Influence of the order of the catalysts in the stacked bed of VGO hydrotreating catalysts

[Display omitted] •Influence of catalysts order and ratio in the bed loading was studied.•NiMo/Al2O3 had the highest HDS and HDN activities of the model and real feed.•SRVGO should be treated firstly by NiMo and then by CoMo catalysts.•The best ratio of NiMo/Al2O3 to CoMo/Al2O3 and catalysts was 40/...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fuel (Guildford) 2021-12, Vol.306, p.121672, Article 121672
Hauptverfasser: Nadeina, K.A., Vatutina, Yu.V., Mukhacheva, P.P., Krestyaninova, V., Saiko, A.V., Bykova, E.S., Romanova, T.S., Klimov, O.V., Danilevich, V.V., Noskov, A.S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:[Display omitted] •Influence of catalysts order and ratio in the bed loading was studied.•NiMo/Al2O3 had the highest HDS and HDN activities of the model and real feed.•SRVGO should be treated firstly by NiMo and then by CoMo catalysts.•The best ratio of NiMo/Al2O3 to CoMo/Al2O3 and catalysts was 40/60 vol%. The influence of the order of catalysts and their ratio in the bed for FCC feedstock hydrotreatment was investigated. CoMo/Al2O3 and NiMo/Al2O3 catalysts were prepared in the laboratory and studied by nitrogen adsorption–desorption, XPS and HRTEM methods. The catalysts were tested in hydrotreatment of model feedstocks. It was found that NiMo/Al2O3 catalyst had the highest activity in conversion of the model feedstock containingsulfur and nitrogen compounds. The best results were obtained for the feedstockfirstly treated by NiMo/Al2O3 and then by CoMo/Al2O3. Catalysts were tested separately and together in hydrotreatment of SRVGO. The order of catalysts and their ratio were varied. The best combination included NiMo/Al2O3 catalyst at the top of the reactor and CoMo/Al2O3 at the bottom of the reactor in the ratio of 40/60 vol%.
ISSN:0016-2361
1873-7153
DOI:10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121672