Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect
ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
CO Poisoning of Ru Catalysts in CO2 Hydrogenation under Thermal and Plasma Conditions: A Combined Kinetic and Diffuse Reflectance Infrared Fourier Transform Spectroscopy–Mass Spectrometry Study
My Activity
  • Open Access
Research Article

CO Poisoning of Ru Catalysts in CO2 Hydrogenation under Thermal and Plasma Conditions: A Combined Kinetic and Diffuse Reflectance Infrared Fourier Transform Spectroscopy–Mass Spectrometry Study
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Shanshan Xu
    Shanshan Xu
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    More by Shanshan Xu
  • Sarayute Chansai
    Sarayute Chansai
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
  • Shaojun Xu
    Shaojun Xu
    UK Catalysis Hub, Research Complex at Harwell, Didcot OX11 0FA, United Kingdom
    Cardiff Catalysis Institute, School of Chemistry, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom
    More by Shaojun Xu
  • Cristina E. Stere
    Cristina E. Stere
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
  • Yilai Jiao
    Yilai Jiao
    Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China
    More by Yilai Jiao
  • Sihai Yang
    Sihai Yang
    Department of Chemistry, School of Natural Science, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    More by Sihai Yang
  • Christopher Hardacre*
    Christopher Hardacre
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    *Email: [email protected]
  • Xiaolei Fan*
    Xiaolei Fan
    Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    *Email: [email protected]
    More by Xiaolei Fan
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 21, 12828–12840
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c03620
Published October 20, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Plasma-catalysis systems are complex and require further understanding to advance the technology. Herein, CO poisoning in CO2 hydrogenation over supported ruthenium (Ru) catalysts in a nonthermal plasma (NTP)-catalysis system was investigated by a combined kinetic and diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy–mass spectrometry (DRIFTS–MS) study and compared with the thermal catalytic system. The relevant findings suggest the coexistence of the Langmuir–Hinshelwood and Eley–Rideal mechanisms in the NTP-catalysis. Importantly, comparative study of CO poisoning of the Ru catalyst was performed under the thermal and NTP conditions, showing the advantage of the hybrid NTP-catalysis system over the thermal counterpart to mitigate CO poisoning of the catalyst. Specifically, compared with the CO poisoning in thermal catalysis due to strong CO adsorption and associated metal sintering, in situ DRIFTS–MS analysis revealed that the collisions of reactive plasma-derived species in NTP-catalysis could remove the strongly adsorbed carbon species to recover the active sites for CO2 activation. Thus, the NTP-catalysis was capable of preventing CO poisoning of the Ru catalyst in CO2 hydrogenation. Additionally, under the NTP conditions, the NTP-enabled water-gas shift reaction of CO with H2O (which was produced by CO/CO2 hydrogenation) shifted the equilibrium of CO2 hydrogenation toward CH4 production.

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Hybrid nonthermal plasma (NTP) and catalysis (NTP-catalysis) systems can activate and convert a variety of stable molecules, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrogen (N2), into desired products under mild conditions, e.g., ambient pressure and low bulk gas temperatures (<200 °C), (1−3) but the hybrid system is highly complex. NTP-catalysis is particularly beneficial to enable kinetically and/or thermodynamically limited reactions, including dry reforming of methane, (4) water-gas shift, (5,6) and CO2 hydrogenation. (7) In comparison with the thermal counterparts, NTP-catalysis has shown the capability of lowering the energy barrier required for the catalysis and/or changing the reaction pathways on the catalyst surface. (8,9) Recent studies have shown that, being similar with the thermal catalysis, the intrinsic nature of heterogeneous catalysts (including the supports), such as metal dispersion and pore structure, plays a key role in NTP-catalysis. For example, a series of Ni supported on silicalite-1 (with different pore structures) catalysts was designed to study CO2 hydrogenation under NTP conditions. It was found that the pore structure of the silicalite-1 supports determines the dispersion and location of Ni sites and, hence, the accessibility of plasma-generated reactive species, thus affecting the performance of the NTP-catalysis. (10)
In addition to the activity, the stability and longevity of the catalysts are important factors for practical catalysis under both thermal and NTP conditions. Under thermal conditions during CO2 hydrogenation, catalyst deactivation is mainly caused by (i) metal particle sintering due to high reaction temperatures, (ii) coking caused by carbon deposition, and (iii) catalyst poisoning resulting from trace impurities in the feed gases such as carbon monoxide (CO). Due to the low-temperature activation of catalytic process, NTP-assisted CO2 hydrogenation intrinsically avoids sintering and coking processes. (9) Regarding catalyst poisoning, specifically CO2 hydrogenation, it is well known that CO poisoning is one of the worst catalyst-deactivating processes under thermal conditions. (11,12) Under plasma conditions, conversely, previous studies have shown that the plasma could enable the recovery of poisoned catalytic sites via dynamic collisions among reactive plasma-derived species, which lead to the desorption of strongly bound surface species. (13,14) Accordingly, insights into CO poisoning under thermal and NTP conditions, especially relevant deactivation mechanisms, need to be assessed to develop mature NTP-catalysis technology for potential practical adoptions. NTP-catalysis is a complex combination of plasma discharge and surface reactions (and other factors) with multifaceted interplays between them. Regarding the surface reactions under NTP conditions, in situ techniques, such as diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform (DRIFTS) (7,9) and extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy, (15) have been proved to be powerful tools to gain insights into the surface dynamics of the catalyst, reaction mechanisms, and the catalyst state during NTP-catalysis, which can facilitate the rational design of bespoke catalysts for NTP conditions. However, relevant in situ studies of NTP-catalysis toward the understanding of catalyst poisoning are still lacking.
This work presents the comparative study of the effect of CO on CO2 hydrogenation over a supported Ru catalyst (i.e., CO poisoning) under thermal and NTP conditions. The intrinsic nature of the catalysts on the performance of CO2 hydrogenation was first studied, and the Ru/SiO2 catalyst with high activity and stability was chosen for further investigation. To elucidate the mechanism of CO poisoning, the mechanistic investigation of CO2 hydrogenation including the kinetic and in situ DRIFTS studies was comparatively performed under thermal and NTP conditions, which provide useful information on the intermediates and reaction pathways of CO2 hydrogenation. Finally, the mechanism of CO poisoning in CO2 hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was investigated. Under the thermal conditions, significant catalyst deactivation due to the strong CO adsorption and metal sintering was observed; conversely, NTP activation was found to mitigate the effect of CO on the performance of the catalyst and regenerate the catalyst efficiently.

2. Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. Preparation and Characterization of Catalysts

Ruthenium (III) chloride trihydrate (RuCl3·3H2O), silicon dioxide, and γ-Al2O3 were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used without further purification.
Supported Ru catalysts including Ru/SiO2 and Ru/γ-Al2O3 (with the theoretical metal loading of 2 wt %) were prepared using the wet impregnation method. First, the support (1.5 g) was suspended in water (30 mL), and then 6.2 mL of RuCl3·3H2O solution (10 mg mL–1) was added dropwise. The mixture was vigorously stirred for 3 h and then evaporated using a rotary evaporator. The resulting precipitate was dried at 70 °C in a convection oven for 12 h. The obtained dry solid was subsequently reduced in pure H2 at 300 °C for 2 h with a heating rate of 5 °C min–1. After reduction, the sample was cooled down to room temperature (RT) naturally under the H2 flow (at 100 mL min–1). The actual metal loading was determined by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES; Supporting information). The prepared catalysts were characterized to understand their physical and chemical properties by bright-field transmission electron microscopy (TEM), N2 physisorption (using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method), hydrogen temperature programmed reduction (H2-TPR), and CO chemisorption, and the relevant experimental details are provided in the Supporting Information.

2.2. Catalysis

A dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) flow reactor was used for NTP-activated CO2 hydrogenation, which is depicted in Figure S1, and the details of the DBD reactor have been described elsewhere. (9) Parameters of the NTP-catalysis system were measured using an oscilloscope (Tektronix TBS1072B) connected with a high-voltage probe (Tektronix, P6015) and current monitor. NTP-catalysis was performed at atmospheric pressure without a heating source. Briefly, ∼100 mg of catalyst (pellet sizes of 250–425 μm) was packed into a quartz tube (6 mm o.d. × 4 mm i.d.), where an aluminum foil wrapped outside of the tube served as the high-voltage electrode and a tungsten rod (1 mm o.d.) in the center of reactor acted as the ground electrode. Since the catalyst was exposed to air at RT before being loaded to the DBD reactor, it was treated in situ by NTP (at 6.5 kV) using 50% H2/Ar as the discharge gas for 20 min before catalysis. The feed of CO2, H2, and Ar balance (molar ratio of 1:3:3) was introduced by mass flow controllers (Bronkhorst, F-201CV-500-RAD-11-V) with the flowrate of 50 mL min–1. The applied voltage was from 5.5 to 7.5 kV at a constant frequency of 21.0 kHz. The product was analyzed by using online mass spectrometry (MS, Hiden HPR-20) and two-channel online gas chromatography (GC) equipped with a Porapak Q packed column, thermal conductivity detector (TCD), and flame ionization detector (FID). An Ar balance was used in the system to avoid the signal saturation of MS signal. For each measurement, three samples of gas products were analyzed under steady-state conditions for an average value and error determination. Control experiments using the empty reactor (catalyst-free) and the reactor with the bare supports as a packing were performed under the same NTP conditions.
CO poisoning study under the NTP condition (at 6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz) was investigated by varying the inlet molar ratio of CO/CO2 between 0 and 2. The total gas feed flowrate was 50 mL min–1, corresponding to a space velocity of 30,000 mL (STP) gcat–1 h–1, which included CO2, CO, H2, and Ar balance (molar ratio of H2/(CO2 + CO) = 3). Catalyst deactivation was monitored as a function of time-on-stream (ToS) by switching the CO on and off in the feed. The average bulk temperature of the system between 5.5 and 7.5 kV was measured using an infrared (IR) thermometer and was in the range of 110–135 °C. Specifically, the average bulk temperature at 6.5 kV was ∼129 °C, which could not activate CO2 conversion thermally, according to a previous study. (9)
For comparison, thermal catalysis was carried out at 250–430 °C at atmospheric pressure. Prior to catalysis, the catalyst (pellets, about 100 mg) was first treated at 300 °C for 1 h in 50% H2/Ar. Then, the feed (CO2/H2/Ar = 1:3:3) was introduced into the reactor at 50 mL min–1. The temperature of the catalyst bed was monitored by a K-type thermocouple embedded in the catalyst bed.
CO poisoning of the catalyst under the thermal condition (at 330 °C) was studied using the same gas condition as in the relevant NTP-catalysis. The catalyst deactivation experiment was performed at 330 °C with the same gas conditions as described in the NTP-catalysis (for CO poisoning study).
CO2 (XCO2) conversion, CO (XCO) conversion, carbon (XC = XCO2 + XCO) conversion, selectivity toward CH4 (SCH4), and CH4 yield (YCH4) were determined accordingly to evaluate the catalytic performance (all the performance parameters are defined in the Supporting Information).

2.3. Kinetic Study

The kinetic study of thermal catalysis was performed at 260–320 °C with ∼30 mg of catalyst (diluted with inert glass beads to prevent hot spots) to ensure low CO2 conversions of <20%. The feed mixture containing CO2/H2/Ar (molar ratio = 1:3:3) was fed into the reactor for the kinetic study. To extract the reaction order with respect to H2 and CO2 partial pressures, the composition of the feed was varied; i.e., H2 partial pressure was changed with a constant partial pressure of CO2 and vice versa.
Kinetic study of the NTP-catalysis was performed using similar procedures and conditions as described above (about 30 mg of catalyst diluted with glass beads, at 5.0–6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz). The gas conditions were the same as in the kinetic study of the thermal catalysis. Due to the low bulk temperature under the NTP conditions (<129 °C), thermal activation of CO2 was not possible. Considering the effect of support packing and discharge volume, control experiments using the same amount of the bare supports and inert glass beads were performed to extract the information on the relevant gas phase and surface (over the bare supports) reactions under NTP, which was subsequently used to correct the kinetic data of the NTP-catalysis (Supporting Information).

2.4. In Situ DRIFTS–MS

The experimental setup of DRIFTS–MS for NTP-catalysis was described elsewhere. (9) The catalyst was pretreated with 50% H2/Ar gas under NTP at 6.0 kV and 27.0 kHz for 20 min in the flow cell. Then, the gas mixture containing CO2, CO, H2, and Ar balance was fed into the cell for the reaction. Kr at 10 mL min–1 was also introduced as the internal standard. The use of Ar balance in DRIFTS experiments was to avoid the signal saturation of IR spectra and MS signal. NTP-catalysis in the DRIFTS cell was performed at a constant peak voltage of 5.5 kV to avoid arcing between the electrodes. The IR spectra were recorded every 60 s with a resolution of 4 cm–1 and analyzed by OPUS software.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. Effect of Catalysts in the NTP-Catalysis

CO2 hydrogenation over the two supported Ru catalysts under NTP conditions was investigated in reference to the control experiments (i.e., the empty tube for NTP-alone experiments and the reactor with the bare γ-Al2O3 and SiO2 support packing under the NTP conditions) to screen the candidate for the following study (as shown in Figure 1). Under the NTP conditions without a catalyst, CO2 was decomposed to CO with a trivial conversion of ∼6% at 6.5 kV (with the specific input energy (SIE) of 2.0 J mL–1). Similarly, NTP systems with the bare γ-Al2O3 and SiO2 supports were only selective to CO with relevant CO2 conversions of ∼13 and ∼15%, respectively, at 6.5 kV. In comparison with the system without a packing, that is, the blank experiment with an empty tube, the higher CO2 conversions with the bare supports can be attributed to the enhanced average electric field strength, benefiting CO2 dissociation. (16) Conversely, in NTP-catalysis with the voltage above 7.0 kV (SIE > 2.5 J mL–1), regardless of the Ru catalysts used in this work, CO2 conversion and CH4 yield increased significantly to >57%. However, Ru catalysts based on different supports showed different behaviors under the NTP conditions, demonstrating the effect of catalyst design on NTP-catalysis. (17) Specifically, the Ru/SiO2 catalyst showed a higher activity as compared with the Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst, especially at the lower voltage of <6.5 kV (SIE < 2.5 J mL–1). The highest CO2 conversion (∼65%) and CH4 yield (∼63%) at 6.5 kV were achieved by Ru/SiO2, while the Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst only showed about 35% CO2 conversion and 29% CH4 yield, being less active for NTP-activated CO2 hydrogenation. Similarly, under thermal conditions (Figure S2), Ru/SiO2 outperformed Ru/γ-Al2O3 as well, suggesting that the intrinsic nature of catalysts dominated the performance of CO2 hydrogenation regardless of the means of activation. In detail, the corresponding TEM and CO chemisorption analysis of the Ru/SiO2 and Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalysts (Figure S3 and Table S3) showed that the two catalysts presented similar average particle sizes and Ru dispersions. Additionally, the metal–support interaction of the two catalysts was also similar, as revealed by H2-TPR (Figure S5). These findings show that the property of the supported active Ru phases of the two catalysts under study is similar, thus suggesting that the supported Ru might not affect the activity of the two catalysts significantly under NTP conditions.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Performance of NTP-activated catalytic CO2 hydrogenation as a function of voltage/input energy over the Ru/SiO2 and Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalysts in reference to the control experiments; (a) CO2 conversion and (b) CH4 yield. Experimental conditions: feed gas composition of CO2/H2/Ar = 1:3:3 and WHSV of 30,000 mL (STP) gcat–1 h–1.

Under NTP conditions, the effect of dielectric property of the bare supports on the catalysis was deemed insignificant since γ-Al2O3 and SiO2 have different dielectric constants (∼9.1 and ∼4.2, respectively), while the reaction results were similar. (18) In addition to the dielectric constant, the porous property of the packing material can also influence the plasma discharge and reaction performance under the NTP conditions. (19) N2 physisorption analysis showed that the Ru/SiO2 catalyst and Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst had comparable pore volumes of ∼0.7 cm3 g–1. The average pore sizes of the Ru/SiO2 catalyst and Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst were ∼5 and ∼12 nm, respectively, which are much smaller than the Debye length, suggesting that the penetration of plasma into the catalyst pores might be limited. However, a previous study based on Monte Carlo calculation revealed that microdischarges might be formed near the pores of mesoporous catalysts with mesopore sizes of 2–50 nm, and the relatively high surface area promoted the intensified surface discharge on the surface. (20) This may explain the better catalytic performance of Ru/SiO2 in CO2 hydrogenation than Ru/γ-Al2O3 since the high surface area might promote the surface discharge in NTP-catalysis. The Ru/SiO2 catalyst has a well-developed micro/mesoporous structure with a higher specific BET surface area of 557 m2 g–1 than that of the Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst (239 m2 g–1). Thus, a high surface area is expected as the key to determine the catalytic performance of the supported Ru catalysts under NTP and thermal conditions. The calculated apparent activation energy (Figure S6) showed that the Ru/SiO2 catalyst presented lower values, under both conditions, than the Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst (Table S4), e.g., 20 kJ mol–1 versus 71 kJ mol–1 in NTP-catalysis (details of the kinetic calculations are presented in the Supporting Information). (8,9)

3.2. Comparative Mechanistic Study of CO2 Hydrogenation over Ru/SiO2

Preliminary catalytic assessments have shown that the Ru/SiO2 catalyst presented relatively high CO2 conversion and CH4 yield for CO2 hydrogenation under NTP and thermal conditions (in comparison with the Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalyst); thus, the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was selected for further investigation. To gain insight into the mechanism of CO poisoning in CO2 conversions, first, the comparatively mechanistic study of CO2 hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was performed. Figure 2 and Table 1 show correlation between the apparent reaction rate and the CO2/H2 partial pressures (pH2 and pCO2) in CO2 hydrogenation under the thermal and NTP conditions. Under the thermal condition at 330 °C, the CH4 formation rate over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst showed a stronger dependence on pH2 than pCO2 in the feed. Specifically, the reaction order with respect to pH2 was calculated as 1.0, in line with the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism. (21) A previous study showed that H2 dissociation on the Ru surface was fast with the produced Had being short-lived, (22) and the reaction order regarding pH2 indicated that CO2 and H2 were adsorbed on the different active sites on the Ru surface. (23,24) The reaction order regarding pCO2 was found to be −0.03, which can be approximated as zero order, suggesting that CO2 concentration has a relatively weak influence on the formation rate of CH4. This finding suggested (i) the CO2 chemisorption on the catalyst and (ii) the saturation of relevant active sites on the Ru surface by CO2 molecules at relatively low CO2 concentrations. (22) Therefore, under the thermal condition, CO2 participated in the reaction via the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism, i.e., CO2 adsorbed on the catalyst, and then dissociated to active intermediates under heating, which further react with Had to form methane.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Dependence of the reaction rate on pH2 and pCO2 under (a, c) thermal conditions (at 330 °C) and (b, d) NTP conditions.

Table 1. Reaction Order with Respect to pH2 and pCO2 for Catalytic CO2 Hydrogenation over Ru/SiO2 under the Thermal (at 330 °C) and NTP Conditions
 NTP 
reaction order6.0 kV6.5 kV7.0 kVthermal
pH21.401.601.501.0
pCO20.300.300.25–0.03
In comparison, under the NTP conditions, the reaction orders with respect to pH2 and pCO2 were 1.50 ± 0.10 and 0.30 ± 0.05, respectively. Additionally, both reaction orders remained almost constant as a function of the input power, suggesting the same surface reaction mechanism at different input powers. The comparatively strong dependence on pH2 and pCO2 under NTP conditions (compared with the thermal condition) indicates the presence of multiple reaction pathways for CO2 hydrogenation in NTP-catalysis. In addition to the surface reactions under the thermal catalysis, the vibrationally activated and dissociated active species (e.g., electronically excited H radical) in the gas-phase reaction under NTP conditions might also participate in the surface hydrogenation reactions via the Eley–Rideal mechanism. (25) To clarify the relationship between the reaction order and reaction mechanism under NTP and thermal conditions, in situ DRIFTS–MS was performed, and the relevant results were correlated with the kinetic data.
In situ DRIFTS coupled with MS characterization of CO2 hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was comparatively performed under thermal and NTP conditions to investigate the mechanism of CO2 hydrogenation. Under the thermal condition at 250 °C (Figure S7), characteristic peaks of surface hydroxyls (OHad, from ∼3596 to ∼3730 cm–1), CHx species (CH3,ad, at ∼3015 cm–1), carbonyl (COad, at ∼1997 cm–1), and surface-adsorbed CH4 (at ∼3047 cm–1) were detected on the catalyst surface. It was observed that after changing the feed to inert Ar, the COad band decreased slowly (within 10 min, Figure S7b), whereas the intensity of methane decreased rapidly (Figure S7c), suggesting that the gradual decrease of COad band was only due to the desorption under the condition used. Conversely, when the feed was changed to H2, the intensity of COad band declined fast (within 2 min) with the associated rapid emergence of peak in the CH4 signal, which gradually decreased after 2 min. This phenomenon confirms COad as the active intermediate, which further reacted with H2 to produce CH4, being in line with the kinetic data discussed above (Figure 2). Under thermal conditions, catalytic CO2 hydrogenation is commonly thought to proceed via a direct carbon–oxygen bond dissociation mechanism, (26,27) which involves the dissociation of CO2 on the catalyst surface (to adsorbed COad and surface C) and the subsequent hydrogenation of surface C. Under the thermal condition used in this work, DRIFTS only probed COad species on the Ru surface, confirming the direct carbon–oxygen bond dissociation mechanism.
Under the NTP condition with a CO2/Ar mixture, the gas-phase CO2 dissociation was confirmed, as shown in Figure S8. With the NTP on (Figure S8b), the linearly and bridged adsorbed COad species (at ∼2092, 2041, and 1881 cm–1) and bidentate and monodentate carbonate (at ∼1274 and ∼1311 cm–1, respectively) were measured. Since carbonate species were not observed under the thermal condition, the presence of carbonate species under the NTP condition was due to the plasma excitation and could be ascribed to the adsorption of vibrationally excited CO2 species on the catalyst surface.
Under the NTP-off condition, with the reaction gas feed (i.e., 3% CO2/9% H2/Ar), in addition to the CO2 gas-phase peak (at ∼2360 and 2342 cm–1, as shown in Figure 3a), surface carbon species were not detected by DRIFTS and no reaction was observed (according to MS). Upon the ignition of plasma, the MS profile showed the instantaneous appearance of CH4 signal (Figure S9a), confirming the formation of CH4 over the catalyst under NTP activation. At the same time, surface formyl species (CHxO, at about 1284, 1270, and 1111 cm–1) and carbonyl species (i.e., linearly adsorbed COad on Ru0 at 2034 cm–1 and linear form Ruδ+-CO at 2084 cm–1), (28) as shown in Figure 3b, were measured by DRIFTS. Compared with the COad bands formed under CO2/Ar (Figure S8b), the two peaks shifted toward lower frequency by about 10 cm–1 and the bridged adsorbed COad peak disappeared, which could be attributed to the electron donation of Had on the Ru surface. (29) On switching off the plasma, the CH4 concentration decreased immediately (Figure S9), while the formyl species decreased slowly (within 4 min), indicating that the system without plasma discharge was inactive for CH4 formation (Figure S9b). The gradual decrease of formyl band (within 4 min) reflects its desorption under the NTP-off condition. CO2 hydrogenation can undergo the formyl pathway over Ru-based catalysts, (30,31) which involves the direct CO2 dissociation to carbonyl (COad) and Oad, followed by the hydrogenation of COad. The subsequent hydrogenation of COad will form the formyl species as the intermediates for CH4 production. As compared with the DRIFTS findings from the thermal system (i.e., only carbonyl species were observed, Figure S7), the appearance of carbonyl species and formyl species under NTP conditions suggested the presence of an alternative reaction pathway (i.e., formyl pathways) for CO2 hydrogenation under NTP. Thus, evolution of the surface species as a function of ToS coupled with the change in CH4 signal intensity (from MS) was correlated, as presented in Figure 3d. The COad species increased at a steeper rate than gas CH4, which could be explained by the plasma-assisted CO2 dissociation in the gas phase and the dissociation of adsorbed CO2 on the catalyst surface. The same phenomenon was found between the formation rates of surface formyl species and CH4, indicating CHxO species originating from reactions between COad and Had and as the surface intermediate for CH4 production. (30,32) The findings of this work confirmed the presence of the formyl pathway in CO2 hydrogenation over Ru/SiO2 under NTP conditions; i.e., CO2 was dissociated to COad and Oad species on the catalyst surface, then COad was hydrogenated with Had into formyl intermediate (CHxO) species, and finally, the formyl group reacted toward CH4 and H2O. In comparison with the thermally activated CO2 hydrogenation, the vibrationally activated CO2 molecules under NTP conditions could adsorb on the catalyst surface with lower energy barriers, which facilitated the formation of COad species. (14) This activation promoted the hydrogenation of CO2 and formation rate of CH4, leading to the reaction order of pCO2 increasing slightly. Additionally, the plasma-induced excited/dissociated H radicals in the gas phase might also interact with the adsorbed species to form CH4 (i.e., the formyl pathway) via the Eley–Rideal mechanism in CO2 hydrogenation under NTP. (14,25) Due to the relatively low dissociation energy of H2 molecules (∼4.5 eV), (33) the plasma could activate H2 more efficiently, which produces more H radicals with an increase in H2 concentration in the feed. Therefore, under NTP, the H2 partial pressure has a significant influence on the formation rate of CH4, leading to a much higher reaction order with respect to pH2 than that in the thermal catalysis.

Figure 3

Figure 3. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for CO2 hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a) the NTP-off condition with the feed gas of 3% CO2 + 9% H2 + Ar, (b) NTP-on condition with the feed gas (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), and (c) NTP-off condition with the feed gas. (d) Relative intensities of surface species as a function of time-on-stream recorded by in situ DRIFTS from (b) and relative intensity change of methane recorded in MS (Figure S9) during CO2 hydrogenation by NTP activation (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz).

3.3. Investigation of CO Poisoning on CO2 Hydrogenation

Catalyst deactivation is complex and significant for practical catalysis. As expected, under the NTP condition (at 6.5 kV, 21.0 kHz), the Ru/SiO2 catalyst in CO2 hydrogenation presented excellent stability over 27 h ToS with CO2 conversions and CH4 selectivity maintained at 64.7 ± 0.7% and 94.1 ± 0.3%, respectively (Figure S10). Comparative TEM analysis of the catalyst before and after the longevity test showed no significant change regarding the particle sizes, neither the sign of metal sintering, which confirmed the anticoking and antisintering performance of the NTP-catalysis (Figure S11).
In addition to coking and sintering, catalyst poisoning is another major factor to deactivate the catalyst. Accordingly, to understand CO poisoning in the catalysis under the thermal and plasma conditions, relevant experiments were performed by varying CO concentration in the gas feed, keeping the H2/C (i.e., CO2 + CO) inlet molar ratio constant. Figure 4 shows the thermal and NTP-activated carbon conversions (CO2, CO, and overall) as a function of ToS with different CO/CO2 ratios in the feed gas. Under the thermal condition at 330 °C (Figure 4a), the fresh Ru/SiO2 catalyst showed a stable CO2 conversion (∼47%) without CO in the feed gas (CO/CO2 = 0, ToS = 0–70 min in Figure 4a). When CO (CO/CO2 = 0.25) was introduced in the gas mixture, CO2 conversion decreased to 35%, while CO was almost completely consumed, promoting the overall carbon conversion and CH4 production due to CO hydrogenation. By switching back to the “CO-free” feed gas (CO/CO2 = 0, ToS = 165–240 min in Figure 4a), catalyst deactivation occurred, and the catalyst could not be fully recovered, as evidenced by the reduced CO2 conversion (Figure 4a) and CH4 production (Figure S12a), in comparison with that of the fresh catalyst. By further increasing the CO/CO2 ratio to 0.5 and 1.0, the decrease in CO2 conversion and deactivation of catalyst became more significant, while the CO conversion remained almost complete. The findings showed a strong inhibiting effect of CO on CO2 conversion. The condition with CO/CO2 = 0.25 in the feed gas (ToS = 590–680 min in Figure 4a) was tested again, and carbon conversion and CH4 production were lower than the previously measured values, suggesting the permanent deactivation of Ru/SiO2. By adding more CO in the feed (i.e., CO/CO2 ratio of 2), severe CO poisoning was measured. Specifically, the CO2 conversion dropped rapidly below zero, suggesting that CO2 was formed in the system. This might be attributed to the presence of CO disproportionation (2CO → C + CO2) (34) and/or water-gas shift reaction (WGSR, CO + H2O → H2 + CO2) (35) due to the excessive CO in the feed and strong adsorption of CO on the Ru surface. Accordingly, in the thermal catalysis system, a decrease in CO2 conversion with CO cofeeding was not due to the kinetic effect, that is, the diluted CO2 concentration in the gas feed, as discussed above (Figure 2). With the presence of CO in the feed, competitive adsorption of CO and CO2 on metal active sites occurs. (36) Since the adsorption energy of CO (−2.3 eV) is much lower than that of CO2 (−0.52 eV), (37) preferential adsorption of CO and inhibited CO2 adsorption on the Ru surface are expected and, thus, a decrease in CO2 conversion. It was proposed that the formation of strongly adsorbed carbonyl species (11,38) due to the presence of CO might be the dominant factor for catalyst deactivation. Therefore, the mechanism of CO poisoning of the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was investigated by in situ DRIFTS analysis (to be discussed later).

Figure 4

Figure 4. CO2, CO, and carbon conversions as a function of ToS in CO poisoning experiments with different CO/CO2 inlet molar ratios under (a) thermal condition (at 330 °C) and (b) NTP condition (at 6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz).

As shown in Figure 4b, under the NTP condition at 13.0 kV, 54% CO2 conversion over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst was measured with the absence of CO in the feed (i.e., CO/CO2 = 0, ToS = 0–70 min, in Figure 4b). By introducing CO in the feed (with CO/CO2 = 0.25), CO2 conversion decreased slightly to ∼49%, and CO conversion was measured at about 70%, being lower than that under the thermal condition (which was close to 100%). By increasing the CO concentration in the feed gas (i.e., CO/CO2 = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0, respectively), a decrease in CO2 conversions was measured (due to the change of gas composition); however, catalyst deactivation was insignificant since the carbon conversion remained stable in stream during the cofeeding tests. More importantly, the catalyst activity regarding CO2 conversion and CH4 production in CO2 hydrogenation can be totally recovered when the system was switched back to the CO-free feed, regardless of the previous CO concentration in the feed, confirming that (i) NTP could be able to completely regenerate the catalyst and (ii) NTP is able to mitigate CO poisoning on CO2 hydrogenation (Figure S12b). Interestingly, under NTP conditions, in comparison with ∼100% CO conversions under the thermal condition, CO conversions increased from 70 to 92% with an increase in the inlet CO/CO2 ratio from 0.25 to 2. This suggested that the reasons for the decrease in CO2 conversion in both systems may be different. As discussed above, in thermal catalysis, preferred CO adsorption on the Ru surface and the subsequent CO hydrogenation prevailed, causing the reduction of the CO2 conversion and almost 100% CO conversion. Conversely, under NTP conditions, the plasma could activate the CO2 molecules in the gas phase and the vibrationally excited CO2 could adsorb on the catalyst surface with lower energy barriers, which facilitated the adsorption of CO2 on the catalyst surface. (14) Additionally, the collision of reactive plasma species (such as the vibrationally excited CO2 and the excited state of CO, H, OH, and CH in the gas phase according to OES and FTIR (9,25,39)) might help remove the strongly adsorbed surface COad and then release the active sites for adsorption. (14,40,41) Thus, NTP alleviated CO adsorption and facilitated CO2 adsorption, which result in lower CO conversions and higher CO2 conversions than those in the thermal catalysis.
The superiority of the NTP-catalysis over the thermal counterpart, regarding the maintenance and regeneration of the catalyst activity, was proved by the long-term CO poisoning study in Figure 5. At 330 °C, the deterioration of the catalyst performance with the presence of CO in the feed was evident during the 9 h test. Specifically, CO2 and CO conversions (Figure 5a) and CH4 formation (Figure S13a) dropped by about 42, 7, and 15%, respectively. By removing CO from the feed (ToS = 640–790 min in Figure 5a), CO2 conversion and CH4 production over Ru/SiO2 were recovered to ∼93 and ∼87% only. Considering that flowing inert gases at high temperature could be used to recover the catalyst reactivity, the deactivated catalyst was regenerated in situ at 330 °C by sweeping with Ar for 3.5 h, trying to remove the strongly adsorbed surface species from the catalyst surface. However, as shown in Figure 5a and Figure S13a, the deactivation of catalyst due to CO poisoning under the thermal condition was permanent. Previous theoretical and experimental studies (42,43) suggested that the CO molecule could block the active sites for CO2 and H2 adsorption, thus decreasing the dissociated Had on the Ru surface and consequently leading to the deposition of surface carbon species and metal sintering. Conversely, in NTP-catalysis (at 6.5 kV), the catalyst presented stable performance over 9 h, with the constant CO2 conversion at about 38% and decreased CO conversion (by about 6%). Furthermore, after returning to the CO-free feed (ToS = 640–790 min, Figure 5b), the CO2 conversion was recovered to ∼53% slowly (being comparable with that of the fresh catalyst at ToS = 0–100 min). During the same period (ToS = 640–790 min in Figure S13b), the corresponding CH4 production decreased to the initial level, confirming that NTP could recover the performance of the catalyst. The recovery trend of CO2 conversion and CH4 production was attributed to the consumption of residual adsorbed carbon species under NTP, thus regenerating active sites available for CO2 hydrogenation. The catalyst was further treated in situ under Ar and NTP (at 4.0 kV) for 30 min (ToS = 790–820 min, as shown in Figure 5b). After that, NTP-activated CO2 hydrogenation was performed again with the CO-free feed (ToS = 829–945 min in Figure 5b), and the NTP-catalysis system showed the fully recovered performance. The corresponding TEM analysis of the catalysts after the long-term deactivation test (Figure S14) showed the metal sintering of the catalyst in thermal catalysis; that is, the Ru particle size increased from ∼1.6 to ∼3.1 nm after the thermal catalysis. Conversely, the Ru particle size showed no significant changes after the NTP-catalysis, confirming the antisintering ability of the hybrid system.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Long-term deactivation test with the CO2/CO/H2 mixtures, regeneration treatment under Ar, and catalysis in CO2/H2 over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a) the thermal condition (at 330 °C) and (b) NTP condition (at 6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz). Experimental conditions: feed gas composition of H2/C = 3, CO/CO2 = 0.5, and WHSV of 30,000 mL (STP) gcat–1 h–1.

3.4. Mechanisms of CO Poisoning

To understand CO poisoning in the catalysis, comparative in situ DRIFTS–MS studies were carried out and compared with the DRIFTS study of CO2 hydrogenation in Figure 3 and Figure S7. Under the thermal condition, the DRIFTS spectra measured with CO/H2 mixture (Figure 6a,c) showed that the intensity of the carbonyl bands was significantly enhanced compared with the case of CO2 hydrogenation (Figure S7), suggesting the relatively strong CO binding with the Ru surface. Specifically, in addition to the gas-phase CO band (at ∼2143 cm–1), the broad carbonyl bands in a range of 2140–1770 cm–1 can be deconvoluted into three kinds of COad bonds, i.e., the bands at 1775 and 1950–1980 cm–1 (for the bridged carbonyls), 2005 cm–1 (for the linearly adsorbed CO with monobinding configuration), and 2030–2075 cm–1 (for the linearly adsorbed CO with multiple-binding configuration). (30) After changing the feed to inert Ar (Figure 6b,c), the COad bands decreased much slower than that in CO2 hydrogenation (Figure S7b), indicating that more strongly adsorbed carbonyl species formed on the surface when CO was in the feed. By switching the feed to H2 (Figure 6e,f), surface carbonyl species disappeared within 10 min, and the CH4 concentration at the outlet of the DRIFTS cell showed a maximum (at ∼1.3 min, which was followed by a continuous decline until zero), showing that the adsorbed CO was converted to CH4 in the presence of H2. The evolution of the respective surface species as a function of time (Figure 6f) showed that the intensity of the carbonyl group at 2030–2050 cm–1 quickly decayed (within 2 min) under H2, being the most reactive surface species, while the bridged carbonyl at 1775 cm–1 and linear monocarbonyl at 2005 cm–1 disappeared completely with comparatively slow rates. In contrast, the intensity of the peak at 1950–1980 cm–1, corresponding to geminal dicarbonyls adsorbed on the low coordination Ru sites, remained constant within the initial 2 min and then decreased slowly, being relatively stable on the Ru surface and less reactive for hydrogenation. (44) The presence of these stable and less reactive surface species might block the active sites and hence contributed to the catalyst deactivation. Based on the findings from in situ DRIFTS–MS, one can conclude that, under the thermal condition, CO hydrogenation proceeded with similar pathways to those of the catalytic CO2 hydrogenation. (45) However, the strong adsorption of CO on the catalyst surface could saturate the active sites, inhibiting CO2 and H2 adsorption.

Figure 6

Figure 6. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species collected at 250 °C in the thermally activated CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst. (a) Initial feed composition: 3% CO + 9% H2+ Ar; (b) change to inert Ar; (c) variations of COad intensity from in situ DRIFTS and CH4 intensity from MS after switching to Ar at 250 °C; (d) change back to the feed: 3% CO + 9% H2 + Ar; (e) change to H2/Ar; (f) variations of COad intensity from in situ DRIFTS and CH4 intensity from MS after switching the feed to H2/Ar at 250 °C.

With the CO2 + CO + H2 feed under the thermal condition, the associated DRIFTS spectra showed the combined features of the CO2-/CO-alone hydrogenation system (as shown in Figure S15a,c), which was substantiated by the presence of strongly adsorbed COad and CxHy species on the surface. After the introduction of CO into the feed, CO coverage increased significantly and could not be completely removed by Ar sweeping (Figure S15d), indicating that the strongly adsorbed COad occupied the active sites for CO2 and H2 adsorption. Accordingly, based on the findings obtained from the thermal catalysis and relevant in situ DRIFTS characterization, it was plausible that the presence of CO in the system produced strongly adsorbed CO species on the Ru sites, which inhibited both CO2 and H2 adsorption, thus suppressing CO2 hydrogenation. Due to the limited concentration of surface Had species, the relatively stable and inactive carbon-containing species, such as carbonyl deposition, were encouraged to be formed on the catalyst surface, and they might progressively block the active sites. Thus, the associated carbonaceous species deposition and metal sintering lead to the permanent catalyst deactivation, (46) which confirms the results in Figures 4a and 5a.
Without plasma discharge at RT, the Ru/SiO2 catalyst showed no activity for CO hydrogenation, that is, (i) no CO conversion by MS as shown in Figure 7a and (ii) the only presence of gas-phase CO (at ∼2143 cm–1) according to DRIFTS (Figure 7b). Upon the ignition of NTP, the MS profiles (Figure 7a) showed the instant decrease of CO signal and simultaneous increase of CO2 and CH4 signals, confirming the production of CH4 and CO2 in the NTP-catalysis. CO2 formation was due to WGSR, which could be activated by NTP. (5) Water was the product from the NTP-activated catalytic CO hydrogenation. As discussed above (Figure 4b), when CO was introduced into the feed for NTP-activated CO2 hydrogenation, a decrease in CO2 conversion was measured, which might be partly caused by the water-gas shift reaction. Simultaneously, the gas-phase CO2 peak at about 2350 cm–1 was measured by DRIFTS (Figure 7c), in line with the intensity change from MS. In the OCO region (Figure 7c,d), the peak for gas-phase CO at 2143 cm–1 disappeared, and the continuous development of the IR bands at 2095 and 2160 cm–1 could be attributed to the linearly adsorbed carbonyl species on Ruδ+ with Ruδ+-CO and Ruδ+-(CO)n configurations, respectively. Another characteristic peak at 2040 cm–1 was assigned to the CO linearly adsorbed on Ru0, while the gradually increased peaks at about 1272 and 1306 cm–1 corresponded to formyl species (CHxO). The evolution of the surface carbon species recorded by DRIFTS as a function of time is correlated (Figure 7f). The increasing rate of carbonyl bands at 2095 and 2160 cm–1 was comparable with that of formyl species, which supported the fact that CO is the intermediate toward formyl species. Also, the formation rate of COad band at 2040 cm–1 increased relatively fast, which might be due to CO2 dissociation (formed by water-gas shift reaction) and CO adsorption. By switching off NTP, the peak of the gas-phase CO2 decreased quickly, and the system was not active again for CO hydrogenation, which was in good agreement with the MS profile. Regarding the carbon species, the formyl species disappeared gradually due to desorption after the extinction of plasma (Figure S16), while COad band intensity barely changed, indicating the strong interaction between the COad species and catalyst surface. Furthermore, when the feed was switched to H2/Ar (from 3% CO + 9% H2 + Ar), DRIFTS characterization (Figure S17a) showed that the surface COad species at 2090 cm–1 (due to gas-phase CO adsorption) decreased immediately, while the intensity of formyl species increased initially and then decreased slowly. The initial increase of the formyl species on the catalyst surface could be ascribed to the reaction between COad and Had (to form the formyl), while the subsequent decrease of the formyl species was due to the consumption of residual formyl species to form CH4. As shown in Figure S17b, the rate of decrease of formyl species and CH4 concentration (at the outlet of the DRIFTS cell by MS) was similar, confirming that the formyl species originated from the reaction between COad and Had and were the active intermediate for CH4 formation. DRIFTS analysis of CO hydrogenation under the NTP condition showed that CO hydrogenation to CH4 proceeded via CO adsorption and the formyl pathway, being similar with that of CO2 hydrogenation (Figure 3).

Figure 7

Figure 7. (a) Corresponding MS signals collected simultaneously from the DRIFTS cell as a function of time during the NTP-assisted CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (b) the NTP-off condition with the feed gas of 3% CO + 9% H2 + Ar, (c, d) NTP-on condition with the feed gas (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), and (e) NTP-off condition with the feed gas. (f) Relative intensities of surface species as a function of ToS recorded in the in situ DRIFTS from (c) and (d) during CO hydrogenation under NTP (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz).

NTP-catalysis with the CO2/CO/H2 feed was examined by DRIFTS–MS (Figure 8 and Figure S18). Being different from CO hydrogenation, the COad peak at 2080 cm–1, due to CO2 dissociation, appeared first and then combined with the peak at 2097 cm–1 (originating from the gas-phase CO adsorption). Accordingly, the evolution profile of the surface carbon species (Figure 8c) showed that the COad species had higher increasing rates than that of formyl species initially (within 8 min) due to CO2 dissociation and CO adsorption on the Ru sites. The subsequent change in the increasing rate was due to saturation of relevant active sites on the Ru surface by CO2/CO adsorption. (30) This finding suggested that CO2 and CO coadsorption existed in the NTP-catalysis. In contrast, the formyl species presented a constant formation rate, confirming that the formyl species originated from the reaction between COad and Had. In addition, by switching CO feed on and off alternatively, DRIFTS–MS characterization of the catalysis (Figure S19) showed that the CO2 MS signal increased with CO in the feed (i.e., production of CO2), which confirms the presence of WGSR under the NTP condition with the CO2/CO/H2 mixture. Therefore, under NTP conditions, the presence of CO in the feed affected CO2 conversions, which was due to (i) the occurrence of WGSR in the system for CO2 formation and (ii) the relatively strong adsorption of CO, in line with the result in Figure 4b. Based on the in situ DRIFTS characterization and relevant discussion, the presence of CO in the feed did not alter the reaction pathways for CO2 hydrogenation under thermal and NTP conditions. However, in comparison with the CO poisoning under the thermal conditions (as discussed before, i.e., due to strong CO adsorption and associated metal sintering of the catalyst), the collisions between reactive plasma-derived species in NTP could recover the active sites by removing the adsorbed carbon species effectively, which lead to the sites available for CO2 adsorption. (40,41,47) This is confirmed by the comparison of the relevant IR spectra (Figure S20), which showed the comparatively low intensity of the adsorbed COad on the Ru catalyst under NTP. Therefore, NTP-catalysis promoted the adsorption of CO2 and alleviated CO adsorption on the catalyst surface in the presence of CO, mitigating the CO poisoning effect on the performance of CO2 hydrogenation and being opposite to that experienced by the thermal catalysis. More importantly, according to the literature, (48−50) H2O molecules will occupy the active sites and present an inhibiting effect on the CO2 hydrogenation. Conversely, NTP enabled WGSR of CO with the produced H2O, which shifted the equilibrium of CO2 hydrogenation toward CH4 production. The phenomenon observed in the system under investigation showed the interesting effect of CO on NTP-catalytic CO2 hydrogenation, that is, as a reaction promoter rather than a catalyst poison, due to the copresence of WGSR, CO2 hydrogenation, and CO hydrogenation under NTP conditions.

Figure 8

Figure 8. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for hydrogenation of CO2/CO over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a, b) the NTP-on condition with the feed gas of 1.5% CO2 + 1.5% CO + 9% H2 + Ar (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), (c) relative intensities of surface species as a function of ToS recorded in the in situ DRIFTS from (a) and (b), and (d) NTP-off condition with the feed gas.

4. Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this study, the NTP-catalysis system was demonstrated to be efficient for CO2 hydrogenations under atmospheric conditions, in which 65% CO2 conversion and 63% CH4 yield can be achieved over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst. Also, the intrinsic nature of catalyst such as surface area is crucial under both thermal and NTP conditions. The comparative kinetic and in situ DRIFTS–MS study revealed that the NTP-catalysis could lower the energy barrier required for catalysis and enable both Langmuir–Hinshelwood and Eley–Rideal mechanisms.
The effect of CO on the catalysis under both thermal and NTP conditions was investigated to understand CO poisoning comparatively. In the thermal catalysis, the catalyst suffered from a significant decrease in CO2 conversion and deactivation due to CO poisoning, while in the NTP-catalysis, the CO played a different role in the system, and the catalyst showed comparatively good stability and regenerability by NTP. In situ DRIFTS–MS study of the thermal catalysis showed that (i) CO preferred to adsorb on the Ru surface strongly to inhibit CO2 and H2 adsorption and decrease CO2 conversion significantly and (ii) the formation of less reactive and strongly adsorbed carbon species (e.g., COad) due to CO strong adsorption and metal sintering deactivates the catalyst permanently. Conversely, in NTP-catalysis, collisions of reactive plasma-derived species contributed to the recovery of the active sites by removing the strongly adsorbed COad, which facilitated CO2 adsorption and, hence, CO2 hydrogenation. Therefore, NTP-catalysis could alleviate the CO effect on CO2 hydrogenation and regenerate the catalyst in situ in the presence of CO during the catalysis. Importantly, the NTP-induced WGSR of CO with the produced H2O also promoted the equilibrium shift of CO2 hydrogenation toward CH4 production. This work demonstrates that, under NTP conditions, the role played by CO in Ru-catalyzed CO2 hydrogenation is fundamentally different from its positioning role in thermal catalysis, showing the potential of NTP-catalysis to address some of the challenges in conventional heterogeneous catalysis, specifically, the development of advanced hybrid NTP-catalysis systems to solve the chemical deactivation issues for practical catalysis.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscatal.0c03620.

  • Detailed characterization of catalysts; relevant catalyst assessment for catalytic CO2 hydrogenation; kinetic parameters of the thermal and NTP systems; relevant in situ DRIFTS data of the thermal and NTP-catalysis systems (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Shanshan Xu - Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    • Sarayute Chansai - Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
    • Shaojun Xu - UK Catalysis Hub, Research Complex at Harwell, Didcot OX11 0FA, United KingdomCardiff Catalysis Institute, School of Chemistry, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United KingdomOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8026-8714
    • Cristina E. Stere - Department of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, School of Engineering, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-0211
    • Yilai Jiao - Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China
    • Sihai Yang - Department of Chemistry, School of Natural Science, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United KingdomOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-1111-9272
  • Author Contributions

    The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

S.X. thanks the financial support from the Dean’s Doctoral Scholar Awards from the University of Manchester. The UK Catalysis Hub is kindly thanked for resources and support provided via our membership of the UK Catalysis Hub Consortium and funded by EPSRC grant EP/R026939/1, EP/R026815/1, EP/R026645/1, EP/R027129/1, or EP/M013219/1(biocatalysis).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 50 other publications.

  1. 1
    Whitehead, J. C. Plasma-Catalysis: Is It Just a Question of Scale?. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2019, 13, 264273,  DOI: 10.1007/s11705-019-1794-3
  2. 2
    Neyts, E. C.; Ostrikov, K. K.; Sunkara, M. K.; Bogaerts, A. Plasma Catalysis: Synergistic Effects at the Nanoscale. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 1340813446,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00362
  3. 3
    Bogaerts, A.; Tu, X.; Whitehead, J. C.; Centi, G.; Lefferts, L.; Guaitella, O.; Azzolina-Jury, F.; Kim, H.-H.; Murphy, A. B.; Schneider, W. F.; Nozaki, T.; Hicks, J. C.; Rousseau, A.; Thevenet, F.; Khacef, A.; Carreon, M. The 2020 Plasma Catalysis Roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2020, 53, 443001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ab9048
  4. 4
    Vakili, R.; Gholami, R.; Stere, C. E.; Chansai, S.; Chen, H.; Holmes, S. M.; Jiao, Y.; Hardacre, C.; Fan, X. Plasma-Assisted Catalytic Dry Reforming of Methane (DRM) over Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)-Based Catalysts. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 260, 118195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118195
  5. 5
    Stere, C. E.; Anderson, J. A.; Chansai, S.; Delgado, J. J.; Goguet, A.; Graham, W. G.; Hardacre, C.; Taylor, S. F. R.; Tu, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, H. Non-Thermal Plasma Activation of Gold-Based Catalysts for Low-Temperature Water-Gas Shift Catalysis. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 55795583,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201612370
  6. 6
    Xu, S.; Chansai, S.; Stere, C.; Inceesungvorn, B.; Goguet, A.; Wangkawong, K.; Taylor, S. F. R.; Al-Janabi, N.; Hardacre, C.; Martin, P. A.; Fan, X. Sustaining Metal–Organic Frameworks for Water-Gas Shift Catalysis by Non-Thermal Plasma. Nat. Catal. 2019, 2, 142148,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0206-2
  7. 7
    Chen, H.; Mu, Y.; Shao, Y.; Chansai, S.; Xu, S.; Stere, C. E.; Xiang, H.; Zhang, R.; Jiao, Y.; Hardacre, C.; Fan, X. Coupling Non-Thermal Plasma with Ni Catalysts Supported on Beta Zeolite for Catalytic CO2 Methanation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2019, 9, 41354145,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CY00590K
  8. 8
    Kim, J.; Go, D. B.; Hicks, J. C. Synergistic Effects of Plasma-Catalyst Interactions for CH4 Activation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 1301013021,  DOI: 10.1039/C7CP01322A
  9. 9
    Xu, S.; Chansai, S.; Shao, Y.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y.-c.; Haigh, S.; Mu, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Stere, C. E.; Chen, H.; Fan, X.; Hardacre, C. Mechanistic Study of Non-Thermal Plasma Assisted CO2 Hydrogenation over Ru Supported on MgAl Layered Double Hydroxide. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 268, 118752,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118752
  10. 10
    Chen, H.; Goodarzi, F.; Mu, Y.; Chansai, S.; Mielby, J. J.; Mao, B.; Sooknoi, T.; Hardacre, C.; Kegnæs, S.; Fan, X. Effect of Metal Dispersion and Support Structure of Ni/Silicalite-1 Catalysts on Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP) Activated CO2 Hydrogenation. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 272, 119013,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119013
  11. 11
    Gupta, N. M.; Londhe, V. P.; Kamble, V. S. Gas-Uptake, Methanation, and Microcalorimetric Measurements on the Coadsorption of CO and H2 over Polycrystalline Ru and a Ru/TiO2 Catalyst. J. Catal. 1997, 169, 423437,  DOI: 10.1006/jcat.1997.1718
  12. 12
    Falbo, L.; Visconti, C. G.; Lietti, L.; Szanyi, J. The Effect of CO on CO2 Methanation over Ru/Al2O3 Catalysts: A Combined Steady-State Reactivity and Transient DRIFT Spectroscopy Study. Appl. Catal., B 2019, 256, 117791,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.117791
  13. 13
    Barboun, P.; Mehta, P.; Herrera, F. A.; Go, D. B.; Schneider, W. F.; Hicks, J. C. Distinguishing Plasma Contributions to Catalyst Performance in Plasma-Assisted Ammonia Synthesis. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 86218630,  DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b00406
  14. 14
    Whitehead, J. C. Plasma–Catalysis: The Known Knowns, the Known Unknowns and the Unknown Unknowns. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2016, 49, 243001,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/49/24/243001
  15. 15
    Gibson, E. K.; Stere, C. E.; Curran-McAteer, B.; Jones, W.; Cibin, G.; Gianolio, D.; Goguet, A.; Wells, P. P.; Catlow, C. R. A.; Collier, P.; Hinde, P.; Hardacre, C. Probing the Role of a Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP) in the Hybrid NTP Catalytic Oxidation of Methane. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 93519355,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201703550
  16. 16
    Mei, D.; Zhu, X.; He, Y.-L.; Yan, J. D.; Tu, X. Plasma-Assisted Conversion of CO2 in a Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor: Understanding the Effect of Packing Materials. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 015011  DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/24/1/015011
  17. 17
    Mehta, P.; Barboun, P.; Go, D. B.; Hicks, J. C.; Schneider, W. F. Catalysis Enabled by Plasma Activation of Strong Chemical Bonds: A Review. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 11151133,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00263
  18. 18
    Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.-y.; Jiang, W.; Bogaerts, A. Two-Dimensional Particle-in Cell/Monte Carlo Simulations of a Packed-Bed Dielectric Barrier Discharge in Air at Atmospheric Pressure. New J. Phys. 2015, 17, 083056  DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/083056
  19. 19
    Zhang, K.; Zhang, G.; Liu, X.; Phan, A. N.; Luo, K. A Study on CO2 Decomposition to CO and O2 by the Combination of Catalysis and Dielectric-Barrier Discharges at Low Temperatures and Ambient Pressure. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 32043216,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04570
  20. 20
    Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.-y.; Zhang, Y.-r.; Bogaerts, A. Formation of Microdischarges inside a Mesoporous Catalyst in Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasmas. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2017, 26, 054002  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6595/aa66be
  21. 21
    Weatherbee, G. D.; Bartholomew, C. H. Hydrogenation of CO2 on Group VIII Metals: II. Kinetics and Mechanism of CO2 Hydrogenation on Nickel. J. Catal. 1982, 77, 460472,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(82)90186-5
  22. 22
    Prairie, M. R.; Renken, A.; Highfield, J. G.; Thampi, K. R.; Grätzel, M. A Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopic Study of CO2 Methanation on Supported Ruthenium. J. Catal. 1991, 129, 130144,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(91)90017-X
  23. 23
    Solymosi, F.; Erdöhelyi, A.; Kocsis, M. Methanation of CO2 on Supported Ru Catalysts. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1 1981, 77, 10031012,  DOI: 10.1039/f19817701003
  24. 24
    Kuśmierz, M. Kinetic Study on Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation over Ru/γ-Al2O3 Catalysts. Catal. Today 2008, 137, 429432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2008.03.003
  25. 25
    Azzolina-Jury, F.; Thibault-Starzyk, F. Mechanism of Low Pressure Plasma-Assisted CO2 Hydrogenation over Ni-USY by Microsecond Time-Resolved FTIR Spectroscopy. Top. Catal. 2017, 60, 17091721,  DOI: 10.1007/s11244-017-0849-2
  26. 26
    Miao, B.; Ma, S. S. K.; Wang, X.; Su, H.; Chan, S. H. Catalysis Mechanisms of CO2 and CO Methanation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 40484058,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CY00478D
  27. 27
    Lalinde, J. A. H.; Roongruangsree, P.; Ilsemann, J.; Bäumer, M.; Kopyscinski, J. CO2 Methanation and Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction. Kinetic Study Based on in situ Spatially-Resolved Measurements. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 124629,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124629
  28. 28
    Garbarino, G.; Bellotti, D.; Finocchio, E.; Magistri, L.; Busca, G. Methanation of Carbon Dioxide on Ru/Al2O3: Catalytic Activity and Infrared Study. Catal. Today 2016, 277, 2128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.12.010
  29. 29
    Fisher, I. A.; Bell, A. T. A Comparative Study of CO and CO2 Hydrogenation over Rh/SiO2. J. Catal. 1996, 162, 5465,  DOI: 10.1006/jcat.1996.0259
  30. 30
    Eckle, S.; Anfang, H.-G.; Behm, R. J. r. Reaction Intermediates and Side Products in the Methanation of CO and CO2 over Supported Ru Catalysts in H2-Rich Reformate Gases. J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 13611367,  DOI: 10.1021/jp108106t
  31. 31
    Navarro-Jaén, S.; Navarro, J. C.; Bobadilla, L. F.; Centeno, M. A.; Laguna, O. H.; Odriozola, J. A. Size-Tailored Ru Nanoparticles Deposited over γ-Al2O3 for the CO2 Methanation Reaction. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 483, 750761,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.03.248
  32. 32
    Fajín, J. L. C.; Gomes, J. R. B.; Cordeiro, M. N. D. S. Mechanistic Study of Carbon Monoxide Methanation over Pure and Rhodium- or Ruthenium-Doped Nickel Catalysts. J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 1653716551,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b01837
  33. 33
    Liu, C.-j.; Xu, G.-h.; Wang, T. Non-Thermal Plasma Approaches in CO2 Utilization. Fuel Process. Technol. 1999, 58, 119134,  DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3820(98)00091-5
  34. 34
    Gupta, N. M.; Kamble, V. S.; Rao, K. A.; Iyer, R. M. On the Mechanism of CO and CO2 Methanation over Ru/Molecular-Sieve Catalyst. J. Catal. 1979, 60, 5767,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(79)90067-8
  35. 35
    Utaka, T.; Okanishi, T.; Takeguchi, T.; Kikuchi, R.; Eguchi, K. Water Gas Shift Reaction of Reformed Fuel over Supported Ru Catalysts. Appl. Catal., A 2003, 245, 343351,  DOI: 10.1016/S0926-860X(02)00657-9
  36. 36
    Gupta, N. M.; Kamble, V. S.; Iyer, R. M.; Thampi, K. R.; Gratzel, M. FTIR Studies on the CO, CO2 and H2 Co-Adsorption over Ru-RuOx/TiO2 Catalyst. Catal. Lett. 1993, 21, 245255,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00769476
  37. 37
    Zhang, S.-T.; Yan, H.; Wei, M.; Evans, D. G.; Duan, X. Hydrogenation Mechanism of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide on Ru(0001) Surface: A Density Functional Theory Study. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 3024130249,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RA01655F
  38. 38
    Mukkavilli, S.; Wittmann, C.; Tavlarides, L. L. Carbon Deactivation of Fischer-Tropsch Ruthenium Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1986, 25, 487494,  DOI: 10.1021/i200033a023
  39. 39
    Mikhail, M.; Wang, B.; Jalain, R.; Cavadias, S.; Tatoulian, M.; Ognier, S.; Gálvez, M. E.; Da Costa, P. Plasma-Catalytic Hybrid Process for CO2 Methanation: Optimization of Operation Parameters. React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. 2018, 126, 629643,  DOI: 10.1007/s11144-018-1508-8
  40. 40
    Wang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, C.; Gong, W.; Guo, H. Plasma Driven Ammonia Decomposition on a Fe-Catalyst: Eliminating Surface Nitrogen Poisoning. Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 37873789,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cc41301b
  41. 41
    Zhu, B.; Li, X.-S.; Liu, J.-L.; Liu, J.-B.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, A.-M. In-Situ Regeneration of Au Nanocatalysts by Atmospheric-Pressure Air Plasma: Significant Contribution of Water Vapor. Appl. Catal., B 2015, 179, 6977,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.05.020
  42. 42
    Zhao, P.; He, Y.; Cao, D.-B.; Wen, X.; Xiang, H.; Li, Y. W.; Wang, J.; Jiao, H. High Coverage Adsorption and Co-Adsorption of CO and H2 on Ru(0001) from DFT and Thermodynamics. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 1944619456,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP02486B
  43. 43
    Diemant, T.; Rauscher, H.; Bansmann, J.; Behm, R. J. Coadsorption of Hydrogen and CO on Well-Defined Pt35Ru65/Ru(0001) Surface Alloys-Site Specificity Vs. Adsorbate-Adsorbate Interactions. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 98019810,  DOI: 10.1039/c003368e
  44. 44
    Wang, X.; Hong, Y.; Shi, H.; Szanyi, J. Kinetic Modeling and Transient DRIFTS–MS Studies of CO2 Methanation over Ru/Al2O3 Catalysts. J. Catal. 2016, 343, 185195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2016.02.001
  45. 45
    Cant, N. W.; Bell, A. T. Studies of Carbon Monoxide Hydrogenation over Ruthenium Using Transient Response Techniques. J. Catal. 1982, 73, 257271,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(82)90099-9
  46. 46
    Carballo, J. M. G.; Finocchio, E.; García-Rodriguez, S.; Ojeda, M.; Fierro, J. L. G.; Busca, G.; Rojas, S. Insights into the Deactivation and Reactivation of Ru/TiO2 During Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Catal. Today 2013, 214, 211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.09.018
  47. 47
    Saoud, W. A.; Assadi, A. A.; Guiza, M.; Bouzaza, A.; Aboussaoud, W.; Ouederni, A.; Soutrel, I.; Wolbert, D.; Rtimi, S. Study of Synergetic Effect, Catalytic Poisoning and Regeneration Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge and Photocatalysis in a Continuous Reactor: Abatement of Pollutants in Air Mixture System. Appl. Catal., B 2017, 213, 5361,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.05.012
  48. 48
    Aziz, M. A. A.; Jalil, A. A.; Triwahyono, S.; Saad, M. W. A. CO2 Methanation over Ni-Promoted Mesostructured Silica Nanoparticles: Influence of Ni Loading and Water Vapor on Activity and Response Surface Methodology Studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 260, 757764,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.09.031
  49. 49
    Falbo, L.; Martinelli, M.; Visconti, C. G.; Lietti, L.; Bassano, C.; Deiana, P. Kinetics of CO2 Methanation on a Ru-Based Catalyst at Process Conditions Relevant for Power-to-Gas Applications. Appl. Catal., B 2018, 225, 354363,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.11.066
  50. 50
    Bacariza, M. C.; Biset-Peiró, M.; Graça, I.; Guilera, J.; Morante, J.; Lopes, J. M.; Andreu, T.; Henriques, C. DBD Plasma-Assisted CO2 Methanation Using Zeolite-Based Catalysts: Structure Composition-Reactivity Approach and Effect of Ce as Promoter. J. CO2 Util. 2018, 26, 202211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2018.05.013

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 77 publications.

  1. Minseok Kim, Sohag Biswas, Isabel Barraza Alvarez, Phillip Christopher, Bryan M. Wong, Lorenzo Mangolini. Nonthermal Plasma Activation of Adsorbates: The Case of CO on Pt. JACS Au 2024, 4 (8) , 2979-2988. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.4c00309
  2. Can Cheng, Zan Qu, Haomiao Xu, Wenjun Huang, Wei Li, Yuyang Li, Tianyou Lian, Xiaoxiang Shi, Naiqiang Yan. Reinforced Volumetric Discharge by Tuning Permittivity and Spatial Scale Intensified Pulse Current for Efficient CO2 Reduction. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12 (29) , 10958-10968. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c03355
  3. Huanyu Zhou, Shuanglin Zhang, Yan Shao, Shoujie Liu, Xiaolei Fan, Huanhao Chen. Relationship between Structural Properties of the Unsupported Ni5Ga3 Catalyst and Methanol Synthesis Activity. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2024, 63 (16) , 6974-6984. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c00241
  4. Huanhao Chen, Wei Guo, Xiaolei Fan. Mechanochemical Synthesis of Bimetallic NiCo Supported on a CeO2 Catalyst with Less Metal Loading for Non-Thermal Plasma Catalytic CO2 Hydrogenation. ACS Engineering Au 2023, 3 (1) , 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00032
  5. Yihui Song, Ming Zhang, Guoli Fan, Lan Yang, Feng Li. Combining a Supported Ru Catalyst with HBeta Zeolite to Construct a High-Performance Bifunctional Catalyst for One-Step Cascade Transformation of Benzene to Cyclohexylbenzene. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2022, 61 (51) , 18663-18675. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c03140
  6. Yuhai Sun, Junliang Wu, Yaolin Wang, Jingjing Li, Ni Wang, Jonathan Harding, Shengpeng Mo, Limin Chen, Peirong Chen, Mingli Fu, Daiqi Ye, Jun Huang, Xin Tu. Plasma-Catalytic CO2 Hydrogenation over a Pd/ZnO Catalyst: In Situ Probing of Gas-Phase and Surface Reactions. JACS Au 2022, 2 (8) , 1800-1810. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.2c00028
  7. Dae-Yeong Kim, Hyungwon Ham, Xiaozhong Chen, Shuai Liu, Haoran Xu, Bang Lu, Shinya Furukawa, Hyun-Ha Kim, Satoru Takakusagi, Koichi Sasaki, Tomohiro Nozaki. Cooperative Catalysis of Vibrationally Excited CO2 and Alloy Catalyst Breaks the Thermodynamic Equilibrium Limitation. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2022, 144 (31) , 14140-14149. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c03764
  8. Joana A. Martins, Carlos V. Miguel, Alírio E. Rodrigues, Luis M. Madeira. Novel Adsorption–Reaction Process for Biomethane Purification/Production and Renewable Energy Storage. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2022, 10 (24) , 7833-7851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06844
  9. Chang Yan, Craig Waitt, Ibukunoluwa Akintola, Garam Lee, Justin Easa, Russell Clarke, Feiyang Geng, Deanna Poirier, Hope O. Otor, Gerardo Rivera-Castro, David B. Go, Casey P. O’Brien, Jason C. Hicks, William F. Schneider, Hanyu Ma. Recent Advances in Plasma Catalysis. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2022, 126 (23) , 9611-9614. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.2c03062
  10. Chang Yan, Craig Waitt, Ibukunoluwa Akintola, Garam Lee, Justin Easa, Russell Clarke, Feiyang Geng, Deanna Poirier, Hope O. Otor, Gerardo Rivera-Castro, David B. Go, Casey P. O’Brien, Jason C. Hicks, William F. Schneider, Hanyu Ma. Recent Advances in Plasma Catalysis. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2022, 61 (23) , 7675-7678. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01594
  11. Debin Zeng, Xiting Wang, Yuanshuang Liu, Dameng Liu, Zhouyang Zhang, Linfeng Fei, John Robertson, Chunguang Kuai, Yuzheng Guo. Self-Poisoning by C2 Products in CO2 Photoreduction Using a Phosphorus-Doped Carbon Nitride with Nitrogen Vacancies. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2022, 10 (18) , 5758-5769. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07992
  12. Alexandre C. Foucher, Shengsong Yang, Daniel J. Rosen, Jennifer D. Lee, Renjing Huang, Zhiqiao Jiang, Francisco G. Barrera, Kelly Chen, George G. Hollyer, Cynthia M. Friend, Raymond J. Gorte, Christopher B. Murray, Eric A. Stach. Synthesis and Characterization of Core-Shell Cu-Ru, Cu-Rh, and Cu-Ir Nanoparticles. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2022, 144 (17) , 7919-7928. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c02538
  13. Wei Guo, Huanhao Chen. Mechanochemical Synthesis of Ni–Y/CeO2 Catalyst for Nonthermal Plasma Catalytic CO2 Methanation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2022, 61 (4) , 1666-1674. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c04456
  14. Zhaolun Cui, Shengyan Meng, Yanhui Yi, Amin Jafarzadeh, Shangkun Li, Erik Cornelis Neyts, Yanpeng Hao, Licheng Li, Xiaoxing Zhang, Xinkui Wang, Annemie Bogaerts. Plasma-Catalytic Methanol Synthesis from CO2 Hydrogenation over a Supported Cu Cluster Catalyst: Insights into the Reaction Mechanism. ACS Catalysis 2022, 12 (2) , 1326-1337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.1c04678
  15. Liang Xiang, Mengran Liu, Guoli Fan, Lan Yang, Feng Li. MoOx-Decorated ZrO2 Nanostructures Supporting Ru Nanoclusters for Selective Hydrodeoxygenation of Anisole to Benzene. ACS Applied Nano Materials 2021, 4 (11) , 12588-12599. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.1c03110
  16. Jiang Nan, Pu Chen, Xue Gong, Yan Hu, Qiong Ma, Bo Wang, Yangmin Ma. Metal-Free C–H [5 + 1] Carbonylation of 2-Alkenyl/Pyrrolylanilines Using Dioxazolones as Carbonylating Reagents. Organic Letters 2021, 23 (9) , 3761-3766. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.1c01147
  17. Rasmeet Singh, Lizhuo Wang, Haoyue Sun, Jun Huang. CO2 Hydrogenation Using Size-dependent Ru Particles Supported on g-C3N4. Carbon Capture Science & Technology 2024, 13 , 100248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100248
  18. Clément Molinet‐Chinaglia, Seema Shafiq, Philippe Serp. Low Temperature Sabatier CO 2 Methanation. ChemCatChem 2024, 21 https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.202401213
  19. Jin Lv, Youhe Wang, Junjie Liu, Zhichao Zhang, Yu Ma, Ziyi Zhou, Yuqing Ouyang, Jie Zhong, Xiang Rao, Hongman Sun, Xiaoyun Xiong, Qingxun Hu, Guofeng Zhao, Zifeng Yan. Dry-gel synthesis of hierarchical Ni-La@S-1 catalysts with stabilized Ni-La bimetals nanoparticles for dry reforming of methane. Nano Research 2024, 224 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-024-6948-z
  20. Stefano Dell’Orco, Noemi Leick, Jeffrey L. Alleman, Susan E. Habas, Calvin Mukarakate. Exploring opportunities in operando DRIFTS and complementary techniques for advancing plasma catalysis. EES Catalysis 2024, 2 (5) , 1059-1071. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EY00088A
  21. Jiaming Ma, Mingyao Miao, Lingting Ye, Kui Xie. Three-dimensional reconstruction of porous CeO2 single crystal for effective electrolysis of carbon dioxide. Journal of Power Sources 2024, 615 , 235088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2024.235088
  22. Yuanzong Shen, Fusheng Liu, Weichen Li, Liantao Xin, Hongdong Li, Weiping Xiao, Guangrui Xu, Dehong Chen, Caixia Li, Yunmei Du, Jinsong Wang, Zexing Wu, Lei Wang. D-band center modulation of supported Ru on phosphorous doped black TiO2 for efficient hydrogen generation. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 495 , 153251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.153251
  23. Volkan Çınar, Eva Peurrung, Hojoon Lim, Adrian Hunt, Maggie Rickman, Grace Miller, Jean-Sabin McEwen, E. Charles H. Sykes, Iradwikanari Waluyo. Hydrogen activation by rhodium under the cover of a copper oxide thin film. Journal of Catalysis 2024, 40 , 115779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2024.115779
  24. Jetsadagorn Pittayatornkul, Tosapol Maluangnont, Siriporn Jongpatiwut, Piyasan Praserthdam, Makoto Ogawa, Tawan Sooknoi. Water-assisted ketonization of methyl palmitate to palmitone over metal incorporated TiO 2 catalysts. Reaction Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 9 (9) , 2345-2357. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RE00111G
  25. Hang Zhang, Linghe Song, Zimeng Nie, Juntai Tian, Jie Yang, Peng Liu, Limin Chen, Mingli Fu, Haomin Huang, Daiqi Ye. Investigation of catalytic methane oxidation over Ag/Co2MO (M = Co, Ni, Cu) catalysts with varying interfacial electron transfer. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 2024, 668 , 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2024.04.162
  26. Yikang Zhang, Rui Wang, Weiwei He, Huiliang Zhang, Haochen Yuan, Kuijun Wu. Monitoring of motor vehicle exhaust emissions using Gaussian process regression frame interpolation optical flow algorithm. Optics Express 2024, 32 (16) , 27645. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.530547
  27. Zien Tang, Xu Liu, Yang Yang, Fangming Jin. Recent advances in CO 2 reduction with renewable reductants under hydrothermal conditions: towards efficient and net carbon benefit CO 2 conversion. Chemical Science 2024, 15 (26) , 9927-9948. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC01265H
  28. Shanshan Xu, Pannida Dugkhuntod, Shengzhe Ding, Yuxin Zhang, Piya Gosalvitr, Shaowei Chen, Jianguo Huang, Sorasak Klinyod, Sarayute Chansai, Christopher Hardacre, Chularat Wattanakit, Xiaolei Fan. Product selectivity controlled by the nano-environment of Ru/ZSM-5 catalysts in nonthermal plasma catalytic CO2 hydrogenation. Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy 2024, 348 , 123826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2024.123826
  29. Naama Alhemeiri, Lance Kosca, Marko Gacesa, Kyriaki Polychronopoulou. Advancing in-situ resource utilization for earth and space applications through plasma CO2 catalysis. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2024, 85 , 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2024.102887
  30. Yi Chen, Shaowei Chen, Yan Shao, Cui Quan, Ningbo Gao, Xiaolei Fan, Huanhao Chen. Siliceous mesocellular foam supported Cu catalysts for promoting non-thermal plasma activated CO2 hydrogenation toward methanol synthesis. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering 2024, 18 (7) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-024-2419-z
  31. Yun Chen, Jinzhao Liu, Xinyu Chen, Siyao Gu, Yibin Wei, Lei Wang, Hui Wan, Guofeng Guan. Development of Multifunctional Catalysts for the Direct Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide to Higher Alcohols. Molecules 2024, 29 (11) , 2666. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29112666
  32. Mohd Nor Latif, Nur Syakirah Abdul Rahim, Salma Samidin, Siti Hasnawati Jamal, Muhammad Rahimi Yusop, Wan Nor Roslam Wan Isahak, Alinda Samsuri. Molybdenum oxide-based catalyst towards better hydrogen production: effects of isothermal carburization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 35 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33060-z
  33. Leon Lefferts. Leveraging Expertise in Thermal Catalysis to Understand Plasma Catalysis. Angewandte Chemie 2024, 136 (10) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202305322
  34. Leon Lefferts. Leveraging Expertise in Thermal Catalysis to Understand Plasma Catalysis. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2024, 63 (10) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202305322
  35. Qian Chen, Shengyan Meng, Rui Liu, Xiaohan Zhai, Xinkui Wang, Li Wang, Hongchen Guo, Yanhui Yi. Plasma-catalytic CO2 hydrogenation to methanol over CuO-MgO/Beta catalyst with high selectivity. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2024, 342 , 123422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2023.123422
  36. Jing Hu, Yixao Wang, Xiyue Zhang, Yunshan Wang, Gang Yang, Lufang Shi, Yong Sun. Parametric analysis of CO2 hydrogenation via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: A review based on machine learning for quantitative assessment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024, 59 , 1023-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.02.055
  37. Rolando Garcia-Villalva, Martí Biset-Peiró, Andreina Alarcón, Carmen Bacariza, Sebastián Murcia-López, Jordi Guilera. Comparison of methane reforming routes for hydrogen production using dielectric barrier discharge plasma-catalysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2024, 59 , 1367-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.02.161
  38. Eleazar Castañeda Morales, Mariya A. Kazakova, Alexander G. Selyutin, Georgiy V. Golubtsov, Dulce M. Morales, Arturo Manzo Robledo. Competition between the oxygen evolution reaction and the electrooxidation of alcohols on heteroatom-functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes-supported Ni oxide catalysts. Surfaces and Interfaces 2024, 46 , 104026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104026
  39. Xiaozhong Chen, Hyun‐Ha Kim, Tomohiro Nozaki. Plasma catalytic technology for CH 4 and CO 2 conversion: A review highlighting fluidized‐bed plasma reactor. Plasma Processes and Polymers 2024, 21 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/ppap.202200207
  40. Bin Shao, Zhi-Qiang Wang, Xue-Qing Gong, Honglai Liu, Feng Qian, P. Hu, Jun Hu. Synergistic promotions between CO2 capture and in-situ conversion on Ni-CaO composite catalyst. Nature Communications 2023, 14 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36646-2
  41. Sana Ullah, Yuan Gao, Liguang Dou, Yadi Liu, Tao Shao, Yunxia Yang, Anthony B. Murphy. Recent Trends in Plasma-Assisted CO2 Methanation: A Critical Review of Recent Studies. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing 2023, 43 (6) , 1335-1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11090-023-10417-9
  42. Jingjing Li, Sarayute Chansai, Christopher Hardacre, Xiaolei Fan. Non thermal plasma assisted water-gas shift reactions under mild conditions: state of the art and a future perspective. Catalysis Today 2023, 423 , 113956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2022.11.017
  43. Kwangho Park, Kyung Rok Lee, Sunghee Ahn, Seong-Hoon Kim, Arsalan Haider, Seokhyun Choung, Jeong Woo Han, Kwang-Deog Jung. Structural effects of nitrogen-doped titanium oxide supports on stabilization of ruthenium active species in carbon dioxide hydrogenation to formate. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2023, 335 , 122873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2023.122873
  44. Shengyan Meng, Liang Wu, Miao Liu, Zhaolun Cui, Qian Chen, Shangkun Li, Jiahui Yan, Li Wang, Xinkui Wang, Ji Qian, Hongchen Guo, Jinhai Niu, Annemie Bogaerts, Yanhui Yi. Plasma‐driven CO 2 hydrogenation to CH 3 OH over Fe 2 O 3 / γ‐Al 2 O 3 catalyst. AIChE Journal 2023, 69 (10) https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.18154
  45. Xueshuang Wu, Li Li, Mouxiao Song, Haiqing Cai, Jing Yang, Guiying Li, Changwei Hu. Insight into the impacts of MnO2 crystal phases on CO2 selective hydrogenation to CH4 on Ni/MnOx catalysts. Journal of CO2 Utilization 2023, 75 , 102584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102584
  46. Galip Akay. Hydrogen, Ammonia and Symbiotic/Smart Fertilizer Production Using Renewable Feedstock and CO2 Utilization through Catalytic Processes and Nonthermal Plasma with Novel Catalysts and In Situ Reactive Separation: A Roadmap for Sustainable and Innovation-Based Technology. Catalysts 2023, 13 (9) , 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13091287
  47. Lea R. Winter, Jingguang G. Chen. Challenges and opportunities in plasma-activated reactions of CO2 with light alkanes. Journal of Energy Chemistry 2023, 84 , 424-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2023.05.038
  48. Xuming Zhang, Zijun He, Yesheng Wenren, Dandan Wang, Hua Pan, Yuzhen Jin, Zuchao Zhu, Liancheng Zhang, Kai Li. Enhanced oxygenates production from plasma catalytic partial oxidation of n-pentane over Fe/Al2O3 catalyst. Catalysis Today 2023, 420 , 114033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2023.02.010
  49. Annemie Bogaerts, Gabriele Centi, Volker Hessel, Evgeny Rebrov. Challenges in unconventional catalysis. Catalysis Today 2023, 420 , 114180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2023.114180
  50. Baharak Sajjadi, Wei-Yin Chen. Catalytic non-thermal milli-pulse plasma for methanation of CO2 without carbon deposition and catalyst deactivation. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 469 , 143428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.143428
  51. Yunming TAO, Yuebing XU, Kuan CHANG, Meiling CHEN, Sergey A STAROSTIN, Hujun XU, Liangliang LIN. Dielectric barrier discharge plasma synthesis of Ag/γ-Al 2 O 3 catalysts for catalytic oxidation of CO. Plasma Science and Technology 2023, 25 (8) , 085504. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-6272/acc14c
  52. Yongjian Ye, WonJun Lee, Junxian Pan, Xiang Sun, Mengzhen Zhou, Jiahui Li, Nian Zhang, Jeong Woo Han, Yan Chen. Tuning the product selectivity of CO 2 /H 2 O co-electrolysis using CeO 2 -modified proton-conducting electrolysis cells. Energy & Environmental Science 2023, 16 (7) , 3137-3145. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EE01468A
  53. Shanshan Xu, Huanhao Chen, Xiaolei Fan. Rational design of catalysts for non-thermal plasma (NTP) catalysis: A reflective review. Catalysis Today 2023, 419 , 114144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2023.114144
  54. Guiyao Song, Yangzhou Zhai, Qisheng Jiang, Dianhua Liu. Unraveling the Mn-promoted coke elimination mechanism by CO2 over NaFeMn/ZSM-5 catalyst during CO2 hydrogenation. Fuel 2023, 338 , 127185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.127185
  55. Jens Osiewacz, Marco Löffelholz, Lydia Weseler, Thomas Turek. CO poisoning of silver gas diffusion electrodes in electrochemical CO2 reduction. Electrochimica Acta 2023, 445 , 142046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2023.142046
  56. Jeongyoon Ahn, Woojin Chung. A Study on Activity of Coexistent CO Gas during the CO2 Methanation Reaction in Ni-Based Catalyst. Processes 2023, 11 (2) , 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020628
  57. Jiajie Wang, Xiaoxing Wang, Mohammad S. AlQahtani, Sean D. Knecht, Sven G. Bilén, Wei Chu, Chunshan Song. Synergetic effect of non-thermal plasma and supported cobalt catalyst in plasma-enhanced CO2 hydrogenation. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 451 , 138661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.138661
  58. Xinrui Wang, Shanshan Xu, Weiting Yang, Xiaolei Fan, Qinhe Pan, Huanhao Chen. Development of Ni-Co supported on SBA-15 catalysts for non-thermal plasma assisted co-conversion of CO2 and CH4: Results and lessons learnt. Carbon Capture Science & Technology 2022, 5 , 100067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2022.100067
  59. R. Krebbers, N. Liu, K. E. Jahromi, M. Nematollahi, O. Bang, G. Woyessa, C. R. Petersen, G. van Rooij, F. J. M. Harren, A. Khodabakhsh, S. M. Cristescu. Mid-infrared supercontinuum-based Fourier transform spectroscopy for plasma analysis. Scientific Reports 2022, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13787-w
  60. Dae-Yeong Kim, Atsushi Saito, Koichi Sasaki, Tomohiro Nozaki. In situ infrared absorption probing of plasma catalysis: vibrationally-excited species induced Mars–van Krevelen type mechanism. Plasma Sources Science and Technology 2022, 31 (12) , 124005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6595/acab28
  61. Joran Van Turnhout, Domenico Aceto, Arnaud Travert, Philippe Bazin, Frédéric Thibault-Starzyk, Annemie Bogaerts, Federico Azzolina-Jury. Observation of surface species in plasma-catalytic dry reforming of methane in a novel atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge in situ IR cell. Catalysis Science & Technology 2022, 12 (22) , 6676-6686. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CY00311B
  62. Meng Li, Bin Hua, Wei Wu, Lu-Cun Wang, Yong Ding, Märtha M. Welander, Robert A. Walker, Dong Ding. Activating nano-bulk interplays for sustainable ammonia electrosynthesis. Materials Today 2022, 60 , 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2022.09.011
  63. Guoyan Ma, Le Wang, Xiaorong Wang, Lu Li, Hongfei Ma. CO Oxidation over Alumina-Supported Copper Catalysts. Catalysts 2022, 12 (9) , 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal12091030
  64. Lingting Ye, Zhibo Shang, Kui Xie. Selective Oxidative Coupling of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyser Based on Porous Single‐Crystalline CeO 2 Monoliths. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2022, 61 (32) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202207211
  65. Lingting Ye, Zhibo Shang, Kui Xie. Selective Oxidative Coupling of Methane to Ethylene in a Solid Oxide Electrolyser Based on Porous Single‐Crystalline CeO 2 Monoliths. Angewandte Chemie 2022, 134 (32) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202207211
  66. Yihui Song, Zhi Sun, Guoli Fan, Lan Yang, Feng Li. Regulating Surface‐Interface Structures of Zn‐Incorporated LiAl‐LDH Supported Ru Catalysts for Efficient Benzene Hydrogenation to Produce Cyclohexene. ChemCatChem 2022, 14 (14) https://doi.org/10.1002/cctc.202200125
  67. Jurong Dong, Qijie Mo, Yufei Wang, Long Jiang, Li Zhang, Cheng‐Yong Su. Ultrathin Two‐Dimensional Metal–Organic Framework Nanosheets Based on a Halogen‐Substituted Porphyrin Ligand: Synthesis and Catalytic Application in CO 2 Reductive Amination. Chemistry – A European Journal 2022, 28 (41) https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202200555
  68. Eunhyo Kim, Khai H. Do, Jinming Wang, Yul Hong, A. Putta Rangappa, D. Amaranatha Reddy, D. Praveen Kumar, Tae Kyu Kim. Construction of 1D TiO2 nanotubes integrated ultrathin 2D ZnIn2S4 nanosheets heterostructure for highly efficient and selective photocatalytic CO2 reduction. Applied Surface Science 2022, 587 , 152895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.152895
  69. Shuzhuang Sun, Hongman Sun, Shaoliang Guan, Shaojun Xu, Chunfei Wu. Integrated CO2 capture and methanation on Ru/CeO2-MgO combined materials: Morphology effect from CeO2 support. Fuel 2022, 317 , 123420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123420
  70. Kang Wu, Juxia Xiong, Yuhai Sun, Junliang Wu, Mingli Fu, Daiqi Ye. Tuning the local electronic structure of SrTiO3 catalysts to boost plasma-catalytic interfacial synergy. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2022, 428 , 128172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128172
  71. Seema R. Ghodke, Shibin Thundiyil, Pavan Dongapure, R. Nandini Devi. Effect of B site substitution in Gd2B2-xNiyO7-δ (B= Ti, Zr) ternary metal oxide catalysts in dry reforming of methane. Molecular Catalysis 2022, 522 , 112242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcat.2022.112242
  72. Letícia F. Rasteiro, Rafael A. De Sousa, Luiz H. Vieira, Vivianne K. Ocampo-Restrepo, Lucas G. Verga, José M. Assaf, Juarez L.F. Da Silva, Elisabete M. Assaf. Insights into the alloy-support synergistic effects for the CO2 hydrogenation towards methanol on oxide-supported Ni5Ga3 catalysts: An experimental and DFT study. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2022, 302 , 120842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120842
  73. Jinming Wang, Eunhyo Kim, Dharani Praveen Kumar, Akkammagari Putta Rangappa, Yujin Kim, Yuexing Zhang, Tae Kyu Kim. Highly Durable and Fully Dispersed Cobalt Diatomic Site Catalysts for CO 2 Photoreduction to CH 4. Angewandte Chemie 2022, 134 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202113044
  74. Jinming Wang, Eunhyo Kim, Dharani Praveen Kumar, Akkammagari Putta Rangappa, Yujin Kim, Yuexing Zhang, Tae Kyu Kim. Highly Durable and Fully Dispersed Cobalt Diatomic Site Catalysts for CO 2 Photoreduction to CH 4. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2022, 61 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202113044
  75. Yong Yang, Anbang He, Ming Yang, Qian Zou, Hui Li, Zuohua Liu, Changyuan Tao, Jun Du. Selective electroreduction of CO 2 to ethanol over a highly stable catalyst derived from polyaniline/CuBi 2 O 4. Catalysis Science & Technology 2021, 11 (17) , 5908-5916. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CY01063H
  76. Nitesh Joshi, Sivachandiran Loganathan. Methanol synthesis from CO 2 using Ni and Cu supported Fe catalytic system: Understanding the role of nonthermal plasma surface discharge. Plasma Processes and Polymers 2021, 18 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/ppap.202000104
  77. Qiang LIU, Jie DING, Guojing JI, Juanmin HU, Hao GU, Qin ZHONG. Fe-Co-K/ZrO 2 Catalytic Performance of CO 2 Hydrogenation to Light Olefins. Journal of Inorganic Materials 2021, 36 (10) , 1053. https://doi.org/10.15541/jim20210044
Open PDF

ACS Catalysis

Cite this: ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 21, 12828–12840
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c03620
Published October 20, 2020

Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Article Views

5957

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Performance of NTP-activated catalytic CO2 hydrogenation as a function of voltage/input energy over the Ru/SiO2 and Ru/γ-Al2O3 catalysts in reference to the control experiments; (a) CO2 conversion and (b) CH4 yield. Experimental conditions: feed gas composition of CO2/H2/Ar = 1:3:3 and WHSV of 30,000 mL (STP) gcat–1 h–1.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Dependence of the reaction rate on pH2 and pCO2 under (a, c) thermal conditions (at 330 °C) and (b, d) NTP conditions.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for CO2 hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a) the NTP-off condition with the feed gas of 3% CO2 + 9% H2 + Ar, (b) NTP-on condition with the feed gas (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), and (c) NTP-off condition with the feed gas. (d) Relative intensities of surface species as a function of time-on-stream recorded by in situ DRIFTS from (b) and relative intensity change of methane recorded in MS (Figure S9) during CO2 hydrogenation by NTP activation (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. CO2, CO, and carbon conversions as a function of ToS in CO poisoning experiments with different CO/CO2 inlet molar ratios under (a) thermal condition (at 330 °C) and (b) NTP condition (at 6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz).

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Long-term deactivation test with the CO2/CO/H2 mixtures, regeneration treatment under Ar, and catalysis in CO2/H2 over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a) the thermal condition (at 330 °C) and (b) NTP condition (at 6.5 kV and 21.0 kHz). Experimental conditions: feed gas composition of H2/C = 3, CO/CO2 = 0.5, and WHSV of 30,000 mL (STP) gcat–1 h–1.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species collected at 250 °C in the thermally activated CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst. (a) Initial feed composition: 3% CO + 9% H2+ Ar; (b) change to inert Ar; (c) variations of COad intensity from in situ DRIFTS and CH4 intensity from MS after switching to Ar at 250 °C; (d) change back to the feed: 3% CO + 9% H2 + Ar; (e) change to H2/Ar; (f) variations of COad intensity from in situ DRIFTS and CH4 intensity from MS after switching the feed to H2/Ar at 250 °C.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. (a) Corresponding MS signals collected simultaneously from the DRIFTS cell as a function of time during the NTP-assisted CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for CO hydrogenation over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (b) the NTP-off condition with the feed gas of 3% CO + 9% H2 + Ar, (c, d) NTP-on condition with the feed gas (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), and (e) NTP-off condition with the feed gas. (f) Relative intensities of surface species as a function of ToS recorded in the in situ DRIFTS from (c) and (d) during CO hydrogenation under NTP (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz).

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. In situ DRIFTS spectra of surface species for hydrogenation of CO2/CO over the Ru/SiO2 catalyst under (a, b) the NTP-on condition with the feed gas of 1.5% CO2 + 1.5% CO + 9% H2 + Ar (at 5.5 kV and 27.0 kHz), (c) relative intensities of surface species as a function of ToS recorded in the in situ DRIFTS from (a) and (b), and (d) NTP-off condition with the feed gas.

  • References


    This article references 50 other publications.

    1. 1
      Whitehead, J. C. Plasma-Catalysis: Is It Just a Question of Scale?. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2019, 13, 264273,  DOI: 10.1007/s11705-019-1794-3
    2. 2
      Neyts, E. C.; Ostrikov, K. K.; Sunkara, M. K.; Bogaerts, A. Plasma Catalysis: Synergistic Effects at the Nanoscale. Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 1340813446,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00362
    3. 3
      Bogaerts, A.; Tu, X.; Whitehead, J. C.; Centi, G.; Lefferts, L.; Guaitella, O.; Azzolina-Jury, F.; Kim, H.-H.; Murphy, A. B.; Schneider, W. F.; Nozaki, T.; Hicks, J. C.; Rousseau, A.; Thevenet, F.; Khacef, A.; Carreon, M. The 2020 Plasma Catalysis Roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2020, 53, 443001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ab9048
    4. 4
      Vakili, R.; Gholami, R.; Stere, C. E.; Chansai, S.; Chen, H.; Holmes, S. M.; Jiao, Y.; Hardacre, C.; Fan, X. Plasma-Assisted Catalytic Dry Reforming of Methane (DRM) over Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)-Based Catalysts. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 260, 118195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118195
    5. 5
      Stere, C. E.; Anderson, J. A.; Chansai, S.; Delgado, J. J.; Goguet, A.; Graham, W. G.; Hardacre, C.; Taylor, S. F. R.; Tu, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, H. Non-Thermal Plasma Activation of Gold-Based Catalysts for Low-Temperature Water-Gas Shift Catalysis. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 55795583,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201612370
    6. 6
      Xu, S.; Chansai, S.; Stere, C.; Inceesungvorn, B.; Goguet, A.; Wangkawong, K.; Taylor, S. F. R.; Al-Janabi, N.; Hardacre, C.; Martin, P. A.; Fan, X. Sustaining Metal–Organic Frameworks for Water-Gas Shift Catalysis by Non-Thermal Plasma. Nat. Catal. 2019, 2, 142148,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0206-2
    7. 7
      Chen, H.; Mu, Y.; Shao, Y.; Chansai, S.; Xu, S.; Stere, C. E.; Xiang, H.; Zhang, R.; Jiao, Y.; Hardacre, C.; Fan, X. Coupling Non-Thermal Plasma with Ni Catalysts Supported on Beta Zeolite for Catalytic CO2 Methanation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2019, 9, 41354145,  DOI: 10.1039/C9CY00590K
    8. 8
      Kim, J.; Go, D. B.; Hicks, J. C. Synergistic Effects of Plasma-Catalyst Interactions for CH4 Activation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 1301013021,  DOI: 10.1039/C7CP01322A
    9. 9
      Xu, S.; Chansai, S.; Shao, Y.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y.-c.; Haigh, S.; Mu, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Stere, C. E.; Chen, H.; Fan, X.; Hardacre, C. Mechanistic Study of Non-Thermal Plasma Assisted CO2 Hydrogenation over Ru Supported on MgAl Layered Double Hydroxide. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 268, 118752,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118752
    10. 10
      Chen, H.; Goodarzi, F.; Mu, Y.; Chansai, S.; Mielby, J. J.; Mao, B.; Sooknoi, T.; Hardacre, C.; Kegnæs, S.; Fan, X. Effect of Metal Dispersion and Support Structure of Ni/Silicalite-1 Catalysts on Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP) Activated CO2 Hydrogenation. Appl. Catal., B 2020, 272, 119013,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119013
    11. 11
      Gupta, N. M.; Londhe, V. P.; Kamble, V. S. Gas-Uptake, Methanation, and Microcalorimetric Measurements on the Coadsorption of CO and H2 over Polycrystalline Ru and a Ru/TiO2 Catalyst. J. Catal. 1997, 169, 423437,  DOI: 10.1006/jcat.1997.1718
    12. 12
      Falbo, L.; Visconti, C. G.; Lietti, L.; Szanyi, J. The Effect of CO on CO2 Methanation over Ru/Al2O3 Catalysts: A Combined Steady-State Reactivity and Transient DRIFT Spectroscopy Study. Appl. Catal., B 2019, 256, 117791,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.117791
    13. 13
      Barboun, P.; Mehta, P.; Herrera, F. A.; Go, D. B.; Schneider, W. F.; Hicks, J. C. Distinguishing Plasma Contributions to Catalyst Performance in Plasma-Assisted Ammonia Synthesis. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 86218630,  DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b00406
    14. 14
      Whitehead, J. C. Plasma–Catalysis: The Known Knowns, the Known Unknowns and the Unknown Unknowns. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2016, 49, 243001,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/49/24/243001
    15. 15
      Gibson, E. K.; Stere, C. E.; Curran-McAteer, B.; Jones, W.; Cibin, G.; Gianolio, D.; Goguet, A.; Wells, P. P.; Catlow, C. R. A.; Collier, P.; Hinde, P.; Hardacre, C. Probing the Role of a Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP) in the Hybrid NTP Catalytic Oxidation of Methane. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 93519355,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201703550
    16. 16
      Mei, D.; Zhu, X.; He, Y.-L.; Yan, J. D.; Tu, X. Plasma-Assisted Conversion of CO2 in a Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor: Understanding the Effect of Packing Materials. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 015011  DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/24/1/015011
    17. 17
      Mehta, P.; Barboun, P.; Go, D. B.; Hicks, J. C.; Schneider, W. F. Catalysis Enabled by Plasma Activation of Strong Chemical Bonds: A Review. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 11151133,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00263
    18. 18
      Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.-y.; Jiang, W.; Bogaerts, A. Two-Dimensional Particle-in Cell/Monte Carlo Simulations of a Packed-Bed Dielectric Barrier Discharge in Air at Atmospheric Pressure. New J. Phys. 2015, 17, 083056  DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/083056
    19. 19
      Zhang, K.; Zhang, G.; Liu, X.; Phan, A. N.; Luo, K. A Study on CO2 Decomposition to CO and O2 by the Combination of Catalysis and Dielectric-Barrier Discharges at Low Temperatures and Ambient Pressure. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 32043216,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.6b04570
    20. 20
      Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.-y.; Zhang, Y.-r.; Bogaerts, A. Formation of Microdischarges inside a Mesoporous Catalyst in Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasmas. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2017, 26, 054002  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6595/aa66be
    21. 21
      Weatherbee, G. D.; Bartholomew, C. H. Hydrogenation of CO2 on Group VIII Metals: II. Kinetics and Mechanism of CO2 Hydrogenation on Nickel. J. Catal. 1982, 77, 460472,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(82)90186-5
    22. 22
      Prairie, M. R.; Renken, A.; Highfield, J. G.; Thampi, K. R.; Grätzel, M. A Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopic Study of CO2 Methanation on Supported Ruthenium. J. Catal. 1991, 129, 130144,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(91)90017-X
    23. 23
      Solymosi, F.; Erdöhelyi, A.; Kocsis, M. Methanation of CO2 on Supported Ru Catalysts. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1 1981, 77, 10031012,  DOI: 10.1039/f19817701003
    24. 24
      Kuśmierz, M. Kinetic Study on Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation over Ru/γ-Al2O3 Catalysts. Catal. Today 2008, 137, 429432,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2008.03.003
    25. 25
      Azzolina-Jury, F.; Thibault-Starzyk, F. Mechanism of Low Pressure Plasma-Assisted CO2 Hydrogenation over Ni-USY by Microsecond Time-Resolved FTIR Spectroscopy. Top. Catal. 2017, 60, 17091721,  DOI: 10.1007/s11244-017-0849-2
    26. 26
      Miao, B.; Ma, S. S. K.; Wang, X.; Su, H.; Chan, S. H. Catalysis Mechanisms of CO2 and CO Methanation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 40484058,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CY00478D
    27. 27
      Lalinde, J. A. H.; Roongruangsree, P.; Ilsemann, J.; Bäumer, M.; Kopyscinski, J. CO2 Methanation and Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction. Kinetic Study Based on in situ Spatially-Resolved Measurements. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 124629,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2020.124629
    28. 28
      Garbarino, G.; Bellotti, D.; Finocchio, E.; Magistri, L.; Busca, G. Methanation of Carbon Dioxide on Ru/Al2O3: Catalytic Activity and Infrared Study. Catal. Today 2016, 277, 2128,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.12.010
    29. 29
      Fisher, I. A.; Bell, A. T. A Comparative Study of CO and CO2 Hydrogenation over Rh/SiO2. J. Catal. 1996, 162, 5465,  DOI: 10.1006/jcat.1996.0259
    30. 30
      Eckle, S.; Anfang, H.-G.; Behm, R. J. r. Reaction Intermediates and Side Products in the Methanation of CO and CO2 over Supported Ru Catalysts in H2-Rich Reformate Gases. J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 13611367,  DOI: 10.1021/jp108106t
    31. 31
      Navarro-Jaén, S.; Navarro, J. C.; Bobadilla, L. F.; Centeno, M. A.; Laguna, O. H.; Odriozola, J. A. Size-Tailored Ru Nanoparticles Deposited over γ-Al2O3 for the CO2 Methanation Reaction. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 483, 750761,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.03.248
    32. 32
      Fajín, J. L. C.; Gomes, J. R. B.; Cordeiro, M. N. D. S. Mechanistic Study of Carbon Monoxide Methanation over Pure and Rhodium- or Ruthenium-Doped Nickel Catalysts. J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 1653716551,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b01837
    33. 33
      Liu, C.-j.; Xu, G.-h.; Wang, T. Non-Thermal Plasma Approaches in CO2 Utilization. Fuel Process. Technol. 1999, 58, 119134,  DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3820(98)00091-5
    34. 34
      Gupta, N. M.; Kamble, V. S.; Rao, K. A.; Iyer, R. M. On the Mechanism of CO and CO2 Methanation over Ru/Molecular-Sieve Catalyst. J. Catal. 1979, 60, 5767,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(79)90067-8
    35. 35
      Utaka, T.; Okanishi, T.; Takeguchi, T.; Kikuchi, R.; Eguchi, K. Water Gas Shift Reaction of Reformed Fuel over Supported Ru Catalysts. Appl. Catal., A 2003, 245, 343351,  DOI: 10.1016/S0926-860X(02)00657-9
    36. 36
      Gupta, N. M.; Kamble, V. S.; Iyer, R. M.; Thampi, K. R.; Gratzel, M. FTIR Studies on the CO, CO2 and H2 Co-Adsorption over Ru-RuOx/TiO2 Catalyst. Catal. Lett. 1993, 21, 245255,  DOI: 10.1007/BF00769476
    37. 37
      Zhang, S.-T.; Yan, H.; Wei, M.; Evans, D. G.; Duan, X. Hydrogenation Mechanism of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide on Ru(0001) Surface: A Density Functional Theory Study. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 3024130249,  DOI: 10.1039/C4RA01655F
    38. 38
      Mukkavilli, S.; Wittmann, C.; Tavlarides, L. L. Carbon Deactivation of Fischer-Tropsch Ruthenium Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1986, 25, 487494,  DOI: 10.1021/i200033a023
    39. 39
      Mikhail, M.; Wang, B.; Jalain, R.; Cavadias, S.; Tatoulian, M.; Ognier, S.; Gálvez, M. E.; Da Costa, P. Plasma-Catalytic Hybrid Process for CO2 Methanation: Optimization of Operation Parameters. React. Kinet., Mech. Catal. 2018, 126, 629643,  DOI: 10.1007/s11144-018-1508-8
    40. 40
      Wang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, C.; Gong, W.; Guo, H. Plasma Driven Ammonia Decomposition on a Fe-Catalyst: Eliminating Surface Nitrogen Poisoning. Chem. Commun. 2013, 49, 37873789,  DOI: 10.1039/c3cc41301b
    41. 41
      Zhu, B.; Li, X.-S.; Liu, J.-L.; Liu, J.-B.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, A.-M. In-Situ Regeneration of Au Nanocatalysts by Atmospheric-Pressure Air Plasma: Significant Contribution of Water Vapor. Appl. Catal., B 2015, 179, 6977,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2015.05.020
    42. 42
      Zhao, P.; He, Y.; Cao, D.-B.; Wen, X.; Xiang, H.; Li, Y. W.; Wang, J.; Jiao, H. High Coverage Adsorption and Co-Adsorption of CO and H2 on Ru(0001) from DFT and Thermodynamics. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 1944619456,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP02486B
    43. 43
      Diemant, T.; Rauscher, H.; Bansmann, J.; Behm, R. J. Coadsorption of Hydrogen and CO on Well-Defined Pt35Ru65/Ru(0001) Surface Alloys-Site Specificity Vs. Adsorbate-Adsorbate Interactions. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2010, 12, 98019810,  DOI: 10.1039/c003368e
    44. 44
      Wang, X.; Hong, Y.; Shi, H.; Szanyi, J. Kinetic Modeling and Transient DRIFTS–MS Studies of CO2 Methanation over Ru/Al2O3 Catalysts. J. Catal. 2016, 343, 185195,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcat.2016.02.001
    45. 45
      Cant, N. W.; Bell, A. T. Studies of Carbon Monoxide Hydrogenation over Ruthenium Using Transient Response Techniques. J. Catal. 1982, 73, 257271,  DOI: 10.1016/0021-9517(82)90099-9
    46. 46
      Carballo, J. M. G.; Finocchio, E.; García-Rodriguez, S.; Ojeda, M.; Fierro, J. L. G.; Busca, G.; Rojas, S. Insights into the Deactivation and Reactivation of Ru/TiO2 During Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Catal. Today 2013, 214, 211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2012.09.018
    47. 47
      Saoud, W. A.; Assadi, A. A.; Guiza, M.; Bouzaza, A.; Aboussaoud, W.; Ouederni, A.; Soutrel, I.; Wolbert, D.; Rtimi, S. Study of Synergetic Effect, Catalytic Poisoning and Regeneration Using Dielectric Barrier Discharge and Photocatalysis in a Continuous Reactor: Abatement of Pollutants in Air Mixture System. Appl. Catal., B 2017, 213, 5361,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.05.012
    48. 48
      Aziz, M. A. A.; Jalil, A. A.; Triwahyono, S.; Saad, M. W. A. CO2 Methanation over Ni-Promoted Mesostructured Silica Nanoparticles: Influence of Ni Loading and Water Vapor on Activity and Response Surface Methodology Studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 260, 757764,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2014.09.031
    49. 49
      Falbo, L.; Martinelli, M.; Visconti, C. G.; Lietti, L.; Bassano, C.; Deiana, P. Kinetics of CO2 Methanation on a Ru-Based Catalyst at Process Conditions Relevant for Power-to-Gas Applications. Appl. Catal., B 2018, 225, 354363,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.11.066
    50. 50
      Bacariza, M. C.; Biset-Peiró, M.; Graça, I.; Guilera, J.; Morante, J.; Lopes, J. M.; Andreu, T.; Henriques, C. DBD Plasma-Assisted CO2 Methanation Using Zeolite-Based Catalysts: Structure Composition-Reactivity Approach and Effect of Ce as Promoter. J. CO2 Util. 2018, 26, 202211,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jcou.2018.05.013
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscatal.0c03620.

    • Detailed characterization of catalysts; relevant catalyst assessment for catalytic CO2 hydrogenation; kinetic parameters of the thermal and NTP systems; relevant in situ DRIFTS data of the thermal and NTP-catalysis systems (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.