화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol.110, 178-187, June, 2022
DOI10.1016/j.jiec.2022.02.050  Export Citation
Comparative evaluation of Ru-coated fecralloy and SiC monolithic catalysts in catalytic partial oxidation of natural gas for hydrogen production
Tae Ho Lee1, Unho Jung1, †, Hyo Been Im1, Kyoung Deok Kim1, 2, Jiyu Kim1, 3, Young-eun Kim1, 3, Dahye Song1, and Kee Young Koo1, 4, †
  • 1Hydrogen Research Department, Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER), 152 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129, Republic of Korea
  • 2Graduate School of Energy Science and Technology, Chungnam National University, 99 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34134, Republic of Korea
  • 3Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
  • 4Advanced Energy and System Engineering, University of Science and Technology (UST), 217 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, Republic of Korea
E-mail:,
The catalytic activity of structured catalysts comprising Fecralloy and SiC monoliths coated with Ru/Mg-Al oxide by deposition–precipitation was evaluated in the partial oxidation of natural gas and compared with that of a conventional pellet catalyst. The geometric surface area (GSA) of the Fecralloy and SiC monolithic catalysts were 377.0 × 10-4 and 118.5 × 10-4 m2, respectively; significantly larger than that of the 0.5% Ru/Al2O3 pellet catalyst (89.6 × 10-4 m2). Owing to the high GSA of the structured catalysts, a small amount of Ru (0.070–0.12 wt%) resulted in highly dispersed uniform loading. Thus, the structured catalysts exhibited higher performance for catalytic partial oxidation at varying C/O2 ratio, inlet temperature, and gas hourly space velocity (GHSV) than the pellet catalyst. However, in a stability test at high GHSV (50,000 h-1), the CH4 conversion of the Fecralloy monolithic catalyst decreased rapidly from 90% to less than 70% in 150 min. In addition, the Mg-Al oxide layer of the Fecralloy monolithic catalyst was damaged owing to material deterioration, resulting in a loss of Ru particles. In contrast, CH4 conversion catalyzed by the SiC monolithic catalysts remained above 85% even after 1000 min, and the material or support layer was not damaged even under severe conditions.
Keywords:Structured catalysts;Catalytic partial oxidation;Ruthenium;Fecralloy monolith;SiC monolith;Hydrogen
  1. Smit B, Reimer JA, Oldenburg CM, Bourg IC, Introduction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Imperial College Press, London, 2014.
  2. Abanades JC, Chem. Eng. J., 90(3), 303 (2002)
  3. Edwards PP, Kuznetsov VL, David WIF, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 365, 1043 (2007)
  4. Ho GW, Chua KJ, Siow DR, Chem. Eng. J., 181-182, 661 (2012)
  5. Taherian Z, Khataee A, Han N, Orooji Y, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 107, 20 (2022)
  6. Deonikar VG, Rathod PV, Pornea AM, Puguan JMC, Park K, Kim H, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 86, 167 (2020)
  7. Alsuhaibani AS, Afzal S, Challiwala M, Elbashir NO, El-Halwagi MM, Catal. Today, 343, 191 (2020)
  8. Gupta PK, Kumar V, Maity S, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 96, 853 (2021)
  9. Shahed GV, Taherian Z, Khataee A, Meshkani F, Orooji Y, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 86, 73 (2020)
  10. Navarro-Puyuelo A, Reyero I, Moral A, Bimbela F, Bañares MA, Gandía LM, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 80, 217 (2019)
  11. Albertazzi S, Arpentinier P, Basile F, Del Gallo P, Fornasari G, Gary D, Vaccari A, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 247(1), 1 (2003)
  12. Takenaka S, Umebayashi H, Tanabe E, Matsune H, Kishida M, J. Catal., 245(2), 392 (2007)
  13. Hickman DA, Schmidt LD, Science, 259(5093), 343 (1993)
  14. Wang D, Dewaele O, Groote AMD, Froment GF, J. Catal., 159(2), 418 (1996)
  15. Hickman DA, Schmidt LD, J. Catal., 138, 267 (1992)
  16. Lanza R, Järås SG, Canu P, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 325(1), 57 (2007)
  17. Lu Y, Liu Y, Shen S, J. Catal., 177(2), 386 (1998)
  18. Swaan HM, Kroll VCH, Martin GA, Mirodatos C, Catal. Today, 21(2-3), 571 (1994)
  19. Bartholomew CH, Pannell RB, Fowler RW, J. Catal., 79, 34 (1983)
  20. Liu CJ, Ye J, Jiang J, Pan Y, ChemCatChem, 3(3), 529 (2011)
  21. Du X, Zhang D, Shi L, Gao R, Zhang J, Nanoscale, 5, 2659 (2013)
  22. Nematollahi B, Rezaei M, Khajenoori M, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 36(4), 2969 (2011)
  23. Rabe S, Truong TB, Vogel F, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 292, 177 (2005)
  24. Johnsn Matthey, Precious Metals Management.
  25. Du X, Zhang D, Shi L, Gao R, Zhang J, J. Phys. Chem. C, 116(18), 10009 (2012)
  26. Dissanayake D, Rosynek MP, Lunsford JH, J. Phys. Chem., 97, 3644 (1993)
  27. Cao L, Chen Y, Li W, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal., 107, 467 (1997)
  28. Cybulski A, Mouljin JA, Stankiewicz A, Novel Concepts in Catalysis and Chemical Reactors: Improving the Efficiency for the Future, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  29. Basile F, Benito P, Fornasari G, Monti M, Scavetta E, Tonelli D, Vaccari A, Catal. Today, 157(1-4), 183 (2010)
  30. Roh HS, Lee DK, Koo KY, Jung UH, Yoon WL, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 35(4), 1613 (2010)
  31. Pauletto G, Vaccari A, Groppi G, Bricaud L, Benito P, Boffito DC, Lercher JA, Patience GS, Chem. Rev., 120(15), 7516 (2020)
  32. Koo BU, Yi Y, Lee M, Kim BK, Met. Mater. Int., 23(2), 336 (2017)
  33. Jung H, Yoon WL, Lee H, Park JS, Shin JS, La H, Lee JD, J. Power Sources, 124(1), 76 (2003)
  34. Koo KY, Eom HJ, Jung UH, Yoon WL, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 525, 103 (2016)
  35. Wei Q, Yang G, Yoneyama Y, Vitidsant T, Tsubaki N, Catal. Today, 265, 36 (2016)
  36. Wei Q, Yang G, Gao X, Yamane N, Zhang P, Liu G, Tsubaki N, Chem. Eng. J., 327, 465 (2017)
  37. Sun WZ, Jin GQ, Guo XY, Catal. Commun., 6(2), 135 (2005)
  38. Shcherban ND, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 50, 15 (2017)
  39. Leroi P, Madani B, Pham-Huu C, Ledoux MJ, Savin-Poncet S, Bousquet JL, Catal. Today, 91-92, 53 (2004)
  40. Li C, Xu H, Hou S, Sun J, Meng F, Ma J, Tsubaki N, Appl. Energy, 107, 297 (2013)
  41. Palma V, Miccio M, Ricca A, Meloni E, Ciambelli P, Fuel, 138, 80 (2014)
  42. de Dios García I, Stankiewicz A, Nigar H, Catal. Today, 362, 72 (2021)
  43. Zhang Z, Zhao G, Bi G, Guo Y, Xie J, Fuel Process. Technol., 212, 106627 (2021)
  44. Pinzón M, Romero A, de Lucas Consuegra A, de la Osa AR, Sánchez P, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 94, 326 (2021)
  45. Koo KY, Yoon WL, Jung UH, Im HB, Method for forming coating layer containing magnesium on metal support, catalyst support and catalytic converter, including coating layer containing magnesium formed by the same method, US Patents 10,017,873 (2018).
  46. Koo KY, Eom HJ, Kwon SC, Jung UH, Yoon WL, Catal. Today, 293-294, 129 (2017)
  47. Koo KY, Joo H, Jung UH, Choi EJ, You SM, Yoon WL, Catal. Today, 164(1), 52 (2011)
  48. Roine A, HsC Chemistry 7.1 for Windows, Outotec. (2011).
  49. Wang ZH, Zhang JM, Li Y, Bai LJ, Zhang GJ, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China, 29(10), 2066 (2019)
  50. Zhang G, Wu L, Tang A, Ma Y, Song GL, Zheng D, Jiang B, Atrens A, Pan F, Corrosion Sci., 139, 3700 (2018)
  51. Kikhtyanin O, Cˇapek L, Smoláková L, Tišler Z, Kadlec D, Lhotka M, Diblíková P, Kubicˇka D, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 56(455), 13411 (2017)
  52. Connelly LM, Medsurg Nursing, 30, 218 (2021)
  53. Rabe S, Nachtegaal M, Vogel F, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 9, 1461 (2007)
  54. Vernon PDF, Green MLH, Cheetham AK, Ashcroft AT, Catal. Today, 13(2-3), 417 (1992)
  55. Specchia S, Negro G, Saracco G, Specchia V, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 70(1-4), 525 (2007)
  56. Palma V, Goodall R, Thompson A, Ruocco C, Renda S, Leach R, Martino M, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 46(22), 12158 (2021)
  57. Vita A, Cristiano G, Italiano C, Pino L, Specchia S, Appl. Catal. B: Environ., 162, 551 (2015)
  58. Christian Enger B, Lødeng R, Holmen A, Appl. Catal. A: Gen., 346(1-2), 1 (2008)