Next Article in Journal
Performance of Graphene–CdS Hybrid Nanocomposite Thin Film for Applications in Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Solar Cell and H2 Production
Previous Article in Journal
Vascular Wall–Mesenchymal Stem Cells Differentiation on 3D Biodegradable Highly Porous CaSi-DCPD Doped Poly (α-hydroxy) Acids Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/nano10020244
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Atomic Layer Deposition for Preparing Isolated Co Sites on SiO2 for Ethane Dehydrogenation Catalysis

by
Renjing Huang
1,
Yuan Cheng
1,
Yichen Ji
1 and
Raymond J. Gorte
1,2,3,*
1
Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3
Catalysis Center for Energy Innovation, Newark, DE 19716, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2020, 10(2), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020244
Submission received: 31 December 2019 / Revised: 27 January 2020 / Accepted: 28 January 2020 / Published: 30 January 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Unlike Co clusters, isolated Co atoms have been shown to be selective for catalytic dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene; however, preparation of isolated Co sites requires special preparation procedures. Here, we demonstrate that Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) of tris(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-3,5-heptanedionato)cobalt(III) (Co(TMHD)3) on silica and other supports is effective in producing these isolated species. Silica-supported catalysts prepared with one ALD cycle showed ethylene selectivities greater than 96% at 923 K and were stable when CO2 was co-fed with the ethane. Co catalysts prepared by impregnation formed clusters that were significantly less active, selective, and stable. Rates and selectivities also decreased for catalysts with multiple ALD cycles. Isolated Co catalysts prepared on Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 showed reasonable selectivity for ethane dehydrogenation but were not as effective as their silica counterpart.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Ethylene is one of the most important building blocks for the chemical industry and is widely used as a feedstock for producing polymers, ethylene oxide, and other derivatives [1]. Most ethylene has been produced by steam cracking of light naphtha or as a by-product of fluidized catalytic cracking of crude oil. More recently, steam cracking of ethane has taken on increased importance due to the abundance of ethane from shale gas [2]; however, lower-temperature dehydrogenation of ethane would be desirable for energy efficiency and reduced NOx emissions [3,4,5].
High temperatures are required in order to achieve high equilibrium conversions by direct catalytic dehydrogenation of ethane to H2 and ethylene. Oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) eliminates the equilibrium requirement by consuming the H2 to form water, while simultaneously generating the heat required to raise the temperature of the reactants. The mostly extensively studied catalysts for ODH of ethane are chromium-based [6,7,8] and gallium-based [9,10] materials. In addition to other issues, the toxicity of CrOx and the severe coking behavior of GaOx-containing materials have prevented their wide-scale application. Other metal oxides, including those of V [11], Mo [11], and Co [12], have also been investigated and show some potential. Over-oxidation of the ethylene product is usually an issue in ODH with strong oxidants, and it would be particularly attractive if one could use a “soft” oxidant, such as readily available CO2 [13].
There have been several recent reports that cobalt-based catalysts can be active and selective for ODH of ethane using CO2 [12,14]. Of particular interest, Koirala et al. [12] demonstrated that flame-synthesis of CoOx/SiO2 produced a catalyst capable of selectivities above 85%. Their observation that selectivities increased with decreasing Co content suggested that the selective sites are associated with isolated Co. Spectroscopic data implied that the active species was Co2+ in a tetrahedral environment, strongly bound to the silica. Others have also shown that isolated Co can exhibit selective C–H activation of alkanes [15,16,17]. For example, Hu et al. used electrostatic adsorption of monomeric hexamminecobalt (III) with low metal loadings to produce silica-supported catalysts with isolated Co [15]. However, preparation of isolated Co species remains challenging; and conventional preparation by impregnation usually results in catalysts that have metal atoms in a variety of coordination environments [16].
In the present work, we will demonstrate that isolated Co sites on silica and other supports can be prepared easily by atomic layer deposition (ALD). The basic idea behind ALD is that a precursor reactant is first allowed to react with a surface in a self-terminating way. After the excess precursor has been purged, the adsorbed precursor is oxidized in a separate step. By choosing the correct conditions, conformal films can be deposited on either flat or porous surfaces, as described in several reviews [18,19]. For the present application, it is important to recognize that a single deposition cycle of Co precursors with large ligands results in spatially isolated Co atoms that retain that site isolation after removal of the ligands. For example, previous work has shown that the growth rate for ALD with tris(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-3,5-heptanedionato)cobalt(III) (Co(TMHD)3) is 5 × 1017 Co/m2 [20,21], a coverage that is roughly a factor of ten lower than that which would be expected for Co in a monolayer of CoOx. This low coverage per cycle, which is almost certainly due to steric crowding by the large TMHD ligands, causes the Co ions to be spatially isolated. The resulting catalysts exhibit exceptional activity, selectivity, and stability for dehydrogenation of ethane. A comparison of Co2+ on silica, alumina, and MgAl2O4 shows that the silica-supported catalysts are superior but reasonable performance could be achieved with isolated Co2+ on the other supports as well.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Catalyst Preparation

