X. Niu, et al.
CatalysisCommunications140(2020)106001
SiO2. The formation of phenol and cresol may be related to the hy-
drogen species (e.g., GaeH and dihydrides) and acid sites (e.g., Ga-OH)
that could catalyze the O-CH3 bond hydrogenolysis and methyl transfer
[9], respectively. Additionally, in the gaseous effluent stream, CH4 and
CO were dominating on Ni/SiO2 and NiGa(3/1)/SiO2(Fig.S5, ESI), re-
spectively, indicating that methanation was suppressed on Ni3Ga IMC
catalyst.
35.6%). On Ni/SiO2, the main products were phenol and benzene with
selectivities of 34.9 and 27.1%, respectively, where selectivities to cy-
clohexanone and cyclohexanol were 20.5 and 10.4%, respectively.
However, the selectivity to toluene was only 4.37%. Besides, the nCH4
nΔcresol molar ratio was 1.12 (higher than 1.0). Thus, the cleavage of
Ar-CH3 bond in o-cresol is dominant on Ni/SiO2, leading to phenol that
/
C
was then converted to cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol via hydro-
genation [29,30]. In addition, the selectivity to methylcyclohexane was
only 0.36%. Compared with Ni/SiO2, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 exhibited lower
conversion, while it gave higher selectivities to toluene (ca. 38.5%) and
to methylcyclohexane (ca. 14.3%). Toluene may be derived from the
DDO pathway of o-cresol, followed by its hydrogenation to methylcy-
clohexane. This is reasonable because no methylcyclohexanone and
methylcyclohexanol were detected. Additionally, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 gave
lower selectivity to phenol (ca. 10.2%), to benzene (ca. 3.56%) and to
cyclohexanone (ca. only 0.38%) than Ni/SiO2.
In the HDO of m-cresol, Ni/SiO2 also had higher conversion (ca.
59.0%) than NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 (ca. 46.3%). The main product was to-
luene on both catalysts, while NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 gave higher selectivity to
toluene (ca. 51.1%) than Ni/SiO2 (ca. 43.3%). Especially, NiGa(3/1)/
SiO2 also gave higher selectivity to methylcyclohexane (ca. 24.9%) than
Ni/SiO2 (ca. 1.5%). Additionally, the selectivity to phenol and benzene,
14.1% and 6.98%, respectively, on Ni/SiO2 were significantly higher
than those (ca. 0.36 and 0.18%, respectively) on NiGa(3/1)/SiO2.
Moreover, Ni/SiO2 gave a selectivity to cyclohexanone of 2.82% and to
cyclohexanol of 1.38%, while no cyclohexanone and cyclohexanol were
detected on NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 catalyst.
In HDO of p-cresol on Ni/SiO2, the conversion was 43.4%, and the
selectivities to toluene, phenol and benzene were 67.9, 3.23 and 5.71%,
respectively. The selectivity to methylcyclohexane was only 1.28%. On
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2, the conversion was 21.9%, and the selectivities to-
ward toluene and methylcyclohexane were 60.1 and 20.6%, respec-
tively, while the selectivities to benzene and phenol were only 0.32 and
0.77%, respectively. Although NiGa(3/1)/SiO2had lower selectivity to
toluene than Ni/SiO2, it gave significantly higher selectivity to me-
thylcyclohexane. Given the lower selectivity to benzene and phenol,
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 is also more favorable for the DDO of p-cresol.
Here, the deoxygenation degree is further used to indicate syner-
getic effect between Ni and Ga in the deoxygenation of cresols. As
shown in Table 1, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 had lower cresol conversion than Ni/
SiO2, however, it gave higher deoxygenation degree. It can be
In summary, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 exhibited the best performance in
HDO of anisole.
3.2.3. Stability of NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 in HDO of anisole
To investigate the stability of NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 in the HDO of anisole,
the catalyst was tested at 300 °C, 0.1 MPa and WHSV of 2 h−1. As
shown in Fig. S6 (ESI), the anisole conversion decreased from 93.3 to
60.7% during 24 h time-on-stream, that is, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 was deac-
tivated. The selectivity to benzene still maintained at ~90%. The initial
selectivities to cyclohexane and phenol were 2.74 and 0.08%, respec-
tively. During the reaction, the selectivity to cyclohexane scarcely
changed, and the selectivity to phenol slightly increased to 0.92%.
To explore the reason for the catalyst deactivation, the fresh and
spent NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 catalysts were characterized. As indicated by the
XRD patterns (Fig. S7and Table S1, ESI), there was no sintering of the
Ni3Ga IMC crystallites during the reaction. The TGA result (Fig. S8, ESI)
shows that there was a small amount of carbonaceous deposits (~1.3 wt
%) on the spent catalyst. It is estimated that a carbon deposit average
rate of 1.6 mg/(g·h) was applicable. As listed in Table S1 (ESI), the pore
diameter and pore volume of NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 was reduced from 12.5 to
9.8 nm and from 1.46 to 1.35 m3/g after reaction, respectively. We
suggest that the deactivation of NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 may be partially
caused by coke formation.
3.2.4. HDO of cresols and guaiacol on Ni/SiO2 and NiGa(3/1)/SiO2
It is challenging to facilitate the direct cleavage of CAr-OH bond in
phenolic compounds because the dissociation energy of CAr-OH bond
(468 kJ/mol) is higher than that of CAr-OCH3 bond (422 kJ/mol)
[2,27,28]. As indicated above, NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 was more active and
gave higher selectivity to benzene than Ni/SiO2 in HDO of anisole.
Herein, the HDO of other phenolic compounds (cresols and guaiacol)
was also tested on Ni/SiO2 and NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 catalysts.
As shown in Table 1, in the HDO of o-cresol, Ni/SiO2 gave sig-
nificantly higher conversion (ca. 97.2%) than NiGa(3/1)/SiO2 (ca.
Table 1
HDO of phenolics on Ni/SiO2 and NiGa(3/1)/SiO2.
Reactant
Catalyst
o-cresol
m-cresol
p-cresol
Guaiacol
Ni/SiO2
Ni/SiO2
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2
Ni/SiO2
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2
Ni/SiO2
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2
NiGa(3/1)/SiO2
Conversion
97.2
1.12
0
43.1
94.5
35.6
0.11
0
89.4
91.1
59.0
0.75
0
77.1
90.0
46.3
0
0
99.3
90.6
43.4
0.60
0
91.9
95.8
21.9
0
0
98.3
96.9
54.1
0.35
0.23
53.0
93.4
98.4
0.15
0.52
49.8
99.6
n
n
CO/nΔphenolics
HDO %
Carbon balance/%
Selectivity(%)
SBenzene
SToluene
SPhenol
27.1
4.37
34.9
0
0.36
0.06
0
3.56
38.5
10.2
0
14.3
1.03
0
0
0.38
0
6.98
43.3
14.1
0
1.50
0.04
0.18
4.45
2.82
1.38
0.27
0
0.18
51.1
0.36
0
24.9
2.24
0.02
0.28
0
5.71
67.9
3.23
0
1.28
0.09
3.94
0
0.50
0
0.12
0
0.32
60.1
0.77
0
20.6
2.75
0.17
0.27
0
5.81
2.34
66.6
1.63
0
0
0
0
4.71
2.38
0.60
14.3
7.63
1.09
72.2
0.77
0
0
0
0
1.04
0.54
1.92
12.8
SAnisole
SMCHANE
SMCHENE
SMCHONE
SMCHOL
SCHONE
SCHOL
0
20.5
10.4
1.5
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.07
0
SCH
SMethanol
1.52
0
a
The molar ratio between methane and the converted phenolics.
The molar ratio between CO and the converted phenolics; MCHANE-Methylcyclohexane, MCHENE-Methylcyclohexene, MCHONE-Methylcyclohexanone,
b
MCHOL-Methylcyclohexanol, CHONE-Cyclohexanone, CHOL-Cyclohexanol, CH-Cyclohexane.
4