Next Article in Journal
Engineering Calculations for Catalytic Hydrolysis of CF4
Previous Article in Journal
General Applicable Residence Time Distribution Model to Estimate Reaction Rates in a Rotor–Stator Spinning Disc Reactor
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
ChemEngineering
Volume 9
Issue 1
10.3390/chemengineering9010009
ChemEngineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development of Novel Monolithic Catalyst for BTEX Catalytic Oxidation Using 3D Printing Technology

by
Filip Car
1,*,
Vjeran Gomzi
2,
Vesna Tomašić
1,
Domagoj Vrsaljko
1 and
Stanislav Kurajica
1
1
Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology; University of Zagreb, Marulićev trg 19, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
ChemEngineering 2025, 9(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering9010009
Submission received: 12 December 2024 / Revised: 30 December 2024 / Accepted: 8 January 2025 / Published: 13 January 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Four differently shaped monolithic catalyst supports were made using 3D printing technology. Two catalytically active mixed oxides, MnFeOx and MnCuOx, were applied to the monolithic supports using the impregnation technique. Catalysts were characterized using an adhesion test, field emission scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and Raman spectroscopy in a manner similar to the density functional theory model. Excellent mechanical stability of the catalyst layer was obtained, with catalyst mass loss under 2% after 30 min of ultrasound exposure. SEM analysis revealed that the catalyst layer was rough but homogeneous in appearance and ~6 μm thick. The presence of double oxides—FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4—as well as single oxides of Mn, Fe, and Cu was established via XRD and Raman spectroscopy. Additional theoretical calculations of Raman spectra for FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4 were performed in order to aid in the interpretation of Raman spectra. The catalytic activity of the prepared catalysts for the catalytic oxidation of a gaseous mixture of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylene (BTEX) was investigated. The monolithic support with the most complex shape and, consequently, the greatest surface area proved to enable the highest efficiency, while both catalysts performed well having similar conversions.

1. Introduction

Air pollution is a serious problem due to its harmful effects on human health and well-being, as well as numerous undesirable consequences for the environment. Due to rapid industrial development and anthropogenic activities, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released into the environment in significant quantities. VOCs are organic compounds whose boiling point is less than or equal to 250 °C, measured at a standard pressure of 101.3 kPa [1,2]. They remain in the atmosphere for several hours to months, spreading rapidly over long distances during this time.
Aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzene (C6H6), toluene (C6H5CH3), ethylbenzene (C6H5CH2CH3), and xylene (C6H4(CH3)2), or BTEX for short, account for 20–40% of total VOC emissions [3]. Although these compounds also occur naturally, the main sources of BTEX are anthropogenic, and the largest emissions are from motor vehicle exhausts [2,3,4]. These BTEX compounds have adverse effects on human health and the environment, and the effects themselves depend on several factors such as the amount, duration of exposure, and the type of BTEX compound. Acute and prolonged exposure can cause neurological and respiratory problems as well as damage to the central nervous system [5,6,7]. There are a number of technologies and processes aimed at reducing or mitigating the emission of VOCs to the atmosphere, with catalytic oxidation proving to be one of the most efficient and economically acceptable processes [8,9,10,11]. Numerous research efforts have been devoted to various types of catalysts for the catalytic oxidation of the aromatic VOCs, in particular noble metal-based catalysts, non-noble metal oxide catalysts, perovskites, spinels, dual-functional adsorbent-catalysts, etc. BTEX are very stable compounds due to the presence of a stable benzene ring and a corresponding substituted group on benzene (methyl or ethyl). The order in which BTEX are oxidized is usually determined by the strength of the weakest C-H bond. Depending on catalyst type and operating conditions, a possible pathway for toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene oxidation likely involves the break-off of the methyl or ethyl groups on the aromatic compound to produce benzene and some intermediates, which are further oxidized during the ring-opening process and mineralized into H2O and CO2 as final products of total oxidation. It is also important to note that the oxidation of BTEX mixtures may differ from the oxidation of a single BTEX compound due to the various affinities of the aromatic compounds to the catalyst surface, resulting in variations in oxidation efficiency and product formation. Although extensive research has been carried out on treating gaseous BTEX in recent years, little attention has been paid to the development of monolithic catalysts, which are generally used to remove VOCs and other gaseous pollutants from exhaust gases. Monolithic catalysts used for catalytic oxidation are usually produced by traditional extrusion methods. Recently, the process intensification methodology has been used to develop more advanced techniques for the fabrication of structured catalysts. In this context, 3D printing technology is utilized to manufacture products with complex geometries that are very difficult or impossible to produce using traditional technologies [12,13,14,15]. 3D printing technology is based on manufacturing by deposition of the selected material layer by layer. It enables rapid and precise fabrication of complex-shaped catalysts and chemical reactors, including monolithic structures that can be used for the catalytic oxidation process. Over the last 40 years, this process has been intensively developed and researched; today, numerous polymer [16,17], metal [18,19], composite [20,21,22], and ceramic materials can be used to fabricate monoliths [23,24].
In addition to fabricating a monolithic catalyst support, the development of a monolithic catalyst includes the deposition of catalytically active components on the support, testing the mechanical stability of the catalyst layer, and testing the activity of the catalyst under specific operating conditions. Kim et al. [25] and Liotta et al. [26] showed numerous examples of the use of noble metals (Pt, Pd, Rh, Ag, Ru, and Au) as catalytically active components for the catalytic oxidation of VOCs. Santos et al. [27] used Pt, Pd, Ir, Rh, and Au on TiO2 (Degussa P 25) as a support for the oxidation of CO, ethanol, and toluene. The incipient wet impregnation technique (IMP)—a similar technique to the one used in this work—and the liquid phase reduction deposition (LPRD) technique were both used to deposit the catalyst layer onto the surface of the support. Based on the obtained results, they conclude that the catalytic trend in VOC oxidation did not change with respect to the preparation method chosen. The Pt/TiO2 was found to be the most active catalyst for the oxidation of VOCs, followed by Pd/TiO2, Rh/TiO2, and Ir/TiO2, while Au/TiO2 showed the lowest catalytic activity. Abbasi et al. [28] also used Pt for the oxidation of BTX (benzene, toluene, and xylene) but in the form of a nanostructured Pt/Al2O3-CeO2 catalyst. The same technique as in this work (wet impregnation) was used to deposit Pt onto the support particles. The authors showed that the prepared catalyst was highly active and could completely remove toluene and xylene at 250 °C; however, only a 78% conversion of benzene was observed at the same temperature. This was mainly attributed to the greater stability of the aromatic ring of benzene. Morales-Torres et al. [29] presented a similar trend in the catalytic oxidation of BTX, where Pt and Pd were deposited onto different carbon-based supports such as aerogels, nanofibers, coatings, and structured monoliths with different porosity and surface chemistry. For all catalyst and support combinations used, complete conversion of BTX components was achieved at temperatures below 190 °C. On the other hand, Li et al. [30] used metal monoliths made of FeCrAl fibers onto which they deposited Pt by spraying nanoparticles and then dried and calcined them (5 h at 500 °C) to form a stable catalyst layer on their surface. The authors reported that the Pt loading was 0.1 wt% and the T90 of all volatile organic compounds tested (toluene, hexane, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, and dimethylformamide) was reached at 300 °C or below, except for ethyl acetate, where the T90 was reached at 374 °C. Based on that research, it can be concluded that noble metals are great catalysts in terms of activity; however, they also have their shortcomings, such as high cost and the possibility of poisoning, which significantly affect their use in catalytic activities.
Possible substitutes for precious metals are the oxides of transition metals (M = Mn, Fe, Cu, Ni, Co, etc.), which, although they have lower catalytic activity compared with precious metals, are much cheaper and less prone to cause poisoning [31,32,33,34]. Morales at el. [35] prepared powdered Mn-Cu oxides using the co-precipitation technique with different aging times (4, 18, and 24 h). These catalysts were used for the oxidation of ethanol and propane. The results showed that the prepared mixed oxides of Mn and Cu had higher catalytic activity than the pure Mn2O3 and CuO oxides. The authors found an interesting correlation between the catalyst aging time and catalyst efficiency, as the catalysts that were aged longer exhibited higher catalytic activity. This correlation was attributed to the formation of the Cu1.5Mn1.5O4 species—whose formation is favored with increasing aging time—and to the reduction of the CuO species—which are less catalytically active. Duplančić et al. [36] also worked with the Mn mixed oxides (mixed oxides of Mn and Ni) in powder form and compared them with the Mn-Ni oxides deposited onto metallic catalyst supports such as the Al/Al2O3 plates. The prepared mixed oxides showed remarkable activity for the oxidation of toluene at low temperatures. The presented results showed that the monolithic catalyst (Al/Al2O3-MnNi) achieved a 13-fold higher conversion of toluene with a 20-fold lower catalyst mass compared with MnNi in the form of a powder. Conversions of over 90% were achieved at temperatures around 200 °C, which is crucial for the practical application of such catalysts. Qin et al. [37] investigated iron oxide as a promoter for the catalytic oxidation of toluene over Fe-Mn catalysts supported on γ-Al2O3. The authors presented the effects of Mn and Fe loading of the tested supports on toluene conversion at different reaction temperatures. They found that after 5–20% MnO2 loading of γ-Al2O3, the toluene conversion was higher compared with pure MnO2, but the toluene oxidation was not significantly promoted when the MnO2 loading was increased above 15%. For γ-Al2O3 with 15% of MnO2, a toluene conversion of greater than 92% was observed at 300 °C. When the Fe (in the form of Fe2O3) was introduced, it was found that the optimum Fe2O3 loading was 10%. With γ-Al2O3 loaded with 10% of Fe2O3 and 15% of MnO2, a 95% conversion of toluene at 300 °C was achieved, and it was found that the addition of Fe increased the stability and moisture tolerance of the tested catalyst. Einaga et al. [38] compared mixed oxides of Mn with Cu, Co, Fe, and Ni on SiO2 supports for the oxidation of benzene using ozone as a oxidant in a fixed-bed flow reactor. The steady state catalytic activity decreased in the following order: Mn-Cu > Mn-Fe > Mn-Ni > Mn-Co. The catalysts were prepared using the impregnation technique, and the authors tested the effects of different calcination temperatures (400–600 °C) on the catalytic activity. The authors reported that the optimum catalyst was obtained at a Mn-Cu ratio of 1:1 and a calcination temperature of 600 °C.
Based on our previous research [24,39], we designed our present study with the aim of developing a new generation of monolithic catalysts for the catalytic oxidation of BTEX compounds using stereolithography (SLA) technology to fabricate the monolithic catalyst supports. The catalytically active layer consists of mixed MnFe and MnCu oxides with a Mn to Fe or Cu ratio of 1:1. The catalytic properties were tested at different temperatures, a constant flow rate of the reaction mixture, a constant initial concentration of the BTEX mixture, and at a constant mass or layer thickness of the catalyst layer. The fabricated ceramic monolithic catalysts with different geometries and surface areas were compared with a commercial cordierite catalyst support onto which the same catalytically active components were deposited (using the same application technique).
SLA has not been sufficiently explored as one of the possible procedures within additive manufacturing technologies for the production of ceramic catalyst supports. Therefore, this work not only aims to address this shortcoming but also to contribute to the implementation of SLA as an advanced technology for the development of novel monolithic catalysts with different geometries for potential application in environmental protection.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of Monolithic Catalyst Supports