SiO2, Al2O3, and MgAl2O4 were used as the supports in this work. The SiO2 (Fuji Silysia Chemical G-6, Nagoya, Japan, 10 μm) was calcined in air at 973 K for 1 h. The Al2O3 used in this study was obtained as γ-Al2O3 (Strem Chemicals, Newburyport, MA, USA) but was then stabilized by calcination in air at 1173 K for 24 h. The MgAl2O4 was prepared in our laboratory by co-precipitation and the synthesis has been described in previous publications [22]. It was also calcined in air at 1173 K for 12 h to stabilize its surface area. All support powders were pressed into thin wafers and then broken into small pieces before further use.
The cobalt was deposited onto different supports by ALD using a home-built, static system that has been described in detail previously [23,24]. The ALD precursor was Co(TMHD)3 (Strem Chemicals). During the deposition process, approximately 0.7 g of support material were evacuated and exposed to 5 Torr of the precursor vapor at 523 K for 5 min, after which the samples were evacuated to remove excess precursors and then oxidized in a muffle furnace at 773 K for 7 min to fully remove the ligands. Samples with n ALD cycles on a particular support are referred to here as nCo-support.
A silica-supported sample was also prepared by conventional incipient wetness, using aqueous solutions of Cobalt(II) nitrate hexahydrate (98%, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). To minimize CoOx cluster size, this sample was prepared with 1-wt% Co on SiO2. After impregnation, it was calcined for 3 h at 873 K and is referred to as impCo-SiO2.

2.2. Catalyst Characterization

X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns were measured on a MiniFlex diffractometer (Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a Cu Kα source (λ = 154.05 pm). Co loadings were initially determined by weight changes following ALD but then confirmed by Inductively-Coupled Plasma, Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES, Spectro Genesis, Kleve, Germany). Specific surface areas were obtained by the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET; home-built device) method using N2 at 78 K. UV–Vis, diffuse-reflectance spectra were recorded on a Cary 5000 UV–Vis–NIR spectrophotometer equipped with a Praying Mantis diffuse reflectance accessory (Harrick Scientific Products, Pleasantville, NY, USA). The spectra were measured against a Spectralon background. A thermogravimetric analyzer (Q600, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) was used to quantify the amount of coke in the spent catalyst after 24 h on stream. For these measurements, the samples were first held at 373 K for 1 h in flowing, dry N2 before ramping the temperature in flowing air to 1173 K at a rate of 10 K/min. Temperature programmed desorption (TPD) measurements were performed in a high-vacuum system (10−7 torr), using 50-mg samples and a quadrupole mass spectrometer (RGA100,Stanford Research Systems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for product detection [25]. The heating rate in these measurements was again 10 K/min.

2.3. Catalyst Testing

The dehydrogenation reactions were conducted in a 1/2-inch, quartz, tubular flow reactor. Gas flow was controlled using simple rotameters with metering valves (FL3600-3800, Omega Engineering, Norwalk, CT, USA). Products were detected by on-line gas chromatography (Model 310, Buck Scientific, city, country) with a Haysep Q column and a thermal conductivity detector using Helium (He, 99.999%, Airgas, Allentown, PA, USA) as the carrier gas. In a typical run, 0.5 g of catalyst was loaded in the center of the tube between two quartz-wool plugs. The catalysts were heated to the desired reaction temperature at 10 K/min in He flow before introducing the reaction mixtures. The reactant gases were ethane (C2H6, 99.99%, Airgas) and carbon dioxide (CO2, 99.99%, Airgas). The total flow rate of the reactant gases and He was maintained at 30 mL/min throughout the study. To increase the residence time, we either increased the catalyst loading or reduced the total flow rate. In all cases, the carbon balances were greater than 98% for reactions when CO2 and ethane were co-fed and 96% in the absence of CO2.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characterization

