Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Low-temperature wateregas shift reaction over supported Cu

catalysts
Dae-Woon Jeong a, Won-Jun Jang a, Jae-Oh Shim a, Won-Bi Han a, Hyun-Seog Roh a, *,
Un Ho Jung b, Wang Lai Yoon b, **
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, 1 Yonseidae-gil, Wonju, Gangwon 220-710, South Korea
b
Hydrogen Energy Research Center, Korea Institute of Energy Research, 71-2, Jang-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, South Korea

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

Article history: The low-temperature wateregas shift (WGS) reaction has been carried out at a very high gas hourly
Received 31 January 2013 space velocity (GHSV) of 36,201 h
1 over supported Cu catalysts prepared by an incipient wetness
Accepted 16 July 2013 impregnation method. The preparation method was optimized to get a highly active CeO2 supported Cu
Available online 7 August 2013
catalyst for low-temperature WGS. Co-precipitated CueCeO2 exhibited excellent catalytic performance as
well as 100% CO2 selectivity. The high activity and stability of co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst is
Keywords:
correlated to its easier reducibility, high surface area and the nano-sized CeO2 with CuO species inter-
Low-temperature wateregas shift reaction
acting with the support.
Preparation method
Cu
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Co-precipitated
Easier reducibility
Nano-sized CeO2

1. Introduction over CueZneAl2O3 catalysts. However, conventional WGS catalysts

The wateregas shift reaction (WGS) is an important reaction
used in the chemical industrial process for the production of clean
hydrogen [1,2]. Conventionally, steam reforming of methane (SRM)
is the primary method to produce H2 for fuel cells [3e6]. The
reformed fuel contains 1e10% of CO, which adsorbs irreversibly on
the Pt electrode of the polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs) at the
operating temperature and hinders the electrochemical reaction
[7]. Therefore, CO must be removed from the reformed gases to less
than 10 ppm.
WGS is critical to reduce CO concentrations and produce addi-
tional H2 for low temperature fuel cell application [8]. As a conse-
quence, the interest in WGS has grown significantly in the last few
years, as a result of the recent advances in fuel cell technology and
the need to develop compact reformers [9].
The state of the art industrial process for WGS is carried out in
two steps to overcome the thermodynamic limitation: a high
temperature shift (HTS, 350e450  C) reaction over Fe2O3eCr2O3
catalysts and a low temperature shift (LTS, 180e250  C) reaction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 33 760 2834; fax: þ82 33 760 2571.
** Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 42 860 3661; fax: þ82 42 860 3739.
E-mail addresses: hsroh@yonsei.ac.kr (H.-S. Roh), wlyoon@kier.re.kr (W.L. Yoon).
are pyrophoric and normally require long and complex activation
steps [10]. In addition, the performance of WGS reaction depends
strongly on the property of the catalysts. This property is especially
important in the case of CueZnOeAl2O3 catalysts. They are sus-
ceptible to chemical poisoning and can be easily deactivated ther-
mally. Therefore, the development of novel LTS catalysts is
underway [11].
Precious metals (Pt, Pd, Rh etc.) are well known for LTS catalysts
with high catalytic performance. However, the relatively high cost
and limited availability of these metals may inhibit their small-
scale applications. Thus, design and synthesis of more cost-effective
and affordable precious metal-free catalysts are of particular in-
terest [12].
Recently, various catalyst compositions have been explored in
LTS by varying Cu loading and the oxide supports [1,13,14]. LTS
activity is reported to depend on a number of factors, including
preparation method, the nature of support, testing condition, and
reactor design [15]. However, oxide supported Cu catalysts show
significant WGS activity but their performance is not fully under-
stood and is strongly dependent on the preparation methods or the
nature of the oxide support [8,10,11,16,17]. Therefore, an improve-
ment of LTS catalysts has been a subject of continuous and ongoing
interest of many research groups.

