Fundamental studies of ruthenium species supported on boron nitride nanotubes: metal loading and pretreatment effects on CO oxidation

Jinwon Choi a, Amol Pophali a, Byeongseok Kim b, Kwangsuk Yoon c, Thomas You-Seok Kim d, Hocheol Song c, Sang Eun Shim b, Jaewoo Kim d and Taejin Kim *a
aMaterials Science and Chemical Engineering Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. E-mail: taejin.kim@stonybrook.edu
bDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Education and Research Center for Smart Energy and Materials, Inha University, Incheon, 22212, South Korea
cDepartment of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
dR&D Center, NAiEEL Technology, Daejeon 34104, Republic of Korea

Received 31st July 2024 , Accepted 22nd September 2024

First published on 23rd September 2024


Abstract

Multiwalled boron nitride nanotube (BNNT), as a catalyst support, has become one of the promising materials due to its high oxidation resistance and thermal stability. In this work, ruthenium (Ru) supported on BNNT catalysts with different metal loadings and treatment conditions was investigated for CO oxidation as a model reaction. To understand the physicochemical properties of the prepared samples, a suite of techniques, including FTIR, UV-Raman, SEM, TEM, and XPS, was utilized. The results showed that the RuOx species were located on both the interior and the exterior surfaces of the BNNT, and an increase in metal loading led to increased active sites. 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (oxidized) exhibited better catalytic activity than 1 wt% Ru/BNNT (reduced), indicating that treatment conditions significantly affect the catalytic properties. Reaction conditions, such as GHSV and the O2/CO ratio, were varied to further investigate the external mass transfer limitations and reaction mechanism of the 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT catalyst. The peculiar tubular morphology of the BNNT resulted in negligible external mass transfer limitation, and the catalyst might primarily follow the Eley–Rideal (ER) mechanism over the Langmuir–Hinshelwood (LH) mechanism.


1. Introduction

Boron nitride nanotube (BNNT) has attracted considerable attention as a promising catalyst support due to its high oxidation resistance and superior thermal stability.1–3 The BNNT is generally oxidized after 800 °C, allowing it to be effective for high-temperature applications.3,4 High thermal stability can minimize the chronic problems of catalyst sintering and deactivation caused by support collapse. In addition, these properties are one of the important keys for hindering the nanoparticle sintering caused by particle migration and coalescence and Ostwald ripening mechanisms.5,6 Recently, numerous theoretical studies reported that the BNNT can be a good candidate as a catalyst support due to its unique properties.7–12 Q. Chen et al. designed RuB@BNNT (doped a Ru atom into the B vacancy in the BNNT) using the density functional theory (DFT) method and reported that the catalyst stability is superior to that of Ru@hexagonal boron nitride nanosheet (h-BNNS).13 The authors claimed that RuB@BNNT exhibits strong hybridization at the Fermi level, leading to high structural stability. R. Chen et al. investigated the feasibility of arsenic(V) adsorption from water solutions over Fe3O4/BNNT and concluded that the BNNT is a promising support material due to its high oxidation resistance and physical stability.14 Our previous research also demonstrated that platinum group metals (PGMs) supported on functionalized BNNT (e.g., Pd/f-BNNT, Pt/f-BNNT, and Rh/f-BNNT) catalysts exhibited outstanding catalytic activity and stability for NO reduction by CO oxidation due to the synergetic effect of PGMs and BNNTs.15,16

Supported Ru catalysts have shown high catalytic activity in diverse fields, such as ammonia decomposition,17,18 water splitting,19 CO2 methanation,20 CO oxidation,21etc. In the past decades, researchers have tried to reduce the Ru content in the catalysts due to its finite resources, while achieving similar or better catalytic performance. It has been acknowledged that the oxidation state of Ru species can significantly affect the catalytic performance. K. Xu et al. investigated the oxidation state effects of Ru species for CO oxidation using in situ diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier-transform spectroscopy (in situ DRIFTS).22 The authors demonstrated that Run+ (4 ≤ n ≤ 6) are active species for the CO oxidation reaction, while Ru0 are inactive species. J. Li et al. changed the oxidation state of Ru species supported on CeO2 nanorod by varying oxidizing and reducing synthesis conditions.23 The authors found that the catalytic stability and performance on CO oxidation of the 5Ru/CeO2 NR-r with Run+ (4 ≤ n ≤ 6) species is better than that of the 5Ru/CeO2 NR-o with Ru6+ species. W. Li et al. reported that the catalytic performance on the CO oxidation of Ru/graphene aerogels was decreased after reduction treatment.24 The authors concluded that the reduction treatment step (e.g., Ru4+ to Ru0) made the Ru species inactive on graphene aerogel supports, which led to deactivation. These results indicate that the oxidation state of Ru species plays a key role in the catalytic performance for the CO oxidation reaction.

Based on the published papers, the BNNT as catalyst support has a potential to improve the catalytic activity and stability. However, most existing research was conducted as theoretical studies due to BNNT's supply shortages. Herein, we report an empirical study of RuOx/BNNT catalysts with different Ru loadings and pretreatment steps (e.g., oxidizing and reducing). The physical properties and morphology of the synthesized catalysts were characterized by spectroscopic and microscopic techniques. CO oxidation as a model chemical reaction over the synthesized catalysts was studied to understand the effect of Ru loading and oxidation state on the catalytic performance.

2. Experimental section

2.1. Catalyst synthesis

Boron nitride nanotube (BNNT, purity >90 wt%, NAiEEL Technology) and ruthenium(III) acetylacetonate (Ru(C5H7O2)3, Sigma-Aldrich) were used as a support material and a surface species, respectively. The materials were used without further purification. For the synthesis of RuOx/BNNT catalysts, the following three steps were applied: (1) predetermined amounts of Ru precursor and BNNT were mixed using a mortar and pestle for 20 min. (2) The Ru precursor was evaporated and interacted with the BNNT surface in an N2 flow (UHP grade, total flow rate of 20 mL min−1, 10 °C min−1) at 170 °C for 2 h and cooled to room temperature. (3) The sample was calcined in air (dry air, 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, total flow rate of 20 mL min−1, 10 °C min−1) at 400 °C for 4 h. The oxidized samples were denoted as x wt% RuOx/BNNT (x = 0.25, 0.5, and 1). In the case of 1 wt% Ru/BNNT catalyst, 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT was reduced in a H2 flow (10% H2 balance with N2, total flow rate of 60 mL min−1, 10 °C min−1) at 300 °C for 5 h. All samples were sieved (500 μm, Fieldmaster) to obtain uniform particle sizes.

2.2. Characterization of catalysts

To understand the molecular structures and bonding vibration of the prepared samples, Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR, Nicolet iS50, Thermo Scientific) and UV-Raman spectroscopy (325 nm, Renishaw inVia confocal Raman microscope) were used. UV-Raman spectra were collected in the range of 1000–1800 cm−1, and the acquisition time and the accumulation of the final spectrum were 10 s and 30 scans, respectively. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was used to investigate the oxidation state of the synthesized samples and obtained using monochromatic Al-Kα radiation ( = 1486.6 eV). The surface morphology of the catalysts was characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM, EmCrafts CUBE II). Transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEM 2100F, JEOL)/EDS was performed to study the Ru species on the BNNT surface. Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) and Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) measurements were conducted to determine the specific surface area (SSA) and pore size distribution (PSD), respectively, of the bulk BNNT using a Quantachrome NOVAtouch® instrument. The tests were performed at −196 °C with N2 (UHP grade) as adsorption–desorption gas. Prior to measurement, the samples were degassed at 300 °C for 4 h under vacuum to remove moisture and volatiles.

2.3. Catalytic activity tests

The catalytic performance on CO oxidation was evaluated in a fixed bed quartz reactor (OD 9.6 mm, ID 7 mm) connected with a mass flow controller (SLA5800 Series, Brooks Instrument). 40 mg of catalyst was loaded in the middle of the reactor and held in place by quartz wool on each side. The sample was pretreated in a He flow (30 mL min−1) at 400 °C for 30 min and then cooled to room temperature. For the catalytic CO oxidation experiment, the composition of the gas mixtures was 2 mL min−1 CO, 20 mL min−1 O2, and 28 ml min−1 He (total flow rate 50 mL min−1 and GHSV 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 mL gcatalyst−1 h). The reaction temperature was increased from room temperature to 400 °C at a ramping rate of 1 °C min−1. The composition of the product gas was analyzed using an online gas chromatograph (TRACE™ 1300 GC, Thermo Scientific) equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) and a capillary column (Carboxen 1010 PLOT). The CO conversion was calculated using the following equation:
image file: d4cy00945b-t1.tif
where [CO]inlet and [CO]outlet represent the influent and effluent CO concentrations at a certain temperature, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. FTIR and UV-Raman analysis

To understand the molecular structure of the samples, FTIR and UV-Raman spectroscopy were performed. For comparison purposes, BNNT and Ru(acac)3 samples' spectra were also obtained. Fig. 1(a) shows the color changes of the metal precursor, BNNT, and prepared samples (e.g. Ru(acac)3 (red), BNNT (white), 1 wt% Ru(acac)3/BNNT (pink), 1 wt% Ru(acac)y/BNNT (light pink), and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (grey)). As shown in Fig. 1(b), the spectra of BNNT, 1 wt% Ru(acac)3/BNNT (after premixing step), 1 wt% Ru(acac)y/BNNT (after evaporation step), and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (after calcination step) showed the same peaks at 762 and 1330 cm−1, which corresponded to the B–N bending and B–N stretching modes, respectively.15,16 Compared to the BNNT, 1 wt% Ru(acac)3/BNNT displayed a distinct peak at 452 cm−1, which is assigned to an acetylacetonate vibration. Other Ru(acac)3 related peaks between 500 and 1600 cm−1, however, were not observed in the 1 wt% Ru(acac)3/BNNT spectra due to the overlap by the strong B–N bending and stretching peaks. In the case of 1 wt% Ru(acac)y/BNNT and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT, the peak at 452 cm−1 disappeared, indicating that the metal ligands were eliminated. However, the sample colors of 1 wt% Ru(acac)y/BNNT (light pink) and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (grey) were different (Fig. 1(a)). This result indicates that the sample after the evaporation step contains a small quantity of acetylacetonate residues and it was fully eliminated after the calcination step. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the UV-Raman spectra of the BNNT and three supported Ru samples (e.g., premixed, evaporated, and calcined) showed a peak at 1368 cm−1, which corresponds to the E2g vibration mode of the BNNT.25 Since the E2g peak was not shifted, even after the calcination step, it is expected that the BNNT has structural stability.
image file: d4cy00945b-f1.tif
Fig. 1 (a) A digital photo, (b) FTIR spectra, and (c) UV-Raman spectra of (i) Ru(acac)3, (ii) as-received BNNT, (iii) 1 wt% Ru(acac)3/BNNT after premixing step, (iv) 1 wt% Ru(acac)y/BNNT after evaporation step, and (v) 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT after calcination step.

3.2. SEM and TEM analysis

The surface morphology of the 0.25, 0.5, and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT and 1 wt% Ru/BNNT was investigated using SEM. All samples showed a 3–5 μm tube length as shown in Fig. 2. This is in agreement with the bulk BNNT length studied in our previous research,15 indicating that the catalyst synthesis processes did not affect the tube length and structure.
image file: d4cy00945b-f2.tif
Fig. 2 SEM images of (a) 0.25 wt% RuOx/BNNT, (b) 0.5 wt% RuOx/BNNT, (c) 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT, and (d) 1 wt% Ru/BNNT.

Fig. 3 shows the TEM results of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT and 1 wt% Ru/BNNT. The inner diameter of the BNNT was 10–35 nm and the outer diameter was 50–70 nm, which was consistent with the pore size of the nanotube structure measured by BET (Fig. S1). According to TEM images in low magnification (Fig. 3(a)–(d)), the presence of RuOx species increased with increasing metal loading percentage, suggesting a corresponding augmentation of active sites on the BNNT surface. As shown in Fig. 3(e)–(h), Ru nanoparticles were observed on the outer wall surface of the BNNT. The particle sizes were 10–20 nm and some clusters were observed. It is important to note that the nanoparticles were also consistently observed in the inner wall surface of the BNNT across all samples (Fig. 3(i)–(l)).Furthermore, these particles were found throughout the nanotubes, regardless of their position, whether at the edges or in the middle. Similar results have been reported by D. Ugarte et al.26 The authors synthesized carbon nanotubes (CNTs) filled with silver particles, which was possible with tubes having an inner diameter of ≥4 nm. The authors claimed that wide nanotube cavities (or through pores) are preferred for filling since narrow cavities are greatly affected by van der Waals repulsion forces than wide cavities, inhibiting metal penetration into the tube cavities. X. Pan et al. reported that catalyst stability could be improved by locating metal nanoparticles inside CNTs due to the confinement effect.27 The curvature of the CNT induces a shift in π-electron density from the interior surface to the external surface, causing the internal metal nanoparticles to donate more electrons to the electron-deficient internal surface. This results in stronger interactions between the internal metal and internal surface than the external metal and external surface, resulting in increased catalyst stability. Z. Peralta-Inga et al. computed the electrostatic potential on the inner and outer surfaces of BNNTs and reported that the potentials on the former are more positive than on the latter (i.e., the curvature of the BNNT induces the π-electron density to be shifted towards the external surface than the interior surface).28 Thus, metal nanoparticles inside the internal surface of the BNNT would also be strongly confined. In the present work, the wide nanotube cavities of BNNTs (inner diameater: 10–35 nm) would allow Ru nanoparticles to be formed inside the inner surface of the BNNT, leading to the confinement effect.


image file: d4cy00945b-f3.tif
Fig. 3 TEM images of 0.25, 0.5, and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT and 1 wt% Ru/BNNT: (a–d) low magnification, (e–h) Ru species on the outer wall of the BNNT, and (i–l) Ru species on the inner wall of the BNNT. Dotted circles: RuOx or Ru particles.

To further explore the shape and location of RuOx particles inside the BNNT, pristine BNNT and 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT were investigated. Fig. 4(a) shows the TEM results of pristine BNNT, where regular dark spots and an independent BNNT (red arrow) inside another BNNT were observed. Based on the previous study by A. Celik-Aktas et al., these dark spots indicate high crystallinity, which is characteristic of BNNTs synthesized with a double-helix structure.29 It is worthwhile to note that RuOx particle sizes (e.g., 15.1 nm and 32.5 nm) and shapes (e.g., oval and circle) were varied with different inner diameters of the BNNT (Fig. 4(b)). Individual BNNTs can disturb the migration of partial Ru precursors during catalyst synthesis, leading to the growth of particles in locations with different inner diameters. If the RuOx species had grown on the outer wall surface of the BNNT, the particle sizes would not match the inner wall line (Fig. 3(g)).


image file: d4cy00945b-f4.tif
Fig. 4 TEM images of (a) BNNT and (b) 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT.

3.3. XPS analysis

In order to analyze the oxidation state of Ru species in the 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT and 1 wt% Ru/BNNT catalysts, XPS characterization was performed. Fig. 5 demonstrates the XPS spectra of the Ru 3d energy regions. The variation of peak intensity was observed, especially at ≤283.5 eV. Three different Ru 3d5/2 peaks at around 280.8, 281.6, and 283.1 eV can be assigned to Ru4+, Run+ (4 ≤ n ≤ 6), and Ru6+, respectively.30,31 S. López-Rodríguez et al. studied the oxidation state of Ru of the series of RuOx/CeO2 catalysts by combining TPR, XRD, and XPS.32 Although the authors did not fully distinguish the oxidation state of the Ru, the authors assigned the Ru3d5/2 regions containing Ru4+ and cationic species of Ru (or Run+) in the CeO2 lattice. K. Qadir et al. reported in situ XPS for Ru nanoparticles under oxidation and reduction conditions.33 The authors provided the reversibility of Ru between Ru0 (279.8 eV) and Ru4+ (280.7 eV). It should be noted that the analysis of Ru3d3/2 regions at >284 eV was more complicated since the C 1s peak (∼285.0 eV) is overlapped with Ru peaks. Based on a literature review, it is concluded that the 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (oxidation treatment) sample contains Run+ species predominantly, while the 1 wt% Ru/BNNT (reduction treatment) sample contains Ru4+ species predominantly. The XPS results provide that the oxidation state of Ru species supported on BNNT depends on the treatment conditions, which may influence the catalytic properties.
image file: d4cy00945b-f5.tif
Fig. 5 XPS spectra of Ru 3d for 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT and 1 wt% Ru/BNNT. The Shirley-type background was applied.

3.4. Catalytic CO oxidation performance

Fig. 6(a) and Table 1 show the catalytic performance of the series of RuOx/BNNT samples as well as the bulk BNNT. CO oxidation would occur simultaneously at the active sites on the exterior and interior surface since the BNNT provides enough space to penetrate the carbon monoxide (kinetic diameter: 3.76 Å) and oxygen molecules (kinetic diameter: 3.46 Å).34 The temperature at 50% CO conversion (T50) was decreased with increasing RuOx loadings: 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT (208 °C) < 0.5 wt% RuOx/BNNT (216 °C) < 0.25 wt% RuOx/BNNT (240 °C) at GHSV 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 mL gcatalyst−1 h. It is worth noting that the bulk BNNT did not show any catalytic activity, indicating that RuOx species on the BNNT surface are active sites for CO oxidation. This agrees with the previous report by I. Rossetti et al.35 The authors investigated the effect of Ru loading on ammonia synthesis and claimed that increasing the Ru content from 1.9 wt% to 3.8 wt% led to an increase in active sites. The reported results for CO oxidation using supported Ru catalysts are summarized in Table 2.
image file: d4cy00945b-f6.tif
Fig. 6 CO conversion as a function of reaction temperature. (a) Ru loading effect, (b) treatment condition effect, (c) GHSV effect using 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT, and (d) CO-to-O2 ratio effect using 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT. Reaction conditions: (a and b) GHSV = 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 (mL gcatalyst−1 h), CO[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]O2 ratio = 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10, (c) CO[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]O2 ratio = 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10, (d) GHSV = 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 (mL gcatalyst−1 h).
Table 1 The CO conversion results of RuOx/BNNT catalysts with different Ru loadings, treatment steps, and experimental conditions
Catalysts CO[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]O2 gas ratio GHSV (mL gcat−1 h−1) T 10 (°C) T 50 (°C) T 90 (°C)
Loading and treatment condition effects
Bulk BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000
0.25 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 224 240 300
0.5 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 200 216 253
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 194 208 218
1 wt% Ru/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 230 246 262

GHSV effect
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 37[thin space (1/6-em)]500 191 200 210
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 194 208 218
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 150[thin space (1/6-em)]000 194 208 215

CO[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]O2 ratio effect
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 194 208 218
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]5 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 192 205 214
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]2.5 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 209 231 241
1 wt% RuOx/BNNT 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 75[thin space (1/6-em)]000 226 244 260


Table 2 Catalytic performance comparison with previously reported catalysts for CO oxidation
Catalysts Ru loading (wt%) Treatment step CO conc. (vol%) CO[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]O2 gas ratio GHSV (mL gcat−1 h−1) T 10 (°C) T 50 (°C) T 90 (°C) Ref.
Ru/CeO2NR-r 5.0 Reduction 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]20 36[thin space (1/6-em)]000 25 50 102 23
Ru/Al2O3 2.0 1.564 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]2 25[thin space (1/6-em)]200 120 134 180 36
Ru/C12A7:e 2.0 1.564 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]2 25[thin space (1/6-em)]200 87 125 134 36
Ru(1.5)CeO2 1.5 Reduction 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]0.5 Contact time W/FCO = 7.4 gcat h molCO−1 50 90 140 37
Ru NWs/TiO2 1.2 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 12[thin space (1/6-em)]600 84 126 143 38
fcc-Ru NPs/γ-Al2O3 1.0 Reduction 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 20[thin space (1/6-em)]000 115 141 160 39
Ru/TiO2 1.0 Oxidation 3500 ppm 60[thin space (1/6-em)]000 78 120 128 40
Ru/CeO2NR-r 1.0 Reduction 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]20 36[thin space (1/6-em)]000 47 78 105 41
Ru/SiO2-r 1.0 Reduction 1 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]20 36[thin space (1/6-em)]000 236 297 370 41
RuOx/BNNT 1.0 Oxidation 4 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10 150[thin space (1/6-em)]000 194 208 215 This work


The effect of oxidizing and reducing treatment was investigated (Fig. 6(b)). The T10, T50, and T90 of 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT were 194, 208, and 218 °C and those of 1 wt% Ru/BNNT were 230, 246, and 262 °C, respectively. This result provides that the catalytic property for the CO oxidation is directly related to the oxidation state of Ru. XPS results (Fig. 5) show that 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT has mainly Run+ species, while 1 wt% Ru/BNNT has primarily Ru4+ species. J. Li et al. investigated the effect of metal oxidation state using Ru supported on CeO2 and demonstrated that the Run+-rich surface is more favorable for the catalytic CO oxidation than the Ru4+- or Ru6+-rich surface.23 K. Xu et al. studied the Ru active species using DRIFTS and reported that the CO adsorbed on Run+ species is more rapidly converted to CO2 gases than that on Ru0 species at the same temperature.22 Thus, the predominant Run+ species in 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT would improve the catalytic performance as active species.

The effect of the mass transfer limitation on the CO oxidation of 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT was investigated by changing the GHSV conditions from 37[thin space (1/6-em)]500 to 150[thin space (1/6-em)]000 mL gcatalyst−1 h. As shown in Fig. 6(c), the CO catalytic performance was very similar (or slightly changed) with increasing GHSV conditions, indicating that 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT is not affected by the external mass transfer limitation. This result originates from the peculiar tubular morphology of nanotubes, specifically the absence of micropores. This is further confirmed in Fig. S1 showing the BET and PSD data. In the case of the conventional porous supported catalysts, a low external-to-internal surface area ratio is expected. Consequently, it leads to difficulties in diffusion and accessibility of reactants to active sites. In addition, the products hinder the diffusion of the reactants by escaping to the same path of the blind pores, thereby contributing to the formation of stagnant film.42 On the other hand, the nanotube structure contains cavities (or through pores) and a high external-to-internal surface area ratio, facilitating easy diffusion and accessibility of reactants to active sites. Moreover, the products do not impede the diffusion of reactants by escaping through the other exit, thereby resulting in the formation of negligible stagnant film. The SSA from the BET analysis was calculated to be ∼48.50 m2 g−1, and the isotherm (Fig. S1(a)) confirms a meso-macroporous configuration. The PSD and cumulative pore volume data (Fig. S1(b)) reveal a mesoporous range of ∼10–30 nm with minor N2 adsorption, while the majority of adsorption occurred on the external surface of the BNNT. These data support the hypothesis of negligible mass transfer limitation over RuOx/BNNT catalysts during the CO oxidation reaction. CNT-based catalysts have consistently exhibited similar results, although experimental demonstration is still debatable.43–45

The Eley–Rideal (ER) and the Langmuir–Hinshelwood (LH) mechanisms have been proposed to understand the CO oxidation reaction over the supported metal oxide catalysts.46–48Fig. 7 shows the proposed ER and RH mechanisms. The ER mechanism occurs in the interaction between a CO gas molecule and an adsorbed O atom on the active site. Initially, O2 is adsorbed and dissociates into two O atoms (O2(g) + 2* ↔ 2O*) on the active site. Then, a CO molecule approaches the active site and reacts with the adsorbed O atom to form a CO2 molecule (CO(g) + O* ↔ CO2(g) + *). In the case of the LH mechanism, the reaction occurs through the interaction between an adsorbed CO molecule and an adsorbed O atom on the active site. Both CO and O2 molecules are respectively adsorbed on the active site (O2(g) + 2* ↔ 2O* and CO(g) + * ↔ CO*). Then an adsorbed CO molecule reacts with a vicinal adsorbed O atom to form a CO2 molecule (CO* + O* ↔ CO2(g) + 2*). The reaction mechanism of the CO oxidation over 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT was investigated by varying the CO-to-O2 ratio from 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 to 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]10. As shown in Fig. 6(d), the CO conversion was improved with increasing O2 ratio from 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 to 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]5 ratio: T50 = 205 °C (1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]5) < 231 °C (1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]2.5) < 244 °C (1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1). Further increasing the O2/CO ratio, however, did not affect the catalytic activity. C. H. F. Peden et al. studied the CO oxidation mechanism on the Ru(001) surface using DRIFTS with varied O2/CO ratios.49 Since the chemisorbed CO peak was gradually decreased with increasing oxygen pressure, the authors claimed that the Ru(001) surface follows the ER mechanism under oxidizing conditions over the LH mechanism. It was also reported that the CO2 formation rate increases with the oxygen pressure up to 2.5 torr, beyond which it remains constant regardless of oxygen pressure. C. Huang et al. investigated the CO oxidation of Ru/hBN catalyst using the periodic DFT method.50 The authors reported that the O2 molecules will be primarily adsorbed on the Ru atoms over CO molecules since the adsorption energy of O2 (−2.43 eV) is lower than that of CO (−1.95 eV). Based on the literature review and obtained activity results, it is concluded that the 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT catalyst is favorable for the ER mechanism over the LH mechanism (Fig. 7).


image file: d4cy00945b-f7.tif
Fig. 7 Schematic illustration of the proposed reaction mechanism for CO oxidation on 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT catalyst.

4. Conclusions

In this study, RuOx/BNNT catalysts with different Ru loadings and pretreatment steps were synthesized and applied to CO oxidation as a model reaction. TEM results confirmed that the Ru nanoparticles with size 10–20 nm were introduced to both the internal and the external surfaces of the BNNT. The CO conversion results improved with increasing Ru loading and the oxidized catalyst exhibited higher activity than the reduced sample. XPS revealed that Run+ species shifted to Ru4+ species after reduction treatment, suggesting that Run+ plays a critical role in enhancing the catalytic activity. The 1 wt% RuOx/BNNT catalyst was further investigated by changing the reaction conditions (e.g., GHSV and O2/CO ratio). The GHSV conditions did not affect the activity, suggesting no external mass transfer limitation on the catalyst. The absence of micropores in the nanotube made a high ratio of external to internal surface area compared to the conventional porous materials, resulting in easy accessibility of reactants to metal active sites without external diffusion limitation. In addition, both open ends of the nanotube can minimize the diffusion competition between the reactants and the products, contributing to the formation of negligible stagnant film. The catalyst will be favorable to the ER mechanism over the LH mechanism, as the catalytic performance was increased with increasing CO-to-O2 ratio from 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]1 to 1[thin space (1/6-em)]:[thin space (1/6-em)]5.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of the research are available on request from the corresponding author.

Author contributions

J. Choi: methodology, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing. A. Pophali: formal analysis, writing – review & editing. B. Kim: formal analysis. K. Yoon: formal analysis. H. Song: formal analysis. S. Shim: formal analysis. J. Kim: formal analysis. T. Kim: supervision, writing – review & editing, project administration, funding acquisition. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC) for the use of the facilities at Stony Brook University. T. Kim acknowledges funding support from the National Science Foundation (NSF-CBET-2050824). This work is supported by R&D Grants from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (ATC+ Project Grant No. 20017989) of the Republic of Korea. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Benjamin Hsiao and Dr. Rasel Das for providing BET analyzer.

References

  1. D. Golberg, Y. Bando, C. C. Tang and C. Y. Zhi, Adv. Mater., 2007, 19, 2413–2432 Search PubMed.
  2. D. Golberg, Y. Bando, Y. Huang, T. Terao, M. Mitome, C. Tang and C. Zhi, ACS Nano, 2010, 4, 2979–2993 Search PubMed.
  3. J.-W. Seo, A. Pophali, S. An, C. S. L. Liang, S. Li, H. Liu, J. Kim, K. An, J. Kim and T. Kim, J. Mol. Struct., 2025, 1319, 139545 Search PubMed.
  4. Y. Chen, J. Zou, S. J. Campbell and G. Le Caer, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2004, 84, 2430–2432 Search PubMed.
  5. T. W. Hansen, A. T. DeLaRiva, S. R. Challa and A. K. Datye, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 1720–1730 Search PubMed.
  6. H. Xiong, A. K. Datye and Y. Wang, Adv. Mater., 2021, 33, 2004319 Search PubMed.
  7. S. Lin, X. Ye and J. Huang, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2015, 17, 888–895 Search PubMed.
  8. S. Abdel Aal, Surf. Sci., 2016, 644, 1–12 Search PubMed.
  9. H. Xu, K. Ni, X. Li, S. Zhu and G. Fan, Comput. Theor. Chem., 2017, 1115, 37–44 Search PubMed.
  10. Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Meng, C. Ning, C. Xiao, K. Deng, P. Jena and R. Lu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2018, 20, 17599–17605 Search PubMed.
  11. N. H. Jabarullah, R. Razavi, M. Y. Hamid, Q. A. Yousif and M. Najafi, Prot. Met. Phys. Chem. Surf., 2019, 55, 671–676 Search PubMed.
  12. T. Yang, X.-Q. Han, H.-L. Xu and Z.-M. Su, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2021, 549, 149314 Search PubMed.
  13. Q. Chen, Q. Ke, X. Zhao and X. Chen, Diamond Relat. Mater., 2023, 136, 109942 Search PubMed.
  14. R. Chen, C. Zhi, H. Yang, Y. Bando, Z. Zhang, N. Sugiur and D. Golberg, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2011, 359, 261–268 Search PubMed.
  15. K.-I. Choi, D. Yadav, J. Jung, E. Park, K.-M. Lee, T. Kim and J. Kim, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2023, 15, 10670–10678 Search PubMed.
  16. J. K. Kim, C. Jin, J. Park, M. Iloska, M. Kim, D. Seo, J. Jung, T. Kim and J. Kim, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2019, 58, 20154–20161 Search PubMed.
  17. S. Kang, J. Cha, Y. S. Jo, Y. Lee, H. Sohn, Y. Kim, C. K. Song, Y. Kim, D. Lim, J. Park and C. W. Yoon, Adv. Mater., 2023, 35, 2203364 Search PubMed.
  18. H. Fang, S. Wu, T. Ayvali, J. Zheng, J. Fellowes, P.-L. Ho, K. C. Leung, A. Large, G. Held, R. Kato, K. Suenaga, Y. I. A. Reyes, H. V. Thang, H.-Y. T. Chen and S. C. E. Tsang, Nat. Commun., 2023, 14, 647 Search PubMed.
  19. J. Yu, Q. He, G. Yang, W. Zhou, Z. Shao and M. Ni, ACS Catal., 2019, 9, 9973–10011 Search PubMed.
  20. A. M. Abdel-Mageed, K. Wiese, M. Parlinska-Wojtan, J. Rabeah, A. Brückner and R. J. Behm, Appl. Catal., B, 2020, 270, 118846 Search PubMed.
  21. K. Qadir, S. M. Kim, H. Seo, B. S. Mun, F. A. Akgul, Z. Liu and J. Y. Park, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117, 13108–13113 Search PubMed.
  22. K. Xu, X.-C. Hu, C. Ma, P. Wang, W.-W. Wang and C.-J. Jia, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2023, 13, 6254–6263 Search PubMed.
  23. J. Li, Z. Liu, D. A. Cullen, W. Hu, J. Huang, L. Yao, Z. Peng, P. Liao and R. Wang, ACS Catal., 2019, 9, 11088–11103 Search PubMed.
  24. W. Li, H. Zhang, J. Wang, W. Qiao, L. Ling and D. Long, Adv. Mater. Interfaces, 2016, 3, 1500711 Search PubMed.
  25. R. Arenal, A. C. Ferrari, S. Reich, L. Wirtz, J.-Y. Mevellec, S. Lefrant, A. Rubio and A. Loiseau, Nano Lett., 2006, 6, 1812–1816 Search PubMed.
  26. D. Ugarte, A. Châtelain and W. A. De Heer, Science, 1996, 274, 1897–1899 Search PubMed.
  27. X. Pan and X. Bao, Acc. Chem. Res., 2011, 44, 553–562 Search PubMed.
  28. Z. Peralta-Inga, P. Lane, J. S. Murray, S. Boyd, M. E. Grice, C. J. O'Connor and P. Politzer, Nano Lett., 2003, 3, 21–28 Search PubMed.
  29. A. Celik-Aktas, J.-M. Zuo, J. F. Stubbins, C. Tang and Y. Bando, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr., 2005, 61, 533–541 Search PubMed.
  30. D. J. Morgan, Surf. Interface Anal., 2015, 47, 1072–1079 Search PubMed.
  31. S. Carenco, C. Sassoye, M. Faustini, P. Eloy, D. P. Debecker, H. Bluhm and M. Salmeron, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2016, 120, 15354–15361 Search PubMed.
  32. S. López-Rodríguez, A. Davó-Quiñonero, E. Bailón-García, D. Lozano-Castelló and A. Bueno-López, Mol. Catal., 2021, 515, 111911 Search PubMed.
  33. K. Qadir, S. H. Joo, B. S. Mun, D. R. Butcher, J. R. Renzas, F. Aksoy, Z. Liu, G. A. Somorjai and J. Y. Park, Nano Lett., 2012, 12, 5761–5768 Search PubMed.
  34. S. M. Csicsery, Zeolites, 1984, 4, 202–213 Search PubMed.
  35. I. Rossetti and L. Forni, Appl. Catal., A, 2005, 282, 315–320 Search PubMed.
  36. M. J. Sharif, M. Kitano, Y. Inoue, Y. Niwa, H. Abe, T. Yokoyama, M. Hara and H. Hosono, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2015, 119, 11725–11731 Search PubMed.
  37. E. Gonzalez-A, R. Rangel, A. Solís-Garcia, A. M. Venezia and T. A. Zepeda, Mol. Catal., 2020, 493, 111086 Search PubMed.
  38. C. Fang, X. Jiang, J. Hu, J. Song, N. Sun, D. Zhang and L. Kuai, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 5079–5087 Search PubMed.
  39. B. Huang, H. Kobayashi, T. Yamamoto, S. Matsumura, Y. Nishida, K. Sato, K. Nagaoka, S. Kawaguchi, Y. Kubota and H. Kitagawa, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2017, 139, 4643–4646 Search PubMed.
  40. X. Liu, J. Zeng, J. Wang, W. Shi and T. Zhu, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2016, 6, 4337–4344 Search PubMed.
  41. J. Li, Z. Liu and R. Wang, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2018, 531, 204–215 Search PubMed.
  42. R. Klaewkla, M. Arend and W. F. Hoelderich, Mass Transfer - Advanced Aspects, ed. H. Nakajima, InTech, 2011, pp. 668–694 Search PubMed.
  43. P. Serp, Appl. Catal., A, 2003, 253, 337–358 Search PubMed.
  44. M. J. Ledoux, R. Vieira, C. Pham-Huu and N. Keller, J. Catal., 2003, 216, 333–342 Search PubMed.
  45. J.-P. Tessonnier, L. Pesant, G. Ehret, M. J. Ledoux and C. Pham-Huu, Appl. Catal., A, 2005, 288, 203–210 Search PubMed.
  46. Z. Duan and G. Henkelman, ACS Catal., 2014, 4, 3435–3443 Search PubMed.
  47. J. Yang, S. Hu, Y. Fang, S. Hoang, L. Li, W. Yang, Z. Liang, J. Wu, J. Hu, W. Xiao, C. Pan, Z. Luo, J. Ding, L. Zhang and Y. Guo, ACS Catal., 2019, 9, 9751–9763 Search PubMed.
  48. F. Li, Y. Li, X. C. Zeng and Z. Chen, ACS Catal., 2015, 5, 544–552 Search PubMed.
  49. C. H. F. Peden, D. W. Goodman, M. D. Weisel and F. M. Hoffmann, Surf. Sci., 1991, 253, 44–58 Search PubMed.
  50. C. Huang, X. Ye, C. Chen, S. Lin and D. Xie, Comput. Theor. Chem., 2013, 1011, 5–10 Search PubMed.

Footnote

Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4cy00945b

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.