A list of all the samples used in this study is reported in Table 1, together with their metal loadings and BET surface areas. The specific Co coverages in the table were calculated from the Co weight loading and the BET surface area, assuming the Co was present as CoO. On the SiO2 support, catalysts were prepared with between one and ten ALD cycles of Co(TMHD)3. As shown in Table 1, the Co loading increased linearly with the number of cycles, as expected; however, the growth rate, 2.5 × 1017 Co/m2-cycle, was about half that reported previously for deposition of Co with this precursor on Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 [20,21]. Since only one ALD cycle was deposited onto the Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 supports in the present study, there was significant uncertainty in the growth rates for these samples; but the values, 8 × 1017 Co/m2-cycle, were more similar to what has been reported previously [20,21]. We suggest that the lower growth rate on SiO2 was due to the fact that this support had a much higher surface area than the supports used in earlier work and therefore had smaller pores. It is likely that the Co precursor with large TMHD ligands was unable to access smaller pores. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the silica simply had a lower concentration of reactive sites [26].
It is useful to notice that the coverage of 2.7 × 1017 Co/m2 would imply that each Co occupies an area of 4 nm2, which would indicate that the metal atoms are separated by a distance of roughly 2 nm. Even after 10 ALD cycles, the average distance between Co atoms is expected to be greater than 0.6 nm. Finally, the decrease in BET surface area with the number of ALD cycles in the SiO2-supported samples is mainly due to the increased mass of the samples, combined with a small change in pore size [27].
XRD patterns of the SiO2, 1Co-SiO2, 10Co-SiO2, and impCo-SiO2 samples, shown in Figure 1, demonstrate that the structure of the ALD-prepared samples differed significantly from that of the sample prepared by impregnation. Each of these samples was calcined above 773 K but only the impCo-SiO2 sample exhibited features at 36, 44, 59, and 65 degrees 2θ. These peaks correspond to Co3O4 and demonstrate that, in the absence of very specialized procedures, such as the electrostatic adsorption procedure used by Hu et al. [15,28], impregnation leads to formation of metal clusters, even at relatively low Co loadings. From the XRD peak width and Scherrer’s equation, the Co3O4 crystallite size for impCo-SiO2 was estimated to be 11 nm. By contrast, the samples prepared by ALD showed no observable XRD peaks for cobalt oxides, even at Co loadings ten times higher.
The difference in the structure of the materials prepared by ALD and by impregnation was further shown by the UV–Vis spectra in Figure 2. Pure SiO2 did not adsorb in the UV–Vis range that is shown here and thus did not exhibit any features. The impCo-SiO2 sample was visibly darker and exhibited broad absorption bands between 300 and 600 nm and between 650 and 800 nm. These bands were consistent with that expected for Co3O4 [29]. However, the 1Co-SiO2 and 10Co-SiO2 were both light blue in color and exhibited absorption bands centered at 530, 590, and 640 nm. These spectra imply that the Co is present as isolated Co2+ in a tetrahedral environment [17,28,30]. As expected, the intensity of the bands was stronger with 10Co-SiO2 compared to 1Co-SiO2 due to the increased metal loading but the features remained the same. It is also noteworthy that these spectra are the same as those reported for the flame-prepared samples in an earlier study [12,28].
The adsorption properties of the Co added by ALD were probed in TPD studies with 2-propanol, with results shown for SiO2 and 1Co-SiO2 in Figure 3. 2-Propanol adsorbs on silica via hydrogen bonding with surface silanols [31]. Some of the alcohol desorbed as 2-propanol below 550 K but a significant fraction desorbed as propene between 700 and 800 K. The propene was produced by the decomposition of the silyl/iso-propyl ether that formed when the alcohol reacted with silanols. The water formed in this reaction desorbed at lower temperatures, over a broad temperature range, so that the silyl/iso-propyl ether that remained at higher temperatures could not recombine back to the alcohol. While these same silica-related features were observed on the 1Co-SiO2 sample, the Co-containing sample also exhibited acetone formation between 500 and 650 K. The formation of acetone is a clear indication of dehydrogenation activity.

3.2. Catalytic Performance

3.2.1. Comparison of 1Co-SiO2 and impCo-SiO2

To understand how the catalytic properties of isolated Co sites differ from that of CoOx clusters, we examined the reaction of ethane and CO2 on the 1Co-SiO2 and impCo-SiO2 samples at 923 K, with data shown in Figure 4. These experiments were performed on the oxidized samples but prereduction of the 1Co-SiO2 sample at 973 K in H2 had no effect on either the conversion or the selectivity. As shown in Figure 4a, using the same amounts of catalyst and a CO2:C2H6 ratio of one, the conversion on 1Co-SiO2 was approximately three times higher than on impCo-SiO2, 22% versus 7%. More importantly, the selectivity on 1Co-SiO2 was 99% to ethylene, compared to a value of only 16% on impCo-SiO2. The impCo-SiO2 acted primarily as a reforming catalyst, producing CO and H2. The 1Co-SiO2 sample was also relatively stable for a period of at least 7 h, Figure 4b. Since the results on impCo-SiO2 show that clusters were not selective for ethylene, the fact that the selectivity remained high on 1Co-SiO2 implies that the isolated Co species did not sinter to form clusters under these conditions. Finally, it is interesting to note that the selectivities that we observed on 1Co-SiO2 were actually somewhat higher than the dilute-Co catalysts that were flame-prepared by Koirala et al. [28]. While the conditions of our experiments were clearly different, this result suggests that preparation of the catalyst by ALD may be more effective in producing isolated Co compared to the flame-preparation method.

