Upload
mohsen-ali
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
3
4
5
6
7 Q1
89
1011
1213
1 5161718192021
22
2 4
2526272829
303132333435
3 6
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / fuel
Study of effective parameters in the Fischer Tropsch synthesisusing monolithic CNT supported cobalt catalysts
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.0560016-2361/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 2632804213; fax: +98 2632827542.E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Farzad).
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parameters in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supportedcatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
Somayeh Farzad a,⇑, Alimorad Rashidi b, Ali Haghtalab c, Mohsen Ali Mandegari d
a Department of Chemical Engineering, Environmental University, P.O. Box 31746-118, Karaj, Iranb Nanotechnology Research Center, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), P.O. Box 14665-1998, Tehran, Iranc Department of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O. Box 14115-143, Tehran, Irand Department of Chemical Engineering, Science and Technology, University of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran
h i g h l i g h t s
�Monoliths prepared from CNT supported cobalt catalyst have been evaluated for FTS.� Pressure affects the product selectivity more than T, GHSV and cobalt loading.� The CO conversion is highly affected by T in comparison with P, GHSV and Co%.� The effect of parameters interaction on conversion and selectivity is demonstrated.� Pressure augmentation increases CO conversion and heavier hydrocarbon production.
3738394041424344454647
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 28 January 2014Received in revised form 3 April 2014Accepted 17 April 2014Available online xxxx
Keywords:Monolithic catalystFischer Tropsch synthesisCarbon nanotubesTwo factorial design method
4849505152
a b s t r a c t
In this work monolithic catalysts have been prepared using carbon nanotubes as the support material. Inorder to screen the effective factors on CO conversion, Cþ5 selectivity and C1 selectivity, fractional factorialdesign method have been used. Considering temperature, pressure, Gas Hourly Space Velocity (GHSV)and cobalt loading as the four effective parameters, different runs have been designed for experiments.Quadratic models for CO conversion and product selectivity have been developed based on the experi-mental results. Furthermore, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented as a significant toolin order to evaluate the accuracy of the model. The ANOVA results of the developed model showed thatthey are significant with a 95% confidence limit. The main effective parameters have been declared for COconversion, heavier hydrocarbon and methane selectivity. It is clear that the importance of parametersvary from one response to another. The interaction of parameters has been studied as well. The resultsdemonstrate that temperature is the most effective parameters on CO conversion while its interactionwith pressure is more important than other parameter interactions. Pressure affects Cþ5 and C1 selectivitymore than other parameters whereas interaction of pressure with cobalt loading are the most effectiveinteractions for these two responses.
� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
53
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
1. Introduction
The Fischer Tropsch synthesis (FTS) is polymerization-like reac-tion which converts syngas (H2 and CO) to liquid fuels. So manystudies have been carried out considering different aspects of FTSsuch as, reactor type, active metal of catalyst, catalyst supportand structure. Fixed-bed reactors are constrained to catalyst parti-cle size in order to stay below an acceptable pressure drop and astructured catalyst such as monolith may provide the solution of
72
73
74
such a problem [1]. Since the introduction of monolithic catalystsin the mid-1970s, they have become the standard catalyst in mostenvironmental applications. Evaluating the performance of mono-lithic catalysts for multiphase reaction systems has been the focusof several research groups [2]. The results show that monolithicreactors have some advantages over packed reactors such as lowpressure drop, higher specific surface area, higher productivity,better mass transfer performance, evenly distributed flow and bet-ter heat transfer [3–5]. Generally there are two types of monolithiccatalysts; Washcoated Monolithic Catalyst (WMC) and Bulk Mono-lithic Catalyst (BMC) which are prepared from the bulk catalyst [6].Performance of monolithic catalyst for FTS has been examined by
cobalt
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
2 S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
different research groups considering the WMC type. Generallycatalyst is coated on the microchannels walls, but in order toincrease the catalyst hold-up, structured supports have been pro-posed [7].
Washcoated monolithic catalysts may be prepared throughcoating the active metal on the monolithic structure or coatingthe prepared catalyst on the surface of monolith [8]. There are afew works which investigated the BMC type catalysts [9]. Of
Fig. 1. The schematic dia
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
course, monoliths have some disadvantages such as no intercon-nectivity between the channels and a poor radial conductivity[10], limited control of temperature and lower loading of activemetal in comparison with conventional packed bed reactors [9]which caused limited application of these structured catalysts.On the other hand, different catalyst supports have been investi-gated and the use of catalysts supported on novel carbonnanostructured materials like Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) and
gram of FTS set-up.
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Table 1The minimum and maximum value of studied parameters.
Factors Minimum Maximum
T: Temperature (�C) 180 240P: Pressure (bar) 15 35G: GHSV 900 1400W: Cobalt % 15 35
Table 2The experimental design and FTS results.
Run A B C D COconversion
Cþ5selectivity
C1
selectivity
1 180 15 900 15 60.11 73.38 26.352 180 15 1400 35 72.3 77.7 21.173 180 15 900 35 64.10 79.9 19.804 240 35 900 15 69.8 86.2 8.805 180 35 900 35 68.43 82.4 17.506 240 15 1400 15 76.65 61.5 36.607 180 35 1400 35 72.78 73.3 26.348 240 15 900 15 67.5 69.8 35.159 240 15 900 35 74.15 77.9 19.7810 180 15 1400 15 71.3 63.5 36.4011 240 35 900 35 85.9 78.6 20.9012 240 15 1400 35 76.63 78.30 21.3013 180 35 900 15 67.4 90.5 8.7014 180 35 1400 15 71.6 73.3 24.9015 240 35 1400 35 84.37 71.2 28.5016 240 35 1400 15 80.97 83.9 13.20
Fig. 2. The temperature programmed reduction (TPR) profile of the monolithiccatalyst built from the CNT.
Actual CO Conversion
Pred
icte
d C
O C
onve
rsio
n
60.00
66.50
73.00
79.50
86.00
60.11 66.56 73.00 79.45 85.90
Fig. 3. The predicted value of CO conversion via its actual value.
S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
carbon spheres has been explored [11]. Carbon nanotubes whichhave been focus of the researches since their discovery in 1991by Tian and He [12] have characteristics favoring the FTS such astheir specific surface area, good electronic conductivity and highsurface porosity [13]. In this work we prepared monolithic struc-ture from carbon nanotubes supported cobalt catalyst. Some
Table 3The statistical significance of three studied models.
Model Sum of square
CO Conversion Model 697.46Residual 28.24
Cþ5 selectivity Model 1035.59Residual 38.18
C1 selectivity Model 1064.25Residual 43.79
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
researchers investigated the effects of FTS condition such as tem-perature, pressure and Gas Hourly Space Velocity (GHSV) on theproduct distribution and catalyst activity [14–17]. The effects ofactive metal loading have been investigated as well. However tothe best of our knowledge, there are a few reports in the literatureon investigating the interaction of reaction conditions and theireffects on catalyst activity [14]. The purpose of this research wasto establish a relationship for CO conversion, Cþ5 selectivity andmethane selectivity with the parameters influencing the mainresponses of FTS. The central idea was conducting the least numberof experiments, and development of a quadratic model to predictthe conversion and product distribution. Applying the two factorialdesign, not only were the main effects (important parameters)screened but also the interaction between parameters and theirimportance order of magnitude were determined.
2. Experimental
2.1. Monolithic catalyst preparation
Carbon nanotubes were synthesized by the catalytic ChemicalVapor Deposition (CVD) of methane over Co/Mo/Al2O3 nanocata-lyst. To produce CNTs, 300 mg nanocatalyst powder fed into thefixed bed reactor was heated up to 900 �C under a pure hydrogenatmosphere with a flow rate of 200 mL/min. Following reductionof the nanoparticles, the catalyst support was exposed to a gasmixture of methane and hydrogen with the ratio of 4:1 and flowrate of 250 mL/min. During the CVD process methane decomposesinto hydrogen and carbon atoms and carbon nanotubes grow overthe catalyst particles. At the end of the reaction time, the gas flow
DOF Mean square F-value P-value
10 69.75 12.35 0.00635 65.5 – –10 103.56 13.56 0.0055 64.7 – –10 106.42 12.15 0.00655 8.76 – –
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
4 S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
was ceased and the reactor was cooled down to room temperatureunder a hydrogen atmosphere. The CNT supported cobalt catalystswith different cobalt loading were prepared through wetnessimpregnation method using aqueous solutions of cobalt nitrate(Co(NO3)2, 6H2O 99.5%) and ruthenium nitrosyl nitrate(Ru(NO)(NO3)3) diluted in nitric acid. The ruthenium nitrosylnitrate solution is used to load 0.2% Ru as promoter for the FTS.Afterward, the catalyst has been calcined at 350 �C for three hourswith a heating rate of 5 �C/min under argon flow due to the char-acteristics of CNT.
