corresponed to Co nanoparticles [23]. Regarding the Co3O4 and Co with and without PVP, it was observed that PVP did not interfere with the crystallinity of cobalt and cobalt oxide nanoparticles. As can be seen, there is no presence of cobalt oxide in the cobalt XRD patterns, indicating that the synthesis of cobalt nanoparticels was satisfactory and all the nanoparticles were completely reduced.
The X-ray diffraction patterns of all the supports are shown in Figure 2. Regarding the first support, CeO2, it is observed that the peaks obtained in the sample synthesized and the simulation are identical. The same phenomenon occurs with zeolite. However, not all the peaks observed in the MnO2 simulation correspond to the peaks observed in the synthesized sample, which indicates that this sample is not completely crystalline.
The X-ray diffraction patterns of the bimetallic nanoparticles and their supports are shown in Figure 3. Regarding the highest peaks of Co3O4/zeolite, it is observed that the first peaks are associated to zeolite since the X’Pert High Score software determined that they correspond to the two typical elements of zeolite (aluminum and silicon). Small peaks corresponding to Co3O4 were also observed at the following angles: 19.05º, 31.27º, 36.90º, 38.56º, 44.82º, 55.70º , 59.40º and 65.30º. Regarding the XRD patterns of Co3O4 /CeO2, it is observed that the peaks situated at the angles 28.50º, 33.10º, 47.50º, 56.30º, 69.40º, 76.70º and 79.10º belong to CeO2. They are associated with planes (111), (200), (220), (311), (400), (331) and (420), respectively (Figure 3) [27]. Moreover, other characteristic peaks of Co3O4 are seen at angles 19.05º, 31.27º, 36.90º, 38.56º, 44.82º and 65.30º (Figure 3) [28]. Finally, in the Co3O4/MnO2 patterns, the peaks of both materials can also be visualised (Figure 3). The angles 24.50º, 41.60º, 50.30º, 54.70º, 63.70º, 72.30º and 79.19º correspond to Co/MnO2, and are related to the (110), (120), (220), (231), (130), (343) and (330) planes (Figure 3) [29]. Nevertheless, the other profiles observed correspond to the cobalt oxides present in the sample, since they coincide with the Co3O4 angles described above. This means that there is a coexistence of elemental cobalt and its oxidized species in the sample.
The characterization and morphology study of the materials was performed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Figure 4C shows the SEM images of the Co3O4 nanoparticles, which presented an irregular shape with a high degree of agglomeration, with average sizes of 36-64 nm, as previously reported [23]. Nevertheless, when the PVP was added, the nanoparticles were smaller (19 - 25 nm) with a more spherical geometry (Figure 4D). It is reported in literature that by adding a capping agent, the nanoparticles are smaller and this effect leads to an increase in the surface area of the catalyst, which means that the active sites are more exposed. Therefore, the catalytic activity of the catalyst increases [19,22]. The morphology of cobalt nanoparticles with and without PVP is shown in Figure 4A and Figure 4B, respectively. The same effect is observed when PVP was added to the synthesized material: the morphology obtained is well defined and the particles are smaller.
SEM images of nanoparticles embedded in a support are presented in Figure 5. Co3O4 nanoparticles immobilised on zeolite show a granular morphology with an average diameter of 24-30 nm (Figure 5A). It is shown that the use of support helps to obtain nanoparticles with better distribution and a higher surface area. In Figure 5C, Co3O4 nanoparticles supported on CeO2 can be observed, demonstrating that the nanoparticles have a very small size and better distribution compared to Co3O4 nanoparticles without support (Figure 4C) [28]. Co3O4 nanoparticles embedded in MnO2 show an aggregated morphology, as previously reported in literature (Figure 5B) [24].
