Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-01T17:17:28.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adsorption and Reaction Mechanisms of Thiophene over Sulfided Ruthenium Catalysts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Ray A. Cocco  and
Bruce J. Tatarchuk
Ray A. Cocco
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Auburn University, AL 36849
Bruce J. Tatarchuk
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Auburn University, AL 36849
Get access

Abstract

Adjustable (hydrogenolysis/hydrogenation) ratios (i.e., selectivity) of thiophene over sulfided ruthenium catalysts have been observed to depend on the method of presulfidization. Sulfidization in 10% H2S/H2 at 300–800K yielded a selectivity greater than 100, whereas a ratio of ca. 1 was noted after presulfidization in 100% H2S. The transition from one selectivity regime to another is reversible and can be changed via subsequent annealing or resulfidization procedures. X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy shows similar results where sulfidization in 100% H2S yields: (i) a higher sulfur uptake with a corresponding 0.5 eV shift of the S 2P1/2–3/2 peaks to higher binding energy; (ii) multilayer sulfur incorporation at lower temperatures; and (iii) similar reversible behavior following subsequent annealing or resulfidization. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy and temperature programmed desorption studies also reveal that sulfur coverages affect thiophene adsorption, orientation and cracking on ruthenium surfaces.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 111: Symposium O – Microstructure and Properties of Catalysts , 1987 , 335
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pecoraro, T.A. and Chiannelli, R.R., J. Catal., 67, 430 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Kuo, Y.J. and Tatarchuk, B.J., Accepted in J. Catal.Google Scholar
3. Kuo, Y.J., Cocco, R.A. and Tatarchuk, B.J., Accepted in J. Catal.Google Scholar
4. Benninghoven, A., Surf. Sci., 28, 541 (1971).Google Scholar
5. Scofield, J.H., J. Electron Spectrosp. Relat. Phen.,8, 129 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Clark, D.T. and Lilley, D.M.J., Chem. Phys. Letters, 9, 234 (1971).Google Scholar
7. Panzner, G. and Egert, B., Surf. Sci., 144, 651 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Cocco, R.A., Kuo, Y.J., Lund, C.R.F., Baker, R.T.K. and Tatarchuk, B.J., in preparation.Google Scholar
9. Park, Y.O., Banholzer, W.F. and Masel, R.I., Surf. Sci., 155, 341 (1981).Google Scholar
10. Barteau, M.A., Ko, E.I. and Madix, R.J., Surf. Sci., 102, 99 (1981).Google Scholar
11. Lesley, M.W. and Schmidt, L.D., Chem. Phys. Letters, 102, 459 (1983).Google Scholar
12. Garrison, B.J., Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys., 53, 243 (1983).Google Scholar
13. Benninghoven, A., Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys., 53, 85 (1983).Google Scholar
14. Lancaster, G.M. Honda, F, Fukuda, Y. and Rabalais, J.W., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 101, 1951 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Jonkman, H.T. and Michl, J., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 103, 773 (1981).Google Scholar