(a)
(c)
(e)
Pressure (bar)
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00Temperature (oC)
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
B-
B+
GHSV
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00Temperature (oC)
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
C-
C+
Cobalt%
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Pressure (bar)
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
D-
D+
Fig. 4. The interaction of para
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
Following the catalyst synthesis, it was efficiently mixed with5% furfuryl alcohol used as a binder. The percentage of binderand also solvent affects the strength of the produced monolith sig-nificantly. Then the catalyst containing sufficient percentage ofbinder and solvent was filled in the mold and the filled mold waspressed by a hydraulic press under controlled pressure.
The prepared monoliths were dried at 50 �C overnight in orderto lose the water content uniformly. Dried monoliths werecalcined with the proceeding procedure under argon flow. The cat-alysts temperature was raised to 80 �C during 30 min and kept at
(b)
(d)
(f)
Cobalt%
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00Temperature (oC)
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
D-D+
GHSV
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Pressure (bar)
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
C-
C+
Cobalt%
900.00 1025.00 1150.00 1275.00 1400.00
GHSV
CO
Con
vers
ion%
60
66.5
73
79.5
86
D-
D+
meters on CO conversion.
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201202
204204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239240
242242
Actual C5+Selectivity
Pred
icte
d C
5+ S
elec
tivity
60.00
68.00
76.00
84.00
92.00
60.80 68.43 76.05 83.68 91.30
Fig. 5. The predicted value of Cþ selectivity via its actual value.
S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
this temperature for one hour. Then temperature was raised to120 �C during one hour and kept at this value for one hour.Afterward temperature increased to 250 �C during 45 min andstayed at this value for one hour. The last step was to heat themonoliths up to 700 �C and keep them at this temperature fortwo hours. Then the monolithic catalysts were cooled to roomtemperature.
2.2. Reaction setup and catalyst evaluation
The catalysts were evaluated in terms of their Fischer TropschSynthesis activity (g of HC produced/g Cat./h), CO conversion (per-centage of the converted CO to hydrocarbon products), Cþ5 and CH4
selectivity in a fixed-bed reactor. Selectivity is calculated as theratio of desired product (Cþ5 or CH4) to the total produced hydro-carbon. The schematic diagram of the setup is shown in Fig. 1.As can be seen the mixed gases enter to the top of the fixed bedreactor which is mounted in a programmable vertical furnace.The mixed gases pass the preheating section of the reactor andthen enter the reaction zone which has already been filled withthe catalyst. The main body of the reactor was made of stainlessstill with an inner diameter of 22 mm and a height of 450 mm.Prior to the activity tests, the catalyst reduction procedure wasconducted introducing pure hydrogen at an appropriate flow ratewhich was determined by TPR test. The reactor temperature isincreased from room temperature to 400 �C at a rate of 1 �C/min.At this temperature, after 12 h the activation procedure is com-pleted and the reactor temperature is decreased to reaction tem-perature under hydrogen flow. Following the activation step, thesynthesis gas with the determined flow rate and H2/Co ratio of 2is introduced to the reactor and the setup pressure is increasedto the desired value. The outlet of the reactor pass through twohot and cold traps and the uncondensed gas stream is purged toatmospheric pressure through a pressure regulator. Two Agilent7890-A chromatographs are utilized to analyze the type and com-position of outlet gas stream and condensate products from hotand cold traps.
