Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
MoleculesMolecules
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

11 February 2026

Selective Low-Temperature Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane over Alumina-Supported Copper Nanoparticles with O2 and CO2 as Oxidants

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Nanocatalysis, J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Dolejškova 2155/3, 18200 Prague, Czech Republic
2
Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, 17. Listopadu 12, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic
3
Department of Material Analysis, FZU—Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Na Slovance 2, 18200 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules2026, 31(4), 626;https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31040626
This article belongs to the Special Issue Nano and Micro Materials in Green Chemistry
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study reports on the performance of alumina-supported copper-based catalysts in the oxidative dehydrogenation of propane, with copper dispersed on two distinct commercial aluminium oxide supports made of micro- and nanosized alumina, respectively. The activity and selectivity of the two catalysts was investigated at temperatures between 250 and 550 °C. At a propane-to-O2 ratio of 1:1, Cu/nanoAl2O3 achieves propylene selectivity of 35–48% at low temperatures (250–300 °C), while Cu/Al2O3 only exhibits activity starting at 350 °C with about 40% propylene selectivity. Altering the propylene-to-oxygen ratio to 3:1 enhances selectivity towards propylene in both catalysts, up to about 64% on Cu/Al2O3 at temperatures of 250–350 °C. The switch to the mild oxidant CO2 boosts propylene selectivity to 100%. In case of Cu/nanoAl2O3, the rate of propylene formation doubles that of the obtained with O2 used as oxidant. While with CO2 the Cu/nanoAl2O3 catalyst retains 100% propylene selectivity up to 500 °C, on the less active Cu/Al2O3 cracking sets off already at 400 °C. The different size of copper particles in the two catalysts is seen as a primary factor determining the observed differences in the performance of the studied catalysts.

1. Introduction

Accounting for the vast majority of global olefin output, steam cracking [1] is the dominant technology, typically using naphtha and natural gas components as feedstock. These techniques, however, have high energy demand, are plagued by high CO2 emissions, and yield relatively low selectivity for a specific olefin product. As a result, there has been a surge of interest in dehydrogenation (DH) and oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) reactions, which offer a promising path toward more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives.
Non-oxidative dehydrogenation is widely applied for producing olefins due to the high selectivity of the target product [2]. For the production of propylene, a commodity chemical in steadily rising demand, propane can be used as the feedstock [3]. However, breaking two C-H bonds requires a high energy input (i.e., high temperature), which makes DH challenging even with the use of catalysts because of factors hampering performance; for example, sintering of the active metal particles and thermal cracking of products leading to coke formation, both eventually leading to the deactivation of the catalyst [4]. In propane DH, the commonly used catalysts are Pt nanoparticles [5,6,7], chromium particles [8,9], ZnOx supported on dealuminated zeolites [10], and Ge, Co and V oxides [11,12,13,14]. Only a limited number of studies have examined copper-based catalysts for propane DH. For example, supported Cu particles on ZrO2 were reported to achieve approximately 15% propane conversion with nearly 99% propylene selectivity at 550 °C [15]. In addition, Pt/Cu single-atom alloy catalysts supported on Al2O3 have been reported to achieve propane conversion of up to 40% with propylene selectivities reaching around 85% at 600 °C, outperforming Pt and Cu alone [16]. At lower temperatures (350 °C), Cu/Al2O3 catalysts were reported to have a conversion of around 3% with 84% propylene selectivity [17].
Propylene can also be produced via the oxidative dehydrogenation (ODH) route at lower temperatures instead of via DH thanks to the exothermicity of the oxidative process [18]. Moreover, the presence of oxygen in the feed reduces coke formation. On top of that, at lower reaction temperatures, sintering of the catalytic particles may be suppressed as well. Most of the catalysts used in ODH are based on Pt (e.g., supported nanoparticles) and other metals, such as Cr, Ga, and V, as well as their oxides [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Pt and CoOx clusters [26,27,28] and Pd-Pt catalytic films [29] have been studied as well, exhibiting high yields of the target dehydrogenated product. Specifically in the ODH of propane, the cluster catalyst, consisting of 10 platinum atoms deposited on an Al2O3 layer prepared by atomic layer deposition (ALD), possessed high activity and high selectivity to propylene, the latter reaching up to 84%, depending temperature and promotion with SnO [26]. The abovementioned catalysts perform efficiently at high temperatures, typically above 500 °C. The incorporation of small amounts of Cu into Pt/Al2O3 catalysts has been reported to enhance propylene selectivity, suppress deactivation, and improve resistance to coke formation; for example, an optimised Cu loading increased propylene selectivity to 91% at propane conversion of about 43% [30]. Cu-Cr mixed oxide systems have emerged as promising catalysts for low-temperature propane ODH, with Cu-Cr double-layer thin films exhibiting up to 50% propane conversion and propene selectivities exceeding 90% at 400 °C [31]. Although copper-based catalysts have been much less studied for propane ODH, early work on CuO catalysts in the presence of tetrachloromethane at 450 °C exhibited 10% propane conversion with 55% propylene selectivity [32].
There has been a growing focus on utilising CO2, which has served for decades as a carbon source in various chemical syntheses and as an oxidative agent in the ODH of propane. This process has been reported for alkanes, specifically propane via ODH on metal oxide-supported In2O3 or zeolite-supported chromium oxide and Ga2O3, with high conversions reaching 84% and propylene selectivity around 90% [33,34,35]. Among catalysts for CO2-assisted oxidative dehydrogenation of propane, palladium doped with rare metals (Ga, Sn, In) has shown promising performance with 80–94% propane conversion and up to 20% propylene selectivity [36]. In later studies, copper-based catalysts have been explored for CO2-assisted oxidative dehydrogenation of propane; for example, a Cu-doped CeZn catalyst was reported to achieve approximately 47% propane conversion with 57% propylene selectivity at 550 °C [37].
While platinum remains one of the most effective catalysts in this reaction, its high price and scarcity limit its practical application. The use of copper that is 3700 times cheaper as a catalyst for ODH is garnering considerable interest in balancing catalyst cost and effectiveness. Copper catalysts, doped with other metals, such as Pt, Cs, or Pd, achieve product selectivities of 50% to 99% in various oxidative dehydrogenation reactions [38,39,40,41,42], with some copper-based catalysts showing noticeable activity at temperatures of 230 to 300 °C as well in the dehydrogenation of methanol or even propane [39,40], thus further accenting the potential of copper as the catalyst for the ODH of propane. In the oxidative dehydrogenation of, e.g., cyclohexane, in comparison with Pd clusters deposited on ultrananocrystalline diamond (UNCD) layer, Cu clusters exhibit higher selectivity towards a partially dehydrogenated product, cyclohexene (35%), while Pd primarily produces benzene (40%) at 300 °C [28]. In another dehydrogenation reaction, specifically that of benzyl alcohol, copper oxide nanoparticles have shown 99% conversion and 99% selectivity at temperatures as low as 100 °C in the ODH [38]. Similarly, atomically precise Cux (such as Cu4, Cu12, and Cu20) clusters supported on Al2O3 featured efficient production of propylene between 400 and 550 °C, topping propylene selectivity between 79 and 84% at 550 C, depending on the cluster size, in a reactant mixture consisting of 2% propylene and 2% oxygen in helium, while also enabling the direct formation of propylene oxide at 150–300 °C [43,44,45].
Alumina is widely used as a support material, particularly in ODH reactions [6,27,41,42]. Its popularity stems from its high surface area, thermal stability, and beneficial chemical properties, which are closely linked to its physical characteristics, such as porosity and density. In particular, an Al2O3 film deposited by atomic layer deposition was reported to stabilise nanoparticles deposited on its surface via strong metal-support interactions, defect site anchoring, and electronic effects that reduce nanoparticle mobility and prevent sintering [26,42]. In addition to its morphology, the density and distribution of surface hydroxyl groups on the surface of alumina play a crucial role in anchoring metal species, facilitating higher and more uniform dispersion of the catalytic metal while also supressing agglomeration under reaction conditions [46,47].
In this work, we employ copper-based catalysts supported on two distinct alumina substrates (microsized and nanosized Al2O3) to investigate their performance in the oxidative dehydrogenation of propane, especially at lower temperatures, below 400 °C. Alumina was chosen as the support due to its high thermal stability, large surface area, and ability to stabilise dispersed metal nanoparticles. At the same time, copper was selected as a cost-effective alternative to noble metals with proven activity in various ODH reactions. Special emphasis is placed on how differences in the size of the alumina support particles can influence the dispersion of copper, which can, hand-in-hand, affect the number and size of copper particles on the surface, along with the nature of the active sites available on the copper particles, reflected through catalytic performance. Thus, particular attention is paid to the synergistic interactions between copper and alumina, elucidated by systematically comparing the performance and stability of Cu/Al2O3 and Cu/nanoAl2O3 in the dehydrogenation of propane, depending on support morphology, oxidant type and reaction conditions. Furthermore, the effect of feed composition was assessed by varying the propane-to-oxygen ratio and by employing CO2 as a soft oxidant.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. ODH of Propane with a 1:1 Ratio of Propane and Oxygen

Blank tests with nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3 were conducted to assess the activity of the supports. During data analysis, the activity of the support was subtracted from that of the copper-containing catalyst (see Figure S1) to distinguish the effect of metal loading.
On the blank supports, the conversion is lower, staying below 6%, with nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3 alone compared to their counterparts decorated with copper nanoparticles. NanoAl2O3 shows increased activity from 400 °C onwards, while Al2O3 exhibits measurable activity mainly at higher temperatures (500–550 °C). Propylene selectivity was predominant for both substrates, reaching 75% and 80% for nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3, respectively, at 500 °C. The ethylene fraction increases with temperature for both substrates, while the production of methane is minimal.
The addition of copper nanoparticles significantly enhances the catalytic activity for both nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3, resulting in an approximately tenfold increase in conversion at 500 °C. The addition of copper also significantly lowers the temperature at which the catalysts become active. Figure 1 shows the evolution of propane conversion and product selectivity (propylene, ethylene, methane, and CO2) on the studied catalysts, Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3, during the applied temperature ramp. For Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 1a), propane conversion starts at 5% at 250 °C and gradually increases with the temperature, reaching 29% at 500 °C. The selectivity to propylene on Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 1b) is the highest at 250 °C at 48% and it decreases with increasing temperature, dropping to a minimum of 5.8% at 450 °C. Product-wise, CO2 formation reaches 92% at 450 °C, making it the most abundant byproduct of the propane ODH. Nevertheless, the propane cracking products begin to appear at higher temperatures: ethylene at 400 °C and methane at 450 °C. The conversion and selectivity under different conditions are shown in Table S2.
Figure 1. Conversion of propane and product selectivity of (a,b) Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (c,d) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.75% O2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).
When using Cu/Al2O3 as a catalyst, propane conversion increases throughout the entire temperature ramp, reaching a maximum conversion of 25% at 550 °C (Figure 1c); however, it is about 5% lower through the entire ramp than on Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 1a). Propylene selectivity on Cu/Al2O3 (Figure 1d) has a maximum of 37% at 350 °C, then decreases significantly with rising temperature. Other products, primarily CO2, become more prevalent, with CO2 making up around 85% at 550 °C. Additional ethylene begins forming at 500 °C, followed by methane at 550 °C. The conversion and selectivity for Cu/Al2O3 at different conditions are shown in Table S3.
Comparing the two catalysts, Cu/nanoAl2O3 shows onset of activity at 250 °C, at a temperature 100 °C lower than Cu/Al2O3 with propylene selectivities of 48 and 37%, respectively, at the lowest temperatures of their activity (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for details.)
Table 1. Copper content in catalysts Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3 as determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and catalytic performance of the catalysts in propane ODH at 350 °C.
The total rate (r) of product formation per deposited copper atom for both catalysts during the temperature ramp is plotted in Figure 2a, showing the about 40% higher rate for Cu/nanoAl2O3. Figure 2b depicts the evolution of the rates of formation of the individual products on Cu/nanoAl2O3. The CO2 rate is very high in the ODH reaction, with propylene rates being around 5 mmol·gCu−1·h−1 throughout the temperature ramp and 8.5 mmol·gCu−1·h−1 at 550 °C. Figure 2c shows the evolution of products using the catalyst Cu/Al2O3.
Figure 2. (a) Total rates of all products per gram of Cu (● Cu/nanoAl2O3 and ▲ Cu/Al2O3) and evolution of rates of products (propylene, ethylene, methane, and CO2) using catalysts (b) Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (c) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.75% O2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).

2.2. ODH of Propane with a 3:1 Ratio of Propane and Oxygen

To moderate the oxidation environment, experiments with a propane-to-O2 ratio of 3:1 were conducted, which is sufficient to facilitate dehydrogenation at low temperatures while minimising unwanted side reactions. The reaction gas concentration for this experiment was 0.75% propane and 0.25% oxygen. The results of the experiment with Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively (for a detailed list of conversion and selectivities, see Tables S2 and S3).
Figure 3. Conversion of propane and product selectivity of (a,b) Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (c,d) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.25% O2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).
Figure 4. (a) Total rates of all products per gram of Cu (● Cu/nanoAl2O3 and ▲ Cu/Al2O3) and evolution of rates of products (propylene, ethylene, methane, and CO2) using catalysts (b) Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (c) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.25% O2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).
Blank tests with nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3 were performed using the same conditions, and the results are shown in Figure S2. Both supports show minimal activity, with conversions remaining below 3% for nanoAl2O3 and 2% for Al2O3 up to 550 °C. NanoAl2O3 begin to show measurable conversion from 400 °C, whereas Al2O3 become active between 500 and 550 °C. At 500 °C, propylene dominates the product distribution with selectivities of 70% on nanoAl2O3 and 56% on Al2O3. Minor amounts of methane and ethylene is detected in the 500–550 °C range; nanoAl2O3 produces up to 30% ethylene, whereas Al2O3 generates a comparatively higher, 34% fraction of methane.
The catalyst activity decreases with decreasing O2 concentration; however, a significant increase in propylene selectivity is observed from 250 to 550 °C (Figure 3) with trends similar to those in the previous experiment for the Cu/nanoAl2O3 activity (see Figure 3a). The propane conversion reaches the maximum of 12% at 500 °C, while the propylene selectivity (shown in Figure 3b) is the highest at 250 °C with 48.3%. The propylene selectivity decreases to a minimum at 400–450 °C and increases again with increasing temperature (500–550 °C). CO2 is also the most abundant byproduct in these experiments, with selectivity reaching 87% at 400 °C. The CO2 selectivity is lower than in the experiments with a 1:1 reactant ratio. Ethylene emerges at 450 °C with 5% selectivity, while methane appears at 500 °C with 1.5% selectivity.
The conversion using Cu/Al2O3 (Figure 3c) is approximately half of that obtained with the 1:1 reactant ratio, with a maximum at 500 °C. Figure 3d shows the product selectivity of propylene, CO2, ethylene, and methane. The propylene selectivity at 250 °C is 54.7%; with increasing temperature, it decreases to 26% at 450 °C and then increases again to 38% at 550 °C. Meanwhile, the CO2 selectivity reaches 68% at 450 °C. Cracking starts at 450 °C, and the selectivity to cracking products (ethylene and methane combined) reaches around 18% at 550 °C.
The rates of product evolution for propane ODH with a 3:1 ratio of propane to oxygen are shown in Figure 4a for both catalysts. The Cu/nanoAl2O3 catalyst shows up to about 3% higher activity during the ramp in comparison with Cu/Al2O3. The product rates using Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 4b) show a higher CO2 yield than propylene, with the cracking products (ethylene, methane) emerging at 450 °C. Compared to a reaction with abundant oxygen, cracking occurs at higher temperatures. Cu/Al2O3 gives the highest CO2 yield at 450 °C, accompanied by increased ethylene and methane (Figure 4c).
The experiment with a 3:1 propane-to-oxygen ratio demonstrated that Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3 can effectively facilitate propane dehydrogenation under these conditions, even at 250 °C, while relatively minimising complete combustion in comparison with a feed of 1:1 propane and oxygen. Cu/nanoAl2O3 produces here smaller fractions of ethylene and methane than Cu/Al2O3. Overall, the propylene selectivity for both catalysts improves with respect to the 1:1 reactant ratio, especially notably for Cu/Al2O3 with an increase from 37% to around 60% in the low-temperature range.
We hypothesise that the observed differences in the ODH performance of the copper-based catalysts on the micro- and nanosized alumina supports can have their origin in differences in their surface area (i.e., facilitating different dispersion of copper which can yield different-sized copper particles with active sites of different nature), defect density, surface termination, metal-support interactions, and acid–base properties between the micro- and nanosized support.

2.3. Use of CO2 as a Mild Oxidant

Both Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3 produce significant to prevailing fractions of CO2 during ODH. To assess the effect of the nature of the oxidant in the dehydrogenation of propane, the performance of these two catalysts using CO2 as a soft oxidant was addressed. For a complete list of conversions and selectivities at different temperatures, see Tables S2 and S3. The gas mixture contained 0.75% propane and 0.75% CO2 in He, giving a 1:1 reactant ratio.
First, the conversion and selectivity of the blank substrates was determined, with the results plotted in Figure S3, showing very low activity for both supports. NanoAl2O3 reaches only 1.1% conversion at 550 °C, with detectable activity starting no earlier than 500 °C. At 550 °C, the product distribution consists of 66% propylene, 8% methane, and 27% ethylene. Al2O3 shows similarly limited performance, achieving 1.4% conversion at 550 °C, with the same selectivity pattern (66% propylene, 34% ethylene).
Figure 5 represents propane conversion and product selectivity on the copper-containing catalysts. Compared to using O2 as an oxidant, the propane conversion is about an order of magnitude lower, reaching around 2.4% above 400 °C for Cu/nanoAl2O (Figure 5a) and about 2% at the highest temperatures with Cu/Al2O3 (Figure 5c).
Figure 5. Conversion of propane (dashed bar) and CO2 (full bar) and product selectivity of (a,b) Cu/nanoAl2O3, and (c,d) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.75% CO2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).
The conversion of CO2 follows a similar trend to that of propane. The combustion route is supressed, and both catalysts primarily produce propylene, in case of Cu/nanoAl2O3, with 100% selectivity up to 500 °C (Figure 5b). Using Cu/nanoAl2O3, cracking occurs at 550 °C with ethylene and methane making up a 30% fraction of products combined. For Cu/Al2O3, cracking sets off already at 400 °C, producing primarily ethylene (Figure 5d) up to about 39% at 500 °C, and a small fraction of methane occurring at 550 °C at the expense of ethylene.
For a comparison of rates obtained in ODH with molecular oxygen shown in Figure 2 and Figure 4, Figure 6a shows the rates of product evolution during propane ODH with CO2 on both catalysts.
Figure 6. (a) Total rates of all products per gram of Cu (● Cu/nanoAl2O3 and ▲ Cu/Al2O3) and evolution of rates of products (propylene, ethylene, methane, and CO2) using catalysts (b) Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (c) Cu/Al2O3. Gas concentration in the reaction mixture: 0.75% propane + 0.75% CO2 in He. Temperature: 250–550 °C. (The data shown are after subtraction of the contributions obtained for the blank supports, measured under identical conditions).
Remarkably, the rate of propylene formation with CO2 exceeds the rate observed with oxygen on Cu/nanoAl2O3 and makes up about 50% of the rate obtained on Cu/Al2O3, while at the same time, the formation of byproducts with CO2 is suppressed, the latter severely hampering selectivity of these catalysts when using O2 as the oxidant.

2.4. Characterisation of the Catalysts

The composition of Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3, was analysed using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), determining the total copper loading as 2.2 wt% in Cu/nanoAl2O3 and 2.7 wt% in Cu/Al2O3 (Table 1).
The SEM image of the as-prepared Cu/nanoAl2O3 is presented in Figure 7a, showing a wool-like morphology of nanoAl2O3. TEM and STEM images, shown in Figure 7c,e, indicate that the nanoAl2O3 substrate itself is not homogeneous. The TEM images depict various morphologies (rods, pellets, and spheres) of support particles with diameters of 15–50 nm, spanning a wide range of alumina phases, and the Cu NPs form surface structures on the nanoAl2O3 that are similar to chains, with individual particles connected. Figure 7b presents the SEM images of the spent Cu/nanoAl2O3 catalyst, showing that the morphology of the catalyst is not changed during the experiment. The nanoAl2O3 particles (around 180–500 nm in diameter) are visible alongside the flake-like structures in the Cu/Al2O3 catalyst, which are around 500 nm in diameter. The STEM images (Figure 7e,f) show the same nanoAl2O3 morphology as in fresh catalysts. The Cu nanoparticles appear to form into chain-like structures of individual Cu NPs on the surface of the nanoAl2O3. The fresh and spent catalysts are visually very similar in terms of the agglomerates of Cu NPs. The slight changes in the surface distribution of copper and further agglomeration might remain undetected by this method.
Figure 7. (a,b) SEM images of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3; (c,d) TEM images of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3; (e,f) STEM/HAADF images of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3.
Figure 8a shows the morphology of Cu/Al2O3, where Al2O3 exhibits a distinctive flake-type structure in contrast to the nanoAl2O3, featuring smaller particles with a diameter of approximately 70 nm. The TEM (Figure 8c) images reveal the presence of smaller particles as well—roughly spherical CuO particles—measuring approximately 10 nm in diameter. The STEM image (Figure 8e) shows that the copper nanoparticles are distributed on the surface of the powder Al2O3 (the Cu NPs typically appear with higher contrast than Al2O3). As seen in Figure 8b, the SEM image of the spent Cu/Al2O3 reveals the transformation of flake and spherical particulates on the surface of the 100–150 μm powder particles into roughly spherical particulates approximately 150 nm in diameter. Flake-like particles, which are present in the fresh catalyst, can also be found. In Figure 8d,f, the STEM-HAADF and TEM figures depict alumina morphologies similar to those of the fresh catalyst. The TEM image depicts a particle covered with copper particulates, which have agglomerated into sharp star-like formations during the reaction. For the Cu/Al2O3 samples, the visual changes to the Cu NPs are more pronounced. However, these changes may be limited to a few localised areas and not represent the entire sample.
Figure 8. (a,b) SEM images of fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3; (c,d) TEM images of fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3; (e,f) STEM/HAADF images of fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3.
The SEM and TEM images and the selected-area electron diffraction pattern (SAED) of both supports (nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3) showed a similar structural composition, irrespective of the introduction of copper nanoparticles. They are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Figures S4, S5, and S6, respectively).
STEM-HAADF images and EDX mapping of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 9) provide additional insights into the morphology and Cu NP distribution. The STEM image of the fresh Cu/nanoAl2O3 (Figure 9a) shows that the nanoAl2O3 particles are of various shapes and sizes, including rods, flakes, and spherical structures. The EDX mapping reveals that although copper nanoparticles, around 3 nm in diameter (see inset in Figure 9a), are to a great extent uniformly distributed on the surface of nanoAl2O3 (Figure 9c), during the course of the reactions they may also form larger aggregates, up to about 114 nm in size (Figure S7). In the spent catalyst (Figure 9b), a similar “woolly” morphology of nanoAl2O3 is observed, along with the agglomeration of copper nanoparticles into larger particles (up to around 270 nm in diameter).
Figure 9. (a) STEM-HAADF of fresh Cu/nanoAl2O3; (b) STEM-HAADF of spent Cu/nanoAl2O3. (c), (d) EDX elemental mapping of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3. The inset in (a) shows a magnified region with ~3 nm large copper particles.
STEM–HAADF images and EDX mapping of the fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3 catalyst (Figure 10) provide additional insights into the morphology and copper nanoparticle distribution in this catalyst. The alumina support exhibits the flake-type structure observed in the TEM images. In contrast to Cu/nanoAl2O3, the Cu nanoparticles/particle assemblies on Cu/Al2O3 are much less uniformly dispersed and are significantly larger, between 30 and 70 nm, on the fresh catalyst. Upon reaction, these particles further sinter, forming even larger agglomerates of up to 500 nm in the spent sample.
Figure 10. (a) STEM-HAADF of fresh Cu/Al2O3; (b) STEM-HAADF of spent Cu/Al2O3. (c,d) EDX elemental mapping of fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3.
Similar structural effects have been reported for other supported metals on γ-Al2O3, where differences in support morphology and surface chemistry profoundly influence metal dispersion. The abundant terminal hydroxyl groups and associated surface defect structures on nanosized γ-Al2O3 have been shown to stabilise atomically dispersed metal species more effectively than on microsized supports, which tend to favour formation of larger particles, whereas supports with fewer terminal hydroxyl groups are more prone to facilitate metal aggregation [46,47].
The electron diffraction patterns were analysed to identify the alumina phases (see Figure 11). The SAED of Cu/nanoAl2O3 corresponds to the θ-Al2O3 polymorph, which typically forms at high temperatures (over 900 °C) and is considered one of the most thermodynamically stable transition alumina phases [48,49]. Similarly, the SAED of Cu/Al2O3 shows the presence of the theta phase. Additionally, the typical CuIIO scattering pattern is observed for both catalysts.
Figure 11. Electron diffraction patterns in select areas of (a) fresh Cu/nanoAl2O3, (b) spent Cu/nanoAl2O3, (c) fresh Cu/Al2O3, and (d) spent Cu/Al2O3.
Nevertheless, these SAED patterns may not represent the bulk material. For this reason, the XRD was performed to analyse the composition of the alumina substrates and to determine whether it changes with the addition of Cu nanoparticles. The XRD patterns of the catalysts are shown in Figure 12 (the XRD patterns of the substrates are shown in Figure S8). The patterns indicate the presence of α-phase and θ-Al2O3. The changes before and after the reaction are noticeable for the nanoAl2O3 catalysts, both with (Figure 12a) and without (Figure S8a) copper. In the fresh catalysts, aluminium hydroxide phases were present (their main contribution was in the 2θ ranges 17.5–19° and 20–22°), which disappear after the reaction. The aluminium hydroxides presence can be the result of the commercial colloidal alumina being dispersed in water. At the same time, their subsequent decomposition can be attributed to temperature-induced effects during the propane conversion reaction. The powder Al2O3 catalysts with (Figure 12b) and without copper (Figure S8b) seem to remain relatively unchanged after the reaction. In addition to the phases mentioned above, the samples also contain the κ-phase. Compared to α-Al2O3, the κ-phase typically has a lower pore density and a smaller grain size [50]. The copper, identified as CuIIO in the fresh catalyst, is reduced to Cu0 after the reaction, as evidenced by the appearance of peaks at 50° and 74°. Adding copper nanoparticles also changes the intensity of peaks attributed to alumina phases.
Figure 12. XRD patterns of (a) fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3 and (b) fresh and spent Cu/Al2O3.
The Rietveld refinement shows good agreement in the peak positions for all phases. However, it yields poorer results for the intensities of those peaks with the higher contribution from the theta phase. The Pawley approximation for this phase was employed to determine the associated error. The process involved treating the intensity as a free parameter to be refined rather than calculating its contribution from the atomic positions. There were several potential reasons for the discrepancy in intensities, including induced preferred orientation due to sample preparation, the possibility that the theta phase was non-stoichiometric (i.e., incorrect atomic positions were used in the phase model), or the presence of an additional undetected phase that matches the peak positions. The latter is the most probable explanation, and it is supported by the presence of a peak (in Cu/Al2O3 and Al2O3) or a shoulder (in Cu/nanoAl2O3 and nanoAl2O3) at around 45.6°, which cannot be attributed to any specific phase. This fact, along with strong peak broadening and very high peak overlapping, worsens the accuracy of the refinements, resulting in compositions that exhibit errors of up to 8%, depending on the case and phase considered. The refinement results are depicted in Table 2 for the copper-containing catalysts and Table S4 for the substrates. The table values represent the average between quantifications with and without Pawley’s approximation. At the same time, the errors correspond to the standard deviation. The fresh nanoAl2O3 samples contain approximately 15% aluminium hydroxide. The higher hydroxyl content in nanoAl2O3 likely contributes to the superior dispersion of copper nanoparticles, as surface hydroxyls act as anchoring sites that stabilise small metal clusters and prevent agglomeration, consistent with previous studies on metal–alumina interactions [46,47]. The rest of the composition comprises mainly θ-phase and α-phase alumina. On the other hand, the powder Al2O3 samples are composed solely of the α, θ, and κ-phases. We hypothesise that the lack of resolution of a Cu particle size by XRD in the spent Cu/nanoAl2O3 catalyst may hint towards amorphous and/or (sub)nanometre-sized highly dispersed copper particles after the reaction.
Table 2. Fractions of various forms of aluminium oxide and hydroxide components in the fresh and spent copper-containing catalysts, obtained from XRD data using Rietveld refinement of the analysis.
Table 3 presents the calculated specific surface area and pore volume for the catalysts and supports in both their as-made and spent forms based on the adsorption isotherms shown in Figure S9. The surface area and pore volume of the supports (nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3) remain unchanged after the reaction, suggesting that copper was primarily responsible for the changes in the spent catalysts. For Cu/nanoAl2O3, the specific surface area increases slightly. At the same time, the pore volume stays nearly the same before and after the reaction (shown in Table 3). In contrast, Cu/Al2O3 shows a slight decrease in the surface area of the spent catalyst, likely due to pore collapse or blockage by side products from the propane ODH reaction at high temperatures.
Table 3. The specific surface area and pore volume, as determined from the adsorption and desorption of nitrogen on the surface of the fresh and spent catalysts and the supports.

3. Experimental Section

Copper sulphate pentahydrate (CuSO4·5H2O), colloidal aluminium oxide (Al2O3, 20% w/w in water, particle size 30–60 nm), and sodium borohydride (NaBH4) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Powder aluminium oxide (Al2O3, powder) was purchased from Penta (Prague, Czech Republic). The gases C3H8 (3% in helium), O2 (1% in helium), CO2 (1% in helium), and He (99.99%) were purchased from Messer (Prague, Czech Republic). Deionised water (purity 0.05 μS·cm−1, AQUAL 29, Merci, Brno, Czech Republic) was used to prepare the catalysts and to wash the catalysts. Sonicator SONOPULS HD 4400 Ultrasonic homogeniser (Bandelin electronic GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used to mix the solution. Eppendorf Centrifuge 5702 (Hamburg, Germany) was used to separate the solid products.

3.1. Preparation of the Catalysts

The catalysts used in this study were synthesised by reducing copper sulphate with sodium borohydride in the presence of colloidal (nanosized) or powdered (macrosized) Al2O3, leading to the deposition of the resulting Cu nanoparticles onto the alumina surface. For Cu/nanoAl2O3, 196 mg of copper sulphate was dissolved in 145 mL of deionised water, and 4.7 mL of colloidal aluminium oxide (nanoAl2O3) was added for the catalyst. For the catalyst denoted Cu/Al2O3, 150 mL of deionised water and 1 g of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) were added instead. The solutions were stirred thoroughly using a magnetic stirrer at room temperature for 10 min. The reducing agent, 50 mL of borohydride solution (NaBH4, 59.2 mg in 50 mL water), was added at 1 mL·s−1 while using sonication pulses and thorough stirring. Employing ultrasonic pulses during Cu NP preparation ensured high nanoparticle dispersion [51,52]. After mixing the reactants, the solutions were mixed for another 10 min. The prepared mixtures were isolated by centrifugation for 10 min at 4400 rpm and washed with deionised water. This cleaning procedure was repeated twice. The powder samples were dried overnight in an oven at 60 °C and 1 bar. Dried colloid nanoAl2O3 and powder Al2O3 were used as blanks for the catalytic test for Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3, respectively.

3.2. Catalyst Characterisation Techniques

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed using a HITACHI SU6600 (Hitachi High-Tech, Tokyo, Japan). Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was performed on a FEI Tecnai TF20 X-twin (200 kV) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hillsboro, OR, USA), with a field-emission gun (FEG) and a point resolution of 2.5 Å, equipped with an Energy-Dispersive X-ray (EDX) detector (EDAX, Mahwah, NJ, USA). The microscope was operated in scanning mode with a High-Angle Annular Dark Field Detector (STEM-HAADF) (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hillsboro, OR, USA). TEM images and selected-area electron diffraction (SAED) patterns were recorded on a Gatan UltraScan CCD camera (Gatan, Pleasanton, CA, USA) with a resolution of 2048 × 2048 pixels. SAED patterns were evaluated using the Process Diffraction software package V_7.8.1 Q [53]. The EDX spectra/maps were processed using the FEI TIA software version 4.2 sp1 build 816. Powder samples were dispersed in distilled water, and the suspensions were subjected to a 5 min ultrasound treatment. The diluted suspension was dropped on a holey-carbon-coated copper grid, and the sample was dried at ambient temperature. High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscope (HRTEM) images were obtained using FEI Titan 60–300 kV (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Hillsboro, OR, USA) with a resolution of 1.4 Å and an Energy-Dispersive X-ray spectroscope (EDX) for elemental mapping. The microscope was also used in STEM-HAADF mode. Atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) was performed using a ContrAA 300 (Analytik Jena AG, Jena, Germany) spectrometer with flame ionisation. X-ray diffraction (XRD) characterisation was performed on a SmartLab SE Multipurpose Rigaku diffractometer (Rigaku Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with Cu Kα radiation and a HyPix-3000 2D detector (Rigaku Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). All patterns were acquired in Bragg–Brentano geometry with the detector operating in 1D mode. Data processing involved using X’Pert HighScore Plus software V5.2 (Malvern Panalytical B.V., Almelo, The Netherlands) for phase identification and TOPAS V3 for Rietveld refinement. The specific surface area of the catalyst was determined by gas sorption measured on the surface area and catalyst analyser 3 flex (Micromeritics, Norcross, GA, USA) at 77 K up to the saturation pressure of N2. The Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) model was used to calculate this area. The multipoint BET values were determined using the Rouquerol method and were within the standard range of p/p0 = 0.05–0.3. Before the surface analysis, all catalysts were treated at 200 °C for 4 h under vacuum, followed by 130 °C for 12 h under vacuum.

3.3. Catalytic Testing

The catalytic experiments were performed in a Microactivity-Reference Catalytic Reactor, PID Eng&Tech/Micromeritics, using a quartz tube reactor, 320 mm long and 10 mm inner diameter. Typically, 150 mg of a catalyst was placed on top of 20 mg of quartz wool in the reactor and conditioned at 150 °C in 40 mL/min of He for 45 min. First, blanks (nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3) were tested, and those results were treated as baselines for Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3, respectively. The temperature ramp is shown in Figure 13, starting at 250 °C and increasing up to 550 °C. The temperature was raised in 50 °C increments at 5 °C/min in the 40 mL/min He flow. After reaching each temperature step and remaining at that temperature for 20 min, the helium was switched to the reaction mixture, which contained a 1:1 mixture of propane and O2 diluted with He, to 0.75% propane, 0.75% O2, and 98.5% He. A total flow of 40 mL/min was used at a pressure of 1 bar. The different reactant ratios used were 0.75% propane, 0.25% O2 and 99% He (3:1). The experiments with CO2 as a soft oxidant were performed with a reaction mixture containing 0.75% propane, 0.75% CO2 and 98.5% He (1:1). The reaction products were analysed on an Agilent gas chromatograph 6890 equipped with TCD (HP-PLOT/Q) and FID (Al2O3/KCl) detectors, injecting the gas mixture from the reactor after 10 min of dwell time within the inlet of the reactants at each temperature step of the temperature ramp showed below.
Figure 13. Temperature ramp applied in all experiments of both O2- and CO2-assisted ODH of propane.
The propane conversion rate was calculated from the integrated GC peak areas of the products and reactants. The carbon-based selectivity and conversion reported herein were obtained after subtraction of the activity of the blank nanoAl2O3 and Al2O3. The rate was calculated based on the mass of the catalyst, giving the millimole of product produced by a gram of copper per hour. For comparison with cluster catalysts, we also report the rate calculated per copper atom, i.e., providing the number of product molecules per copper atom per second. Table S1 compares the Cu catalysts tested in this study with results from a previous study that used Cu and Pt clusters as catalysts.

4. Conclusions

This study discussed the catalytic performance of copper catalysts prepared via wet impregnation on commercially available aluminium oxide supports of different granularity at the nano- and microscale as potential candidates for propane dehydrogenation, based on non-precious metals, as part of an effort to identify a highly cost-effective alternative to noble-metal-based catalysts using both molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide as oxidants. Characterisation of the Cu/nanoAl2O3 and Cu/Al2O3 samples shows higher dispersion of copper on the nanoalumina, making the differences in the copper particle size the most likely driving force for the observed differences in the catalytic performance of the two catalysts. Under the applied feed conditions and using oxygen as the oxidant, propane conversions of up to about 10% and propylene selectivities reaching around 65% can be obtained at temperatures below 350 °C, depending on the catalyst and propane-to-oxygen ratio. At higher temperatures, combustion and cracking prevails. Especially promising appears to be the use of carbon dioxide as a mild oxidant, where on Cu/nanoAl2O3 a 100% selectivity towards propylene oxide is observed up to 500 °C, while on Cu/Al2O3 cracking sets off already at 400 °C. The unique selectivity showcased by Cu/nanoAl2O3 with carbon dioxide as the oxidant is accompanied by its about doubled efficacy, i.e., rate, of propylene formation in comparison with using molecular oxygen, which further articulates the potential offered by copper-based catalyst for energy- and cost-efficient dehydrogenation of propane.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules31040626/s1, Table S1: The comparison of propylene selectivity rate with cluster catalysts; Figure S1: Conversion and selectivity of blanks with propane:O2 ratio 1:1; Figure S2: Conversion and selectivity of blanks with propane:O2 ratio 3:1; Figure S3: Conversion and selectivity of blanks with propane:CO2 ratio 1:1; Table S2: Conversion, selectivity and rates of Cu/nanoAl2O3 at different conditions; Table S3: Conversion, selectivity and rates of Cu/Al2O3 at different conditions; Figure S4: Microscopy images of fresh and spent nanoAl2O3; Figure S5: Microscopy images of fresh and spent Al2O3; Figure S6: SAED of fresh and spent blanks; Figure S7: STEM-HAADF and EDX elemental mapping of fresh and spent Cu/nanoAl2O3; Figure S8: XRD patterns of fresh and spent blanks; Table S4: Rietveld analysis of the XRD patterns for the fresh and spent blanks; Figure S9: Adsorption isotherms of fresh and spent catalysts and blanks.

Author Contributions

Sample preparation: K.S.; data acquisition: K.S., M.I.Q., N.Ž., M.K., E.d.P.; visualisation: K.S., M.K., E.d.P.; formal analysis: K.S., M.I.Q.; conceptualisation: Š.V.; writing—original draft: K.S.; writing—review and editing: K.S., J.E.O., M.I.Q., L.K., Š.V.; funding acquisition: Š.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

K. Simkovicova, M. I. Qadir, N. Zilkova and S. Vajda gratefully acknowledge the initial support from the European Union under Horizon Europe (project 810310) and K. Simkovicova from European Union under Horizon Europe (101079142). K. Simkovicova and L. Kvitek acknowledge partial support of an internal grant from Palacký University, grant number IGA_Prf_2025_024. J. E. Olszowka and S. Vajda gratefully acknowledge the support from Programme Johannes Amos Comenius under the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004558 Advanced MUltiscaLe materials for key Enabling Technologies during the finalisation of the study. M. Klementova and E. de Prado acknowledge the financial support of the measurements at LNSM Research Infrastructure by CzechNanoLab project LM2023051, funded by MEYS CR.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Amghizar, I.; Vandewalle, L.A.; Van Geem, K.M.; Marin, G.B. New Trends in Olefin Production. Engineering 2017, 3, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Liu, S.; Zhang, B.; Liu, G. Metal-based catalysts for the non-oxidative dehydrogenation of light alkanes to light olefins. React. Chem. Eng. 2021, 6, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stangland, E.E. Shale gas implications for C2-C3 olefin production: Incumbent and future technology. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2018, 9, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Geng, Z.; Deng, H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M. Numerical investigation of complex chemistry performing in Pt-catalyzed oxidative dehydrogenation of ethane fixed-bed reactors. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jang, E.J.; Lee, J.; Jeong, H.Y.; Kwak, J.H. Controlling the acid-base properties of alumina for stable PtSn-based propane dehydrogenation catalysts. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2019, 572, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jiang, F.; Zeng, L.; Li, S.; Liu, G.; Wang, S.; Gong, J. Propane Dehydrogenation over Pt/TiO2–Al2O3 Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2014, 5, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yu, Q.; Yu, T.; Chen, H.; Fang, G.; Pan, X.; Bao, X. The effect of Al3+ coordination structure on the propane dehydrogenation activity of Pt/Ga/Al2O3 catalysts. J. Energy Chem. 2020, 41, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Y.; Yang, S.; Lu, J.; Mei, Y.; He, D.; Luo, Y. Effect of a Ce Promoter on Non-oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane over the Commercial Cr/Al2O3 Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 19818–19824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Golubina, E.V.; Kaplin, I.Y.; Gorodnova, A.V.; Lokteva, E.S.; Isaikina, O.Y.; Maslakov, K.I. Non-Oxidative Propane Dehydrogenation on CrOx-ZrO2-SiO2 Catalyst Prepared by One-Pot Template-Assisted Method. Molecules 2022, 27, 6095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Han, S.; Zhao, D.; Kondratenko, E.V. Well-Defined Supported ZnOx Species: Synthesis, Structure, and Catalytic Performance in Nonoxidative Dehydrogenation of C3-C4 Alkanes. Acc. Chem. Res. 2024, 57, 1264–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, H.; Ma, H.; Zhao, C.; Zhou, F.; Zhu, X.; Wang, G.; Li, C. Novel Ge/SiO2 Catalysts for Nonoxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane. Energy Fuels 2024, 38, 1355–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Otroshchenko, T.; Kondratenko, V.A.; Wu, K.; Fedorova, E.A.; Doronkin, D.E.; Bartling, S.; Lund, H.; Jiang, G.; et al. The enhancing effect of Co2+ on propane non-oxidative dehydrogenation over supported Co/ZrO2 catalysts. J. Catal. 2024, 432, 115440–115447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shan, Y.-L.; Sun, H.-L.; Zhao, S.-L.; Tang, P.-L.; Zhao, W.-T.; Ding, J.-W.; Yu, W.-L.; Li, L.-N.; Feng, X.; Chen, D. Effects of Support and CO2 on the Performances of Vanadium Oxide-Based Catalysts in Propane Dehydrogenation. ACS Catal. 2022, 12, 5736–5749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sokolov, S.; Stoyanova, M.; Rodemerck, U.; Linke, D.; Kondratenko, E.V. Effect of support on selectivity and on-stream stability of surface VOx species in non-oxidative propane dehydrogenation. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2014, 4, 1323–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jeon, N.; Choe, H.; Jeong, B.; Yun, Y. Cu-promoted zirconia catalysts for non-oxidative propane dehydrogenation. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2019, 586, 117211–117218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, G.; Zhao, Z.J.; Mu, R.; Zha, S.; Li, L.; Chen, S.; Zang, K.; Luo, J.; Li, Z.; Purdy, S.C.; et al. Breaking the scaling relationship via thermally stable Pt/Cu single atom alloys for catalytic dehydrogenation. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4454–4462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Raghav, H.; Khan, T.S.; Jyotsna, A.V.S.; Gupta, P.; Tripathi, S.; Sarkar, B. Effect of synergy on selective low-temperature dehydrogenation of propane to propylene over a defect-induced copper titanium catalyst. RSC Appl. Interfaces 2025, 2, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gärtner, C.A.; van Veen, A.C.; Lercher, J.A. Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Ethane: Common Principles and Mechanistic Aspects. ChemCatChem 2013, 5, 3196–3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Skubic, L.; Sovdat, J.; Teran, N.; Huš, M.; Kopac, D.; Likozar, B. Ab Initio Multiscale Process Modeling of Ethane, Propane and Butane Dehydrogenation Reactions: A Review. Catalysts 2020, 10, 1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nawaz, Z. Light alkane dehydrogenation to light olefin technologies: A comprehensive review. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2015, 31, 413–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sattler, J.J.H.B.; Ruiz-Martinez, J.; Santillan-Jimenez, E.; Weckhuysen, B.M. Catalytic dehydrogenation of light alkanes on metals and metal oxides. Chem. Rev. 2014, 114, 10613–10653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shao, C.-T.; Lang, W.-Z.; Yan, X.; Guo, Y.-J. Catalytic performance of gallium oxide based-catalysts for the propane dehydrogenation reaction: Effects of support and loading amount. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 4710–4723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Agafonov, Y.A.; Gaidai, N.A.; Lapidus, A.L. Influence of the preparation conditions for catalysts CrOx/SiO2 on their efficiency in propane dehydrogenation in the presence CO2. Russ. Chem. Bull. 2014, 63, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Machado, R.; Dimitrakopoulou, M.; Girgsdies, F.; Löser, P.; Xie, J.; Wittich, K.; Weber, M.; Geske, M.; Glaum, R.; Karbstein, A.; et al. Platinum Group Metal-Doped Tungsten Phosphates for Selective C–H Activation of Lower Alkanes. ACS Catal. 2022, 12, 13116–13130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carrero, C.A.; Schloegl, R.; Wachs, I.E.; Schomaecker, R. Critical Literature Review of the Kinetics for the Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane over Well-Defined Supported Vanadium Oxide Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2014, 4, 3357–3380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vajda, S.; Pellin, M.J.; Greeley, J.P.; Marshall, C.L.; Curtiss, L.A.; Ballentine, G.A.; Elam, J.W.; Catillon-Mucherie, S.; Redfern, P.C.; Mehmood, F.; et al. Subnanometre platinum clusters as highly active and selective catalysts for the oxidative dehydrogenation of propane. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lee, S.; Halder, A.; Ferguson, G.A.; Seifert, S.; Winans, R.E.; Teschner, D.; Schlögl, R.; Papaefthimiou, V.; Greeley, J.; Curtiss, L.A.; et al. Subnanometer cobalt oxide clusters as selective low temperature oxidative dehydrogenation catalysts. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 954–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Halder, A.; Ha, M.A.; Zhai, H.; Yang, B.; Pellin, M.J.; Seifert, S.; Alexandrova, A.N.; Vajda, S. Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Cyclohexane by Cu vs Pd Clusters: Selectivity Control by Specific Cluster Dynamics. ChemCatChem 2020, 12, 1307–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vaidulych, M.; Yeh, L.Y.; Hoehner, R.; Jasik, J.; Kadam, S.A.; Vorochta, M.; Khalakhan, I.; Hagen, J.; Vajda, S. Low-Temperature Selective Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Cyclohexene by Titania-Supported Nanostructured Pd, Pt, and Pt-Pd Catalytic Films. J. Phys. Chem. C 2024, 128, 3180–3192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Han, Z.; Li, S.; Jiang, F.; Wang, T.; Ma, X.; Gong, J. Propane dehydrogenation over Pt-Cu bimetallic catalysts: The nature of coke deposition and the role of copper. Nanoscale 2014, 6, 10000–10008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Monguen, C.K.F.; Daniel, S.; Tian, Z.-Y. Controlled synthesis of Cu-Cr double-layer thin films for oxidative dehydrogenation of propane at low temperature. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 474, 145769–145781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sugiyama, S.; Fukuda, N.; Hayashi, H. Effect of Tetrachloromethane on Redox Behaviors of Copper(II) Oxide in the Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane. Catal. Lett. 2002, 78, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, M.; Wu, J.-L.; Liu, Y.-M.; Cao, Y.; Guo, L.; He, H.-Y.; Fan, K.-N. Study in support effect of In2O3/MOx (M = Al, Si, Zr) catalysts for dehydrogenation of propane in the presence of CO2. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2011, 407, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Michorczyk, P.; Pietrzyk, P.; Ogonowski, J. Preparation and characterization of SBA-1–supported chromium oxide catalysts for CO2 assisted dehydrogenation of propane. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2012, 161, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ren, Y.; Wang, J.; Hua, W.; Yue, Y.; Gao, Z. Ga2O3/HZSM-48 for dehydrogenation of propane: Effect of acidity and pore geometry of support. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2012, 18, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, J.; Wang, F.; Li, L.; Zhao, W.; Wang, S.; Ma, Z.; Kong, Y.; Shuang, Y.; Xia, W.; Jian, J.; et al. Synergistic effect of scattered rare metals on Pt/CeO2 for propane oxidative dehydrogenation with CO2. RSC Adv. 2025, 15, 2319–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Monguen, C.K.F.; Daniel, S.; Wu, L.-N.; Otieno, H.N.; Lott, P.; Qin, W.; Deutschmann, O.; Tian, Z.-Y. Copper-doped CeZn catalysts for efficient CO2-assisted oxidative dehydrogenation of propane: Mechanistic insights and performance optimization. Fundam. Res. 2025, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Poreddy, R.; Engelbrekt, C.; Riisager, A. Copper oxide as efficient catalyst for oxidative dehydrogenation of alcohols with air. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 2467–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, H.; Chen, Y.; Cui, X.; Wang, G.; Cen, Y.; Deng, T.; Yan, W.; Gao, J.; Zhu, S.; Olsbye, U.; et al. A Highly Stable Copper-Based Catalyst for Clarifying the Catalytic Roles of Cu0 and Cu+ Species in Methanol Dehydrogenation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 1836–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schaferhans, J.; Gomez-Quero, S.; Andreeva, D.V.; Rothenberg, G. Novel and effective copper-aluminum propane dehydrogenation catalysts. Chem. Eur. J. 2011, 17, 12254–12256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ali, L.I.; Ali, A.-G.A.; Aboul-Fotouh, S.M.K.; Aboul-Gheit, A.K. Dehydrogenation of cyclohexane on catalysts containing noble metals and their combinations with platinum on alumina support. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 1999, 177, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tyo, E.C.; Yin, C.; Di Vece, M.; Qian, Q.; Kwon, G.; Lee, S.; Lee, B.; DeBartolo, J.E.; Seifert, S.; Winans, R.E.; et al. Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Cyclohexane on Cobalt Oxide (Co3O4) Nanoparticles: The Effect of Particle Size on Activity and Selectivity. ACS Catal. 2012, 2, 2409–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Halder, A.; Warburton, R.E.; Sun, G.; Cheng, L.; Assary, R.S.; Seifert, S.; Homer, M.; Greeley, J.; Alexandrova, A.N.; Sautet, P.; et al. Low-Temperature Direct Oxidation of Propane to Propylene Oxide Using Supported Subnanometer Cu Clusters. ACS Catal. 2025, 15, 5760–5769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Vajda, S.; Halder, A.; Curtiss, L.A. Selective Oxidation of Propane to Propylene Oxide. U.S. Patent US-10385032-B1, 20 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vajda, S.; Halder, A.; Curtiss, L.A. Selective Oxidative Dehydrogenation of Propane to Propylene. U.S. Patent US-10654772-B2, 19 May 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, F.; Ma, J.; Xin, S.; Wang, Q.; Xu, J.; Zhang, C.; He, H.; Cheng Zeng, X. Resolving the puzzle of single-atom silver dispersion on nanosized gamma-Al2O3 surface for high catalytic performance. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fan, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, R.; Liu, C.; Fu, Q. Surface Hydroxyl-Determined Migration and Anchoring of Silver on Alumina in Oxidative Redispersion. ACS Catal. 2023, 13, 2277–2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kovarik, L.; Bowden, M.; Szanyi, J. High temperature transition aluminas in δ-Al2O3/θ-Al2O3 stability range: Review. J. Catal. 2021, 393, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, Y.; Peng, X.; Chen, X.-Q. The mechanism of θ- to α-Al2O3 phase transformation. J. Alloys Compd. 2021, 863, 158666–158670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lindulf, N.; Halvarsson, M.; Norden, H.; Ruppi, S. Microstructural investigation of the κ-Al2O3 → α-Al2O3 transformation in multilayer coatings of chemically vapour deposited κ-Al2O3. Thin Solid Film. 1994, 253, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Estifaee, P.; Haghighi, M.; Mohammadi, N.; Rahmani, F. CO oxidation over sonochemically synthesized Pd-Cu/Al2O3 nanocatalyst used in hydrogen purification: Effect of Pd loading and ultrasound irradiation time. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2014, 21, 1155–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Allahyari, S.; Haghighi, M.; Ebadi, A.; Hosseinzadeh, S. Ultrasound assisted co-precipitation of nanostructured CuO-ZnO-Al2O3 over HZSM-5: Effect of precursor and irradiation power on nanocatalyst properties and catalytic performance for direct syngas to DME. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2014, 21, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lábár, J.L. Electron Diffraction Based Analysis of Phase Fractions and Texture in Nanocrystalline Thin Films, Part II: Implementation. Microsc. Microanal. 2009, 15, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Enhancing Wide-Bandgap Triple-Halide Perovskites for Tandem Solar Cells by 0.5% Formate and Zn(II) Doping
Previous
From a Molecule to a Drug: Chemical Features Enhancing Pharmacological Potential II
Next