Catalysis Today 185 (2012) 126–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Catalysis Today
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cattod

Combined H2 O and CO2 reforming of CH4 over Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst for
gas to liquid (GTL) process: Enhancement of Ni–CeO2 interaction
Kee Young Koo a , Hyun-Seog Roh b,∗∗ , Un Ho Jung a , Wang Lai Yoon a,∗
a
Hydrogen Energy Research Center, Korea Institute of Energy Research(KIER), 71-2, Jang-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, 234, Maeji, Heungeop, Wonju, Gangwon-do 220-710, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effect of Ni–Ce loading method on the catalytic activity and coke formation over Ce-promoted
Received 31 May 2011 Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts was investigated in combined steam and carbon dioxide reforming of methane
Received in revised form 15 July 2011 (CSCRM) to produce synthesis gas with a H2 /CO ratio of 2 for gas to liquid (GTL) process.
Accepted 24 July 2011
12 wt%Ni–6 wt%Ce/Al2 O3 catalysts prepared by a co-impregnation method exhibited higher catalytic per-
Available online 20 August 2011
formance and less coke formation than 12 wt%Ni/6 wt%Ce/Al2 O3 and 6 wt%Ce/12 wt%Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts
prepared by a sequential impregnation method due to the improvement of Ni dispersion and high oxygen
Keywords:
storage capacity resulting from the intimate contact between Ni and CeO2 on the surface of the catalyst.
Gas to liquid (GTL)
Synthesis gas © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Combined steam and carbon dioxide
reforming of methane
Ni–CeO2 intimate contact
Coke resistance

1. Introduction
Gas to liquid (GTL) process has been considered as an alternative
energy technology to produce the clean synthetic oil from natural
gas [1]. In GTL process, it is necessary to develop an economical
and efficient process for synthesis gas production which accounts
for about 60% of total capital cost [2]. In addition, it is required to
prepare the syngas with various H2 /CO ratios according to the tar-
get process such as oxo-synthesis and Fishcer–Tropsch [3]. In the
light of this point, combined steam and carbon dioxide reforming of
methane (CSCRM) has received considerable interest from indus-
try for syngas production [4,5]. The most important advantage of
CSCRM is an available process to produce syngas with a flexible
H2 /CO ratio without additional units by adjusting the feed ratio of
H2 O and CO2 [6,7]. However, it is necessary to develop a reforming
catalyst with good activity and high coke resistance.
In general, Ni-based catalysts are faced with some barriers of
Ni sintering and coke formation which result in the rapid cata-
lyst deactivation under reaction conditions at low H2 O/CH4 ratio
[8–10]. Hence, it is necessary to develop Ni catalysts with high coke
resistance. The CeO2 has been added as a promoter which improves
the strong metal to support interaction (SMSI) and removes the
surface coke by supplying active oxygen species due to the redox
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +82 42 860 3739.
∗∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +82 33 763 5224.
E-mail addresses: hsroh@yonsei.ac.kr (H.-S. Roh), wlyoon@kier.re.kr (W.L. Yoon).
property [11]. The reduced CeO2−x accelerates the transfer of acti-
vated oxygen from H2 O and CO2 to the catalyst surface on which
the coke is gasified into CO, CO2 and H2 [12,13]. In particular, the
close contact between Ni and CeO2 by formation of Ni–CeO2 solid
solution enhances the ability of activated oxygen transfer and Ni
dispersion resulting in a high catalytic activity and coke resistance
[14]. It is known that methodologies of catalyst preparation and
procedure of active metal loading have a significant effect on the
physicochemical properties of catalysts, the catalytic activity and
stability [15]. Generally, the catalyst with high specific surface
area and large pore size exhibits good catalytic activity and sta-
bility resulting from high dispersion of active sites on the surface
[16–18]. Potdar et al. [16] reported that Ni/Ce0.8 Zr0.2 O2 catalyst
prepared by co-precipitation/digestion method showed good cat-
alytic activity and high coke resistance compared that of catalyst
prepared by impregnation method in carbon dioxide reforming of
methane (CRM). It is due to the fact that a large surface area and
high metal dispersion result in the improvement of oxygen storage
capacity/mobility and the strong metal to support interaction.
Chen et al. [17] reported that in Ni/CeO2 –Al2 O3 catalysts prepared
by different drying procedures of sol–gel process, aerogel catalysts
exhibited high catalytic performance and good resistance to
sintering at high reaction temperature compared that of xerogel
catalysts in CRM owing to the large surface area and pore size and
high metal dispersion. Özkara-Aydinoğlu et al. [18] reported that
the impregnation strategy has a significant effect on the catalytic
activity and stability of 1 wt%Ce–1 wt%Pt/ZrO2 catalysts in CRM.
The catalysts prepared by co-impregnation had strong surface

0920-5861/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2011.07.027
 K.Y. Koo et al. / Catalysis Today 185 (2012) 126–130 127

: α-A2O3
: NiO
: CeO2

H2 consumption (a.u.)
Intenstiy (a.u.)

Ce/Ni/Al2O3
Ni-Ce/Al2O3

Ni/Ce/Al2O3 Ni/Ce/Al2O3

Ce/Ni/Al2O3
Ni-Ce/Al2O3
Ce/Al2O3

Ni/Al2O3 Ni/Al2O3
20 40 60 80 100
2θ (degree) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
o
Temperature ( C)
Fig. 1. XRD patterns of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts with preparation methods.
Fig. 2. TPR patterns of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts with preparation methods.

interaction between Pt and Ce resulting in a good catalytic activity

and stability. We have also investigated the way to increase the
oxygen storage capacity and transfer rate by maximizing the sur-
face area and contact area between Ni and CeO2 in Ce-promoted a 100
Ni/Al2 O3 for the development of active catalyst with high coke
resistance in CSCRM. In our previous study, it has been reported
that the CeO2 content was optimized to improve the Ni dispersion
and prevent the coke formation in Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst [19]. 80 12%Ni-6%Ce/Al2O3
CH4 conversion (%)

Based on the results of our previous work, we prepared the Ce-

promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts by different Ni–Ce loading procedures
and investigated the effect of interaction between Ni and Ce on the 60
12%Ni/6%Ce/Al2O3
catalytic performance and coke resistance in CSCRM.

40 12%Ni/Al2O3
2. Experimental

2.1. Catalyst preparation 20

The Ce-promoted catalysts were prepared by three different 6%Ce/12%Ni/Al2O3

ways as follows. First, Ni–Ce was loaded simultaneously by a co- 0
impregnation of Ce(NO3 )3 ·6H2 O (99%, Aldrich) and Ni(NO3 )2 ·6H2 O 0 5 10 15 20
(97%, Junsei) solution on ˛-Al2 O3 (99.9%, high purity chemical). Time on stream (h)
˛-Al2 O3 was employed as a support because it was commonly
used as a support of commercial catalyst. According to our pre-
vious results, the loading amount of Ni and Ce was fixed at 12 wt% b 100
and 6 wt%, respectively [19]. After supports were pre-calcined in
air at 800 ◦ C for 6 h, the Ni and Ce were co-impregnated. The cata-
lysts were calcined in air at 800 ◦ C for 6 h. Second, Ni and Ce were
80
loaded consecutively. The Ce loading was carried out after pre-
CO2 conversion (%)

calcination of supports at 800 ◦ C for 6 h. Ce/Al2 O3 was pre-calcined

again in air at 800 ◦ C for 6 h. Then, Ni was loaded on pre-calcined
60
Ce/Al2 O3 support. The catalysts were calcined in air at 800 ◦ C for 12%Ni-6%Ce/Al2O3
6 h. Third, Ce and Ni were loaded consecutively. The prepared cat-
alysts are denoted as Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 , Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 and Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 ,
40
respectively. Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst without Ce-promotion was used as 12%Ni/6%Ce/Al2O3
a reference.
20 6%Ce/12%Ni/Al2O3
2.2. Characterization
12%Ni/Al2O3
The crystal structure and compositional homogeneity of the 0
prepared catalysts were examined by X-ray diffraction (XRD, 0 5 10 15 20
Rigaku D/Max-III C, CuK˛ radiation). The NiO and CeO2 crystallite Time on stream (h)
size and lattice parameters were estimated by using the Scherrer
equation and a least-square method using the lattice constant Fig. 3. (a) CH4 conversion and (b) CO2 conversion with time on stream (TOS) over
Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts and Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst in CSCRM (reaction condition:
refinement program of the Rigaku software, respectively. The
GHSV = 530,000 ml/h gcat , 650 ◦ C, CH4 :H2 O:CO2 :N2 = 1.0:0.8:0.4:1.0).
surface area of catalysts was measured by BET (Micromerit-
ics, ASAP 2000) through the nitrogen adsorption at −196 ◦ C.
128 K.Y. Koo et al. / Catalysis Today 185 (2012) 126–130

Table 1
Characteristics of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts.

Catalyst Crystallite size (nm) Lattice parameter (Å) BET surface Ni surface area Ni dispersion Reduction
area (m2 /g) (m2 /g)a (%)a degree (%)b
NiO CeO2 Ni Ce

Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 24 14 3.3810 5.4015 9.46 0.99 1.24 98.5

Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 21 17 3.3855 5.4071 5.71 0.45 0.56 79.0
Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 27 13 3.3853 5.4065 6.71 0.37 0.46 82.8
Ni/Al2 O3 32 – 3.3828 – 2.38 0.72 0.90 94.5
Ce/Al2 O3 – 15 – 5.4032 4.54 – – –
a
Estimated from H2 -chemisorption at 50 ◦ C.
b
Calculated from reduction of the catalyst at 700 ◦ C for 1 h.

H2 -chemisorption was performed by using pulse technique to
identify the metallic dispersion and metal surface area in a BEL-
METAL-3 (BEL Japan, Inc.). The sample of 50 mg was reduced in
H2 flow at 700 ◦ C for 1 h. The sample was purged at 700 ◦ C for 1 h
in He flow and cooled to 50 ◦ C. A hydrogen pulse (20% H2 /Ar) was
injected into the catalyst. Temperature programmed reduction
(TPR, Micromeritics, Autochem 2910) was carried out to identify
the reduction temperature and H2 consumption of catalysts. The
sample of 0.1 g in a quartz reactor was pre-treated with He gas at
250 ◦ C for 1 h, then cooled down to 50 ◦ C, and then re-heated by an
electrical furnace at a heating rate of 20 ◦ C/min from 100 to 1000 ◦ C
under 10% H2 in Ar gas. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM,
Philips XL30SREG) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM, FEI,
TECNAI F30 S-Twin) were carried out to identify the morphology,
coke formation and elemental mapping images of used catalysts.
2.3. Catalyst reaction
The CSCRM was performed with the feed ratio of
CH4 :H2 O:CO2 :N2 = 1.0:0.8:0.4:1.0 at the space velocity of
530,000 ml/gcat h from 750 to 650 ◦ C. According to our previous
results, the feed ratio was fixed to obtain the syngas with a H2 /CO
ratio of 2, which is suitable for F.-T. synthesis [20]. Before the
reaction, the catalyst diluted with MgAl2 O4 was reduced at 700 ◦ C
for 1 h under 10% H2 /N2 . Steam was fed by vaporizing deionized
water at 150 ◦ C upstream of the reactor. The effluent was analyzed
by an on-line micro gas chromatography (Agilent 3000) equipped
with a TCD detector.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Catalyst characterization
Fig. 1 depicts XRD patterns of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts
with preparation methods. XRD patterns are in good agreement
with characteristic peaks of CeO2 and NiO. All characteristic reflec-
tions of CeO2 are present at 28.5◦ , 33.3◦ , 47.5◦ and 56.4◦ , which
correspond to fluorite structure with (1 1 1), (2 0 0), (2 2 0), and
(3 1 1) planes [21]. NiO shows four major peaks at 2 values equal to
37.3◦ , 43.4◦ , 62.9◦ and 75.5◦ . The intensity of NiO diffraction peaks
in Ce-promoted catalyst decreases, indicating that ceria improves
the Ni dispersion over support.

Fig. 4. SEM images of used catalysts; (a) Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 , (b) Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 , (c) Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 and (d) Ni/Al2 O3 (reaction condition: GHSV = 530,000 ml/h gcat , 650 ◦ C,
CH4 :H2 O:CO2 :N2 = 1.0:0.8:0.4:1.0).
 K.Y. Koo et al. / Catalysis Today 185 (2012) 126–130 129

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3

catalysts with preparation methods. The NiO crystallite size of
Ni/Al2 O3 without Ce is 32 nm, indicating that the NiO crystallite
size of this catalyst is larger than those of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3
catalysts. In addition, NiO crystallite sizes of Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 and
Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 are smaller than that of Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 .
The lattice parameter of Ce in Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst (5.4015 Å)
is smaller than that of Ce/Al2 O3 support (5.4032 Å) because the
Ni2+ ion incorporates into the Ce lattice resulting in the formation
of Ni–CeO2 solid solution. Shan et al. [22] demonstrated that the
formation of NiOx –CeO2 solid solution is ascribed to the Ni2+ ion
incorporation into the CeO2 lattice by considering the fact that the
radius of Ni2+ (0.072 nm) is smaller than that of Ce4+ ion (0.101 nm).
In addition, the lattice parameter of Ce in the catalyst prepared
by a co-impregnation method is smaller than that in the catalysts
prepared by consecutive impregnation methods. It implies that
a co-impregnation method is more favorable to the formation of
Ni–CeO2 solid solution than a consecutive impregnation method. In
another word, for the co-impregnated Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst, highly
dispersed Ni crystallites are in intimate contact with CeO2 crystal-
lites due to the formation of Ni–CeO2 solid solution. It is reported
that the preparation method has a significant effect on the struc-
tural property related to the formation of Ni–CeO2 solid solution
[23].
Generally, the large BET surface area and Ni surface area are
beneficial to the increase of metal dispersion. In addition, the sur-
face area of CeO2 catalyst has relevance to the redox property
and catalytic performance [24]. As expected, the co-impregnated
Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst exhibits higher Ni dispersion and higher
reduction degree than other catalysts prepared by consecutive
impregnation methods owing to the large surface area and the close
contact between Ni and CeO2 in Ni–CeO2 solid solution. From these
results, it is expected that the co-impregnated Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst
with large surface area and high Ni dispersion should exhibit high
catalytic activity and low coke formation.
Fig. 2 describes TPR patterns of Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts
with preparation methods. For the Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst prepared
by a co-impregnation method, the broad reduction peak is present
between 350 and 630 ◦ C. It is known that the peak appearing at low
temperature (<350 ◦ C) is assigned to the reduction of the surface
capping oxygen. The reactive surface oxygen which was formed by
lattice distortion when Ni2+ ion incorporates into Ce lattice could
be reduced easily by H2 at low temperature [14,22]. The reduction
peak, appearing at 630 ◦ C, is attributed to the strong interaction
between Ni and CeO2 in Ni–Ce solid solution. By the way, in the
vicinity of 800 ◦ C, the weak reduction peak results from the reduc-
tion of bulk CeO2 from Ce4+ to Ce3+ [25]. It should be noted that
Ce addition enhances the reducibility of catalysts. The reduction
peaks of Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst without Ce addition appear at about
460 and 560 ◦ C [19]. In brief, there is much stronger interaction
between Ni and CeO2 which increases the reducibility due to the
formation of Ni–CeO2 solid solution in the catalyst prepared by a
co-impregnation method.
Fig. 5. TEM and elemental mapping images of used catalysts; (a) Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 ,
3.2. Reaction results in CSCRM (b) Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 and (c) Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 (reaction condition: GHSV = 530,000 ml/h gcat ,
650 ◦ C, CH4 :H2 O:CO2 :N2 = 1.0:0.8:0.4:1.0).

Table 2 summarizes the reaction results over Ce-promoted

Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts with preparation methods at the reaction
temperature of 750 ◦ C. The Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst exhibits higher
catalytic activity than other catalysts. CH4 and CO2 conversion
are close to thermodynamic equilibrium values [19]. The catalytic
activity has good relation with the Ni dispersion [26]. Like the
Ni dispersion data, both CH4 and CO2 conversion decrease in the
order: Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 > Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 > Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 . In addition, the
syngas with a H2 /CO ratio of 2.0, which is suitable to F.-T. synthe-
sis, was obtained in CSCRM. As previously stated, reaction results
demonstrate that a co-impregnation method enhances the Ni
dispersion and improves reducibility resulting in the high catalytic
activity.
The catalytic stability test was carried out with time on
stream (TOS) over Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts at the low
reaction temperature of 650 ◦ C (Fig. 3). The Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst
showed relatively stable activity for 20 h, while Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 and
Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts deactivated with TOS. Özkara-Aydinoğlu
et al. [18] explained that sequentially impregnated Pt–Ce/ZrO2
130 K.Y. Koo et al. / Catalysis Today 185 (2012) 126–130
Table 2
Comparison of reaction results over Ce-promoted Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts at 750 ◦ C.
Catalyst CH4 conversion (%)
Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 90.9
Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 88.6
Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 86.6
catalysts showed lower catalytic activity and stability than
co-impregnated one because of the formation of fixed Ce site
on the support which results in the limited interaction between
Pt–Ce precursors. In addition, Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst without CeO2
addition showed lower catalytic performance than Ce-promoted
Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts. It suggests that CeO2 promotion improves the
reducibility and coke resistance.
SEM images are shown in Fig. 4 to monitor the effect of Ni and Ce
loading methods on coke formation in used catalysts. In the cases
of Ni/Ce/Al2 O3 and Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts without Ce-promotion, there
are a lot of filamentous coke species. For the Ce/Ni/Al2 O3 catalyst,
some filamentous coke species can be seen in the used catalyst.
On the contrary, the co-impregnated Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst shows
less coke formation than other catalysts. It indicates that intimate
contact between Ni and CeO2 over Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst plays a
significant role in suppressing the coke formation by increasing
available oxygen species.
TEM and elemental mapping images of used catalysts are shown
in Fig. 5 to compare the dispersion of Ni and CeO2 crystallites on
the surface of the catalysts prepared by different methods. The
co-impregnated Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst exhibits highly uniform dis-
persion of Ni crystallites compared with other catalysts prepared
by consecutive impregnation methods. This result is in good agree-
ment with the Ni dispersion data from H2 -chemisorption (Table 1).
