Hydrocarbon Poisoning of Cu-Zeolite SCR Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of propylene (C₃H₆) and dodecane (n-C₁₂H₂₆) exposure on the NH₃-based selective catalytic reduction (SCR) performance of two Cu-exchanged zeolite catalysts were investigated. The first sample was a model Cu/beta zeolite sample and the second a state-of-the-art Cu/zeolite sample, with the zeolite material characterized by relatively small pores. Overall, the state-of-the-art sample performed better than the model sample, in terms of hydrocarbon inhibition (which was reduced) and N₂O formation (less formed). The state-of-the-art sample was completely unaffected by dodecane at temperatures lower than 300°C, and only slightly inhibited (less than 5% conversion loss), for standard SCR, by C₃H₆. There was no evidence of coke formation on this catalyst with C₃H₆ exposure. The model sample was more significantly affected by hydrocarbon exposure. With C₃H₆, inhibition is associated with its partial oxidation intermediates adsorbed on the catalyst surface. For example, at 150°C, no C₃H₆ oxidation was observed and no inhibition was noted. At 300°C, both the oxidation intermediates and coke formation led to deactivation. With C₁₂H₂₆, inhibition was observed over the whole temperature range. At 150°C, NOx conversion decreased from 50% to less than 20% due to the strong adsorption of C₁₂H₂₆ blocking active sites either directly, or indirectly by blocking pores. At 300°C, due to both partial oxidation intermediates and strong hydrocarbon adsorption, NOx conversion decreased from 90% to less than 30%. The differences in terms of resistance to HC poisoning, such as HC adsorption and coke formation, is related to the pore structure of the zeolite. The small pores in the state-of-the-art sample do not allow the diffusion of large hydrocarbon molecules into the pores, hindering adsorption onto active sites, as well as the formation of coke-related molecules in the pores, and thus the active sites are preserved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".