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.035
 D.-W. Jeong et al. / Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107 103

In our efforts to develop supported Cu catalysts for LTS, we
found a strong influence of the support on catalyst activity. In
detail, the first aspect of this work is to screen the catalytic per-
formance of supported Cu catalysts for LTS. The second aspect of
this work is to study the effect of preparation method on the cat-
alytic performance in WGS at low-temperature. The effect of sup-
port and preparation methods on the catalytic performance has
been characterized by BET, XRD, N2O-chemisorption, TPR, TEM and
related to the activity results in WGS.
2. Experimental
2.1. Catalyst preparation
at a heating rate of 3.3  C/min and the temperature was maintained
for 1 h. Afterwards, the temperature was decreased to 200  C. The
simulated reformed gas consisted of 6.5vol% CO, 7.1vol% CO2, 0.7vol%
CH4, 42.4vol% H2, 28.7vol% H2O, and 14.5vol% N2. The feed H2O/
(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ratio was intentionally fixed at 2.0 because a H2O/
CH4 ratio is typically 3.0 in SRM to avoid coke formation [20e24].
A GHSV of 36,201 h
1 was used to screen the catalysts in this
study. Water was fed using a syringe pump and was vaporized at
180  C upstream of the reactor. The reformed gas was chilled,
passed through a trap to condense the residual water, and then
analyzed on-line using a micro-gas chromatograph (Agilent 3000).
The conversion of CO and the selectivity of CO2 and CH4 were
calculated using the following formulas.

Support employed in this study was Al2O3 (99%, SASOL). CeO2, ½COin
½COout
CO conversionð%Þ ¼  100
ZrO2 and MgO were prepared by a precipitation method using ½COin
Ce(NO3)3$6H2O (99%, Aldrich), zirconyl nitrate solution (20 wt% ZrO2
basis, MEL Chemicals), and Mg(NO3)2$6H2O (99%, Aldrich), respec- ½CO2 out
½CO2 in
CO2 selectivityð%Þ ¼


tively. The prepared supports were calcined at 400  C for 6 h. Sup- ½CH4 out
½CH4 in þ ½CO2 out
½CO2 in
ported Cu catalysts (Cu loading ¼ 20 wt%) were prepared by an
incipient wetness impregnation method with Cu(NO3)3$xH2O (99%,
 100
Aldrich). The prepared catalysts were calcined at 400  C for 6 h. For
comparison, co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst was prepared by one ½CH4 out
½CH4 in
step co-precipitation/digestion method (Cu loading ¼ 20 wt%) re- CH4 selectivityð%Þ ¼


½CH4 out
½CH4 in þ ½CO2 out
½CO2 in
ported earlier [18]. The prepared catalysts were also calcined at 400  C
for 6 h.  100

2.2. Characterization
3. Results and discussion
The BET surface area was measured by N2 adsorption at
196  C
using an ASAP 2010 (Micromeritics). The XRD patterns were
3.1. Effect of the support
recorded using a Rigaku D/MAX
IIIC diffractometer (Ni filtered
CueK radiation, 40 kV, 50 mA).
3.1.1. Catalyst characterization
N2O-chemisorption was conducted in an AutoChem II 2920
Table 1 shows the characteristics of supported Cu catalysts.
(Micromeritics). The surface area of Cu metal was measured by N2O
Among the supported Cu catalysts, Cu/Al2O3 shows the highest BET
surface titration method. Prior to the N2O titration, the fresh sam-
surface area. On the contrary, Cu/CeO2 shows the lowest BET sur-
ples with 0.1 g were reduced at 250  C for 2 h with 10% H2/Ar flow.
face area (106.5 m2/g). Compared with the supports, the BET sur-
The consumption of N2O and the release of N2 on the metallic Cu
face areas of supported Cu catalysts are relatively lower than those
sites (N2O þ 2Cu ¼ Cu2O þ N2) was measured at 60  C by a thermal
of supports, indicating that the BET surface area decreases after Cu
conductivity detector (TCD). The surface area of metallic Cu was
loading. The support crystallite sizes estimated from XRD increase
calculated by assuming 1.46  1019 Cu atoms/m2 with a molar ratio
in the order: Cu/ZrO2 < Cu/Al2O3 < Cu/CeO2 < Cu/MgO. The crys-
of 0.5 for N2O/Cus (Cu atom on surface) and the particle size of Cu
tallite size of ZrO2 cannot be calculated due to very broad and weak
was calculated with the equation of 6000/(8.92  Cu metal surface
peaks. The crystallite sizes of CeO2 and Al2O3 are 12.8 and 3.6 nm,
area/Cu fraction in gram catalyst) [19].
respectively. MgO support shows the largest crystallite size.
Temperature programmed reduction (TPR) experiments were
XRD patterns of supported Cu catalysts are given in Fig. 1. For all
carried out in an Autochem 2910 (Micromeritics). Typically, 0.05 g
of the catalysts, the peaks of CuO crystallites are detected, because
of precalcined sample was loaded into a quartz reactor. The TPR was
the amount of Cu loading is 20 wt%. For the CeO2 supported Cu
performed using 10% H2 in Ar with a heating rate of 10  C/min, from
catalyst, the peaks are corresponding to the cubic structure of CeO2
20 to 400  C. The sensitivity of the detector was calibrated by
[25]. The Cu/MgO catalyst shows the cubic structure of MgO.
reducing known weight of NiO.
Likewise, the Cu/Al2O3 catalyst shows the cubic structure of Al2O3.
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of catalysts
On the other hand, the Cu/ZrO2 catalyst has a broad peak, which can
were obtained in Tecnai G2 Te20S (FEI) microscope with 200 kV
be assigned to the amorphous structure of ZrO2.
operating voltage. All samples were suspended in ethanol by ultra-
Table 2 summarizes N2O-chemisorption data. Cu/CeO2 exhibits
sonication. The suspension was deposited on a copper grid with
the highest Cu dispersion, while Cu/ZrO2 shows the lowest Cu
carbon film for TEM measurements.
dispersion. Cu dispersion decreases in the order: Cu/CeO2 > Cu/
2.3. Catalytic reaction Table 1
Characteristics of supported Cu catalysts.
Activity tests were carried out from 200 to 400  C under atmo- Catalyst SBET (m2/g) SBET (m2/g) Support crystallite
spheric pressure in a fixed-bed micro-tubular quartz reactor with an catalyst support size (nm)
inner diameter of 4 mm. The catalyst charge was 48 mg. T-union was Cu/CeO2 106.5 129.2 12.8
employed at the exit of quartz reactor to install a thermocouple. A Cu/ZrO2 152.6 276.1 N.A.a
thermocouple was inserted into the catalyst bed to measure the Cu/MgO 157.0 211.3 15.2
reaction temperature. Prior to each catalytic measurement, the Cu/Al2O3 163.4 207.2 3.6

catalyst was reduced in 5% H2/N2 from room temperature to 400  C a

Not available due to very broad and weak XRD peaks.
104 D.-W. Jeong et al. / Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107

CuOCuO 223

Cu/CeO2 136 Cu/CeO2

H2 consumption (a.u.)
187
157
Intensity (a.u.)

Cu/ZrO2 231 Cu/ZrO2

227
Cu/MgO Cu/MgO

225

Cu/Al2O3 Cu/Al2O3

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 200 400
o
2θ (degree) Temperature ( C)

Fig. 1. XRD patterns of supported Cu catalysts. Fig. 2. TPR patterns of supported Cu catalysts.

Al2O3 > Cu/MgO > Cu/ZrO2. As a consequence, Cu/CeO2 exhibits the
smallest crystallite size of Cu, while Cu/ZrO2 shows the largest.
H2-TPR patterns of supported Cu catalysts are depicted in Fig. 2.
In the case of Cu/CeO2, two reduction peaks can be assigned to the
reduction of CuO. The first broad reduction hump, appearing at or
above 136  C is due to the reduction of surface CuO species [7]. The
second peak, appearing at 223  C is assigned to the reduction of
CuO species interacting with the support and the partial reduction
of surface CeO2 at the Cu/CeO2 interface [13,26]. It has been re-
ported that the reduction of CuO species interacting with the
support is an active reduction peak [26]. For Cu/Al2O3 and Cu/MgO
catalysts, reduction peaks are observed at 225  C and 227  C,
respectively. It should be noted that the reduction peaks of CuO
species interacting with the support are slightly shifted to higher
temperature as compared to the Cu/CeO2 catalyst. Furthermore, the
reduction peak of surface CuO species is not detected. In the case of
Cu/ZrO2, three reduction peaks can be seen around 157, 187, and
231  C. The first low temperature peak can be attributed to the
reduction of surface CuO species. The second peak at 187  C is due
to the reduction of finely dispersed CuO species [13]. The last peak
at 231  C is assigned to the reduction of CuO species, which have
the interaction with the support [13]. All these observations in TPR
study confirm that the Cu/CeO2 catalyst can be reduced at the
lowest temperature. It should be noted that the Cu/CeO2 catalyst
prepared by impregnation method in this study has easier reduc-
ibility of CuO species. In addition, the reducible CeO2 support can
supply active oxygen species to oxidize CO into CO2 by temporarily
reducing Ce4þ/Ce3þ, and then is oxidized again by taking oxygen
from H2O in WGS [21]. Thus, it is expected that this catalyst should
have higher activity than others for WGS.
supported Cu catalysts. Clearly, Cu/CeO2 catalyst exhibited the
highest CO conversion within the temperature range between 320
and 400  C. At the reaction temperature of 200  C, Cu/ZrO2 showed
the highest CO conversion. On the contrary, the others showed less
than 20% CO conversion at the same temperature. Likewise, Cu/
ZrO2 showed the highest CO conversion (35%) at 240  C. At 280  C,
the CO conversions were about 30%, except for Cu/Al2O3. At the
reaction temperature of 320  C, the CO conversion of Cu/CeO2 was
significantly increased. This is possibly due to the fact that the CeO2
support significantly enhances the catalytic performance by the
reduction efficiency and excellent oxygen storage capacity (OSC)
[27e29]. At 360  C, Cu/CeO2 catalyst reached almost equilibrium CO
conversion even at the GHSV of 36,201 h
1. The CO conversion of
Cu/CeO2 was decreased to 73% at 400  C due to the exothermic
nature of WGS. Within the reaction temperature range from 320 to
360  C, the CO conversion decreased in the order: Cu/CeO2 > Cu/
MgO > Cu/ZrO2 > Cu/Al2O3. It has been reported that CeO2 has
higher capability of redox couple than the others [30e32]. As a
result, Cu/CeO2 exhibited the highest CO conversion at or above
320  C.
Fig. 4 depicts selectivity to CO2 and CH4 with reaction temper-
ature over supported Cu catalysts. It should be noted that 100%
selectivity to CO2 is obtained over all the catalysts. This strongly
100
Equilibrium
80
Cu/CeO2
CO conversion (%)

Cu/ZrO2
Cu/MgO
60
3.1.2. Catalytic performance Cu/Al2O3
To develop a promising catalyst for LTS, we have tested sup-
ported Cu catalysts at the GHSV of 36,201 h
1, which is 12 times 40
higher than that of the typical experimental condition of LTS. Fig. 3
presents CO conversion profiles with reaction temperature over
20
Table 2
N2O-chemisorption results of supported Cu catalysts.
0
Catalyst Cu dispersion (%) Cu S.A. (m2/g) Cu crystallite size (nm) 200 250 300 350 400
Cu/CeO2 6.6 4.0 15.1 o
Cu/ZrO2 2.1 1.8 47.6 Temperature ( C)
Cu/MgO 2.4 2.1 41.6
Cu/Al2O3 2.9 2.5 34.4 Fig. 3. CO conversion with reaction temperature over supported Cu catalysts (H2O/
(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ¼ 2.0; GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1).
 D.-W. Jeong et al. / Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107 105

100 Table 3
Comparison of characteristics between co-precipitated and impregnated 20 wt%
CueCeO2 catalysts after calcination at 400  C for 6 h.
80 CO2 selectivity (%) Co-precipitated Impregnated

BET surface area (m2/g)a 119.3 106.5

Selectivity (%)

Cu/CeO2 Support crystallite size (nm)b 5.4 12.8

60
Cu/ZrO2 Cu dispersion (%)c 8.5 6.6
Cu crystallite size (nm)c 11.8 15.1
Cu/MgO
40 Cu/Al2O3
a
Estimated from N2 adsorption at
196  C.
b
Estimated from XRD.
c
Estimated from N2O-chemisorption.

20 CH4 selectivity (%)

CuO CuO
0
200 250 300 350 400
o
Temperature ( C) CuCeO2 (CP)

Intensity (a.u.)
Fig. 4. Selectivity to CO2 and CH4 with reaction temperature over supported Cu cat-
alysts (H2O/(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ¼ 2.0; GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1).

indicates that supported Cu catalysts are selective toward the

desirable WGS reaction. CuCeO2 (Imp)

3.2. Comparison between co-precipitation and impregnation

catalysts

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
3.2.1. Catalyst characterization
Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of co-precipitated and 2θ (degree)
impregnated catalysts. The BET surface areas of co-precipitated and
impregnated catalysts are 119.3 and 106.5 m2/g, respectively. The Fig. 5. XRD patterns of co-precipitated and impregnated 20 wt% CueCeO2 catalysts.

XRD patterns for these catalysts are depicted in Fig. 5. The crys-
tallite size of CeO2 of the impregnated catalyst (12.8 nm) is much
3.2.2. Catalytic performance
bigger than that of CeO2 of the co-precipitated catalyst (5.4 nm).
The WGS reaction data on both catalysts are presented in Fig. 8.
Moreover, the CuO peaks in the co-precipitated catalyst are much
It is obvious that the co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst showed
broader than those in the impregnated one, indicating thereby
higher CO conversion than the impregnated Cu/CeO2 catalyst
higher dispersion and less sintering of fine CuO particles during the
within the temperature range between 200 and 280  C. At 200  C,
calcination process. The values of Cu dispersion of co-precipitated
the impregnated catalyst exhibited CO conversion of 8%. On the
and impregnated catalysts are 8.5 and 6.6%, respectively. The
other hand, the co-precipitated catalyst showed CO conversion of
crystallite sizes of Cu for both samples are also given in Table 3. For
30%. At the reaction temperature of 240  C, the CO conversion of the
the impregnated catalyst, the crystallite size of Cu is bigger than
co-precipitated catalyst was 4 times higher than that of the
that of the co-precipitated one. It is interesting to note that the
impregnated catalyst. The co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst also
novel method of co-precipitation/digestion helps to produce a
showed higher CO conversion than the impregnated one at 280  C.
nano-sized CeO2 with fine CuO species.
As a consequence, the co-precipitated catalyst gave higher perfor-
Fig. 6 illustrates TPR patterns of co-precipitated and impreg-
mance than the impregnated one at low temperatures.
nated 20 wt% CueCeO2 catalysts. The co-precipitated CueCeO2
catalyst has two reduction peaks at 139 and 207  C, respectively.
The first peak, appearing at 139  C is attributed to the reduction of 207

surface CuO species. The second sharp peak is assigned to the

reduction of CuO species with an interaction with the support.
Interestingly, the reduction of CuO species interacting with CeO2 of
H2 consumption (a.u.)

the co-precipitated catalyst is easier than that of the impregnated 139 CuCeO2 (CP)
one. Due to the easier reducibility of the co-precipitated catalyst, it
is expected that the co-precipitated catalyst should have higher CO 223
conversion at lower temperatures.
TEM images of fresh catalysts are shown in Fig. 7. The size of
particles in the co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst is around 6 nm, 136 CuCeO2 (Imp)
which is consistent with the results obtained from XRD. For the
impregnated Cu/CeO2 catalyst, the particle sizes are irregular.
Clearly, the particle size of the impregnated catalyst is bigger than
that of the co-precipitated catalyst. This result indicates that the co-
precipitated catalyst is finely dispersed compared to the impreg- 200 400
nated catalyst. This is mainly due to the fact that a novel co-pre- o
Temperature ( C)
cipitation/digestion method helps to produce a nano-sized CeO2
with fine CuO species interacting with the support. Fig. 6. TPR patterns of co-precipitated and impregnated 20 wt% CueCeO2 catalysts.
106 D.-W. Jeong et al. / Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107

100

80 CO2 selectivity (%)

Selectivity (%)
60
CuCeO2 (CP)
CuCeO2 (Imp)
40

20 CH4 selectivity (%)

0
200 250 300 350 400
o
Temperature ( C)
Fig. 9. Selectivity to CO2 and CH4 with reaction temperature over co-precipitated and
impregnated 20% CueCeO2 catalysts (H2O/(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ¼ 2.0;
GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1).

impregnated one. This indicates that the co-precipitated/digestion

Fig. 7. TEM image of fresh (a) co-precipitated and (b) impregnated 20 wt% CueCeO2
catalysts calcined at 400  C for 6 h.
The above-mentioned reaction results can be explained as fol-
lows. First, the high surface area in the co-precipitated material is
maintained due to the formation of primary particles during
digestion and strengthening of the network structure, giving a
porous material which is capable of withstanding thermal treat-
ment [33]. This allows the high surface area to be retained even
after calcination at 400  C in air compared to the impregnated
catalyst. Thus, the novel method of co-precipitation/digestion helps
to produce a nano-sized CeO2 with CuO species interacting with the
support. Second, the ability of the co-precipitated CueCeO2 is
related to its rapid reduction/oxidation capability by shifting be-
tween Ce4þ and Ce3þ under oxidizing conditions. According to the
TPR results, the co-precipitated catalyst is easily reducible than the
method helps to enhance the capability of the redox couple
Ce4þ 4 Ce3þ, resulting in favoring the oxygen storage capacity/
mobility [34,35]. As a consequence, the novel co-precipitated/
digested method helps to increase reducibility of CeO2 supported
Cu catalyst, resulting in enhancing the activity of WGS at low
temperatures.
Fig. 9 shows selectivity to CO2 and CH4 with reaction tempera-
ture over co-precipitated and impregnated 20 wt% CueCeO2 cata-
lysts. Within the reaction temperature region, 100% selectivity to
CO2 was maintained for both catalysts. This indicates that both
catalysts can selectively convert CO into CO2 without the metha-
nation reaction.
To check the stability of the co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst in
WGS, CO conversion data were collected at 320  C and at the GHSV
of 36,201 h
1 for 20 h. Fig. 10 illustrates CO conversion results over
the co-precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst. It is clear that the co-
precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst showed relatively stable activity
with time on stream. Kubacka et al. reported that 60% CO conver-
sion was maintained for 10 h over WeCueCeO2 (Cu ¼ 20 wt%) at
300  C and the GHSV of 40,000 h
1 [36]. Maluf et al. reported that
45% CO conversion was maintained for 6 h over CueCeO2

100 100

Equilibrium
80 80
CuCeO2 (CP)
CO conversion (%)

CuCeO2 (Imp)
CO conversion (%)

60 60

40 40
Co-precipitated Cu-CeO2

20 20

0 0
200 250 300 350 400
0 5 10 15 20
o
Temperature ( C) Time on stream (h)
Fig. 8. CO conversion with reaction temperature over co-precipitated and impregnated Fig. 10. CO conversion with time on stream over co-precipitated 20 wt% CueCeO2
20 wt% CueCeO2 catalysts (H2O/(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ¼ 2.0; GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1). catalysts (H2O/(CH4 þ CO þ CO2) ¼ 2.0; T ¼ 320  C; GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1).
 D.-W. Jeong et al. / Renewable Energy 65 (2014) 102e107
(Cu ¼ 19 wt%) at 260  C and the GHSV of 36,795 h
1 [37]. To the best
of our knowledge, it is a rare case that supported Cu catalyst having
more than 20 wt% Cu shows such a high activity and stability for
20 h under the condition of GHSV ¼ 36,201 h
1 in WGS.
4. Conclusions
The catalytic performance of supported Cu catalysts depends
strongly on the reducibility of the catalyst and depends partly on
the dispersion of Cu. Cu/CeO2 catalyst exhibits the highest CO
conversion with easier reducibility in WGS. A novel one-step co-
precipitation/digestion process produced 20 wt% Cu loaded on
CeO2 catalyst having better activity and thermal stability than the
impregnated catalyst having the same composition. The higher
activity and stability of this catalyst in WGS at low temperatures is
mainly related to the high surface area, the nano-sized CeO2 sup-
port and the easier reducibility of the catalyst. Therefore, co-
precipitated CueCeO2 catalyst can be considered as one of the best
catalyst for the low-temperature WGS, which requires high
intrinsic activity at very high GHSV.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Research. This research was supported by Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
(2013R1A1A1A05007370).
References
[1] Rodriguez JA, Liu P, Wang X, Wen W, Hanson J, Hrbek J, et al. Wateregas shift
activity of Cu surfaces and Cu nanoparticles supported on metal oxides. Catal
Today 2009;143:45e50.
[2] Subramanian V, Potdar HS, Jeong D-W, Shim J-O, Jang W-J, Roh H-S, et al.
Synthesis of a novel nano-sized Pt/ZnO catalyst for water gas shift reaction in
medium temperature application. Catal Lett 2012;142:1075e91.
[3] Rostrup-Nielsen JR. Catalytic steam reforming. In: Anderson JR, Boudart M,
editors. Catalysis, science and technology. Berlin: Springer; 1984.
[4] Roh H-S, Jun K-W, Dong W-S, Chang J-S, Park S-E, Joe Y-I. Highly active and
stable Ni/CeeZrO2 catalyst for H2 production from methane. J Mol Catal A:
Chem 2002;181:137e42.
[5] Liu Z-W, Jun K-W, Roh H-S, Park S-E. Hydrogen production for fuel cells
through methane reforming at low temperatures. J Power Sources 2002;111:
283e7.
[6] Liu Z-W, Roh H-S, Jun K-W. Important factors on carbon dioxide reforming of
methane over nickel-based catalysts. J Ind Eng Chem 2003;9:753e61.
[7] Yahiro H, Murawaki K, Saiki K, Yamamoto T, Yamaura H. Study on the sup-
ported Cu-based catalysts for the low-temperature wateregas shift reaction.
Catal Today 2007;126:436e40.
[8] Fu Q, Saltsburg H, Flytzani-Stephanopoulos M. Active nonmetallic Au and Pt
species on ceria-based wateregas shift catalysts. Science 2003;301:935e8.
[9] Trimm DL, Önsan ZI. Onboard fuel conversion for hydrogen-fuel-cell-driven
vehicles. Catal Rev Sci Eng 2001;43:30e84.
[10] Thomas JM, Thomas WJ. Principles and practice of heterogeneous catalysis.
New York: VCH; 1997.
[11] Burch R. Gold catalysts for pure hydrogen production in the wateregas shift
reaction: activity, structure and reaction mechanism. Phys Chem Chem Phys
2006;8:5483e500.
[12] Marino F, Descorme C, Duprez D. Supported base metal catalysts for the
preferential oxidation of carbon monoxide in the presence of excess hydrogen
(PROX). Appl Catal B: Environ 2005;58:175e83.
107
[13] Djinovic P, Batista J, Pintar A. Calcination temperature and CuO loading
dependence on CuOeCeO2 catalyst activity for wateregas shift reaction. Appl
Catal A: Gen 2008;347:23e33.
[14] Liu X, Guo P, Xie S, Pei Y, Qiao M, Fan K. Effect of Cu loading on Cu/ZnO watere
gas shift catalysts for shut-down/start-up operation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37:6381e8.
[15] Ma Z-Y, Yang C, Wei W, Li W-H, Sun Y-H. Catalytic performance of copper
supported on zirconia polymorphs for CO hydrogenation. J Mol Catal A: Chem
2005;231:75e81.
[16] Figueiredo RT, Ramos ALD, De Andrade HMC, Fierro JLG. Effect of low steam/
carbon ratio on water gas shift reaction. Catal Today 2005;107e108:671e5.
[17] Rodriguez JA, Liu P, Hrbek J, Evans J, Pérez M. Water gas shift reaction on Cu
and Au nanoparticles supported on CeO2(111) and ZnO(0001): intrinsic ac-
tivity and importance of support interactions. Angew Chem Int Ed 2007;46:
1329e32.
[18] Potdar HS, Roh H-S, Jun K-W, Ji M, Liu Z-W. Carbon dioxide reforming
of methane over co-precipitated NieCeeZrO2 catalysts. Catal Lett 2002;84:
95e100.
[19] Dell RM, Stone FS, Tiley PF. The adsorption of oxygen and other gases on
copper. Trans Faraday Soc 1953;49:195e201.
[20] Roh H-S, Jung Y, Koo KY, Jung UH, Seo Y-S, Yoon WL. H2 Production over Ni/
geAl2O3 catalyst prepared by a homogeneous precipitation method using
urea for direct internal reforming (DIR) in a molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC).
Chem Lett 2009;38:1162e3.
[21] Jeong D-W, Potdar HS, Roh H-S. Comparative study on nano-sized 1 wt% Pt/
Ce0.8Zr0.2O2 and 1 wt% Pt/Ce0.2Zr0.8O2 catalysts for a single stage water gas
shift reaction. Catal Lett 2012;142:439e44.
[22] Roh H-S, Koo KY, Jung UH, Yoon WL. Hydrogen production from natural gas
steam reforming over Ni catalysts supported on metal substrates. Curr Appl
Phys 2010;10:S37e9.
[23] Jeong D-W, Potdar HS, Kim K-S, Roh H-S. The effect of sodium in activity
enhancement of nano-sized Pt/CeO2 catalyst for water gas shift reaction at
low temperature. Bull Kor Chem Soc 2011;32:3557e8.
[24] Roh H-S, Lee DK, Koo KY, Jung UH, Yoon WL. Natural gas steam reforming for
hydrogen production over metal monolith catalyst with efficient heat-trans-
fer. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35:1613e9.
[25] Potdar HS, Jeong D-W, Kim K-S, Roh H-S. Synthesis of highly active nano-sized
Pt/CeO2 catalyst via a cerium hydroxy carbonate precursor for water gas shift
reaction. Catal Lett 2011;141:1268e74.
[26] Tang X, Zhang B, Li Y, Xu Y, Xin Q, Shen W. CuO/CeO2 catalysts: redox features
and catalytic behaviors. Appl Catal A: Gen 2005;288:116e25.
[27] Roh H-S, Eum I-H, Jeong D-W. Low temperature steam reforming of methane
over NieCe(1ex)Zr(x)O2 catalysts under severe conditions. Renew Energy
2012;42:212e6.
[28] Roh H-S, Potdar HS, Jeong D-W, Kim K-S, Shim J-O, Jang W-J, et al. Synthesis of
highly active nano-sized (1 wt.% Pt/CeO2) catalyst for water gas shift reaction
in medium temperature application. Catal Today 2012;185:113e8.
[29] Roh H-S, Jeong D-W, Kim K-S, Eum I-H, Koo KY, Yoon WL. Single stage watere
gas shift reaction over supported Pt catalysts. Catal Lett 2011;141:95e9.
[30] Koo KY, Roh H-S, Jung UH, Yoon WL. CeO2 promoted Ni/Al2O3 catalyst in
combined steam and carbon dioxide reforming of methane for gas to liquid
(GTL) process. Catal Lett 2009;130:217e21.
[31] Potdar HS, Deshpande SB, Deshpande AS, Gokhale SP, Date SK, Khollam YB,
et al. Preparation of ceriaezirconia (Ce0.75Zr0.25O2) powders by microwavee
hydrothermal (MH) route. Mater Chem Phys 2002;74:306e12.
[32] Roh H-S, Potdar HS, Jun K-W. Carbon dioxide reforming of methane over co-
precipitated NieCeO2, NieZrO2 and NieCeeZrO2 catalysts. Catal Today
2004;93e95:39e44.
[33] Chuah GK, Jaenicke S. The preparation of high surface area zirconia e
influence of precipitating agent and digestion. Appl Catal A: Gen 1997;163:
261e73.
[34] Trovarelli A, De Leitenburg C, Dolcetti G. Design better cerium-based oxida-
tion catalysts. Chemtech 1997;27:32e7.
[35] Thammachart M, Meeyoo V, Risksomboon T, Osuwan S. Catalytic activity of
CeO2eZrO2 mixed oxide catalysts prepared via solegel technique: CO
oxidation. Catal Today 2001;68:53e61.
[36] Kubacka A, Si R, Michorczyk P, Martínez-Aria A, Xu W, Hanson JC, et al.
Tungsten as an interface agent leading to highly active and stable copper-ceria
water gas shift catalyst. Appl Catal B: Environ 2013;132e133:423e32.
[37] Maluf SS, Nascente PAP, Assaf EM. CuO and CuOeZnO catalysts supported on
CeO2 and CeO2eLaO3 for low temperature wateregas shift reaction. Fuel
Process Technol 2010;91:1438e45.