10.57647/j.ijc.2025.1504.43

Preparation of Iron Catalysts on Reliable Gamma Alumina Supports for Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis

PDF
  • Kousar Dinarvandi1,
  • Mozhgan Zakeri*1,
  • Hossein Atashi1,
  • Ali Akbar Mirzaei2,
  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

Received: 2025-02-21

Revised: 2025-05-30

Accepted: 2025-09-16

Published in Issue 2025-12-31

Published Online: 2025-10-26

Copyright (c) 2025 Kousar Dinarvandi, Mozhgan Zakeri, Hossein Atashi, Ali Akbar Mirzaei (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Dinarvandi, K., Zakeri, M., Atashi, H., & Mirzaei, A. A. (2025). Preparation of Iron Catalysts on Reliable Gamma Alumina Supports for Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. Iranian Journal of Catalysis, 15(04). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ijc.2025.1504.43
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 119

Abstract

In addition to high activity, a reliable catalyst must exhibit resistance to thermal and mechanical stresses, which is achieved through high mechanical strength. In this work, nine samples of γ-alumina catalyst supports were prepared using the oil-drop method according to the Taguchi M9 design.  To assess the reliability of the supports, all samples were evaluated through mechanical strength testing. Iron catalysts were then prepared on these supports via the wet impregnation method for use in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. The results revealed that the catalyst prepared on the support with the following specifications: An Al/H ratio of 1.8, a hexamethylenetetramine solution concentration of 30 wt.%, an aging time of 12 hours, and a calcination temperature of 650°C, demonstrated good conversion in addition to relatively high mechanical strength (65 MPa), among the other samples. Finally, this reliable catalyst was evaluated in a reactor to determine the optimal conditions for achieving higher conversion and selectivity. The best results for CO conversion (61.9%) and C4 selectivity (4.1%) were obtained when the reaction operational conditions were T=270℃, P=3bar, GHSV=2153.40 h-1, and H2/CO=1.

Highlights

·       Mechanical strength of gamma alumina support was evaluated to optimize performance catalyst.

·      Reliable catalysts should have both high mechanical strength and good catalytic properties.

·     Statistical analysis was used to optimize the operating conditions to achieve high CO conversion and product selectivity.

·      Models were validated using analysis of variance.

·       Higher selectivity was observed at lower temperatures and H2/CO molar ratios.

Keywords

  • Fischer–Tropsch synthesis,
  • Mechanical strength,
  • Oil drop method,
  • Reliable catalyst,
  • Selectivity modelling
PDF

References

  1. M. Abdollahi, H. Atashi, and F.F. Tabrizi, Advanced Powder Technology, 28 (2017). p. 1356-1371. doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2017.03.004.
  2. M. Zakeri, et al., Powder Technology, 200 (2010). p. 164-170. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2010.02.021.
  3. Y. Chen, et al., Chemical Society Reviews, 50 (2021). p. 2337-2366. doi: 10.1039/D0CS00905A
  4. M. Amin, et al., Frontiers in Chemistry, 12 (2024). p. 1462503. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2024.1462503.
  5. M. Amin, et al., Catalysts, 12 (2022). p. 1234. doi: 10.3390/catal12101234.
  6. Z. Yang and Y. Lin, Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 39 (2000). p. 4944-4948. doi: 10.1021/ie000562r.
  7. A. Samimi, et al., Particuology, 21 (2015). p. 74-81. doi: 10.1016/j.partic.2014.10.002.
  8. M. Zakeri, et al., Particulate Science and Technology, 36 (2018). p. 96-103. doi: 10.1080/02726351.2016.1220437.
  9. J. Choi, et al., Powder Technology, 181 (2008). p. 83-88. doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2007.06.022.
  10. S. Sathish, et al., Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals, 65 (2012). p. 485-490. doi: 10.1007/s12666-012-0158-1.
  11. G. Bertrand, et al., Chemical Engineering Science, 60 (2005). p. 95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2004.04.042.
  12. P. Mäki-Arvela, et al., Catalysis Today, 423 (2023). p. 113933. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2022.10.015.
  13. M. Zakeri, et al., Particuology, 32 (2017). p. 160-166. doi: 10.1016/j.partic.2016.08.006.
  14. A. Islam, et al., Porous Material 19 (2012). p. 807-817. doi: 10.1007/s10934-011-9535-0.
  15. B.H. Davis, Catalysis Today, 71 (2002). p. 249-300. doi: 10.1016/S0920-5861(01)00455-2.
  16. S. Deng and Y. Lin, AIChE journal, 43 (1997). p. 505-514. doi: 10.1002/aic.690430223.
  17. Z. Zhang, et al., Journal of Catalysis, 365 (2018). p. 71-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jcat.2018.05.021
  18. T.N. Phaahlamohlaka, et al., Applied Catalysis A: General, 552 (2018). p. 129-137. doi: 10.1016/j.apcata.2017.12.015.
  19. C.L. Tucker and E. van Steen, Catalysis Today, 342 (2020). p. 115-123. doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2018.12.049.
  20. M. Oschatz, et al., Journal of Energy Chemistry, 25 (2016). p. 985-993. doi: 10.1016/j.jechem.2016.10.011.
  21. T.T. Lari, A.A. Mirzaei, and H. Atashi, RSC advances, 7 (2017). p. 34497-34507. doi: 10.1039/C7RA05490D.
  22. M. Mansouri, et al., Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 57 (2013). p. 769-777. doi: 10.5012/jkcs.2013.57.6.769.
  23. P. Müller, et al., Granular Matter, 18 (2016). p. 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s10035-016-0610-8.
  24. A.A. Adeyiga, Development of attrition resistant iron-based Fischer-Tropsch catalysts. 2003, Hampton University (US). p. 200-210.
  25. H. Atashi and F. Rezaeian, international journal of hydrogen energy, 42 (2017). p. e15506. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.04.224.
  26. T. Fu, et al., Fuel processing technology, 110 (2013). p. 141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.12.006.
  27. Z. Teimouri, N. Abatzoglou, and A.K. Dalai, Fuel, 360 (2024). p. 130512. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130512.