The composition of the chemical elements present in the catalysts was determined by energy dispersive spectrometry (EDX). This analysis was performed on the nanoparticles immobilised on the three tested different supports. As observed with XRD, the EDX spectrum of Co3O4/Zeolite confirms the presence of expected chemical elements (Co, Al, Si) (Table 3) [30]. Nevertheless, a very small presence of sodium from the reducing agent used during the synthesis was also detected, indicating that the material could have been washed more times. Co and Ce were detected in the Co3O4/CeO2 sample, as expected (Table 2). In the Co3O4/MnO2 sample (Table 1), the presence of Co and Mn elements was detected, as well as a very small amount of sodium and potassium.

3.2. Catalytic activity of the catalysts

To study the catalytic activity of the samples, methanol STY and selectivity were obtained. Figure 6 presents methanol STY for cobalt and its oxide as a function of operating temperature at pressures of 10 and 15 bar, respectively. The effect of reaction temperature was also investigated and as can be seen for most of the catalysts methnaol STY increases gradually as the temperature rises. However, for Co3O4 catalyst, a decrease in STY was observed at 280 ºC compared to 260 ºC, which is not in accord to the behaviour of other catalysts. This can attributed to the formation of more carbon monoxide at high temperatures due to the endothermic nature of reverse water gas shoft reaction as the competeing reaction for methnaol syntheis as presented before. The influence of pressure was also investigated, and the results showed that a better catalytic activity is obtained at 15 bar, as the use of high pressures is advantageous due to the exothermic nature of the reaction [8,11].
Furthemore. the catalytic activity of cobalt and cobalt oxide was compared in terms of STY and selectivity to understand which cobalt species presents the active sites more favorable for methnaol synthesis. As can be observed, cobalt nanoparticles give methnaol STY of 3.2 g.kgcatalyst-1h-1, while only 0.25 g.kgcatalyst-1h-1 was obtained for cobalt oxide nanoparticles. Hence, metalic cobalt posseses active sites catalyzing the methnaol syntheis from carbon dioxide hydrogenation reaction more efficiently. Using elemental Co, a higher STY was obtained if compared to Co3O4 catalyst, since the selectivity of the reaction is much more favoured for methanol formation than for carbon monoxide production when this material is used instead of Co3O4, because the latter material is highly selective towards methane and carbon monoxide formation [31,32]. In many studies, this effect has been attributed to a lower carbon dioxide adsorption on the cobalt surface compared to Co3O4, which favours the formation of other products such as methane when using the oxide [33]. However, the catalyst selected for the study was cobalt oxide due to its high stability compared to elemental cobalt [35].
Two ways to improve the catalytic activity working with cobalt oxide nanoparticles were studied: (a) the addition of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to control the size of the nanoparticles, and (b) the addition of a support to improve the synergistic effect between the nanoparticles and the support. A comparison of the catalysts performance with and without PVP was carried out to analyse the effect of this polymer on the materials. By adding PVP in the synthesis of Co3O4, higher methanol STY was obtained which is accounted for by the smaller nanoparticles of Co3O4 with a more spherical morphology (Figure 4C and Figure 4D), leading to higher specific surface area and therefore more availability of the catalytic sites.
To study the effect of supports on the catalytic activity of Co3O4 nanoparticels, thye were immobilised on different supports inculding zeolite, CeO2 and MnO2. As seen in Figure 7, more methanol STY was obtained when immobilising Co3O4 on CeO2. This can be attributed to the metal-support interaction between Co3O4 and CeO2 generating interfacial sites which can synergystically catalyze methnaol synthesis reaction. In addition, oxygen vacancies present in CeO2 are also assumedt to facilitate the adsorption and activation of carbon dioxide [20,21,34,35,36]. Other support studied was zeolite, which resulted in an improvement in methanol production since the presence of aluminum atoms in these silicate-based materials introduces negative charges that are compensated by exchangeable cations in the pore space, and these porous characteristics in the zeolite structure are those that allow greater carbon dioxide adsorption capacity [19,37]. Co3O4 immobilised on MnO2 also resulted in more methanol STY compared to Co3O4. This can be attributed to the synergistic effects of the two materials as the catalytic activities of the individual materials are lower and less selective for methanol (Figure 6), indicating the importance of the architecture and nature of the interface [11]. Comparing the methanol STY of the three supports studied, CeO2 performed the best as the support which can be due to the oxygen vacancies promoting carbon dioxide adsorption and activation as well as the generation of the interfacial sites betweeen CeO2 and Co3O4 being more favorable for the methnaol syntheis reaction.
Methanol selectivity for the catalyst samples is presented in Figure 9. As can bee seen, at 180 ºC and 15 bar, the methanol selectivity for all samples was 100%, indicating that no carbon monoxide was formed at this temperature. However, as the temperature increases, the selectivity decreases as the enthalpy of methanol synthesis is negative, and therefore it is an exothermic reaction, which is more favoured at lower temperatures (Figure 9) [9,38]. In case of Co3O4 with PVP and Co3O4/zeolite, a decrease in selectivity towards methanol was only observed from 220 ºC. As for the other remaining catalysts, this methanol selectivity decreased considerably because of the production of carbon monoxide at high temperatrures (Figure 9) [11,39].

4. Conclusions

In this work, a series of cobalt-based catalysts with different supports were synthesised and their catalytic activity for methanol syntheis from carbon dioxide hydrogenation was studied. XRD analysis detected the crystalline phase of the samples and confirmed the integration of Co3O4 and Co on the supports studied (zeolite, cerium oxide and manganese oxide). Moreover, it was demonstrated that the addition of PVP as a stabilising agent improves the catalytic capacity of Co3O4, as it helps to obtain more homogeneous and smaller nanoparticles. However, for the Co catalyst synthesized using PVP, this effect was not observed as a result of partial oxidation of the material due to the presence of the stabilizing agent. Comparing the effect of the supports studied, the performance of CeO2 as support was more promisong which was accounted for by the presencec of oxygen vacancies in CeO2 which promot carbon dioxide adsorption and activation. In addition, the higher catalytic activity of the catalyst supported by CeO2 can be attributed to the genearation of favorbale interfacial sites betweeen CeO2 and Co3O4 for the methnaol syntheis reaction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and J.M.-V; methodology, A.C.G., Z.B.-A, S.A.V. and A.A.M.; validation, J.M.-V. and A.C.G.; formal analysis, A.C.G., J.M.-V. S.A.V., and A.A.M.; investigation, A.C.G. and J.M.-V.; resources, A.S. and J.M.-V.; data curation, A.C.G., Z.B.-A and A.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.G.; writing—review and editing, A.C.G., J.M.-V., S.A.V., A.A.M. and A.S.; visualization, A.C.G.; supervision, J.M.-V. and A.S.; project administration, A.S.; funding acquisition, A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundación Ramón Areces in the hallmark of the META2NOL project granted in the XIX National Contest of Life and Matter Sciences Projects, grant number CIVP19A5952. Anna Carrasco García thanks UAB for the PIF scholarship granted for the completion of her PhD thesis. Ahmad Abo Markeb thanks the Spanish Ministry of Universities for his Maria Zambrano scholarship.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai P.; Pirani A.; Connors S.L.; Péan C.; Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y. IPCC, 2021: Summary of Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. En Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 2021, No. In Press, 3949.
  2. Yadav, S.; Mondal, S.S. A review on the progress and prospects of oxy-fuel carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) Technology. Fuel 2022, 308, 122057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sabri, M.A.; Al Jitan, S.; Bahamon, D.; Vega, L.F.; Palmisano, G. Current and future perspectives on catalytic-based integrated carbon capture and utilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Song, C. Global challenges and strategies for control, conversion and utilization of CO2 for sustainable development involving energy, catalysis, adsorption and chemical processing. Catal. Today 2006, 115, 2–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Olah, G.A. Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 2636–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jadhav, S.G.; Vaidya, P.D.; Bhanage, B.M.; Joshi, J.B. Catalytic carbon dioxide hydrogenation to methanol: A review of recent studies. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2014, 92, 2557–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, M.M.J.; Tsang, S.C.E. Bimetallic catalysts for green methanol production via CO2 and renewable hydrogen: A mini-review and prospects. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2018, 8, 3450–3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sha, F.; Han, Z.; Tang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol over Non−Cu-based Heterogeneous Catalysts. ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 6160–6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Have, I.C.; Kromwijk, J.J.G.; Monai, M.; Ferri, D.; Sterk, E.B.; Meirer, F.; Weckhuysen, B.M. Uncovering the reaction mechanism behind CoO as active phase for CO2 hydrogenation. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tan, Q.; Shi, Z.; Wu, D. CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol over a Highly Active CuNi/CeO2-Nanotube Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 10148–10158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stangeland, K.; Kalai, D.Y.; Ding, Y.; Yu, Z. Mesoporous manganese-cobalt oxide spinel catalysts for CO2 hydrogenation to methanol. J. CO2 Util. 2019, 32, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, L.; Guan, E.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Gong, Z.; Cui, Y.; Meng, X.; Gates, B.C.; Xiao, F.S. Silica accelerates the selective hydrogenation of CO2 to methanol on cobalt catalysts. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhou, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Qin, Z.; Xie, Q.; Ji, H. Influence of Zr, Ce, and La on Co3O4 catalyst for CO2 methanation at low temperature. Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 26, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Suslova, E.V.; Chernyak, S.A.; Egorov, A.V.; Savilov, S.V.; Lunin, V.V. CO2 hydrogenation over cobalt-containing catalysts. Kinet. Catal. 2015, 56, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, H.; Zhng, W.; Yang, Q.; Ma, J.; Dong, X.; Jo Yoo, S.; Kim, J.G.; Meng, X.; Xiao, F.S. Selective Hydrogenation of CO2 to Ethanol over Cobalt Catalysts. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 6104–6108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ouyang, B.; Xiong, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, B.; Li, J. The study of morphology effect of Pt/Co3O4 catalysts for higher alcohol synthesis from CO2 hydrogenation. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2017, 543, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tursunov, O.; Tilyabaev, Z. Hydrogenation of CO2 over Co supported on carbon nanotube, carbon nanotube-Nb2O5, carbon nanofiber, low-layered graphite fragments and Nb2O5. J. Energy Inst. 2019, 92, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fan, T.; Liu, H.; Shao, S.; Gong, Y.; Li, G.; Tang, Z. Cobalt Catalysts Enable Selective Hydrogenation of CO2 toward Diverse Products: Recent Progress and Perspective. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 10486–10496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Carrasco Garcia, A.; Moral-Vico, J.; Markeb, A.A.; Sanchez, A. Conversion of Carbon Dioxide into Methanol Using Cu–Zn Nanostructured Materials as Catalysts. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Dou, J.; Tang, Y.; Nie, L.; Andolina, C.M.; Zhang, X.; House, S.; Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Tao, F. Complete Oxidation of Methane on Co3O4/CeO2 Nanocomposite: A Synergic Effect. Catal. Today 2018, 311, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, X.; Zhou, K.; Wang, L.; Wang, B.; Li, Y. Oxygen vacancy clusters promoting reducibility and activity of ceria nanorods. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 3140–3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Javed, R.; Zia, M.; Naz, S.; Aisida, S.O.; ul Ain, N.; Ao, Q. Role of capping agents in the application of nanoparticles in biomedicine and environmental remediation: recent trends and future prospects. J. Nanobiotechnology 2020, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, Y.W.; Zheng, R.K.; Zhang, X.X.; Xiao, J.Q. A simple method to prepare uniform Co nanoparticles. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2003, 39, 2764–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Worku, A.K.; Ayele, D.W.; Habtu, N.G.; Yemata, T.A. Engineering Co3O4/MnO2 nanocomposite materials for oxygen reduction electrocatalysis. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Natile, M.M.; Glisenti, A. CoO x / CeO2 Nanocomposite Powders : Synthesis, Characterization, and Reactivity,”. Chem. Mater. 2005, 17, 3403–3414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jincy, C.S.; Meena, P. Synthesis of Co3O4 nanoparticles for sensing toxic gas at room temperature. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 33, 2362–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, C.; Zhang, C.; Hua, W.C.; Guo, Y.; Lu, G.Z.; Gil, S.; Giroir-Fendler, A. Catalytic oxidation of vinyl chloride emissions over Co-Ce composite oxide catalysts. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 315, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Palacio, R.; Torres, S.; Lopez, D.; Hernandez, D. Selective glycerol conversion to lactic acid on Co3O4/CeO2 catalysts. Catal. Today 2018, 302, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feng, M.; Zhang, G.; Du, Q.; Su, L.; Ma, Z.; Qin, X.; Shao, G. Co3O4@MnO2 core shell arrays on nickel foam with excellent electrochemical performance for aqueous asymmetric supercapacitor. Ionics (Kiel) 2017, 23, 1637–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Davar, F.; Fereshteh, Z.; Shoja Razavi, H.; Razavi, R.S.; Loghman-Estarki, M.R. Synthesis and characterization of cobalt oxide nanocomposite based on the Co3O4–zeolite Y. Superlattices Microstruct. 2014, 66, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gupta, S.; Ciotonea, C.; Royer, S.; Dacquin, J.; Vinod, C.P. Engineering pore morphology using silica template route over mesoporous cobalt oxide and its implications in atmospheric pressure carbon dioxide hydrogenation to olefins. Appl. Mater. Today 2020, 19, 100586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jampaiah, D.; Damma, D.; Chalkidis, A.; Venkataswamy, P.; Bhargava, S.K.; Reddy, B.M. MOF-derived ceria-zirconia supported Co3O4 catalysts with enhanced activity in CO2 methanation. Catal. Today 2020, 356, 519–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Díez-Ramírez, J.; Sanchez, P.; Kyriakou, V.; Zafeiratos, S.; Marnellos, G.E.; Konsolakis, M.; Dorado, F. Effect of support nature on the cobalt-catalyzed CO2 hydrogenation. J. CO2 Util. 2017, 21, 562–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gabe, A.; García-Aguilar, J.; Berenguer-Murcia, A.; Morallón, E.; Cazorla-Amorós, D. Key factors improving oxygen reduction reaction activity in cobalt nanoparticles modified carbon nanotubes. Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 2017, 217, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, F.; Wang, S.; Liu, B.; Liu, J.; Wang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Xu, Y.; Liu, X. Insights into the Influence of CeO2 Crystal Facet on CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol over Pd/CeO2 Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 11493–11509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sha, F.; Han, Z.; Tang, S.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol over Non−Cu-based Heterogeneous Catalysts. ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 6160–6181. [Google Scholar]
  37. Choi, S.; Drese, J.H.; Jones, C.W. Adsorbent materials for carbon dioxide capture from large anthropogenic point sources. ChemSusChem 2009, 2, 796–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ronda-Lloret, M.; Wang, Y.; Oulego, P.; Rothenberg, G.; Tu, X.; Shiju, N.R. CO2 Hydrogenation at Atmospheric Pressure and Low Temperature Using Plasma Enhanced Catalysis over Supported Cobalt Oxide Catalysts. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 17397–17407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, C.S.; Melaet, G.; Ralston, W.T.; An, K.; Brooks, C.; Ye, Y.; Liu, Y.S.; Zhu, J.; Guo, J.; Alayoglu, S.; Somorjai, G.A. High-performance hybrid oxide catalyst of manganese and cobalt for low-pressure methanol synthesis. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 89123 g001
Figure 1. XRD patterns of all catalysts: Co simulation; Co nanoparticles; Co/PVP nanoparticles; Co3O4 nanoparticles; Co3O4/PVP nanoparticles; Co3O4 simulation.
Figure 1. XRD patterns of all catalysts: Co simulation; Co nanoparticles; Co/PVP nanoparticles; Co3O4 nanoparticles; Co3O4/PVP nanoparticles; Co3O4 simulation.
Preprints 89123 g001
Preprints 89123 g002
Figure 2. XRD patterns of all catalysts: CeO2; CeO2 simulation; Zeolite; Zeolite simulation; MnO2; MnO2 simulation.
Figure 2. XRD patterns of all catalysts: CeO2; CeO2 simulation; Zeolite; Zeolite simulation; MnO2; MnO2 simulation.
Preprints 89123 g002
Preprints 89123 g003
Figure 3. XRD patterns of all catalysts: Co3O4/CeO2; Co3O4/MnO2; Co3O4/zeolite.
Figure 3. XRD patterns of all catalysts: Co3O4/CeO2; Co3O4/MnO2; Co3O4/zeolite.
Preprints 89123 g003
Preprints 89123 g004
Figure 4. SEM images of the catalysts: (A) Co nanoparticles; (B) Co/PVP nanoparticles; (C) Co3O4 nanoparticles; (D) Co3O4/PVP nanoparticles.
Figure 4. SEM images of the catalysts: (A) Co nanoparticles; (B) Co/PVP nanoparticles; (C) Co3O4 nanoparticles; (D) Co3O4/PVP nanoparticles.
Preprints 89123 g004
Preprints 89123 g005
Figure 5. SEM images of the catalysts: (A) Co3O4/Zeolite; (B) Co3O4/MnO2; (C) Co3O4/CeO2.
Figure 5. SEM images of the catalysts: (A) Co3O4/Zeolite; (B) Co3O4/MnO2; (C) Co3O4/CeO2.
Preprints 89123 g005
Preprints 89123 g006
Figure 6. STY values for cobalt and cobalt oxide nanoparticles at a pressure of 10 bar (left) and 15 bar (right).
Figure 6. STY values for cobalt and cobalt oxide nanoparticles at a pressure of 10 bar (left) and 15 bar (right).
Preprints 89123 g006
Preprints 89123 g007
Figure 7. STY values for cobalt and cobalt oxide nanoparticles with and without PVP at 15 bar.
Figure 7. STY values for cobalt and cobalt oxide nanoparticles with and without PVP at 15 bar.
Preprints 89123 g007
Preprints 89123 g008
Figure 8. STY values for each catalyst at different temperatures and a pressure of 15 bar.
Figure 8. STY values for each catalyst at different temperatures and a pressure of 15 bar.
Preprints 89123 g008
Preprints 89123 g009
Figure 9. Methanol selectivity (%) values at 15 bar of the best catalysts.
Figure 9. Methanol selectivity (%) values at 15 bar of the best catalysts.
Preprints 89123 g009
Table 1. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/MnO2 material.
Table 1. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/MnO2 material.
Element Weight (%) Atomic (%)
C 28.60 43.21
O 38.52 43.68
Mn 14.38 4.75
Co 14.15 4.36
Na 0.54 0.42
Table 2. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/CeO2 material.
Table 2. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/CeO2 material.
Element Weight (%) Atomic (%)
C 5.44 16.78
O 24.06 55.74
Co 21.43 13.48
Ce 48.46 12.82
Table 3. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/Zeolite material.
Table 3. Element quantification with EDX of Co3O4/Zeolite material.
Element Weight (%) Atomic (%)
C 46.01 58.85
O 35.51 34.10
Si 2.12 1.16
Al 2.25 1.28
Co 11.83 3.08
Na 2.29 1.53
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated