0
Research Papers: Hydrogen Energy

Hydrogen Production Via Ethanol Steam Reforming Over Ni/Al2O3 Catalysts: Effect of Ni Loading

[+] Author and Article Information
Ahmed Bshish

Department of Chemical and
Process Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi 43600,
Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: ahmedbshish@gmail.com

Zahira Yaakob

Department of Chemical and
Process Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi 43600,
Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: zahira65@yahoo.com

Ali Ebshish

Department of Chemical and
Process Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi 43600,
Selangor, Malaysia

Fatah H. Alhasan

Catalysis Science and Technology
Research Centre,
Faculty of Science,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
UPM Serdang,
Selangor 43400, Malaysia

1Corresponding authors.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 18, 2012; final manuscript received May 15, 2013; published online September 12, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Sarma V. Pisupati.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(1), 012601 (Sep 12, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: JERT-12-1291; doi: 10.1115/1.4024915 History: Received December 18, 2012; Revised May 15, 2013

Catalytic systems play an important role in hydrogen production via ethanol reforming. The effect of Ni loading on the characteristics and activities of Ni/Al2O3 catalysts used in pure ethanol steam reforming are not well-understood. Two series of catalysts with various Ni loadings (6, 8, 10, 12, and 20 wt. %) were prepared by impregnation (IMP) and precipitation (PT) methods and were tested in reforming reactions. The catalysts were characterized by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET), X-ray diffraction (XRD), temperature-programmed reduction (TPR), and scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDAX). Powder XRD patterns of all the catalysts exhibited only NiO. Lower Ni loading catalysts were more efficient in H2 production, as evidenced by the finding that a 6 wt. % Ni catalyst, synthesized via the PT method, yielded 3.68 mol H2 per mol ethanol fed. The high surface area and small crystallite size of the low Ni loading catalysts resulted in sufficient dispersion and strong metal-support interactions, which closely related to the high activity of the 6 PT catalyst.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of the experiment for the production of hydrogen by the reforming of ethanol

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms for support and catalysts; (a) impregnation catalysts and (b) precipitation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

XRD pattern of the support and catalysts; (a) impregnation catalysts, (b) precipitation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

TPR profiles of (a) catalysts prepared by impregnation method, (b) catalysts prepared by precipitation method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

SEM micrographies and related EDX mapping of some fresh precipitation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

SEM micrographies and related EDX mapping of some fresh impregnation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of ethanol conversion for impregnation and precipitation catalysts after 3 h

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Ethanol conversion (*) and product selectivity (H2, Δ CO2, x CH4, CO) during 8 h steam reforming of ethanol over precipitation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Ethanol conversion (*) and product selectivity (H2, Δ CO2, x CH4, CO) during 8 h steam reforming of ethanol over impregnation catalysts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of catalyst loading on the product yield for PT catalysts after 8 h reaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of catalyst loading on the product yield for IMP catalysts after 8 h reaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of reaction temperature on ethanol conversion (*) and product selectivity (H2, Δ CO2, x CH4, CO)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of LHSV on ethanol conversion (*) and product selectivity (H2, Δ CO2, x CH4, CO)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of water-to-ethanol molar ratio on ethanol conversion (*) and product selectivity (H2, Δ CO2, x CH4, CO)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In