2.3. Fractional factorial design
The two-level factorial design, the most popular method amongfactorial designs and widely used method in the industrial experi-ments, is used in order to study the general results and present amodel for operating parameters [15]. Two fractional factorialdesign method is one of the two fractional designs with 2k–p num-bers of experiments while its factors vary in two levels which arethe maximum and minimum values of that factor. This experimen-tal design method makes it possible to study many factors with rel-atively few run numbers and is commonly used to find outimportant effects, especially when runs are expensive and timeconsuming. The unknown response function is approximated bya polynomial of corresponding degree for which the regressioncoefficients are estimated based on the experimental results. Aquadratic (polynomial equation) mathematical model is consid-ered in the first phase of a research project. Defining the two orderregression model is the first phase of a study with the objective ofobtaining an interpolation model or function, the knowledge ofwhich facilitates estimating response values at different points ofthe studied factorial space. Later the polynomial degree would beincreased in the case of necessity. In definition of a quadraticmodel (Eq. (1)), the coefficient b0 and all other coefficients bi, andbij, are calculated.
y ¼ b0 þXk
i¼1
bixi þXk
iPj�1
bijxixj ð1Þ
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
where y is the response value; bi and bij are regression coefficientsof double factor interactions which show the effective value of eachparameter. Accuracy and confidence of the obtained estimation forthe regression coefficients depend on the used design of experi-ments. The selected effective parameters for the Fischer Tropschsynthesis with their minimum and maximum values are presentedin Table 1. Temperature, pressure and Gas Hourly Space velocity(GHSV) are the considered operative parameters and cobalt loadingof the catalyst is another effective parameter which is studiedherein. The experimental plan of the tests according to the two-level factorial design and their results are listed in Table 2. It shouldbe mentioned that in order to reduce the random error, the exper-iments were carried out following the firs column of Table 2 whichis ordered randomly [15]. The studied parameters were varied inthe two levels of maximum and minimum to determine not onlythe main effects, but also the interactions between the parameterson the FTS.
3. Result and discussion
Fig. 2 demonstrates the results of temperature programmedreduction (TPR) spectra of the monolithic catalyst with 15% cobaltloading. Obviously these catalysts exhibit three partly overlappedpeaks. The first peak usually corresponds to the reduction ofCo3O4 into CoO while the second peak is assigned to the reductionof CoO into elemental cobalt (Co�). The third peak can be assigned tothe gasification of carbon [16]. The third peak also presents thereduction of cobalt-support interacted species and is extended tohigher temperatures.
Applying the two level fractional factorial design, sixteenexperiments were specified. The obtained results were processedby ‘‘Design expert (DX)’’ software (State-Ease, version 7.1.3, USA)and a quadratic polynomial was obtained for each of the impor-tant responses (CO conversion, Cþ5 selectivity and C1 selectivity)in the range beyond the selected domain of experiments. Themodels for behavior of mentioned responses are presented asbelow:
CO conversion ¼ 72:86þ 4:41T þ 2:52P þ 2:97Gþ 1:97W
þ 1:02TP � 0:58TGþ 1:02TW � 0:91PG
þ 0:091PW þ 0:52GW ð2Þ
5
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
243
245245
246
248248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
6 S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
Cþ5 selectivity ¼ 76:24� 1:19T þ 4:62P � 2:47Gþ 1:47W
þ 0:81TP þ 1:64TGþ 0:48TW � 1:09PG
� 5:36PW þ 0:48GW ð3Þ
C1 selectivity ¼ 22:52þ 0:25T � 4:54P þ 2:9G� 0:86W
� 0:88TP � 1:28TGþ 0:2TW þ 1:1PG
þ 5:69PW � 0:74GW ð4Þ
258(a)
(c)
(e)
Pressure (bar)
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
B-
B+
Cobalt%
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
D-D+
Cobalt%
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00Pressure (bar)
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
D-
D+
Fig. 6. The interaction of para
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
In the presented models, all variables are indicated in terms ofvalues listed in the first column of Table 1. The value of coefficientsin the above models showed that the interactions are important inFTS, so the results are presented and discussed in terms of theseinteractions. The statistical significance of Eq. (2) is shown in Table3 where the mean square, sum of squares and model degree offreedom (DOF) terms are respectively defined as the estimationof the model variance, total of the sum of squares for the modelterms and the number of model terms. DOF depicts the total num-ber of model terms including the intercept, minus one. Considering
(b)
(d)
(f)
GHSV
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
C-
C+
GHSV
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Pressure (bar)
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
C-
C+
Cobalt%
900.00 1025.00 1150.00 1275.00 1400.00GHSV
C5+
Sel
ectiv
ity
60
67.75
75.5
83.25
91
D-D+
meters on Cþ5 selectivity.