Monolithic catalyst supports were fabricated using SLA technology using a Form 2 (Formlabs; Somerville, MA, USA) 3D printer and Ceramic Resin [40] obtained from the same manufacturer. 3D models were designed using Autodesk Fusion 360, and 3D printing parameters were defined using a PreForm slicer (Formlabs; Somerville, MA, USA). The 3D printing parameters that need to be defined include the layer thickness of 100 µm and correction (scaling) factors to ensure that the 3D-printed monolith maintains the desired dimensions after heat treatment and sintering of the ceramic particles. These correction factors were defined as described in our previous study [24]. In the z-axis direction, the so-called Z-scale factor was defined as 1.12, while in the x- and y-axis directions, the correction factor was 1.14. After 3D printing, the monolithic catalyst supports were separated from the raft, the support structure was mechanically removed, and the channels of the supports were washed with i-propanol (Gram-Mol d.o.o; Zagreb, Croatia) to remove residual uncured resin. The monolithic structure was then heat treated according to the manufacturer’s instructions [40]. Heat treatment began with heating to a temperature of 240 °C, at which point the polymer component of the resin thermally decomposed. A sufficiently long period of time was required for the polymer to be completely removed, as the duration depends on the wall thickness of the monolithic structure. Removal of the polymer was followed by further heating to a temperature of 300 °C to ensure thermal decomposition of all remaining particles of the polymer phase, followed by heating to 1270 °C, resulting in sintering of the ceramic particles. The last step involved slow cooling to room temperature in order to avoid cracks in the structure, i.e., heat shocks.

2.2. Deposition of the Catalytically Active Components and Characterization

The catalyst supports fabricated by SLA were used as inert supports for the catalytically active components, and four different geometries were used in this work. Simpler and more complex geometries with and without an outer shell were studied and compared. The prepared monolithic structures were first washed with 95% ethanol (Gram-Mol d.o.o; Zagreb, Croatia) to remove surface impurities and then dried in a laboratory oven at 120 °C for 30 min. Three 1 M aqueous solutions of nitrate salts (catalytic precursors) were prepared for the application—using the wet impregnation method—of three catalytically active components: manganese(II) nitrate tetrahydrate (Fischer Chemical; Loughborough, LE, UK), copper(II) nitrate trihydrate (Honeywell Chemicals; Morristown, NJ, USA), and iron(III) nitrate nonahydrate (VWR Chemicals BDH, Radnor, PA, USA). The solutions of the catalytic precursors were prepared with stirring using a magnetic stirrer (IKA RCT basic; Staufen, Germany). The impregnation solutions were prepared by mixing 10 mL of an aqueous solution of Mn(NO3)2 × 4H2O and 10 mL of an aqueous solution of Fe or Cu. A total of 8 different monolithic catalysts were prepared, i.e., both combinations of catalytically active components were applied to all four different support geometries. In the last step of catalyst preparation, the monolithic supports were immersed in the previously prepared solutions of the catalytic precursors. The impregnation process was carried out for 30 min, and the monoliths were then dried at 120 °C (1 h) and calcined at 500 °C (2 h). During calcination, the monolithic catalyst turns black, indicating the oxidation of the precursors and the formation of mixed metal oxides. The prepared catalysts were named MnFeOx and MnCuOx; a pure MnOx catalyst was used as the control.

2.3. Testing the Mechanical Stability of the Catalyst Layer

Good mechanical stability of the catalyst layer is one of the most important properties that any monolithic catalyst must meet prior to the start of testing in the reactor system in order to ensure safe and representative performance of catalytic activity measurements. Testing of the mechanical stability of the catalyst layer was performed in an Elmasonic S 30 H ultrasonic bath (Elma, Koprivnica, Croatia) with an operating frequency of 37 kHz. The measurements were performed on a series of five plates with dimensions 2 cm × 1 cm × 2 mm, onto which MnFeOx was deposited in the same way as in the preparation of monolithic catalysts. The test was performed by immersing each plate in a bottle of petroleum ether and sonicating it with ultrasound (US) for 30 min at room temperature in a water bath. The same principle of adhesion testing was used by Wu et al. [41], Barbero et al. [42], and Aguero et al. [43]. The plates were then dried in a laboratory oven (30 min) at 100 °C, cooled to room temperature, and weighed. The difference in mass before and after ultrasonic exposure provided information about the adhesion of the catalyst layer to the 3D-printed ceramic plates.

2.4. Testing of Morphology and Phase Composition of the Catalyst

The morphology and the thickness of the catalyst layer were examined using a JEOL JSM-7000F field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM; JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). Phase composition of the mixed oxides was determined by X-ray diffraction using a Shimadzu (Tokyo, Japan) XRD 6000 instrument with Cu Kα radiation. Raman spectra were acquired using a Renishaw InVia confocal Raman microscope (laser wavelength: 785 nm, laser power: 0.1 mV, resolution: 1 cm−1, exposition: 10 s, accumulation: 5).
To gain additional insight into the vibrational modes of the catalyst samples, the Raman spectra were theoretically modeled for the MnFeOx and MnCuOx crystal grains with at least three unit cells in each crystallographic direction. Frequency calculation was performed using the long-range corrected hybrid density functional theory (wB97XD) of Chai and Head-Gordon [44] with the triple zeta valence basis set (TZVP) of Schaefer et al. [45] as implemented in the Gaussian16 suite [46]. For modeling the electrical properties of a larger medium, the Self-Consistent Reaction Field approach was used in the Polarizable Continuum Model approximation, using the dielectric constant of ε0 = 14 for CuMn2O4 and ε0 = 20 for FeMnO3 [47].

2.5. Catalytic Oxidation of BTEX Compounds

Catalytic oxidation of the gaseous BTEX mixture (Messer; Pančevo, Serbia) was carried out in a tubular reactor filled with a previously fabricated monolithic ceramic catalyst. The apparatus for catalytic oxidation consists of a reactor housing (stainless steel tube, 0.07 cm in diameter and 18 cm in length) with a monolithic catalyst and two mass flow controllers—MFCs—(for the BTEX Brooks SLA5850, Brooks Instruments; Hatfield, PA, USA), as well as synthetic air (Brooks 4850, Brooks Instruments; Hatfield, PA, USA), a temperature measurement and control system (TC), a gas chromatograph for on-line analysis of the reaction mixture at the reactor outlet, and computers for the acquisition and processing of experimental data.
A quartz infill (4 cm long rod) was placed at the reactor inlet at the bottom of the reactor between two layers of quartz wool in order to avoid dead volume in the reactor and to preheat the reaction mixture to the operating temperature. The monolithic catalyst was placed above the quartz filling, followed by another layer of quartz wool. For temperature control, a thermocouple was installed in the central part of the reactor and connected to the temperature control unit. At the outlet of the reactor, the reaction mixture was analyzed using a gas chromatograph (Shimadzu GC-2014; Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and an RTX-WAX (Restek; supplied by AnAs d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia) capillary column. The conditions for chromatographic analysis were as follows: the support gas was nitrogen; the on-column injector temperature was 200 °C; the column temperature was 100 °C; and the FID temperature was 200 °C. The injected sample volume was 0.5 cm3, defined by the volume of the sample loop. The reaction was monitored by determining the conversion of the BTEX components after reaching a steady state (4τ) in the reactor. The starting reaction mixture of BTEX contained 50 ppm of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylene in nitrogen. The catalytic oxidation was carried out at atmospheric pressure, at different temperatures (100–350 °C), and at a constant total flow rate (92 mL/min) of the reaction mixture. The reaction mixture of BTEX (80 mL/min) and synthetic air (12 mL/min) flowed from the bottom to the top of the reactor containing the monolithic catalyst.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Preparation of the Ceramic Monolithic Catalyst Supports, Impregnation, and Thermal Treatment

Table 1 show the geometries and corresponding geometric surface areas of the monolithic catalyst supports calculated using Autodesk Fusion 360.
The length of all 3D-printed monoliths is 40 mm, while their outer diameter is 7 mm. CAD models of the 3D-printed catalyst supports are shown in Figure S1. Although the main function of the auxiliary elements (on the outer shell of models PS and SS) is to prevent the movement of the monolith inside the metal tube of the reactor, these elements also increase the geometrical surface area of the catalyst, which has a favorable effect on the obtained conversions. Due to the heat treatment of the green parts, a shrinkage of 12–13% was observed in the direction of the x-axis and the y-axis, while the shrinkage in the z-axis direction was 20–22%. To achieve the desired dimensions of the catalyst supports after the heat treatment, dimensional correction factors (1.12 in the direction of the x-axis and the y-axis; 1.21 in the direction of the z-axis) were used to enlarge the 3D-printed green parts. Images of the prepared supports are shown in Figure 1, left.
After the supports had been heat treated (Figure 1, left), they were examined to determine if any deformation or cracks occurred in the monolithic structure. The next step was the application of the catalyst layer with suitable precursors using the impregnation technique. After impregnation, the dried monoliths (Figure 1, center) were calcined (Figure 1, right) and a stable layer of mixed manganese oxides formed on the surface of the monolith with a characteristic black color.

3.2. Testing of the Mechanical Stability (Adhesion) of the Catalyst Layer

Before testing the catalytic activity of the monolithic catalysts, the mechanical stability of the catalyst layer, i.e., the mixed manganese oxides, was tested. Table 2 shows the test results for mixed manganese and iron oxides (MnFeOx) and mixed manganese and copper oxides (MnCuOx) deposited onto the test specimens (plates) prepared under the same conditions under which the monolithic catalysts were prepared. The mechanical stability test is of great importance for the potential application of the catalysts in real systems, where frequent and sudden changes in the operating conditions (volume flow rates of the gas mixture, temperature, etc.) may occur. The results obtained by applying ultrasound to the samples show that the mass loss of the catalyst layer is less than 2%, indicating excellent mechanical stability, i.e., adhesion of the catalyst. It was found that the mechanical stability of the catalyst is satisfactory, and it was confirmed that the applied method for the preparation of the catalyst layer is acceptable and was successfully performed.
Figure 2a shows the morphology of a heat-treated ceramic catalyst support without the mixed oxides applied. Because pores are rare, ceramics cannot be classified as porous, especially with pore sizes being roughly between 10 and 50 µm, i.e., macropores. As reported in our previous work [24], the specific surface area of the ceramic monolith samples, measured by the Brunauer–Emmet–Teller method (BET), was 0.76 m2/g, which is comparable to the specific surface area of commercially used cordierite monolithic catalyst supports. Figure 2b shows the morphology of the catalytically active layer on the surface of the ceramic support. The layer is rough but with a relatively homogenous appearance. The roughness and some surface irregularities can be attributed to the surface roughness of the support, as well as to the deposition technique followed by thermal treatment involving salt decomposition. The thickness of the catalyst layer has also been established via FESEM by cross-section analysis. As can be observed, the thickness can be roughly estimated to ~6 µm (Figure 2c). A comparison with the literature data [48,49] shows that this is a relatively thin catalyst layer, which makes it suitable for the oxidation of BTEX, especially since the reaction in the gaseous phase that occurs on the outer (geometric) surface of the catalyst is fast. For this reason, internal diffusion does not have a significant influence to the process rate; instead, the overall oxidation reaction rate depends almost entirely on the surface area of the catalyst.

3.3. Investigation of the Phase Composition of the Catalyst

Crystal phases were identified via X-ray diffraction analysis (Figure 3). The analysis confirmed the preparation of double oxides: FeMnO3 (ICDD PDF #75–0894) in the MnFeOx sample and CuMn2O4 (ICDD PDF #74–2422) in the MnCuOx sample. Diffraction patterns also revealed the presence of α-MnO2 (ICDD PDF No: 44–0141) and α-Mn2O3 (ICDD PDF No: 73–1826) in both samples. Finally, the diffraction pattern of the MnFeOx sample showed diffraction lines of Fe2O3 (ICDD PDF #72–0469), while the diffraction pattern of the MnCuOx sample showed diffraction lines of CuO (ICDD PDF #80–0076). Judging by the peak, the broadness crystallites are fine.
Additional characterization of the catalysts was performed using Raman spectroscopy as a technique complementary to XRD. Raman spectra of MnFeOx and MnCuOx are shown in Figure 4. The Raman spectrum of MnOx was also acquired for comparison and easier determination of characteristic peaks that appeared in both the pure and the mixed Mn oxides.
Raman spectra were measured in a range from 100 to 3500 cm−1; however, no characteristic Raman bands were observed in the range from 1000 to 3500 cm−1. Therefore, only bands in the 100 to 1000 cm−1 range are shown. As can be seen in Figure 4, the MnOx sample shows only very weak Raman bands at 303, 655, and 704 cm−1. The bands at 303 and 655 are ascribed to Mn2O3 [50,51] However, the band at 655 cm−1 could also be associated with Mn3O4 [52], as well as with MnO2 [51,53,54,55]. According to the literature [53], strong bands at 183, 574, and 634 cm−1 and weak bands at 330, 386, 512, and 753 cm−1 were expected on the Raman spectrum for α-MnO2. Julien et al. [56] distinguished three regions in the Raman spectra of Mn-based oxides: (a) the 200–450 cm−1 range (skeletal vibrations); (b) the 450–550 cm−1 range (deformation modes of the Mn-O-Mn chains in the octahedral lattice); and (c) the 550–750 cm−1 range (stretching modes of the Mn-O bonds in MnO6 octahedra). The absence of other expected peaks in the Raman spectra of MnOx was initially attributed to the low laser power of 0.1 mW. Additional Raman spectra of the samples were acquired using a different laser wavelength of 532 nm and a greater laser power of 0.86 mW (Figure S2) yielding no significant improvement.
Raman spectra of MnFeOx and MnCuOx samples have more characteristic bands having greater intensity. The Raman spectrum of MnFeOx has several contributions at 184, 230, 289, 577, and 643 cm−1. The strong bands at 184, 577, and 643 cm−1 can be attributed to MnO2 [51,53,54,55], even though the band at 643 cm−1 may also be evidence for the presence of Mn2O3 [50,51] However, the band at 184 cm−1 could also assigned to the external lattice vibration, while the bands at 577 cm−1 and 643 cm−1 could be attributed to the stretching mode in the Mn3+O6 octahedra along the chains of the MnO2 framework and to the symmetric stretching vibration in the Mn4+O6 octahedra, respectively [51]. According to the literature [54], the characteristic Raman bands for α-Fe2O3 appear in the range of 200–800 cm−1 with strong bands at about 221 and 288 cm−1. Thus, the Raman band at 289 cm−1 can be attributed to α-Fe2O3. Saravanakumar et al. [55] attributed Raman bands at 478 and 640 cm−1 to FeMnO3. However, the Raman band at 478 cm−1 was not observed in our Raman study, and a band at a similar wavelength (643 cm−1) is attributed to MnO2 or Mn2O3; therefore, these bands likely overlap. Three characteristic Raman bands at 318, 431, and 581 cm−1 were detected in the Raman spectra of MnCuOx. According to the vibrational spectra of CuO powder reported in the literature [57,58,59], the weak band at 318 cm−1 can be assigned to CuO. The strong Raman band at 581 cm−1 is attributed to MnO2. The observed wavenumbers 431 and 581 cm−1 are close to those reported in the literature (430 and 580 cm−1) for CuxMn3−xO4 [58]. Therefore, the accurate identification of the experimentally observed bands is again hindered by overlapping.

3.4. Theoretical Modeling of Raman Spectra for FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4

In order to shed some more light on the band positions of the two mixed metal oxides detected by XRD, theoretical calculations of the Raman spectra of FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4 were carried out and compared with the experimentally observed spectra of samples MnFeOx and MnCuOx (Figures S3 and S4). It should be stressed that the intensities of calculated spectra depend largely on the details of the theoretical approach (the presumed dielectric continuum model value or the applied density functional). On the other hand, the vibration frequencies are more robust. As can be observed in Figure S3, some of theoretical model structure peaks of FeMnO3 are at the approximate frequencies as the experimentally observed bands of the FeMnO3 catalyst (184, 230, 289 and 577 cm−1). The three lower frequencies are related to collective modes (Figure S5a–c) involving both Mn-O and Fe-O bond length changes, while the 577 cm−1 mode (Figure S5d) is related to the symmetrical oxygen vibration around the manganese centers, as mentioned previously and as referred to in previous findings [51]. Similar results were obtained by theoretical calculations of the CuMn2O4 Raman spectra (Figure S4), where two characteristic modes (318 and 431 cm−1) in the FeCuOx spectrum are reproduced within the CuMn2O4 structure model. These are theoretically predicted to be the result of oscillations involving Mn-O and Cu-O bond length changes (Figures S6a,b), respectively. The band at 581 cm−1 appears to have originated from the accumulated theoretically predicted vibrations in the 550–680 cm−1 range. However, theoretical spectra should be noted with great caution; the shortcomings of the applied theoretical approach stem predominantly from the model structure, which is limited in size (three-unit cells in each direction) in order to ease the calculation burden, as well as the fact that only the single phase model is used. This may lead to theoretical predictions of false-positive vibrations, i.e., vibrations that would be much more strongly damped in the real crystal, or of false-negative results, i.e., not predicting vibrations that might be existing in the real structure. In the present case, due to the limited crystallite size used in the model, a relatively large number of vibrational modes is theoretically predicted, e.g., a number of strong bands in the theoretical spectra in the range of between 300 and 500 cm−1 are likely an artifact produced by the small size of the theoretical crystal grain. Those modes will likely be strongly damped for larger-sized crystal grain samples, which limits the theoretical soundness of the model. Additional investigations are presently underway to correct these weaknesses.

3.5. Catalytic Activity of the Prepared Monolithic Catalysts

The influence of temperature on the conversion of benzene (B), toluene (T), ethylbenzene (E), and o-xylene (X) on the prepared monolithic catalysts of different geometries of the monolithic carriers was investigated. A comparison of the activities of monolithic catalysts of different geometries (expressed by geometric surface area) with respect to the chemical composition of the catalyst layer was also performed. Results of the catalytic activity tests are given graphically for benzene (Figure 5) and numerically for all VOCs tested (Table 3).
As can be observed in Figure 5 all curves showing the temperature dependence of the conversion had a characteristic S-shape (light-off curves). This was in line with expectations since such a curve shape is common for the oxidation of VOC compounds, as indicated by Soares et al. [60], Brunet et al. [61], Zedan et al. [62], and Gallegos et al. [63], where the catalytic oxidation of different VOC species was successfully performed with various catalysts. Table 3 shows the characteristic values of T50 and T90 (temperatures at which a 50% and a 90% conversion of BTEX components was achieved, calculated by using linear interpolation) that allow for a comparison of different catalysts. Data regarding the catalytic activity of a control group without the supports (empty reactor), using the same reactor set-up and chemical composition of the inlet gas, were published in our previous work [39]. The conversion values thus obtained show that benzene is the most persistent BTEX compound, followed by toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylene, respectively. Similar conversions were obtained with MnFeOx and MnCuOx, a result which is in good agreement with the experimental data presented in our previous work [39].
As expected, the data clearly show that the conversions increase with the increase in geometric surface area of the monolithic catalyst (Table 1). The greater catalytic activity is not only due to the greater surface but also to the greater mass of the catalyst. The masses of the catalyst layers (MnFeOx and MnCuOx) on the 3D-printed catalyst supports used for the catalytic measurements are given in Table 4. As expected, the mass of a catalyst strongly depends on surface size and shape, i.e., area of the support. An increase in the geometric surface area facilitates the deposition of the catalyst layer and ensures a larger and better dispersion of the active sites available for BTEX oxidation. Some differences (0.2 to 0.3 mg) were noted between masses of a different catalyst, applied on the same geometry of the supports. Those differences are due to the variances of chemical and phase compositions of catalysts. Finally, small differences were noted even for the same support and catalyst. This is a consequence of slight differences in surface morphology between 3D-printed supports of the same geometry. It should be emphasized that the last two noted differences have a negligible effect on the achieved conversions of BTEX compounds.
A comparison of the established catalytic activities with those obtained for the commercial cordierite monolithic support (square-shaped channels, with dimensions of 1 mm × 1 mm) with the same dimensions (7 mm in diameter, 40 mm in length), using the same catalyst [39], showed slightly better catalytic activity of the catalyst on commercial support. However, this was expected since the cordierite monolithic support had a larger geometric surface area (29 cm2) and used noble metals (Pt, Pd) as the catalytically active components. The data regarding the catalytic removal of the BTEX mixture also showed good agreement with the work of Abassi et al. [28], where a combination of Pt/Al2O3-CeO2 in the form of a nanocatalyst was used to oxidize a gaseous mixture of benzene, toluene, and xylene. Compared with the results reported by Genuino et al. [64], where an octahedral molecular sieve of cryptomelane type (OMS-2), amorphous manganese oxide (AMO), and mixed copper-manganese oxide (CuO/Mn2O3) were used for the catalytic oxidation of BTEX. The correlation, in terms of the trend of BTEX conversions obtained, is also similar to the trend of conversions reported in this work. It should be noted that the 3D-printed monolithic catalyst supports used in this work had relatively simple geometry. However, in our further research, more complex monolithic supports with a larger surface area will be fabricated for the same purpose, which may prove to be more catalytically efficient than commercial cordierite catalyst supports.

4. Conclusions

The present paper has reported the fabrication of new, small-scale catalytic monoliths with two mixed oxides—MnFeOx and MnCuOx—as the catalytically active components. The catalyst supports (monoliths) were prepared by stereolithography (SLA), which proved to be an excellent method for the preparation of ceramic monolithic catalysts. The prepared monoliths differed from each other by their characteristic geometry, which resulted in different surface areas of the prepared monolithic catalysts. To the best of our knowledge, the combination of a 3D printer and photopolymer resin used in this work has not been successfully used before for the fabrication of ceramic monolithic catalysts suitable for the catalytic oxidation of aromatic volatile organic compounds. Catalytically active mixed oxides were successfully deposited onto the monolithic supports using the impregnation technique.
Adhesion tests showed excellent mechanical stability of the catalyst layer, with catalyst mass losses of less than 2% after 30 min exposure to ultrasound. SEM analysis revealed that catalyst layer was rough but homogeneous in appearance and ~6 μm thick. XRD confirmed the presence of double oxides—FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4—as well as Mn, Fe, and Cu oxides in the catalysts. Other than confirming the presence of manganese oxides, the Raman spectra results were inconclusive. Additional theoretical calculations of Raman spectra for FeMnO3 and CuMn2O4 were performed in order to aid in the interpretation of the Raman spectra.
Prepared monolithic catalysts were used for the catalytic oxidation of a gas mixture of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and o-xylene (BTEX). As expected, the catalyst with the support having the greatest surface area proved to be the most catalytically active. This can be attributed not only to the surface area of the catalyst support but also to the fact that masses of the catalysts deposited onto this support were greater compared with the other support geometries that were used. Regarding the chemical composition of the catalytically active layer, comparable results were obtained for both investigated catalysts. With the most active combination of 3D-printed support (with a surface area of 22 cm2) and catalyst (MnFeOx), the T90 for benzene was achieved at 212 °C, for toluene at 179 °C, and for both ethylbenzene and o-xylene at 177 °C.
In future work, more complex geometries of catalyst support will be investigated to further increase the geometric surface area of monolithic catalysts and to achieve better efficiency of the catalytic oxidation of VOCs. Monolithic catalyst supports with integrated static mixers will also be fabricated, which can be designed and prepared relatively easily using the same 3D printing technology.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/chemengineering9010009/s1, Figure S0: Scheme of the monolithic reactor; Figure S1: CAD models of the 3D-printed catalyst supports (dimensions are given in mm); Figure S2: Raman spectra of the MnFeOx and MnCuOx catalysts in comparison with MnOx (laser wavelength 532 nm, laser power 0.86 mW); Figure S3: Comparison of the theoretical Raman spectra of FeMnO3 and the experimental Raman spectra of FeMnOx; Figure S4: Comparison of the theoretical Raman spectra of CuMn2O4 and the experimental Raman spectra of CuMnOx; Figure S5: Force vectors for experimentally observed Raman bands in the FeMnOx sample as obtained by the theoretical model of FeMnO3. (O = yellow, Mn = green, Fe = violet); Figure S6: Force vectors for experimentally observed Raman bands in the CuMnOx sample obtained by the theoretical model of CuMn2O4. (O = yellow, Mn = violet, Cu = green).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C. and V.T.; methodology, F.C. and V.T.; software, V.G.; validation, F.C. and V.T.; formal analysis, F.C., D.V. and S.K.; investigation, F.C., V.G., D.V., V.T. and S.K.; resources, V.T.; data curation, F.C., V.G. and S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C., V.G. and V.T.; writing—review and editing, F.C., V.T. and S.K; visualization, F.C., V.G. and S.K.; supervision, V.T.; project administration, D.V.; funding acquisition, D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project IP-2022-10-8004.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and Supplementary Materials; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Maduna, K.; Tomašić, V. Air Pollution Engineering. Phys. Sci. Rev. 2017, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barletta, B.; Meinardi, S.; Rowland, F.S.; Chan, C.Y.; Wang, X.; Zou, S.; Chan, L.Y.; Blake, D.R. Volatile organic compounds in 43 Chinese cities. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 5979–5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. De Luna, M.D.; Millanar, J.M.; Yodsa-Nga, A.; Wantala, K. Gas phase catalytic oxidation of VOCS using hydrothermally synthesized nest-like K-OMS 2 catalyst. Sains Malays. 2017, 46, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Leusch, F.; Bartkow, M. A Short Primer on Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes (BTEX) in the Environment and in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids; Griffith University—Smart Water Research Centre: Southport, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Miri, M.; Shendi, M.R.A.; Ghaffari, H.R.; Aval, H.E.; Ahmadi, E.; Taban, E.; Gholizadeh, A.; Aval, M.Y.; Mohammadi, A.; Azari, A. Investigation of outdoor BTEX: Concentration, variations, sources, spatial distribution, and risk assessment. Chemosphere 2016, 163, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Golkhorshidi, F.; Sorooshian, A.; Jafari, A.J.; Baghani, A.N.; Kermani, M.; Kalantary, R.R.; Ashournejad, Q.; Delikhoon, M. On the nature and health impacts of BTEX in a populated middle eastern city: Tehran, Iran. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2019, 10, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Latif, M.T.; Abd Hamid, H.H.; Ahamad, F.; Khan, M.F.; Nadzir, M.S.; Othman, M.; Sahani, M.; Wahab, M.I.; Mohamad, N.; Uning, R.; et al. BTEX compositions and its potential health impacts in Malaysia. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. He, C.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Douthwaite, M.; Pattisson, S.; Hao, Z. Recent Advances in the Catalytic Oxidation of Volatile Organic Compounds: A Review Based on Pollutant Sorts and Sources. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 4471–4568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, Y.; Wen, M.; Li, G.; An, T. Recent advances in VOC elimination by catalytic oxidation technology onto various nanoparticles catalysts: A critical review. Appl. Catal. B 2021, 281, 119447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tomatis, M.; Xu, H.H.; He, J.; Zhang, X.D. Recent Development of Catalysts for Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds in Flue Gas by Combustion: A Review. J. Chem. 2016, 2016, 8324826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kamal, M.S.; Razzak, S.A.; Hossain, M.M. Catalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—A review. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 140, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Three-dimensional Printing for Catalytic Applications:Current Status and Perspectives. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1701134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Parra-Cabrera, C.; Achille, C.; Kuhn, S.; Ameloot, R. 3D printing in chemical engineering and catalytic technology: Structured catalysts, mixers and reactors. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 47, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhu, J.; Wu, P.; Chao, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhu, W.; Liu, Z.; Xu, C. Recent advances in 3D printing for catalytic applications. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 433, 134341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chaparro-Garnica, C.Y.; Jorda-Faus, P.; Bailon-Garcia, E.; Ocampo-Perez, R.; Aguilar-Madera, C.G.; Davo-Quinonero, A.; Lozano-Castello, D.; Bueno-Lopez, A. Customizable Heterogeneous Catalysts: Nonchanneled Advanced Monolithic Supports Manufactured by 3D-Printing for Improved active Phase Coating Performance. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 54573–54584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. CChapparo-Garnica, Y.; Davo-Quinonero, A.; Bailon-Garcia, E.; Lozano-Castello, D.; Bueno-Lopez, A. Design of Monolithic Supports by 3D Printing for Its Application in the Preferential Oxidation of CO (CO-PrOx). ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 36763–36773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abdulhussain, N.; Nawada, S.; Currivan, S.; Passamonti, M.; Schoenmakers, P. Fabrication of polymer monoliths within the confines of non-transparent 3D-printed polymer housings. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1623, 461159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agueniou, F.; Vidal, H.; de Dios Lopez, J.; Hernandez-Garrido, J.C.; Cauqui, M.A.; Botana, F.J.; Calvino, J.J.; Galvita, V.V.; Gatica, J.M. 3D-printing of metallic honeycomb monoliths as a doorway to a new generation of catalytic devices: The Ni-based catalysts in methane dry reforming showcase. Catal. Commun. 2021, 148, 106181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wei, Q.; Li, H.; Liu, G.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tan, Y.E.; Wang, D.; Peng, X.; Yang, G.; Tsubaki, N. Metal 3D-printing technology for functional integration of catalytic system. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vega, G.; Quintanilla, A.; Menendez, N.; Belmonte, M.; Casas, J.A. 3D honeycomb monoliths with interconnected channels for sustainable production of dihydroxybenzenes:towards the intensification of selective oxidation processes. Chem. Eng. Process. 2021, 165, 108437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, Y.; Jiang, P.; Tian, J.; Liu, Y.; Wan, Y.; Zhang, K.; Wang, D.; Dam, J.; Dai, B.; Wang, X.; et al. 3D-printed monolithic catalyst of Mn-Ce-Fe/attapulgite for selective catalytic reduction of nitric oxide with ammonia at low temperature. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thakkar, H.; Eastman, S.; Al-Naddaf, Q.; Rownaghi, A.A.; Rezaei, F. 3D-printed metal−organic framework monoliths for gas adsorption processes. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 35908–35916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Liu, D.; Jiang, P.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Zhou, L.; Wang, X.; Zhou, F. 3D printing of metal-organic frameworks decorated hierarchical porous ceramics for high-efficiency catalytic degradation. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 397, 125392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Car, F.; Brnadić, G.; Tomašić, V.; Vrsaljko, D. Advanced preparation method of monolithic catalyst supports using 3D-printing technology. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 7, 797–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kang, S.H.; Ryu, J.H.; Park, N.K.; Yun, D.S.; Bae, J.W. Catalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds on supported noble metals. Catalysts 2022, 12, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liotta, L.F. Catalytic oxidation of volatile organic compounds on supported noble metals. Appl. Catal. B 2010, 100, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Santos, V.P.; Carabineiro, A.C.; Tavares, P.B.; Pereira, M.F.R.; Orfao, J.J.M.; Figueiredo, J.L. Oxidation of CO, ethanol and toluene over TiO2 supported noble metal catalysts. Appl. Catal. B 2010, 99, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abbasi, Z.; Haghighi, M.; Fatehifar, E.; Saedy, S. Synthesis and physicochemical cheracterizations of nanostructured Pt/Al2O3-CeO2 catalysts for total oxidation of VOCs. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 186, 1445–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Morales-Torres, S.; Carrasco-Marin, F.; Perez-Cadenas, A.F.; Maldonado-Hodar, F.J. Coupling Noble Metals and Carbon Supports in the Development of Combustion Catalysts for the Abatement of BTX Compounds in Air Streams. Catalysts 2015, 5, 774–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Liu, S.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Lu, H. Preparation of metallic monolithic Pt/FeCrAl fiber catalyst by suspension spraying for VOCs combustion. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 14806–14811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, S.C.; Shim, W.G. Catalytic combustion of VOCs over a series of manganese oxide catalysts. Appl. Catal. B 2010, 98, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piumetti, M.; Fino, D.; Russo, N. Mesoporous manganese oxides prepared by solution combustion synthesis as catalysts for the total oxidation of VOCs. Appl. Catal. B 2015, 163, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Castaño, M.H.; Molina, R.; Moreno, S. Effect of Mg and Al on manganese oxides as catalysts for VOC oxidation. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2017, 443, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Peng, C.; Yu, D.; Wang, L.; Yu, X.; Zhao, Z. Recent Advances in the Preparation and Catalytic Performance of Mn-based Oxide Catalysts with Special Morphology for the Removal of Air Pollutants. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 12947–12980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morales, M.R.; Barbero, B.P.; Cadus, L.E. Total oxidation of ethanol and propane over Mn-Cu mixed oxide catalysts. Appl. Catal. B 2006, 67, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Duplančić, M.; Tomašić, V.; Gomzi, Z. Catalytic oxidation of toluene: Comparative study over powder and monolithic manganese-nickel mixed oxide catalysts. Environ. Technol. 2018, 39, 2004–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Qin, L.; Huang, X.; Zhao, B.; Wang, Y.; Han, J. Iron Oxide as a Promoter for Toluene Catalytic Oxidation over Fe-Mn/γ-Al2O3 Catalysts. Catal. Lett. 2020, 150, 802–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Einaga, H.; Maeda, N.; Yamamoto, S.; Teraoka, Y. Catalytic properties of copper-manganese mixed oxides supported on SiO2 for benzene oxidation with ozone. Catal. Today 2015, 245, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Car, F.; Sušec, I.; Tomašić, V. Preparation and Testing of Cordierite Monolithic Catalysts for Oxidation of Aromatic Volatile Organic Compounds. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 86, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Available online: https://formlabs.com/materials/ceramics/ (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  41. Wu, D.; Kong, S.; Zhang, H. Mechanical Stability of Monolithic Catalysts: Factors Affecting Washcoat Adhesion and Cohesion During Preparation. AIChE J. 2014, 60, 2765–2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Barbero, B.P.; Costa-Almeida, L.; Sanz, O.; Morales, M.R.; Cadus, L.E.; Montes, M. Washcoating of metallic monoliths with a MnCu catalyst for catalytic combustion of volatile organic compounds. Chem. Eng. J. 2008, 139, 430–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aguero, F.N.; Barbero, B.P.; Almeida, L.C.; Montes, M.; Cadus, L.E. MnOx supported on metallic monoliths for the combustion of volatile organic compounds. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 166, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. JChai, D.; Head-Gordon, M. Long-range corrected hybrid density functionals with damped atom-atom dispersion corrections. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008, 10, 6615–6620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schaefer, A.; Huber, C.; Ahlrichs, R. Fully optimized contracted Gaussian-basis sets of triple zeta valence quality for atoms Li to Kr. J. Chem. Phys. 1994, 100, 5829–5835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hugo, V.-V.V.; Alejandro, H.-S.M.; María, V.-S.A.; María, R.-H.; Antonio, L.-R.M.; Guadalupe, P.-O.M.; Antonio, M.-G.M.; Fernando, A.-H.; Víctor, A.; Diego, C.-A.; et al. Molecular Modeling and Synthesis of Ethyl Benzyl Carbamates as Possible Ixodicide Activity. Comput. Chem. 2018, 7, 1–26. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2418053 (accessed on 7 January 2025). [CrossRef]
  47. Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 2999–3093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Santos, D.F.M.; Soares, O.S.G.P.; Figueiredo, J.L.; Sanz, O.; Montes, M.; Pereira, M.F.R. Preparation of ceramic and metallic monoliths coated with cryptomelane as catalysts for VOC abatement. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 382, 122923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, S.Y.; Song, W.; Lin, H.J.; Wang, S.; Biswas, S.; Mollahosseini, M.; Kuo, C.H.; Gao, P.X.; Suib, S.L. Manganese Oxide Nanoarray-Based Monolithic Catalysts: Tunable Morphology and High Efficiency for CO Oxidation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 7834–7842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rahaman, H.; Laha, R.M.; Maiti, D.K.; Ghosh, S.K. Fabrication of Mn2O3 nanorods: An efficient catalyst for selective transformation of alcohols to aldehydes. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 33923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xin, Y.; Cao, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, J.; Liu, P.; Lu, Y.; Ling, Z. A systematic spectroscopic study of laboratory synthesized manganese oxides relevant to Mars. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2021, 53, 340–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Post, J.E.; McKeown, D.A.; Heaney, P.J. Raman spectroscopy study of manganese oxides: Tunnel structures. Am. Mineral. 2020, 105, 1175–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gao, T.; Fjellvåg, H.; Norby, P. A comparison study on Raman scattering properties of α- and β-MnO2. Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 648, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, L.; Lu, X.; Han, C.; Lu, R.; Yang, S.; Song, X. Electrospun hollow cage-like α-Fe2O3 microspheres: Synthesis, formation mechanism, and morphology-preserved conversion to Fe nanostructures. Cryst. Eng. Comm. 2014, 16, 10618–10623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saravanakumar, B.; Ramachandran, S.P.; Ravi, G.; Ganesh, V.; Guduru, R.K.; Yuvakkumar, R. Electrochemical characterization of FeMnO3 microspheres as potential material for energy storage applications. Mater. Res. Express 2018, 5, 015504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Julien, C.M.; Massot, M.; Poinsignon, C. Lattice vibrations of manganese oxides Part I. Periodic structures. Spectrochim. Acta A 2004, 60, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Rashad, M.; Rüsing, M.; Berth, G.; Lischka, K.; Pawlis, A. CuO and Co3O4 Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterisations, and Raman Spectroscopy. J. Nanomater. 2013, 2013, 714853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Van Everbroeck, T.; Ciocarlan, R.G.; Van Hoey, W.; Mertens, M.; Cool, P. Copper-Containing Mixed Metal Oxides (Al, Fe, Mn) for Application in Three-Way Catalysis. Catalysts 2020, 10, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akgul, F.A.; Akgul, G.; Yildirim, N.; Unalan, H.E.; Turan, R. Influence of thermal annealing on microstructural, morphological, optical properties and surface electronic structure of copper oxide thin films. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2015, 147, 987–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Soares, O.S.G.P.; Fonseca, A.M.; Parpot, P.; Orfao, J.J.M.; Pereira, M.F.R.; Neves, I.C. Oxidation of Volatile Organic Compounds by Highly Efficient Metal Zeolite Catalysts. Chem. Cat. Chem. 2018, 10, 3754–3760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brunet, J.; Genty, E.; Barroo, C.; Cazier, F.; Poupin, C.; Siffert, S.; Thomas, D.; De Weireld, G.; de Bocarme, T.V.; Cousin, R. The CoAlCeO Mixed Oxide: An Alternative to Palladium-Based Catalysts for Total Oxidation of Industrial VOCs. Catalysts 2018, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zedan, A.F.; Allam, N.K.; Al Qaradawi, S.Y. A Study of Low-Temperature CO Oxidation over Mesoporous CuO-TiO2 Nanotube Catalysts. Catalysts 2017, 7, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gallegos, M.V.; Peluso, M.A.; Finocchio, E.; Thomas, H.J.; Busca, G.; Sambeth, J.E. Removal of VOCs by catalytic process. A study of MnZnO composites synthesized from waste alkaline and Zn/C batteries. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 313, 1099–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Genuino, H.C.; Dharmarathna, S.; Njagi, E.C.; Mei, M.C.; Suib, S.L. Gas-Phase Total Oxidation of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes using Shape-Selective Manganese Oxide and Copper Manganese Oxide Catalysts. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 12066–12078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chemengineering 09 00009 g001
Figure 1. Heat-treated catalyst supports (left), catalyst support after impregnation with the catalyst precursors (center), and a monolithic catalyst after calcination (right).
Figure 1. Heat-treated catalyst supports (left), catalyst support after impregnation with the catalyst precursors (center), and a monolithic catalyst after calcination (right).
Chemengineering 09 00009 g001
Chemengineering 09 00009 g002
Figure 2. Micrographs of (a) heat-treated ceramic catalyst support, (b) catalyst layer, and (c) cross-section of catalyst layer.
Figure 2. Micrographs of (a) heat-treated ceramic catalyst support, (b) catalyst layer, and (c) cross-section of catalyst layer.
Chemengineering 09 00009 g002
Chemengineering 09 00009 g003
Figure 3. XRD diffraction patterns of catalysts.
Figure 3. XRD diffraction patterns of catalysts.
Chemengineering 09 00009 g003
Chemengineering 09 00009 g004
Figure 4. Raman spectra of MnFeOx and MnCuOx catalysts in comparison with MnOx (laser wavelength 785 nm, power 0.1 mW).
Figure 4. Raman spectra of MnFeOx and MnCuOx catalysts in comparison with MnOx (laser wavelength 785 nm, power 0.1 mW).
Chemengineering 09 00009 g004
Chemengineering 09 00009 g005
Figure 5. Catalytic activity of the prepared monolithic catalysts (a) MnFeOx and (b) MnCuOx for benzene.
Figure 5. Catalytic activity of the prepared monolithic catalysts (a) MnFeOx and (b) MnCuOx for benzene.
Chemengineering 09 00009 g005
Table 1. Geometries of the 3D-printed catalyst supports with respective geometrical surface areas.
Table 1. Geometries of the 3D-printed catalyst supports with respective geometrical surface areas.
SupportPPSSSS
Geometry of the monolithic catalyst supportChemengineering 09 00009 i001
Geometric surface area (cm2)11201522
Table 2. Mechanical stability (adhesion) of the catalyst layer.
Table 2. Mechanical stability (adhesion) of the catalyst layer.
CatalystPlateM (Plate with Catalyst) (g)M (Plate After Test) (g)Mass Loss (%)
MnFeOx10.48400.47891.05
20.45960.45221.61
30.47920.47191.52
40.48360.47711.34
50.47760.46831.95
MnCuOx10.46680.45801.89
20.46990.46381.30
30.48630.48101.09
40.47590.46901.46
50.47770.46961.69
Table 3. T50 and T90 values of BTEX components for supports with applied catalyst.
Table 3. T50 and T90 values of BTEX components for supports with applied catalyst.
T50 (°C)T90 (°C)
CatalystSupportBTEXBTEX
MnFeOxP215186173174243200195195
PS207186171172238198194194
S211181169168241199194192
SS183166164164212179177177
MnCuOxP219186177175252202196196
PS203174167166236195189189
S211181169168241199194192
SS187165163163217178177177
Table 4. Mass of the catalysts applied on the 3D-printed supports used for catalytic oxidation of BTEX compounds.
Table 4. Mass of the catalysts applied on the 3D-printed supports used for catalytic oxidation of BTEX compounds.
SupportPPSSSS
Mass (mg) of MnFeOx4.8–5.06.4–6.65.5–5.87.0–7.3
Mass (mg) of MnCuOx4.9–5.26.2–6.55.6–5.87.1–7.2
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Car, F.; Gomzi, V.; Tomašić, V.; Vrsaljko, D.; Kurajica, S. Development of Novel Monolithic Catalyst for BTEX Catalytic Oxidation Using 3D Printing Technology. ChemEngineering 2025, 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering9010009

AMA Style

Car F, Gomzi V, Tomašić V, Vrsaljko D, Kurajica S. Development of Novel Monolithic Catalyst for BTEX Catalytic Oxidation Using 3D Printing Technology. ChemEngineering. 2025; 9(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering9010009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Car, Filip, Vjeran Gomzi, Vesna Tomašić, Domagoj Vrsaljko, and Stanislav Kurajica. 2025. "Development of Novel Monolithic Catalyst for BTEX Catalytic Oxidation Using 3D Printing Technology" ChemEngineering 9, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering9010009

APA Style

Car, F., Gomzi, V., Tomašić, V., Vrsaljko, D., & Kurajica, S. (2025). Development of Novel Monolithic Catalyst for BTEX Catalytic Oxidation Using 3D Printing Technology. ChemEngineering, 9(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering9010009

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop