Catalyst activity comparison of alcohols over zeolites

Abstract
References
Similar articles

Abstract

Alcohol transformation to transportation fuel-range hydrocarbon over HZSM-5 (SiO₂/Al₂O₃ = 30) catalyst was studied at 360 ℃ and 300 psig. Product distributions and catalyst life were compared between methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol and 1-butanol as a feed. The catalyst life for 1-propanol and 1-butanol was more than double compared with that for methanol and ethanol. For all the alcohols studied, the product distributions (classified to paraffin, olefin, naphthene, aromatic and naphthalene compounds) varied with time on stream (TOS). At 24 h TOS, liquid product from 1-propanol and 1-butanol transformation primarily contains higher olefin compounds. The alcohol transformation process to higher hydrocarbon involves a complex set of reaction pathways such as dehydration, oligomerization, dehydrocyclization and hydrogenation. Compared with ethylene generated from methanol and ethanol, oligomerization of propylene and butylene has a lower activation energy and can readily take place on weaker acidic sites. On the other hand, dehydrocyclization of the oligomerized products of propylene and butylene to form the cyclic compounds requires the sites with stronger acid strength. Combination of the above mentioned reasons are the primary reasons for olefin rich product generated in the later stage of the time on stream and for the extended catalyst life time for 1-propanol and 1-butanol compared with methanol and ethanol conversion over HZSM-5.

Keywords： zeolite HZSM-5 alcohol conversion catalyst activity hydrocarbons

[1]	Serrano-Ruiz J C, West R M, Dumesic J A. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng, 2010, 1: 79
[2]	Phillips S, Aden A, Jechura J, Dayton D, Eggeman T. NREL/TP-510-41168, 2007
[3]	Sun Y, Cheng J Y. Bioresour Technol, 2002, 83: 1
[4]	Gujar A C, Guda V K, Nolan M, Yan Q G, Toghiani H, White M G. Appl Catal A, 2009, 363: 115
[5]	Subramani V, Gangwal S K. EnergyFuels, 2008, 22: 814
[6]	Lin Y, Tanaka S. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2006, 69: 627
[7]	Atsumi S, Hanai T, Liao J C. Nature, 2008, 451: 86
[8]	U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2012, http: //www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282012%29.pdf.Accessed on 24th Dec 2012
[9]	Chang C D, Silvestri A J. J Catal, 1977, 47: 249
[10]	Penick J E, Lee W, Maziuk J. ACS Symp Ser, 1983, 226: 19
[11]	Mokrani T, Scurrell M. Catal Rev, 2009, 51: 1
[12]	Bjørgen M, Svelle S, Joensen F, Nerlov J, Kolboe S, Bonino F, Palumbo L, Bordiga S, Olsbye U. J Catal, 2007, 249: 195
[13]	Svelle S, Joensen F, Nerlov J, Olsbye U, Lillerud K P, Kolboe S, Bj{\o}rgen M. J Am Chem Soc, 2006, 128: 14770
[14]	Johansson R, Hruby S L, Rass-Hansen J, Christensen C H. Catal Lett, 2009, 127: 1
[15]	Tabak S A, Yurchak S. Catal Today, 1990, 6: 307
[16]	Arstad B, Kolboe S. Catal Lett, 2001, 71: 209
[17]	Mentzel U V, Shunmugavel S, Hruby S L, Christensen C H, Holm M S. J Am Chem Soc, 2009, 131: 17009
[18]	Arstad B, Kolboe S. J Am Chem Soc, 2001, 123: 8137
[19]	Gujar A C, Guda V K, Nolan M, Yan Q G, Toghiani H, White M G. Appl Catal A, 2009, 363: 115
[20]	Madeira F F, Gnep N S, Magnoux P, Maury S, Cadran N. Appl Catal A, 2009, 367: 39
[21]	Arstad B, Kolboe S. Catal Lett, 2001, 71: 209
[22]	Nayak V S, Choudhary V R. Appl Catal, 1984, 9: 251
[23]	Arstad B, Kolboe S. J Am Chem Soc, 2001, 123: 8137
[24]	van den Berg J P, Wolthuizen J P, Clague A D H, Hays G R, Huis R, van Hooff J H C. J Catal, 1983, 80: 130
[25]	Madeira F F, Gnep N S, Magnoux P, Maury S, Cadran N. Appl Catal A, 2009, 367: 39
[26]	Cant N W, Hall W K. J Catal, 1972, 25: 161
[27]	Saunders M, Vogel P, Hagen E L, Rosenfeld J. Acc Chem Res, 1973, 6: 53