Facile Synthesis of Mesoporous Zeolite Y with Improved Catalytic Performance for Heavy Oil Fluid Catalytic Cracking

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 3406-3411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junsu Jin ◽  
Chaoyun Peng ◽  
Jiujiang Wang ◽  
Hongtao Liu ◽  
Xionghou Gao ◽  
...  
ChemCatChem ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (13) ◽  
pp. 2574-2583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenqian Jiao ◽  
Xuezhong Wu ◽  
Gang Li ◽  
Teng Xue ◽  
Yimeng Wang ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 2466-2474 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kortunov ◽  
S. Vasenkov ◽  
J. Kärger ◽  
M. Fé Elía ◽  
M. Perez ◽  
...  

Teknik ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-225
Author(s):  
Rahma Amalia ◽  
Teguh Riyanto ◽  
Istadi Istadi

This work discusses the treated spent Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracking (RFCC) catalysts using sulfuric or citric acids to examine the impact of acid treatment on the catalyst physicochemical properties and structural characteristics. The catalysts were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and Brunauer−Emmett−Teller-Barrett−Joyner−Halenda (BET-BJH) methods. The catalytsts were performed in a continuous fixed-bed reactor for catalytic cracking of palm oil. Changes of the catalyst characteristics and catalytic performance testing of the catalyst after the acid treatment for palm oil cracking process were discussed. It was found that the acid treatment on the spent RFCC catalyst can increase the surface area and pore volume of catalysts as well as the crystallinity. The closed pores in the spent RFCC are opened by acid treatment by eliminating heavy metals. Concerning to the catalytic performance, the acid-treated catalysts had better performance than the non-treated catalyst, which could increase selectivity of the kerosene-diesel range fraction from 47.89% to 55.41%. It was interested, since the non-treated catalyst could not produce gasoline fraction, while the acid-treated catalsysts could produce gasoline fraction at selectivity range of 0.57 – 0.84%. It was suggested that both sulfuric or citric acids treatment could increase the cracking performance of spent RFCC catalyst by shifting the product to lower hydrocarbons.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 3255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiesen Li ◽  
Haiyan Liu ◽  
Yu Fan ◽  
Pei Yuan ◽  
Gang Shi ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 298 ◽  
pp. 102-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengxing Qin ◽  
Baojian Shen ◽  
Zhiwu Yu ◽  
Feng Deng ◽  
Liang Zhao ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 118 (48) ◽  
pp. 28043-28054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kinga Góra-Marek ◽  
Karolina Tarach ◽  
Justyna Tekla ◽  
Zbigniew Olejniczak ◽  
Piotr Kuśtrowski ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 525-537
Author(s):  
Yingjie Liu ◽  
Jihe Yang ◽  
Xingying Lan ◽  
Jinsen Gao

Abstract The chemical stripping process in a commercial scale V-baffled resid fluid catalytic cracking stripper was simulated using computational fluid dynamics method. At the outset, it was assumed that the stripping steam initially desorbs hydrocarbons from the catalysts, and the hydrocarbons are then cracked through thermal and catalytic cracking reactions before entering the disengager. The Eulerian–Eulerian two-fluid model coupled with a modified drag model was applied to simulate the gas–solid flow behavior. A desorption model and five-lump kinetic model for thermal and catalytic cracking were utilized to represent the desorption and cracking processes during stripping. The flow modeling results indicated that three different flow regions exist in the stripper: bubbling flow, intermediate flow and turbulent flow. Increasing gas velocity improves the flow conditions of the gas, but adversely affects the particle flow. The degree of mixing of the gas and solid increases along the flowing direction. The results of reaction modeling showed that about 80% of hydrocarbons desorbed from the catalysts. The amount of desorbed oil increases with bed height leading to an increase of heavy oil in the disengager which induces coking problem. By increasing the catalyst temperature, the partial pressure of heavy oil can be lowered down which helps to decrease the disengager coking.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (19) ◽  
pp. 912-921
Author(s):  
Yang Chen ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Zhifeng Wang ◽  
Kaijun Hou ◽  
Fusheng Ouyang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document