This suggests that the sequence of Ni and Ce loading is an important
parameter to enhance Ni dispersion and the interaction between Ni
and CeO2 which affects the catalytic activity and coke resistance.
4. Conclusion
The Ni–Ce/Al2 O3 catalyst prepared by a co-impregnation
method has large surface area and high Ni dispersion which results
in high catalytic performance and high coke resistance in CSCRM.
In comparison with the consecutive impregnation method, the co-
impregnation method strengthens the interaction between Ni and
CeO2 which promotes the Ni dispersion and increases the reducibil-
ity. The interaction between Ni and CeO2 in the Ce-promoted
Ni/Al2 O3 catalysts depends strongly on the Ni–Ce loading proce-
dure during the catalyst preparation.
CO2 conversion (%) H2 yield (%) CO yield (%) H2 /CO
69.2 91.2 90.9 2.0
68.9 88.1 89.7 2.0
57.0 87.9 84.2 2.1
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by Energy and Resources Technology
Development Programs (2006CCC11P011A) under the Ministry of
Knowledge Economy, Republic of Korea.
References
[1] J.R.H. Ross, A.N.J. van Keulen, M.E.S. Hegarty, K. Seshan, Catal. Today 30 (1996)
193–199.
[2] F. Yagi, R. Kanai, S. Wakamatsu, R. Kajiyama, Y. Suehiro, M. Shimura, Catal.
Today 104 (2005) 2–6.
[3] C. Song, W. Pan, Catal. Today 98 (2004) 463–484.
[4] X. Song, Z. Guo, Energ. Convers. Manage. 47 (2006) 560–569.
[5] T. Wakatsuki, Y. Morita, H. Okado, K. Inaba, H. Hirayama, M. Shimura, K.
Kawazuishi, O. Iwamoto, T. Suzuki, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal. (2001) 117–122.
[6] Q.H. Zhang, Y. Li, B.Q. Xu, Catal. Today 98 (2004) 601–605.
[7] Y.H. Kim, K.Y. Koo, I.K. Song, Korean Chem. Eng. Res. 47 (2009) 700–704.
[8] J. Sehested, Catal. Today 111 (2006) 103–110.
[9] H.-S. Roh, K.-Y. Koo, U.D. Joshi, W.L. Yoon, Catal. Lett. 125 (2008) 283–
288.
[10] S.O. Choi, S.H. Moon, Catal. Today 146 (2009) 148–153.
[11] C.E. Daza, A. Kiennemann, S. Moreno, R. Molina, Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 364 (2009)
65–74.
[12] A.C.S.F. Santos, S. Damyanova, G.N.R. Teixeira, L.V. Mattos, F.B. Noronha, F.B.
Passos, J.M.C. Bueno, Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 290 (2005) 123–132.
[13] Q. Zhuan, Y. Qin, L. Chang, Appl. Catal. 70 (1991) 1–8.
[14] Y. Li, B. Zhang, X. Tang, Y. Xu, W. Shen, Catal. Commun. 7 (2006) 380–386.
[15] S. Therdthianwong, C. Siangchin, A. Therdthianwong, Fuel Process. Technol. 89
(2008) 160–168.
[16] H.S. Potdar, H.-S. Roh, K.-W. Jun, M. Ji, Z.-W. Liu, Catal. Lett. 84 (2002) 95–
100.
[17] J. Chen, R. Wang, J. Zhang, F. He, S. Han, J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem. 235 (2005)
302–310.
[18] S. Özkara-Aydinoğlu, E. Özensoy, A.E. Aksoylu, Int. J. Hydogen Energ. 34 (2009)
9711–9722.
[19] K.Y. Koo, H.-S. Roh, U.H. Jung, W.L. Yoon, Catal. Lett. 130 (2009) 217–221.
[20] H.-S. Roh, K.Y. Koo, J.H. Jeong, Y.T. Seo, D.J. Seo, Y.-S. Seo, W.L. Yoon, S.B. Park,
Catal. Lett. 117 (2007) 85–90.
[21] K.V.R. Chary, P.V.R. Rao, V. Vishwanathan, Catal. Commun. 7 (2006) 974–
978.
[22] W. Shan, M. Luo, P. Ying, W. Shen, C. Li, Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 246 (2003) 1–9.
[23] S. Chettibi, R. Wojcieszak, E.H. Boudjennad, J. Belloni, M.M. Bettahar, N.
Keghouche, Catal. Today 113 (2006) 157–165.
[24] N. Laosiripojana, S. Assabumrungrat, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 60 (2005) 107–116.
[25] J.C. Escritori, S.C. Dantas, R.R. Soares, C.E. Hori, Catal. Commun. 10 (2009)
1090–1094.
[26] S. Corthals, J.V. Nederkassel, J. Geboers, H.D. Winne, J.V. Noyen, B. Moens, B.
Sels, P. Jacobs, Catal. Today 138 (2008) 28–32.