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
Actual CH4 Selectivity
Pred
icte
d C
H4
Sele
ctiv
ity
7.00
14.50
22.00
29.50
37.00
7.96 15.12 22.28 29.44 36.60
Fig. 7. The predicted value of C1 selectivity via its actual value.
S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
the model F value and a low probability value, the introduced mod-els are highly significant. The P-value is a quantitative measure-ment in order to report the results of a hypothesis test because itis the probability of the test statistics being at least as extremeas the one observed that shows the null hypothesis is true. The sig-nificance of each parameter can be characterized by the P-value.The analysis of variance (F-test) demonstrates that the secondorder model (quadratic polynomial) well meets the experimentaldata. It is believed that the larger the sum of square for each factor,the more effect it has on the FTS CO conversion, Cþ5 and C1 selectiv-ity. The predicted values of CO conversion versus the actual valuesare demonstrated via Fig. 3. It is clear that the high value of R-square (R2 = 0.9611) proves that the equation well representedthe reaction under the given experimental domain.
As specified in Eq. (2), factor T which stands for temperaturehad the main effect on CO conversion due to its higher coefficientand the binary letters (TP) are the main interaction between twofactors. It should be mentioned that a positive sign represents thatincreasing the factor causes an increase on the response, while anegative coefficient sign shows that increase of the factor leadsto a decrease of the response. As explained above, increasing theGHSV increases the CO conversion. According to the representedmodel, temperature, pressure and cobalt loading have positiverelationship with the CO conversion which means that theirincrease causes an increase of conversion, but temperature is moreeffective than other parameters. Farias et al. [17] demonstratedthat gas velocity increase in presence of monolithic catalystincreases the CO conversion. As reported by Farias et al. [18] andTian and He [12], it was found that higher temperatures promoteCO dissociation and provide more surface C atoms leading to therelease of hydrocarbons. Since the plots make it easy to interprettwo parameter interactions, the main interactions of variables onthe CO conversion are demonstrated in Fig. 4.
Two crossed (non-parallel) lines appear indicating that theeffect of one factor depends on the level of the other one. Eachcurve has two lines: one plotted for the maximum value of factorsand the other one for its minimum value. The interaction betweenreaction pressure and temperature has the strongest effects onthe CO conversion because the highest coefficient of Eq. (2) is rel-evant to T and P interaction. It is clear from the figure that anincrease of reaction temperature at minimum GHSV increasesthe conversion.
The statistical significance of Eq. (3) (Cþ5 selectivity model) andEq. (4) (C1 selectivity model) is shown in Table 3 for all parametersand their interactions. The predicted values of Cþ5 selectivity via itsactual values are depicted in Fig. 5 and the main interactions ofvariables on it are presented in Fig. 6. The effects of temperatureand pressure on hydrocarbon chain are complicated. According toFarias report [17] pressure augmentation at lower temperatureincreases lower hydrocarbon production, but its reduction athigher temperature leads to higher production of C21–C25. Simulta-neous increment of temperature and pressure leads to productionof hydrocarbons with more than 35 carbon [17]. The Cþ5 selectivitymodel indicates that pressure and at the lower extent GHSV havethe most significant effects and the binary letter interaction ofpressure and cobalt loading are the main interactions betweentwo factors. According to the model, increasing the pressure causesan increase in Cþ5 selectivity while increasing the temperaturereduces its value. It is quite agreed with the previous researchesin which higher pressure is preferred for the chain growth becauseincreasing the pressure improves the collision probabilities of reac-tants on catalyst surface. The same effects of temperature werereported by Fernandes et al. [17]. Results clearly demonstrate thatin presence of monolithic catalysts the selectivity to Cþ5 decreaseswith increasing GHSV as has been shown by other researches[13]. Cobalt loading shows the positive relationship with the
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
heavier hydrocarbon selectivity according to the model. It has beenreported that there is a positive relationship between Cþ5 selectivityand cobalt particle size. It is believed that for the larger Co parti-cles, the CO is adsorbed more easily [14].
As can be seen from Fig. 6b increase of temperature at mini-mum value of GHSV reduces the Cþ5 selectivity, but at maximumvalue of GHSV causes increase of heavier hydrocarbon selectivity.Selectivity of the reaction depends on the temperature becausethe activation energy of the termination step is higher than thatof the growing step [19]. It can be ascribed to higher mobility ofthe reactants at higher temperatures which causes production ofheavier hydrocarbons. Fig. 6d shows that at both maximum andminimum values of GHSV, pressure augmentation increases theCþ5 selectivity. Increasing temperature at maximum and minimumvalues of pressure scales down the Cþ5 selectivity.
The developed model for the C1 selectivity shows that similar tothe Cþ5 selectivity, the most effective parameter is the pressure andits increase leads to reduction of methane selectivity. Methanereduction can be ascribed to presence of CH2 monomers at higherpressure which causes chain growth [20]. The next effectiveparameter on methane selectivity is the GHSV while increasingits value increases the production of lower molecular weighthydrocarbons. The temperature increase would also enhance thevalue of C1 selectivity which is in good agreement with the litera-ture [7]. Fig. 7 predicts the values of methane selectivity via itsactual values and Fig. 8 demonstrates the main interaction ofvariables.
Atashi declared that temperature effect on selectivity is notmanifest and self sufficient, but its effectiveness relate to the cata-lyst type and other process condition. He implied that increasingthe temperature would lower the heavier product selectivity, butit is not an influential factor for light hydrocarbons [14] which isin good agreement with our investigation.
The interaction of pressure with cobalt loading and GHSV withtemperature showed the most significant effects on the methaneselectivity: temperature raise at minimum and maximum valuesof GHSV causes enhancement and reduction of the C1 selectivityrespectively (b) while pressure increase at both values of GHSVreduces the value of C1 selectivity (d).
It worth to be noted that the two non-parallel lines of theseplots show the interaction of the two factors during the selectedrange of parameters to carry out the experiments.
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Pressure (bar)
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
B-
B+
GHSV
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
C-
C+
Cobalt%
180.00 195.00 210.00 225.00 240.00
Temperature (oC)
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
D-D+
GHSV
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Pressure (bar)
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
C-
C+
Cobalt%
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Pressure (bar)
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
D-
D+
Cobalt%
900.00 1025.00 1150.00 1275.00 1400.00
GHSV
CH
4 Se
lect
ivity
8
15.25
22.5
29.75
37
D-D+
Fig. 8. The interaction of parameters on C1 selectivity.
8 S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
4. Conclusion
In this work the Fischer Tropsch synthesis have been performedover bulk monolith prepared from carbon nanotubes supportedcobalt catalyst. Screening the effects of temperature, pressure,GHSV and cobalt loading on CO conversion, Cþ5 and C1 selectivitywas accomplished by using a two level factorial design methodthrough 16 experiments. The Fischer Tropsch synthesis was inves-tigated in the range of 180–240 �C, 15–35 bar, gas space velocity of
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
900–1400 h�1 and cobalt loading of 15–35% by weight. Quadraticmodels were developed to predict the conversion and product dis-tribution based on the results. The results showed that tempera-ture, GHSV and pressure are the main effects, in orderconsidering CO conversion. Pressure augmentation leads toincrease of CO conversion and heavier hydrocarbon productionwhile temperature increment causes CO conversion and methaneproduction increase. The effect of GHSV on conversion and produc-tivity was controversial subject while in presence of monolithic
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413
414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429
S. Farzad et al. / Fuel xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9
JFUE 8050 No. of Pages 9, Model 5G
3 May 2014
catalysts its enhancement leads to decrement of heavier hydrocar-bons production. The obtained results are in good agreement withthe reported data in the literature.
Moreover, among the effects of all interactions between thestudied effective factors on the conversion, the interactionbetween pressure and temperature had the most significant effect.The models of Cþ5 and C1 selectivity show pressure as the mosteffective parameter while the interaction of pressure-cobalt load-ing and temperature-GHSV are the greatest interactions amongall. The interaction of operational variables and their effect onthe CO conversion and product selectivity has been discussed inthis paper thoroughly.
430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450
References
[1] De Deugd RM, Kapteijn F, Moulijn JA. Using monolithic catalysts for highlyselective Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 2003;79:495–501.
[2] Giroux T, Hwang S, Liu Y, Ruettinger W, Shore L. Monolithic structures asalternatives to particulate catalysts for the reforming of hydrocarbons forhydrogen generation. Appl Catal B: Environ 2005;56(1):95–110.
[3] Heck RM, Gulati S, Farrauto RJ. The application of monoliths for gas phasecatalytic reactions. Chem Eng J 2001;82(1):149–56.
[4] Kolb G, Hessel V. Micro-structured reactors for gas phase reactions. Chem Eng J2004;98(1):1–38.
[5] Stankiewicz A. Process intensification in in-line monolithic reactor. Chem EngSci 2001;56(2):359–64.
[6] Zamaniyan A, Mortazavi Y, Khodadadi AA, Manafi H. Tube fitted bulkmonolithic catalyst as novel structured reactor for gas–solid reactions. ApplCatal A: Gen 2010;385(1):214–23.
[7] Visconti CG, Tronconi E, Groppi G, Lietti L, Iovane M, Rossini S, et al. Monolithiccatalysts with high thermal conductivity for the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis intubular reactors. Chem Eng J 2011;171(3):1294–307.
451
Please cite this article in press as: Farzad S et al. Study of effective parametercatalysts. Fuel (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.056
[8] Liu W, Hu J, Wang Y. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis on ceramic monolith-structured catalysts. Catal Today 2009;140(3):142–8.
[9] Groppi G, Tronconi E. Honeycomb supports with high thermal conductivity forgas/solid chemical processes. Catal Today 2005;105(3):297–304.
[10] Kapteijn F, Nijhuis TA, Heiszwolf JJ, Moulijn JA. New non-traditionalmultiphase catalytic reactors based on monolithic structures. Catal Today2001;66(2):133–44.
[11] Xiong H, Motchelaho MA, Moyo M, Jewell LL, Coville NJ. Correlating thepreparation and performance of cobalt catalysts supported on carbonnanotubes and carbon spheres in the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. J Catal2011;278(1):26–40.
[12] Tian F, He CN. Processing and mechanical properties of carbon nanotube–alumina hybrid reinforced high density polyethylene composites. Mater ResBull 2011;46(7):1143–7.
[13] Tavasoli A, Sadagiani K, Khorashe F, Seifkordi AA, Rohani AA, Nakhaeipour A.Cobalt supported on carbon nanotubes-a promising novel Fischer–Tropschsynthesis catalyst. Fuel Process Technol 2008;89(5):491–8.
[14] Ajamein H, Sarkari M, Fazlollahi F, Atashi H. Effects of reaction conditions oncobalt-catalyzed Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: interactions between operatingfactors. J Korean Chem Soc 2011;55(5):824–9.
[15] Moghadam AM, Sefti MV, Salehi MB, Koohi AD, Sheykhan M. Effect of nanoclayalong with other effective parameters on gelation time of hydro polymer Gels.J Macromol Sci Part B 2012;51(10):2015–25.
[16] Fu T, Jiang Y, Lv J, Li Z. Effect of carbon support on Fischer–Tropsch synthesisactivity and product distribution over Co-based catalysts. Fuel Process Technol2013;110:141–9.
[17] Farias FE, Sales FG, Fernandes FA. Effect of operating conditions and potassiumcontent on Fischer–Tropsch liquid products produced by potassium-promotediron catalysts. J Nat Gas Chem 2008;17(2):175–8.
[18] Farias FEM, Silva FRC, Cartaxo SJM, Fernandes FAN, Sales FG. Effect of operatingconditions on Fischer–Tropsch liquid products. Latin Am Appl Res2007;37(4):283–7.
[19] Almeida LC, Sanz O, D’olhaberriague J, Yunes S, Montes M. Microchannelreactor for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: adaptation of a commercial unit fortesting microchannel blocks. Fuel 2013;110:171–7.
[20] Haghshenas M. Effects of process conditions on production of Olefins fromsynthesis gas over a cobalt nanocatalyst. World Appl Sci J 2010;10(2):214–8.
s in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis using monolithic CNT supported cobalt