3.2.2. Influence of CO2 Partial Pressure

In the reaction of ethane with CO2, it has been proposed that the role of CO2 can be either to push the equilibrium towards ethylene production by consuming H2 via reverse water gas shift (RWGS) or to remove coke via reverse Boudouard reaction [1,2,32]. To determine which process was more important for the present system, we examined the conversion and stability of the 1Co-SiO2 catalyst for different CO2:C2H6 ratios, with results shown in Figure 5. Measurements were performed as a function of time at a fixed mole fraction of C2H6 of 0.167 and a fixed space time (30 mL/min total flow rate with 0.5-g catalyst). In all cases, the selectivity to ethylene was greater than 97%, demonstrating that the presence of CO2 did not affect selectivity. In the absence of CO2, the conversions were initially higher than what we measured in the presence of CO2, implying that equilibrium considerations are not important. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the equilibrium conversion of ethane to ethylene and H2 at this temperature would be 69%. Furthermore, even with a CO2:C2H6 ratio of 3, only about 5% of the H2 produced in the reaction was consumed by RWGS. However, in the absence of CO2, the conversion declined significantly with time. For CO2:C2H6 ratios of both 1 and 3, the conversions were stable. The effect of changing the CO2:C2H6 ratio was modest so long as some CO2 was present in the reaction mixture. The conversions decreased, but only slightly, when the CO2:C2H6 ratio increased from 1 to 3.

3.2.3. Stability and Regeneration of 1Co-SiO2

To gain further insights into the reasons for deactivation of 1Co-SiO2 in the absence of CO2, we performed additional, 24-h tests of the sample, with and without CO2. We also measured the carbon contents of the sample after running the reaction for this amount of time and attempted to regenerate the catalyst by oxidation. The results of these experiments are shown in Table 2. In agreement with Figure 5, the conversion of ethane in the absence of CO2 fell to 7.2% after 24 h while the conversion dropped only modestly, from 23.2% to 18.1%, when CO2 was added to the feed. The activity of the catalyst could be largely restored by oxidation at 923 K in flowing air, implying that deactivation was not due to some structural change in the catalyst. The carbon contents after 24 h of reaction were 3.7-wt% in the absence of CO2 and 1.0-wt% when the feed contained CO2. Since metallic Co nanoparticles can form large amounts of carbon due whisker formation [33,34], both of these values were relatively small, indicating that whisker formation did not occur; however, on an atomic basis, the C:Co ratio corresponding to 3.7-wt% C was greater than 20, so that this amount of carbon was sufficient to cover the active component.

3.2.4. Effects of Reaction Temperature and Space Velocity

The effect of reaction temperature on the 1Co-SiO2 sample was investigated between 923 and 1023 K, with results reported in Figure 6. While conversion increased with temperature, the selectivity decreased dramatically. At higher reaction temperatures, we observed evidence for both gas-phase, free-radical reactions from the presence of methane and higher-molecular weight products and dry reforming from the presence of CO in the products.
The effect of varying the space time on the 1Co-SiO2 sample is shown in Figure 7. As expected, the conversion increased with increasing space time. What is noteworthy is that the selectivity to ethylene remained high, greater than 96%, at conversions approaching 40%. Ethylene did not appear to be reactive on this catalyst under these conditions.

3.2.5. Effect of the Number of ALD Cycles on SiO2

It is expected that higher Co loadings should lead to higher rates if isolated Co sites can be maintained. Since the XRD and UV–Vis results in Figure 1 and Figure 2 suggest that the Co still exists as isolated sites following multiple ALD cycles, we examined the conversion and selectivity of SiO2-supported samples as a function of the number of ALD cycles, with results shown in Figure 8. The conversion did increase slightly after the second ALD cycle but then declined monotonically. Selectivity remained high after as many as five ALD cycles but then decreased dramatically after 10 ALD cycles. We suggest that the most likely explanation for the decrease in rates with increasing ALD cycles is that only isolated Co sites are active. Additional ALD cycles create sites in which Co sites are paired, so that adding more Co lowers the rates. After 10 ALD cycles, some of the Co is present as clusters, which are active for non-selective reactions.

3.2.6. Isolated Co on Other Supports

Unlike the flame-synthesis [12] and electrostatic-adsorption [15] methods for preparing isolated Co sites, addition of Co by ALD is expected to provide isolated sites independent of the support. Therefore, to determine the effect of different supports on the reaction of ethane, samples were prepared with one ALD cycle of Co(TMHD)3 onto Al2O3 and MgAl2O4. Although Co is expected to react with Al2O3 to form CoAl2O4 at higher temperatures [20], the presence of MgO should provide some stability [21]. Figure 9 compares the conversions and selectivities at a time-on-stream of 1 h for 1Co-SiO2, impCo-SiO2, 1Co-Al2O3, and 1Co-MgAl2O4. The 1Co-Al2O3 and 1Co-MgAl2O4 samples were less active and selective compared to 1Co-SiO2 but both catalysts were significantly better than impCo-SiO2. The lower activity of 1Co-Al2O3 and 1Co-MgAl2O4 compared to 1Co-SiO2 could be explained by Co incorporation into the bulk of the Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 supports. While reaction of Co with the Al2O3 and MgAl2O4 supports cannot explain the higher selectivity of the 1Co-SiO2 catalyst, these catalysts remained significantly better than the impCo-SiO2, suggesting clusters were not formed.

4. Discussion

In this work, we have demonstrated that isolated-site, Co catalysts can be synthesized readily using ALD with large precursor molecules. While other methods for preparing single-site catalysts have been demonstrated [12,15], the utility of ALD is that the conditions required to make the materials appear to be independent of support. One ALD cycle also appears to provide a nearly optimal metal loading, so that the effect of loading does not need to be explored. We should also note that preparation of materials using one ALD cycle can be accomplished in a simple, high-temperature adsorption system and does not require the expensive equipment that is more commonly used when rapid cycling is required [23]. Furthermore, since the oxidation step can be carried out at higher temperatures, possibly in a separate system, the precursor does not need to be a specialized compound designed to be easily oxidized at the deposition temperature. Any compound that remains stable to temperatures at which it has a vapor pressure can be used.
Isolated-site catalysts based on Zn have been successfully prepared by ALD in earlier studies [35], but the approach does not appear to have been successful in preparing single-atom, precious-metal catalysts [21,36,37]. A key factor in being able to achieve single-site catalysts is the requirement that the metal atoms be immobilized on the surface. Success in the case of Zn and Co is likely due to the fact that these atomic species remain in an oxidized form, bonded in some way to the support. This is likely the case also for Co. While bulk Co would be reduced to its zero-valence state at the low O2 fugacities associated with ethane dehydrogenation, isolated Co atoms are likely much harder to reduce [38]. Furthermore, it has recently been demonstrated that interactions with the support can shift equilibrium constants to make the metals even more difficult to reduce [38]. By contrast, precious metals are always much easier to reduce. In the case of single-atom, precious-metal catalysts, the support almost always plays a key role [39,40].
Isolated-site Co catalysts are especially intriguing, given their high selectivity for dehydrogenation of ethane and remarkable tolerance against coking. The fact that we were able to achieve relatively high conversions (>25%) with almost 100% selectivity (99%) is very encouraging. Whether silica is playing a role as “ligand” for the supported Co is uncertain. While rates for isolated Co appear to be lower for Co on Al2O3 and MgAl2O4, this could be associated with formation of CoAl2O4. The Co/Al2O3 and Co/MgAl2O4 catalysts were still reasonably selective. It will be interesting to investigate the effects of other supports that may be less reactive.
Obviously, there is still much to learn about the nature and properties of the catalytic sites in single-site cobalt on silica. We believe the controlled synthesis of ALD could open the possibility for understanding and producing highly active and selective Co-based catalyst for various applications.

5. Conclusions

We have successfully prepared isolated-site, Co catalysts on SiO2, Al2O3, and MgAl2O4 supports using ALD. The SiO2-supported Co catalyst exhibited dramatically improved conversion and selectivity for ethane dehydrogenation compared to a catalyst prepared by the conventional impregnation. ALD provides a simple method for preparing these isolated-site catalysts.

Author Contributions

R.J.G. and R.H. were responsible for the initial concept behind the project and most of the writing. Experiments were performed and analyzed by R.H., Y.C., and Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge support from the Catalysis Center for Energy Innovation, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award No. DE-SC0001004.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Cherie R. Kagan (University of Pennsylvania) for sharing UV–Vis Spectroscopy and Fuji Silysia Chemical Ltd. for providing samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gärtner, C.A.; van Veen, A.C.; Lercher, J.A. Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane: Common Principles and Mechanistic Aspects. Chem. Cat. Chem. 2013, 5, 3196–3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sattler, J.J.H.B.; Ruiz-Martinez, J.; Santillan-Jimenez, E.; Weckhuysen, B.M. Catalytic dehydrogenation of light alkanes on metals and metal oxides. Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 10613–10653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ren, T.; Patel, M.; Blok, K. Olefins from conventional and heavy feedstocks: Energy use in steam cracking and alternative processes. Energy 2006, 31, 425–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Bhasin, M.M.; McCain, J.H.; Vora, B.V.; Imai, T.; Pujadó, P.R. Dehydrogenation and oxydehydrogenation of paraffins to olefins. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2001, 221, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, J.; Shan, H.; Chen, X.; Liu, W.; Yang, C. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Study of Coker Gas Oil: Effects of Processing Parameters on Sulfur and Nitrogen Distributions. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 1362–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olsbye, U.; Virnovskaia, A.; Prytz, O.; Tinnemans, S.J.; Weckhuysen, B.M. Mechanistic insight in the ethane dehydrogenation reaction over Cr/Al2O3 catalysts. Catal. Lett. 2005, 103, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shi, X.; Ji, S.; Wang, K. Oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene with carbon dioxide over Cr-Ce/SBA-15 catalysts. Catal. Lett. 2008, 125, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheng, Y.; Miao, C.; Hua, W.; Yue, Y.; Gao, Z. Cr/ZSM-5 for ethane dehydrogenation: Enhanced catalytic activity through surface silanol. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2017, 532, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nakagawa, K.; Okamura, M.; Ikenaga, N.; Suzuki, T.; Nakagawa, K.; Okamura, M.; Suzuki, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Kobayashi, T. Dehydrogenation of ethane over gallium oxide in the presence of carbon dioxide. Chem. Commun. 1998, 1025–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lei, T.Q.; Cheng, Y.H.; Miao, C.X.; Hua, W.M.; Yue, Y.H.; Gao, Z. Silica-doped TiO2 as support of gallium oxide for dehydrogenation of ethane with CO2. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 177, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Annamalai, L.; Liu, Y.; Ezenwa, S.; Dang, Y.; Suib, S.L.; Deshlahra, P. Influence of Tight Confinement on Selective Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane on MoVTeNb Mixed Oxides. ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 7051–7067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Koirala, R.; Buechel, R.; Pratsinis, S.E.; Baiker, A. Silica is preferred over various single and mixed oxides as support for CO2-assisted cobalt-catalyzed oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2016, 527, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gomez, E.; Yan, B.; Kattel, S.; Chen, J.G. Carbon dioxide reduction in tandem with light-alkane dehydrogenation. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2019, 3, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, X.; Ye, Q.; Xu, B.; He, D. Oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane over Co-BaCO3 catalysts using CO2 as oxidant: Effects of Co promoter. Catal. Lett. 2007, 117, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hu, B.; Schweitzer, N.M.; Das, U.; Kim, H.; Niklas, J.; Poluektov, O.; Curtiss, L.A.; Stair, P.C.; Miller, J.T.; Hock, A.S. Selective propane dehydrogenation with single-site CoII on SiO2 by a non-redox mechanism. J. Catal. 2015, 322, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Xie, J.; Kammert, J.D.; Kaylor, N.; Zheng, J.W.; Choi, E.; Pham, H.N.; Sang, X.; Stavitski, E.; Attenkofer, K.; Unocic, R.R.; et al. Atomically Dispersed Co and Cu on N-Doped Carbon for Reactions Involving C–H Activation. ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 3875–3884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhao, Y.; Sohn, H.; Hu, B.; Niklas, J.; Poluektov, O.G.; Tian, J.; Delferro, M.; Hock, A.S. Zirconium Modification Promotes Catalytic Activity of a Single-Site Cobalt Heterogeneous Catalyst for Propane Dehydrogenation. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 11117–11127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Puurunen, R.L. Growth per cycle in Atomic Layer Deposition: Real Application Examples of a Theoretical Model. Chem. Vap. Depos. 2003, 9, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cremers, V.; Puurunen, R.L.; Dendooven, J. Conformality in atomic layer deposition: Current status overview of analysis and modelling. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2019, 6, 021302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mao, X.; Foucher, A.; Stach, E.A.; Gorte, R.J. A Study of Support Effects for CH4 and CO Oxidation over Pd Catalysts on ALD-Modified Al2O3. Catal. Lett. 2019, 149, 905–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mao, X.; Foucher, A.C.; Stach, E.A.; Gorte, R.J. “Intelligent” Pt Catalysts Based on Thin LaCoO3 Films Prepared by Atomic Layer Deposition. Inorganics 2019, 7, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Onn, T.M.; Monai, M.; Dai, S.; Fonda, E.; Montini, T.; Pan, X.; Graham, G.W.; Fornasiero, P.; Gorte, R.J. Smart Pd Catalyst with Improved Thermal Stability Supported on High-Surface-Area LaFeO3 Prepared by Atomic Layer Deposition. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 4841–4848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Onn, T.M.; Küngas, R.; Fornasiero, P.; Huang, K.; Gorte, R.J. Atomic Layer Deposition on Porous Materials: Problems with Conventional Approaches to Catalyst and Fuel Cell Electrode Preparation. Inorganics 2018, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lin, C.; Mao, X.; Onn, T.M.; Jang, J.; Gorte, R.J. Stabilization of ZrO2 Powders via ALD of CeO2 and ZrO2. Inorganics 2017, 5, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Yeh, Y.-H.; Yu, J.; Luo, J.; Gorte, R.J. Endothermic Reforming of n-Hexane on Metal (Pt, Ga) Containing H-ZSM-5 at High Pressures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 10675–10683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, B.; Qin, Y. Interface Tailoring of Heterogeneous Catalysts by Atomic Layer Deposition. ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 10064–10081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, C.; Mao, X.; Lee, J.D.; Onn, T.M.; Yeh, Y.-H.; Murray, C.B.; Gorte, R.J. A Characterization Study of Reactive Sites in ALD-Synthesized WOx/ZrO2 Catalysts. Catalysts 2018, 8, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Koirala, R.; Safonova, O.V.; Pratsinis, S.E.; Baiker, A. Effect of cobalt loading on structure and catalytic behavior of CoOx/SiO2 in CO2-assisted dehydrogenation of ethane. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2018, 552, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bhargava, R.; Khan, S.; Ahmad, N.; Ansari, M.M.N. Investigation of structural, optical and electrical properties of Co3O4 nanoparticles. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Bikaner, India, 2018; Volume 1953, p. 030034. [Google Scholar]
  30. Okamoto, Y.; Nagata, K.; Adachi, T.; Imanaka, T.; Inamura, K.; Takyu, T. Preparation and characterization of highly dispersed cobalt oxide and sulfide catalysts supported on SiO2. J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aronson, M.T.; Gorte, R.J.; Farneth, W.E. The influence of oxonium ion and carbenium ion stabilities on the Alcohol/H-ZSM-5 interaction. J. Catal. 1986, 98, 434–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bhasin, M.M. Is True Ethane Oxydehydrogenation Feasible? Top. Catal. 2003, 23, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baker, R.T.K. Catalytic growth of carbon filaments. Carbon. 1989, 27, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baker, R.T.K.; Harris, P.S.; Thomas, R.B.; Waite, R.J. Formation of filamentous carbon from iron, cobalt and chromium catalyzed decomposition of acetylene. J. Catal. 1973, 30, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Camacho-Bunquin, J.; Aich, P.; Ferrandon, M.; Das, U.; Dogan, F.; Curtiss, L.A.; Miller, J.T.; Marshall, C.L.; Hock, A.S.; Stair, P.C. Single-site zinc on silica catalysts for propylene hydrogenation and propane dehydrogenation: Synthesis and reactivity evaluation using an integrated atomic layer deposition-catalysis instrument. J. Catal. 2017, 345, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Lin, C.; Foucher, A.C.; Ji, Y.; Curran, C.D.; Stach, E.A.; McIntosh, S.; Gorte, R.J. “Intelligent” Pt Catalysts Studied on High-Surface-Area CaTiO3 Films. ACS Catal. 2019, 9, 7318–7327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, C.; Hu, L.; Lin, Y.; Poeppelmeier, K.; Stair, P.; Marks, L. Controllable ALD synthesis of platinum nanoparticles by tuning different synthesis parameters. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 2017, 50, 415301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Bakhmutsky, K.; Wieder, N.L.; Baldassare, T.; Smith, M.A.; Gorte, R.J. A thermodynamic study of the redox properties of supported Co particles. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2011, 397, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lou, Y.; Liu, J. CO Oxidation on Metal Oxide Supported Single Pt atoms: The Role of the Support. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 6916–6925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van Deelen, T.W.; Hernández Mejía, C.; de Jong, K.P. Control of metal-support interactions in heterogeneous catalysts to enhance activity and selectivity. Nat. Catal. 2019, 2, 955–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g001 550
Figure 1. XRD patterns of SiO2, impCo-SiO2, 1Co-SiO2, and 10Co-SiO2. Characteristic peaks associated with Co3O4 are marked as (■).
Figure 1. XRD patterns of SiO2, impCo-SiO2, 1Co-SiO2, and 10Co-SiO2. Characteristic peaks associated with Co3O4 are marked as (■).
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g001
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g002 550
Figure 2. UV–Vis diffuse reflectance spectra of SiO2, 1Co-SiO2, 10Co-SiO2, and impCo-SiO2.
Figure 2. UV–Vis diffuse reflectance spectra of SiO2, 1Co-SiO2, 10Co-SiO2, and impCo-SiO2.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g002
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g003 550
Figure 3. Temperature programmed desorption (TPD) of 2-propanol following room-temperature adsorption on SiO2 and 1Co-SiO2. The desorption features represent: 2-propanol (red), acetone (orange) and propene (blue).
Figure 3. Temperature programmed desorption (TPD) of 2-propanol following room-temperature adsorption on SiO2 and 1Co-SiO2. The desorption features represent: 2-propanol (red), acetone (orange) and propene (blue).
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g003
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of 1Co-SiO2 and impCo-SiO2 for the reaction of CO2 and C2H6. Reaction conditions were: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1. (a) C2H6 conversions and selectivity after 1 h. (b) Time-on-stream curves for C2H6 conversions and selectivities to C2H4 for 1Co-SiO2 (■, □)) and impCo-SiO2 (●, ○).
Figure 4. Comparison of 1Co-SiO2 and impCo-SiO2 for the reaction of CO2 and C2H6. Reaction conditions were: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1. (a) C2H6 conversions and selectivity after 1 h. (b) Time-on-stream curves for C2H6 conversions and selectivities to C2H4 for 1Co-SiO2 (■, □)) and impCo-SiO2 (●, ○).
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g004
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of CO2 on ethane conversion and selectivity to ethylene over 1Co-SiO2: C2H6:CO2:He = 1:0:5 (■, □); =1:1:4 (●, ○); and = 1:3:2 (▲, △). Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Figure 5. Effect of CO2 on ethane conversion and selectivity to ethylene over 1Co-SiO2: C2H6:CO2:He = 1:0:5 (■, □); =1:1:4 (●, ○); and = 1:3:2 (▲, △). Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g005
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of temperature on the conversion and selectivity for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 1 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Figure 6. Effect of temperature on the conversion and selectivity for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 1 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g006
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g007 550
Figure 7. Effect of space time on catalytic performance for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 2 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4.
Figure 7. Effect of space time on catalytic performance for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 2 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g007
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g008 550
Figure 8. Conversion (■) and selectivity (▲) on SiO2-supported catalysts as a function of the number of Co ALD cycles. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 2 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Figure 8. Conversion (■) and selectivity (▲) on SiO2-supported catalysts as a function of the number of Co ALD cycles. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 2 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g008
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g009 550
Figure 9. Conversions and selectivities for 1Co-SiO2, impCo-SiO2, 1Co-Al2O3, and 1Co-MgAl2O4. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 1 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Figure 9. Conversions and selectivities for 1Co-SiO2, impCo-SiO2, 1Co-Al2O3, and 1Co-MgAl2O4. Data were collected at a time-on-stream of 1 h. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; CO2:C2H6:He = 1:1:4; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1.
Nanomaterials 10 00244 g009
Table
Table 1. Samples used in this study, together with their Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas and Co loadings. nCo-MOx correspond to samples prepared by Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), with n being the number of ALD cycles.
Table 1. Samples used in this study, together with their Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas and Co loadings. nCo-MOx correspond to samples prepared by Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), with n being the number of ALD cycles.
SampleBET S.A (m2/g)Metal Loading (wt%)Cobalt Coverages (Co/m2)
SiO247200
1Co-SiO24571.22.7 × 1017
2Co-SiO24452.35.3 × 1017
3Co-SiO24383.58.2 × 1017
5Co-SiO24195.51.3 × 1018
10Co-SiO234312.13.6 × 1018
impCo-SiO24531.02.3 × 1017
1Co-Al2O31020.99.0 × 1017
1Co-MgAl2O41361.07.5 × 1017
Table
Table 2. The conversions and selectivities for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2, initially and after 24 h, with and without CO2 in the feed. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1. Regeneration was performed in flowing air at 923 K for 1 h.
Table 2. The conversions and selectivities for ethane dehydrogenation over 1Co-SiO2, initially and after 24 h, with and without CO2 in the feed. Reaction conditions: T = 923 K; space time = 1 h·gcat·mL−1. Regeneration was performed in flowing air at 923 K for 1 h.
FeedConversion (Selectivity) %Amount of Coke
C2H6:CO2:He 0.5 h24 hAfter Regen.
1:0:526.9 (98.8)7.2 (98.8)21.7 (98.8)3.7 wt%
1:1:423.2 (98.3)18.1 (98.0)17.0 (97.8)1.0 wt%

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, R.; Cheng, Y.; Ji, Y.; Gorte, R.J. Atomic Layer Deposition for Preparing Isolated Co Sites on SiO2 for Ethane Dehydrogenation Catalysis. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020244

AMA Style

Huang R, Cheng Y, Ji Y, Gorte RJ. Atomic Layer Deposition for Preparing Isolated Co Sites on SiO2 for Ethane Dehydrogenation Catalysis. Nanomaterials. 2020; 10(2):244. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020244

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Renjing, Yuan Cheng, Yichen Ji, and Raymond J. Gorte. 2020. "Atomic Layer Deposition for Preparing Isolated Co Sites on SiO2 for Ethane Dehydrogenation Catalysis" Nanomaterials 10, no. 2: 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020244

APA Style

Huang, R., Cheng, Y., Ji, Y., & Gorte, R. J. (2020). Atomic Layer Deposition for Preparing Isolated Co Sites on SiO2 for Ethane Dehydrogenation Catalysis. Nanomaterials, 10(2), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020244

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop