Next Article in Journal
Highly Efficient Biphasic System for the Synthesis of Alkyl Lactates in the Presence of Acidic Ionic Liquids
Previous Article in Journal
Photocatalytic Oxidation of Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether in Presence of Various Phase Compositions of TiO2
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Preparation and Characterization of Co–Ni Nanoparticles and the Testing of a Heterogenized Co–Ni/Alumina Catalyst for CO Hydrogenation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Editorial: Cobalt and Iron Catalysis

1
Science and Health Department, Asbury University, Lexington, KY 40390, USA
2
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Chemical Engineering/Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2020, 10(1), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10010036
Submission received: 20 December 2019 / Accepted: 20 December 2019 / Published: 27 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Iron and Cobalt Catalysts)
Cobalt and iron have long history of importance in the field of catalysis that continues to this day. Currently, both are prevalent metals in a multitude of catalytic processes: the synthesis of ammonia [1], Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) [2,3,4,5], water gas shift [6,7,8,9], hydrotreating [10], olefin polymerization [11], hydrotreating [12,13], isomerization [14,15], alcohol synthesis [16,17,18], and photocatalysis [19,20,21]. One cannot underestimate the importance of hydrotreating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that crude demand for 2019 was ~100 million barrels per day [22]; this crude requires hydrotreating before it can be brought to market [23,24,25]. FTS is another example, as it is at the core of large-scale industrial processes in coal-to-liquid (CTL) [26,27,28] and gas-to-liquid (GTL) [23,24,29] processes, as well as futuristic research on biomass-to-liquid (BTL) [30,31] processes. It is responsible for the production of more than 300,000 barrels per day of synthetic fuels [32,33,34,35], with some examples being Sasol I and II in South Africa (160,000 BPD), Pearl GTL (140,000 BPD), Oryx GTL (34,000 BPD), Shenhua CTL (20,000 BPD), and Shell Bintulu Malaysia (12,000 BPD). Water gas shift and steam reforming, used as a precursor to many of the aforementioned processes for hydrogen production, is used to produce nearly 70 million metric tons of hydrogen per year (based on 2018 data) [36]. Trajectories of hydrogen are likely to rise provided that the current demand for “clean” energy continues, coupled with the fact that companies are still developing hydrogen-powered cars [36]. It is not clear at this time how such an economy may develop. For example, one possibility is onboard reforming of a chemical carrier of hydrogen (e.g., light alcohols) [37,38,39,40,41], while other options include steam reforming, partial oxidation, and the gasification of various natural resources carried out at centralized or decentralized locations. Furthermore, iron, which is central to the high temperature water–gas shift step in fuel processors for hydrogen production, also serves to catalyze water–gas shift concurrently with FTS when the H2/CO ratio in syngas is low, as occurs with syngas derived from coal and biomass. In addition, the iron used in FTS helps to boost the selectivities of alcohols and olefins [16,42,43]. In fact, both iron and cobalt can be catalytically tuned to favor products for the oxygenate market or to provide feedstock to the olefin polymerization processes [16,17,44,45]. Plastics produced from the latter process serve as materials for packaging, healthcare, diagnostics, optics, electronics, and a host of other industries. Finally, the topic of CO2 utilization is becoming increasingly important to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. One key roadblock is having on-hand a renewable source of hydrogen. If these key metals have the ability to transform CO, there may be a path forward for developing them for CO2 utilization; research in this area is already under way [46].
However, although many of the catalytic processes mentioned above are run at commercial scales, they are still implemented with a certain degree of “blackbox” thinking. There are good reasons for this; although we understand, in general terms, the catalyst formulations and process conditions involved that will result in a variety of product distributions of interest, we do not, as of yet, have a clear understanding of what precisely constitutes the “active site”, which electronic and geometric effects are involved, how promoters and poisons influence the active site, and which elementary steps are involved in the complex surface reaction mechanisms [4,47,48,49,50,51,52]. A quick search from Google Scholar on the “Fischer Tropsch mechanism” resulted in over 6500 publications published in the past two years on this topic alone. The routes are not fully understood, and much more work is needed to bridge the gap between, on the one hand, density functional theory and microkinetic modeling, and, on the other hand, actual data (i.e., product workup, catalyst characterization) generated from the testing of industrially- and academically-relevant catalyst formulations. A multitude of unanswered questions come to the fore. (1) What is the rate limiting step of the mechanism and how can activity be improved? [53] (2) Which metals and promoters are most suitable for a specific process, and how do they work together to bring about the desired selectivity? [54,55,56] (3) Which specific reactor configurations and process conditions are superior for targeting specific product ranges? [57,58,59,60] (4) Which processes are involved in catalyst deactivation, which ones dominate, and how can they be managed? (5) What are the relationships between homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysts? [61].
Much of the importance of these metals lies in their ability to manage carbon, including the activation of carbon monoxide, the coupling of carbon with carbon, hydrogen, or oxygen [62], and the scission of the same, as well as their ability remove products, once formed [62]. The capacity for iron and cobalt to manage carbon creates an avenue for useful products to be constructed from much simpler molecules. This is a significant advantage over alternative approaches such as direct liquefaction and the upgrading of bio-oil produced from flash pyrolysis. For example, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis produce a plethora of paraffins, 1-olefins, and oxygenates from simply carbon monoxide and hydrogen. These products are then readily hydro-processed to produce alternative fuels (i.e., especially diesel and aviation fuels), as well as lubricants and waxes. The olefins and oxygenates produced can be used as feedstocks for various applications, including the manufacturing of plastics. Thus, deepening our understanding of how the properties of the catalyst and process conditions can be tuned will give rise to greater control of the product distribution [62].
This special series highlights the work of scientists and engineers from all over the world who embody the leading edge of catalyst research on cobalt and iron. This collection provides a broad overview of a multitude of processing routes. In addition to the aforementioned topics, global concerns also drive: environmentally-attractive catalysts through specific homogeneous asymmetric iron complexes [63], the development of consumer products (preservatives, cosmetics, and flavors) [64] and materials (inks, coating, and paints) [65], and effective waste water treatment [66]. Furthermore, environmental concerns necessitate not just the capture of CO2, but also its utilization as a means of mitigation [46,57,67]. Yet, alternative means of energy, such as hydrogen, may help limit harmful emissions and could also pave the way for change. The importance of cobalt, as a less expensive metal relative to the precious metals, for light-driven water oxidation [68] and electrochemical processes for hydrogen production [69] further highlights the potential of harnessing these metals in a way that benefits society. Regarding current methods that utilize carbon, such as the FTS process, a series of studies included here examine the effect of reaction conditions and promoters [70], investigate the kinetics [53,59,60], and examine the reaction route through computational modeling [71], with the aim of tailoring new formulations in a scientifically-driven manner [55,56,72]. This offers the potential to more effectively utilize the routes that are already available. Our aim is to tune [54] catalysts to efficiently produce fuels and chemicals in a more environmentally-benign manner.
The guest editors wish to thank all of the authors, reviewers, and editorial staff who took the time to contribute to and shape this special issue in a meaningful way. We dedicate this special issue to the memory of our mentor and friend, Professor Burtron H. Davis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Rooij, A. Engineering Contractors in the Chemical Industry. The Development of Ammonia Processes, 1910–1940. Hist. Technol. 2005, 21, 345–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schulz, H. Short history and present trends of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 1999, 186, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Khodakov, A.Y. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: Relations between structure of cobalt catalysts and their catalytic performance. Catal. Today 2009, 144, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Reaction mechanisms for iron catalysts. Catal. Today 2009, 141, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pirola, C.; Bianchi, C.; Di Michele, A.; Vitali, S.; Ragaini, V. Fischer Tropsch and Water Gas Shift chemical regimes on supported iron-based catalysts at high metal loading. Catal. Commun. 2009, 10, 823–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ma, W.; Jacobs, G.; Sparks, D.E.; Klettlinger, J.L.; Yen, C.H.; Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis and water gas shift kinetics for a precipitated iron catalyst. Catal. Today 2016, 275, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, W.; Jacobs, G.; Graham, U.M.; Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Effect of K Loading on the Water–Gas Shift Reaction and Liquid Hydrocarbon Formation Rate over Precipitated Iron Catalysts. Top. Catal. 2013, 57, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jacobs, G.; Ricote, S.; Graham, U.M.; Davis, B.H. Low Temperature Water–Gas Shift Reaction: Interactions of Steam and CO with Ceria Treated with Different Oxidizing and Reducing Environments. Catal. Lett. 2014, 145, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jacobs, G.; Chenu, E.; Patterson, P.M.; Williams, L.; Sparks, D.; Thomas, G.; Davis, B.H. Water-gas shift: Comparative screening of metal promoters for metal/ceria systems and role of the metal. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 2004, 258, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Laurent, E.; Delmon, B. Influence of oxygen-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-containing compounds on the hydrodeoxygenation of phenols over sulfided cobalt-molybdenum/gamma.-alumina and nickel-molybdenum/.gamma.-alumina catalysts. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 2516–2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stürzel, M.; Mihan, S.; Mülhaupt, R. From Multisite Polymerization Catalysis to Sustainable Materials and All-Polyolefin Composites. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 1398–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sollner, J.; Gonzalez, D.; Leal, J.; Eubanks, T.; Parsons, J. HDS of dibenzothiophene with CoMoS2 synthesized using elemental sulfur. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2017, 466, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pelardy, F.; Dos Santos, A.S.; Daudin, A.; Devers, É.; Belin, T.; Brunet, S. Sensitivity of supported MoS2-based catalysts to carbon monoxide for selective HDS of FCC gasoline: Effect of nickel or cobalt as promoter. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2017, 206, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chada, J.P.; Xu, Z.; Zhao, D.; Watson, R.B.; Brammer, M.; Bigi, M.; Rosenfeld, D.C.; Hermans, I.; Huber, G.W. Oligomerization of 1-butene over carbon-supported CoO x and subsequent isomerization/hydroformylation to n-nonanal. Catal. Commun. 2018, 114, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kostyniuk, A.; Key, D.; Mdleleni, M. 1-hexene isomerization over bimetallic M-Mo-ZSM-5 (M: Fe, Co, Ni) zeolite catalysts: Effects of transition metals addition on the catalytic performance. J. Energy Inst. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ao, M.; Pham, G.H.; Sunarso, J.; Tade, M.O.; Liu, S. Active Centers of Catalysts for Higher Alcohol Synthesis from Syngas: A Review. ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 7025–7050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nebel, J.; Schmidt, S.; Pan, Q.; Lotz, K.; Kaluza, S.; Muhler, M. On the role of cobalt carbidization in higher alcohol synthesis over hydrotalcite-based Co-Cu catalysts. Chin. J. Catal. 2019, 40, 1731–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pan, W. Direct alcohol synthesis using copper/cobalt catalysts. J. Catal. 1988, 114, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giannakis, S.; Liu, S.; Carratalà, A.; Rtimi, S.; Amiri, M.T.; Bensimon, M.; Pulgarin, C. Iron oxide-mediated semiconductor photocatalysis vs. heterogeneous photo-Fenton treatment of viruses in wastewater. Impact of the oxide particle size. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 339, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arcanjo, G.S.; Mounteer, A.H.; Bellato, C.R.; Da Silva, L.M.M.; Dias, S.H.B.; Da Silva, P.R. Heterogeneous photocatalysis using TiO2 modified with hydrotalcite and iron oxide under UV–visible irradiation for color and toxicity reduction in secondary textile mill effluent. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 211, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghosh, K.; Harms, K.; Franconetti, A.; Frontera, A.; Chattopadhyay, S. A triple alkoxo bridged dinuclear cobalt(III) complex mimicking phosphatase and showing ability to degrade organic dye contaminants by photocatalysis. J. Organomet. Chem. 2019, 883, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with Projections to 2050. In E.I. Administration; U.S. Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; p. 161.
  23. Panahi, M.; Yasari, E.; Rafiee, A. Multi-objective optimization of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) process with staged Fischer-Tropsch reactor. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 163, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Behroozsarand, A.; Zamaniyan, A. Simulation and optimization of an integrated GTL process. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2315–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ushakov, S.; Halvorsen, N.G.; Valland, H.; Williksen, D.H.; Æsøy, V. Emission characteristics of GTL fuel as an alternative to conventional marine gas oil. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2013, 18, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kong, Z.; Dong, X.; Jiang, Q. Forecasting the development of China’s coal-to-liquid industry under security, economic and environmental constraints. Energy Econ. 2019, 80, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, X.; Zhang, H.; Qiu, R.; Lv, M.; Xiang, C.; Long, Y.; Liang, Y. A two-stage stochastic programming model for the optimal planning of a coal-to-liquids supply chain under demand uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Qin, S.; Chang, S.; Yao, Q. Modeling, thermodynamic and techno-economic analysis of coal-to-liquids process with different entrained flow coal gasifiers. Appl. Energy 2018, 229, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramos, Á.; García-Contreras, R.; Armas, O. Performance, combustion timing and emissions from a light duty vehicle at different altitudes fueled with animal fat biodiesel, GTL and diesel fuels. Appl. Energy 2016, 182, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hunpinyo, P.; Narataruksa, P.; Tungkamani, S.; Pana-Suppamassadu, K.; Chollacoop, N.; Sukkathanyawat, H.; Jiamrittiwong, P. A comprehensive small and pilot-scale fixed-bed reactor approach for testing Fischer–Tropsch catalyst activity and performance on a BTL route. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S2806–S2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rimkus, A.; Zaglinskis, J.; Rapalis, P.; Skačkauskas, P. Research on the combustion, energy and emission parameters of diesel fuel and a biomass-to-liquid (BTL) fuel blend in a compression-ignition engine. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 106, 1109–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dimitriou, I.; Goldingay, H.; Bridgwater, A.V. Techno-economic and uncertainty analysis of Biomass to Liquid (BTL) systems for transport fuel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Trippe, F.; Fröhling, M.; Schultmann, F.; Stahl, R.; Henrich, E. Techno-economic assessment of gasification as a process step within biomass-to-liquid (BtL) fuel and chemicals production. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92, 2169–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Swain, P.K.; Das, L.; Naik, S. Biomass to liquid: A prospective challenge to research and development in 21st century. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4917–4933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vallentin, D. Policy drivers and barriers for coal-to-liquids (CtL) technologies in the United States. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 3198–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. The Future of Hydrogen, Seizing Today’s Opportunities; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019; p. 203.
  37. Palo, D.R.; Dagle, R.A.; Holladay, J.D. Methanol Steam Reforming for Hydrogen Production. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 3992–4021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Evin, H.N.; Jacobs, G.; Ruiz-Martinez, J.; Graham, U.M.; Dozier, A.; Thomas, G.; Davis, B.H. Low Temperature Water–Gas Shift/Methanol Steam Reforming: Alkali Doping to Facilitate the Scission of Formate and Methoxy C–H Bonds over Pt/ceria Catalyst. Catal. Lett. 2007, 122, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ribeiro, M.C.; Jacobs, G.; Davis, B.H.; Mattos, L.V.; Noronha, F.B. Ethanol Steam Reforming: Higher Dehydrogenation Selectivities Observed by Tuning Oxygen-Mobility and Acid/Base Properties with Mn in CeO2·MnOx·SiO2 Catalysts. Top. Catal. 2013, 56, 1634–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Lima, S.M.; Colman, R.C.; Jacobs, G.; Davis, B.H.; Souza, K.R.; De Lima, A.F.; Appel, L.G.; Mattos, L.V.; Noronha, F.B. Hydrogen production from ethanol for PEM fuel cells. An integrated fuel processor comprising ethanol steam reforming and preferential oxidation of CO. Catal. Today 2009, 146, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Jia, P.; Dong, D.; Wang, Y.; Hu, S.; Xiang, J.; Liu, Q.; Hu, X. Ethanol steam reforming over cobalt catalysts: Effect of a range of additives on the catalytic behaviors. J. Energy Inst. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tian, Z.; Wang, C.; Si, Z.; Ma, L.; Chen, L.; Liu, Q.; Zhanga, Q.; Huanga, H. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to light olefins over iron-based catalysts supported on KMnO4 modified activated carbon by a facile method. Appl. Catal., A 2017, 541, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Y.; Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Conversion of alcohols over iron oxide and iron carbide catalysts. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 1999, 180, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boahene, P.E.; Dalai, A.K. Higher Alcohols Synthesis: Experimental and Process Parameters Study over a CNH-Supported KCoRhMo Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 13552–13565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xiang, Y.; Kruse, N. Tuning the catalytic CO hydrogenation to straight- and long-chain aldehydes/alcohols and olefins/paraffins. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Shafer, W.D.; Jacobs, G.; Graham, U.M.; Hamdeh, H.H.; Davis, B.H. Increased CO2 hydrogenation to liquid products using promoted iron catalysts. J. Catal. 2019, 369, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, W.; Filot, I.A.W.; Pestman, R.; Hensen, E.J.M. Mechanism of Cobalt-Catalyzed CO Hydrogenation: 2. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. ACS Catal. 2017, 7, 8061–8071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chakrabarti, D.; Gnanamani, M.K.; Shafer, W.D.; Ribeiro, M.C.; Sparks, D.E.; Prasad, V.; De Klerk, A.; Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch Mechanism: 13C18O Tracer Studies on a Ceria–Silica Supported Cobalt Catalyst and a Doubly Promoted Iron Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 6438–6453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Todic, B.; Ma, W.; Jacobs, G.; Davis, B.H.; Bukur, D.B. CO-insertion mechanism based kinetic model of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis reaction over Re-promoted Co catalyst. Catal. Today 2014, 228, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Van Santen, R.A.; Markvoort, A.J.; Filot, I.A.W.; Ghouri, M.M.; Hensen, E.J.M. Mechanism and microkinetics of the Fischer–Tropsch reaction. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 17038–17063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: Current mechanism and futuristic needs. Fuel Process. Technol. 2001, 71, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Muleja, A.A.; Gorimbo, J.; Masuku, C.M. Effect of Co-Feeding Inorganic and Organic Molecules in the Fe and Co Catalyzed Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: A Review. Catalysts 2019, 9, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Qi, Y.; Yang, J.; Holmen, A.; Chen, D. Investigation of C1 + C1 Coupling Reactions in Cobalt-Catalyzed Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis by a Combined DFT and Kinetic Isotope Study. Catalysts 2019, 9, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Shafer, W.D.; Gnanamani, M.K.; Graham, U.M.; Yang, J.; Masuku, C.M.; Jacobs, G.; Davis, B.H. Fischer–Tropsch: Product Selectivity—The Fingerprint of Synthetic Fuels. Catalysts 2019, 9, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Ma, W.; Jacobs, G.; Shafer, W.D.; Ji, Y.; Klettlinger, J.L.S.; Khalid, S.; Hopps, S.D.; Davis, B.H. Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: Cd, In and Sn Effects on a 15%Co/Al2O3 Catalyst. Catalysts 2019, 9, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Mierczynski, P.; Dawid, B.; Chalupka, K.; Maniukiewicz, W.; Witoska, I.; Vasilev, K.; Szynkowska, M.I. Comparative Studies of Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis on Iron Catalysts Supported on Al2O3-Cr2O3 (2:1), Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes or BEA Zeolite Systems. Catalysts 2019, 9, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Iloy, R.A.; Jalama, K. Effect of Operating Temperature, Pressure and Potassium Loading on the Performance of Silica-Supported Cobalt Catalyst in CO2 Hydrogenation to Hydrocarbon Fuel. Catalysts 2019, 9, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Keyvanloo, K.; Huang, B.; Okeson, T.; Hamdeh, H.H.; Hecker, W.C. Effect of Support Pretreatment Temperature on the Performance of an Iron Fischer–Tropsch Catalyst Supported on Silica-Stabilized Alumina. Catalysts 2018, 8, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Mohammad, N.; Bepari, S.; Aravamudhan, S.; Kuila, D. Kinetics of Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis in a 3-D Printed Stainless Steel Microreactor Using Different Mesoporous Silica Supported Co-Ru Catalysts. Catalysts 2019, 9, 872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Petersen, A.P.; Claeys, M.; Kooyman, P.J.; Van Steen, E. Cobalt-Based Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: A Kinetic Evaluation of Metal–Support Interactions Using an Inverse Model System. Catalysts 2019, 9, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Bungane, N.; Welker, C.; Van Steen, E.; Claeys, M. Fischer-Tropsch CO-Hydrogenation on SiO2-supported Osmium Complexes. Z. Nat. B 2008, 63, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schmal, M. Heterogeneous Catalysis and its Industrial Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Slagmaat, C.A.M.R.; Chou, K.C.; Morick, L.; Hadavi, D.; Blom, B.; De Wildeman, S.M.A. Synthesis and Catalytic Application of Knölker-Type Iron Complexes with a Novel Asymmetric Cyclopentadienone Ligand Design. Catalysts 2019, 9, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Li, Y.; Yang, Y.; Chen, D.; Luo, Z.; Wang, W.; Ao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yan, Z.; Wang, J. Liquid-Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Limonene to Carvone over ZIF-67(Co). Catalysts 2019, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Simpson, N.; Maaijen, K.; Roelofsen, Y.; Hage, R. The Evolution of Catalysis for Alkyd Coatings: Responding to Impending Cobalt Reclassification with Very Active Iron and Manganese Catalysts, Using Polydentate Nitrogen Donor Ligands. Catalysts 2019, 9, 825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yang, B.; Qi, Y.; Liu, R. Pilot-Scale Production, Properties and Application of Fe/Cu Catalytic-Ceramic-Filler for Nitrobenzene Compounds Wastewater Treatment. Catalysts 2018, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Chou, C.Y.; Loiland, J.A.; Lobo, R.F. Reverse Water-Gas Shift Iron Catalyst Derived from Magnetite. Catalysts 2019, 9, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nesterov, D.S.; Nesterova, O.V. Polynuclear Cobalt Complexes as Catalysts for Light-Driven Water Oxidation: A Review of Recent Advances. Catalysts 2018, 8, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Li, K.; Li, Y.; Peng, W.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, F.; Fan, X. Bimetallic Iron–Cobalt Catalysts and Their Applications in Energy-Related Electrochemical Reactions. Catalysts 2019, 9, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bin Jo, S.; Chae, H.J.; Kim, T.Y.; Lee, C.H.; Oh, J.U.; Kang, S.-H.; Kim, J.W.; Jeong, M.; Lee, S.C.; Kim, J.C. Selective CO hydrogenation over bimetallic Co-Fe catalysts for the production of light paraffin hydrocarbons (C2-C4): Effect of H2/CO ratio and reaction temperature. Catal. Commun. 2018, 117, 74–78. [Google Scholar]
  71. Williams, H.; Gnanamani, M.K.; Jacobs, G.; Shafer, W.D.; Coulliette, D. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Computational Sensitivity Modeling for Series of Cobalt Catalysts. Catalysts 2019, 9, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Gavrilović, L.; Blekkan, A.; Save, J. The Effect of Potassium on Cobalt-Based Fischer–Tropsch Catalysts with Different Cobalt Particle Sizes. Catalysts 2019, 9, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shafer, W.D.; Jacobs, G. Editorial: Cobalt and Iron Catalysis. Catalysts 2020, 10, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10010036

AMA Style

Shafer WD, Jacobs G. Editorial: Cobalt and Iron Catalysis. Catalysts. 2020; 10(1):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10010036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shafer, Wilson D., and Gary Jacobs. 2020. "Editorial: Cobalt and Iron Catalysis" Catalysts 10, no. 1: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10010036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop