Skip to main content
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2024 Jan 19;14(3):1834–1845. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.3c03956

The Impact of Oxygen Surface Coverage and Carbidic Carbon on the Activity and Selectivity of Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Carbide (2D-Mo2C) in Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis

Evgenia Kountoupi , Alan J Barrios ‡,§, Zixuan Chen , Christoph R Müller , Vitaly V Ordomsky ‡,*, Aleix Comas-Vives ∥,⊥,*, Alexey Fedorov †,*
PMCID: PMC10845113  PMID: 38327645

Abstract

graphic file with name cs3c03956_0005.jpg

Transformations of oxygenates (CO2, CO, H2O, etc.) via Mo2C-based catalysts are facilitated by the high oxophilicity of the material; however, this can lead to the formation of oxycarbides and complicate the identification of the (most) active catalyst state and active sites. In this context, the two-dimensional (2D) MXene molybdenum carbide Mo2CTx (Tx are passivating surface groups) contains only surface Mo sites and is therefore a highly suitable model catalyst for structure–activity studies. Here, we report that the catalytic activity of Mo2CTx in Fischer–Tropsch (FT) synthesis increases with a decreasing coverage of surface passivating groups (mostly O*). The in situ removal of Tx species and its consequence on CO conversion is highlighted by the observation of a very pronounced activation of Mo2CTx (pretreated in H2 at 400 °C) under FT conditions. This activation process is ascribed to the in situ reductive defunctionalization of Tx groups reaching a catalyst state that is close to 2D-Mo2C (i.e., a material containing no passivating surface groups). Under steady-state FT conditions, 2D-Mo2C yields higher hydrocarbons (C5+ alkanes) with 55% selectivity. Alkanes up to the kerosine range form, with value of α = 0.87, which is ca. twice higher than the α value reported for 3D-Mo2C catalysts. The steady-state productivity of 2D-Mo2C to C5+ hydrocarbons is ca. 2 orders of magnitude higher relative to a reference β-Μo2C catalyst that shows no in situ activation under identical FT conditions. The passivating Tx groups of Mo2CTx can be reductively defunctionalized also by using a higher H2 pretreatment temperature of 500 °C. Yet, this approach leads to a removal of carbidic carbon (as methane), resulting in a 2D-Mo2C1–x catalyst that converts CO to CH4 with 61% selectivity in preference to C5+ hydrocarbons that are formed with only 2% selectivity. Density functional theory (DFT) results attribute the observed selectivity of 2D-Mo2C to C5+ alkanes to a higher energy barrier for the hydrogenation of surface alkyl species relative to the energy barriers for C–C coupling. The removal of O* is the rate-determining step in the FT reaction over 2D-Mo2C, and O* is favorably removed in the form of CO2 relative to H2O, consistent with the observation of a high CO2 selectivity (ca. 50%). The absence of other carbon oxygenates is explained by the energetic favoring of the direct over the hydrogen-assisted dissociative adsorption of CO.

Keywords: carbide catalysts, defunctionalization of MXenes, Fischer−Tropsch synthesis, two-dimensional (2D) materials, oxygen coverage, molybdenum carbide, DFT calculations

Introduction

The Fischer–Tropsch (FT) process has been utilized for nearly a century to hydrogenate carbon monoxide, typically derived from feedstocks such as coal, natural gas, and more recently, biomass, into chemicals and fuels.1,2 This exothermic reaction proceeds according to eq 1.3

graphic file with name cs3c03956_m001.jpg 1

Product selectivity can be tuned through the choice of catalyst, and it varies between n-alkanes, olefins, and oxygenates (typically, alcohols).4 The industrial FT catalysts are usually based on transition metals such as Fe and Co.59 In the past decades, the development of alternative FT catalysts aimed at tailoring the chain-length distribution of the products, for instance, by narrowing the broad Anderson–Schulz–Flory distribution to the desired fuel range (C10–C20 hydrocarbons for diesel fuel).10,11 In this context, early transition metal carbides (TMCs), in particular Mo carbides, have been explored as FT catalysts.12 Unsupported Mo carbides (cubic α-MoC1–x and orthorhombic β-Μo2C phases) yield mainly methane, CO2, lower alkanes, and alkenes as FT products, with a chain probability growth coefficient (α) equal to 0.3–0.4.1315 Using Μo2C, the formation of alcohols has been reported as well16 and approaches to increase the selectivity of Mo carbides to C2+ alcohols include their promotion with alkali metals such as potassium,17 or dispersing Mo carbide on a support (e.g., Al2O3, TiO2).1820

Turning to the catalytic pathways of the FT process, the main mechanisms proposed are the carbide mechanism, the CO insertion mechanism, and the hydroxycarbene mechanism, each involving initiation, propagation, and chain termination steps.2 Briefly, the carbide mechanism, proposed by Fischer and Tropsch,21 proceeds via the dissociative adsorption of CO to C* and O* that occurs simultaneously with the dissociation of H2 to H* species and the subsequent hydrogenation of C* to CHx* (x = 1–3) species; the latter are involved in chain growth (the C–C coupling step).22 The dissociation of CO* may occur directly or may be hydrogen-assisted (molecular or H*).23 The chain growth step can involve methylene (CH2*),24 methylidyne (CH*),2528 or coupling between C* and CH* species.29 In the CO insertion mechanism, CO inserts into an M–H bond (initiation) followed by the hydrogenation of the formyl (HCO*) species into CH2O* species that are hydrogenated to CH3* species and H2O; further CO insertion into a metal–alkyl bond and hydrogenation is repeated until chain growth is terminated.30 In contrast, the hydroxycarbene mechanism is linked to the formation of oxygenates and it includes a coupling reaction between two hydroxycarbene (RCOH*, R = H, alkyl) intermediates formed via the hydrogenation of adsorbed CO.31

All three main FT mechanisms have been proposed to proceed on Μo2C. In particular, it has been suggested that Mo2C catalyzes FT via a direct dissociation of CO into O* and C* species, i.e., a carbidic mechanism.32 Specifically, CO adsorption and H2 temperature-programmed experiments have been used to confirm the direct dissociation of CO on a Mo2C surface.14 However, the O* adsorbates formed can inhibit a further dissociation of CO and thereby deactivate the catalyst.33 The involvement of an H-assisted pathway for the dissociation of CO has been suggested as well, in particular as a means to avoid the formation of a too-strongly bound O* species that reduce the catalytic turnover.34 Moreover, a computational study suggested a CO insertion mechanism with a coupling between the CHx and CHyO species to proceed on Mo2C.35 Lastly, the hydroxycarbene mechanism has been suggested for Mo2C to account for the formation of alcohols.14

Oxycarbidic Mo2CxOy species/phases can form in situ from Mo2C via its reaction with oxygenates, and they have been proposed to be the catalytically activity centers for the dry reforming of methane (DRM) or hydrodeoxygenation reactions.36,37 Depending on the chemical potential of the gas phase, Mo-terminated surfaces of Mo2C can feature different coverages of O* adsorbates that can block adsorption sites and modify adsorption energies of reaction intermediates, which in turn influences the overall catalytic activity and product selectivity.38,39 While it is generally believed that higher O* coverages are associated with a lower FT activity,32,40 it is yet unclear if there is an optimum (low) O* coverage to yield the highest FT activity on Mo2C; furthermore, the dependence of product selectivity on O* coverage of Mo2C is also understudied.

One strategy to improve our understanding of the catalytic activity of Mo2C relies on the use of model catalysts with well-defined structures and surfaces, which facilitates their spectroscopic characterization and bridges the gap to computational models.4144 In this context, well-defined two-dimensional (2D) carbides of the MXene family,4548 in particular Mo2CTx (Tx are O, OH, and F surface termination groups), can serve as model catalysts owing to the controllable reductive defunctionalization of Mo2CTx (either partial or complete),49,50 in combination with a thermal stability of up to ca. 550–600 °C (for multilayer Mo2CTx with a nanoplatelet morphology),49,50 and a single (0001) basal surface structure.46 Specifically, Mo2CTx-derived catalysts proved useful in deciphering the electronic state of Mo atoms (average oxidation state of Mo that is linked to the O* coverage) under (reverse) water gas shift (R)WGS conditions. For instance, under RWGS conditions, a Mo2CTx-derived catalyst free from Tx groups evolved toward a structure with a relatively low but measurable O* coverage.50 In contrast, under WGS conditions, the same catalyst evolved to a full O* coverage, i.e., similar to the state of Mo in the parent Mo2CTx (ca. +4.5 average Mo oxidation state), and the catalytic activity declined with increasing surface functionalization by O* species.49,50

This work aims to understand the relation between the composition of Mo2CTx-derived catalysts, in particular their surface oxygen coverage and carbidic carbon content, and activity and selectivity in the FT process. We show that Mo2CTx pretreated at 500 °C in undiluted H2 (i.e., Mo2CTx–500), a material with Mo atoms only in a carbidic state (Mo2+), is a notably more active FT catalyst than Mo2CTx pretreated at 400 °C (i.e., Mo2CTx–400), which has both Mo2+ and Mo4+ states in a ratio of ca. 2:3. Interestingly, the activity of Mo2CTx–400 increases appreciably with time on stream (TOS), which is explained by a decreasing Tx coverage with TOS via an in situ reduction of Mo4+ oxycarbidic states to the Mo2+ carbidic state. Interestingly, while both the in situ activated Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 display comparable steady-state CO conversion rates, a substantially different product selectivity is observed between these two catalysts at ca. 90% CO conversion. Specifically, while the in situ activated Mo2CTx–400 produces predominantly C5+ alkanes, Mo2CTx–500 is selective to methane (55 and 61%, respectively). This distinct selectivity is explained by differences in the structure (and the active sites) and in particular the substoichiometric carbidic carbon content in Mo2CTx–500. The latter material is more accurately described as 2D-Mo2C1–x (rather than 2D-Mo2C), with an atomic ratio of Mo to Ccarb of 2.8:1, while in situ activated Mo2CTx–400 features an atomic ratio of Mo to Ccarb of 1.9:1, which is close to that in the starting Mo2CTx, i.e., (2.0 ± 0.2):1. In addition, the morphology of the catalyst is found to impact the chain probability growth coefficient α that is approximately twice higher for the 2D-Mo2C catalyst relative to reported values for 3D-Mo2C (0.87 and ca. 0.3–0.4, respectively), which might be due to a confinement effect (chain growth in the interlayer space between the MXene sheets). The amount of C5+ hydrocarbons produced per catalyst mass is substantially larger (by ca. 2 orders of magnitude) for 2D-Mo2C relative to a reference β-Μo2C catalyst (exposed to identical pretreatment conditions), highlighting the high (yet understudied) potential of MXenes for thermocatalytic applications. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations identify a low barrier for the direct CO dissociation, suggesting a carbide mechanism, in which chain growth preferentially occurs via the coupling between CH* and C* species. The DFT energy profile corroborates the experimentally observed selectivity patterns, including the production of higher alkanes and CO2 in the absence of oxygenates.

Methods

Synthesis and Characterization

Mo2Ga2C was synthesized from β-Mo2C and metallic Ga following a reported method.51 The subsequent removal of Ga to yield the multilayered Mo2CTx was performed by stirring Mo2Ga2C with 14 M HF at 140 °C for 7 days.49,50,52,53 The activated catalysts denoted Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 were prepared by treating the as synthesized Mo2CTx (ca. 40 mg) in a vertical quartz reactor (i.d. 12 mm) with a flow of undiluted H2 (20 mL min–1, 1 bar) at 400 and 500 °C, respectively (heating ramp was 5 °C min–1) for 2 h.50 While we have reported previously that Mo2CTx–500 corresponds to 2D-Mo2C, which is a multilayered material with a morphology of Mo2CTx, but with the absence of Tx groups,50 in what follows we refine this description and demonstrate that Mo2CTx–500 is more appropriately represented as 2D-Mo2C1–x. The activated materials were cooled down under N2 flow (20 mL min–1) and transferred to a glovebox (H2O and O2 < 1 ppm) without exposure to air. The materials denoted as β-Mo2C(400) and β-Mo2C(500) were prepared from β-Mo2C in the above-described conditions, at 400 and 500 °C, respectively. For the catalytic FT tests, the activated materials were prepared in situ, before switching to the reaction conditions, as described below. Additional details on the synthesis of materials and details on the powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), Raman spectroscopy, and CO chemisorption methods are provided in the Supporting Information.

Catalytic Testing

The catalytic performance of β-Mo2C and Mo2CTx, after H2 pretreatment, was evaluated in two different reactors. The first reactor, made of stainless-steel SS316 with an internal diameter and length of 2 and 150 mm, respectively, allowed the quantification of the liquid products. A second reactor, made of Hastelloy X, with an internal diameter and length of 9.1 and 305 mm, respectively, was used in experiments performed to recover and characterize the activated catalysts without air exposure. In a typical catalytic experiment in the SS316 reactor, β-Mo2C or Mo2CTx (100 mg) was first pretreated in undiluted H2 (20 mL min–1) at, respectively, 400 or 500 °C (ramping rate 1 C min–1) for 2 h; subsequently, the temperature decreased to 180 °C, the gas atmosphere was switched to syngas (H2:CO = 2:1), and the pressure was set to 25 bar with the subsequent increase of the reaction temperature to 330 °C. N2 contained in the gas bottle of CO (5%) served as an internal standard. In the material recovery experiments employing the Hastelloy X reactor, a N2 flow of 1 or 2 mL min–1 was used as an internal standard to calculate the CO conversion. Time zero of the TOS scale corresponds to the first GC point for which the concentration of the internal standard (N2) stabilized (i.e., after ca. 2 h of the start of the experiments in the 2 mm reactor and ca. 4.5 h for the experiments in the 9.1 mm reactor). The total flow rate was 8.5 or 9.5 mL min–1, yielding weight hourly space velocities (WHSV) of 5.1 or 5.7 L gcat–1 h–1 for the SS316 and Hastelloy X reactors, respectively. Gas chromatography (GC) analysis of the reagents and gaseous reaction products was performed using a Varian CP 3800 instrument equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) and a flame ionization detector (FID). Two columns were used for the analysis, a packed CTR 1 column connected to the TCD and an Rt-Q-PLOT capillary column connected to the FID. Heavier hydrocarbon products were collected and analyzed offline. 1H NMR analysis of the liquid fraction validated the absence of oxygenates (Figure S6). To analyze the heavier hydrocarbon products, ca. 90 mg of the heavy hydrocarbon fraction was dissolved in dichloromethane and subsequently analyzed using a SCION SQ-GCMS instrument. The Anderson–Schulz–Flory distribution was plotted for C10–C23 products to calculate the chain growth probability coefficient α. When the catalytic experiments were performed in a larger reactor, the activated catalysts were recovered in a glovebox for characterization and handled without exposure to air. In this reactor setup, the gaseous CO consumption was quantified with a PerkinElmer Clarus 580 GC equipped with a TCD.

Computational Details

Periodic DFT calculations were performed with the Vienna Ab Initio Simulation Package (VASP).54,55 The reported energy values correspond to Gibbs energies at 330 °C and 25 bar. The theoretical model of the (0001) facet of 2D-Mo2C is shown in Figure S16 and has been previously reported.56 Further details of the DFT calculations are provided in the Supporting Information.

Results

Materials

Multilayered nanoplatelets of Mo2CTx shown schematically in Figure 1a were obtained by etching Ga from Mo2Ga2C with HF, following a published method.49 The XPS spectrum of Mo2CTx features only a trace signal in the Ga 2p region, consistent with the successful removal of Ga (Figure S1). XRD of Mo2CTx shows no reflections due to Mo2Ga2C but reveals a sharp characteristic low angle peak at 8.5°, owing to the (0002) planes of the stacked nanosheets in multilayered Mo2CTx (Figure 1b).49,53

Figure 1.

Figure 1

(a) Schematic representation and (b) XRD pattern of as-prepared multilayered Mo2CTx. (c) Raman spectra of Mo2CTx, Mo2CTx–400, and Mo2CTx–500. The diamond symbol denotes a peak from the quartz capillary. (d) SEM images of Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500. (e) Mo 3d and (f) C 1s XPS spectra of Mo2CTx, Mo2CTx–400, and Mo2CTx–500. (g) Atomic ratio between molybdenum and carbidic carbon of Mo2CTx, Mo2CTx–400, and Mo2CTx–500. (h) Schematic representation of the reductive defunctionalization of Mo2CTx via H2 pretreatment.

Our previous Mo K-edge X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) study has shown that while the edge energy of Mo2CTx is found at 20011.2 eV, indicating an average ca. Mo4+ oxidation state in Mo2CTx, the energies for β-Mo2C and a material obtained after the pretreatment of Mo2CTx in undiluted H2 at 500 °C for 2 h (Mo2CTx–500) are close, i.e., 20000.8 and 20001.4 eV, respectively.50 In addition, XPS analysis of Mo2CTx–500, performed under airtight conditions, revealed the presence of a single electronic state of Mo at a binding energy of 228.4 eV, assigned to the Mo2+ state. The layered structure of Mo2CTx–500 is evident from the presence of the (0002) reflection at 11.5° (XRD measurement performed in air). To conclude, our reported data showed that after pretreatment in undiluted H2 for 2 h, Mo2CTx transforms into a material that is free from detectable amounts of surface termination groups.50 That being said, using 20% H2/N2 at 500 °C leads only to a partial defunctionalization of Mo2CTx.49

With these results in mind, we pretreated Mo2CTx at 400 °C under a flow of undiluted H2 for 2 h (material denoted as Mo2CTx–400) and performed a Raman analysis to compare the results obtained to that of as-prepared Mo2CTx and Mo2CTx–500. The Raman spectrum of as-prepared Mo2CTx, excited by a 780 nm laser, displays two characteristic bands centered at 143 and 252 cm–1 (Figure 1c and Figure S2). Raman bands at similar positions were also reported for Ti-based MXenes.57 Theoretical calculations of a 2D-Mo2CO2 model with O* groups occupying a 3-fold hollow site attributed the Raman vibrations at 123 and 236 cm–1 to in-plane (Eg) and out-of-plane (A1g) vibrations of the O* groups, respectively.58 Our experimentally observed frequencies for Mo2CTx are ca. 20 cm–1 higher than the calculated ones, possibly owing to the presence of oxo, hydroxy, and fluoro terminations in Mo2CTx in the experimental system as identified by XPS analysis (Figure S3; the DFT model only considered oxo groups instead). Next, we assessed the evolution of the Raman bands at 143 and 252 cm–1 as a function of pretreatment temperature (spectra collected of materials kept in airtight capillaries). While the spectrum of Mo2CTx–400 features only a low-intensity A1g band that is shifted to 264 cm–1, both Eg and A1g vibrations are absent in Mo2CTx–500, in line with the complete surface defunctionalization in this material. According to scanning electron microscopy, both Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 feature a layered nanoplatelet morphology typical for initial Mo2CTx (Figure 1d).49,50,53

Initial Mo2CTx features a mixture of Mo4+ (55%) and Mo5+ (45%) states with the respective binding energies of 229.5 and 232.4 eV, owing to the oxidation of Mo sites by the Tx groups; note that there is no Mo2+ state due to carbidic Mo in initial (i.e., as-prepared) Mo2CTx (Figure 1e and Table S7).49,50 In contrast, the two main electronic states of Mo found in Mo2CTx–400 are Mo4+ (57%) and Mo2+ (38%) with the respective binding energies of 229.1 and 228.3 eV, (Table S7, Figure 1e, and Figure S4). Finally, in Mo2CTx–500, Mo is exclusively in a Mo2+ state (carbidic Mo).49,50 The corresponding average oxidation states of Mo in Mo2CTx, Mo2CTx–400, and Mo2CTx–500 are ca. +4.5 (Mo4+/Mo5+ in ca. 1:1 ratio), +3.3 (Mo4+ and Mo2+ in ca. 3:2 ratio), and +2 (only carbidic Mo), respectively. Overall, the XPS data are consistent with the partially defunctionalized Mo sites in Mo2CTx–400.

Turning to the C 1s XPS region of Mo2CTx, in addition to adventitious carbon at a binding energy of 284.7 eV, peaks fitted with BE at 283.4, 285.9, and 288.5 eV are assigned to carbidic carbon (C–Mo), C–O, and C=O fragments, respectively (Figure 1f and Table S8). Importantly, initial Mo2CTx displays an atomic ratio of molybdenum to carbidic carbon (Mo:Ccarb) of (2.0 ± 0.2):1 (Figure 1g; the error bar represents the standard deviation from the measurement of three independent batches of Mo2CTx). Mo2CTx–400 displays a Mo:Ccarb ratio of 1.9:1, similar to that of initial Mo2CTx. In contrast, the Mo:Ccarb ratio in Mo2CTx–500 is increased notably to 2.8:1. This result can be explained by the loss of carbidic carbon during the H2 pretreatment at 500 °C (in the form of methane, vide infra).

We have further verified inferences from the XPS study by performing a H2 temperature-programmed reduction (TPR) experiment using Mo2CTx and following the off-gas by MS analysis (Figure S5). Species with a m/z ratio of 16 and 15 appear due to the ionization of methane. The signal of those species undergoes only a slight increase during the isothermal segment at 400 °C, and a notable rise is observed when the temperature is increased to 500 °C, consistent with the XPS results discussed above. Species with m/z 18 and 17 are predominantly due to the ionization of water; the latter is formed during the reductive defunctionalization of the Tx groups. During this experiment, we cofed N2 to H2 as an internal standard (2 mL min–1 of N2 flow added to 20 mL min–1 of H2). The observed stability of the m/z 28 signal during the entire TPR-MS experiment validates that the observed intensity changes of other signals can be associated with the reductive transformations of Mo2CTx.

A schematic representation visualizing the structural modification during the reductive defunctionalization of Mo2CTx under undiluted H2 yielding Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 (i.e., 2D-Mo2C1–x) is shown in Figure 1h.

In Situ Activation of Mo2CTx–400 under FT Conditions

Turning to the FT activity of the prepared materials, we first examined the performance of the reference β-Mo2C(400) using a H2:CO ratio of 2:1, 330 °C, and 25 bar and a WHSV of 5.1 L·(gcat·h)−1. β-Mo2C(400) shows a stable CO conversion of only ca. 2% (Figure 2a). At this very low conversion (that corresponds to a gravimetric CO consumption of 1.3 mmol CO gcat h–1), the selectivity to CO2 is 15% and the partial selectivities (i.e., selectivity excluding CO2) to CH4, C2–C4 alkanes, C2–C4 alkenes, and C5+ alkanes are 52, 23, 13, and 12%, respectively (Figure 2a). No organic liquid fraction in amounts sufficient for analysis was produced.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Conversion of CO with TOS using (a) β-Mo2C(400), (b) Mo2CTx–500, and (c) Mo2CTx–400 in FT. Insets show the gas-phase product distribution for the steady-state activity that corresponds to XCO = 2, 94, and 88%, respectively. (d) Liquid phase analysis (post reaction) for Mo2CTx–400. Catalytic tests were performed in a stainless-steel reactor with 2 mm internal diameter at 25 bar, 330 °C, with a CO:H2 ratio of 1:2 and a space velocity of 5.1 L·(gcat·h)−1. The carbon balance is close to 100% for most of GC points and exceeds 90% for all GC points. (e) Steady-state gravimetric rate of CO consumption and C5+ production for β-Mo2C(400), Mo2CTx–500, and Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h as well as the respective initial rates (i.e., before in situ activation) for Mo2CTx–400–TOS1h. (f) Mo 3d (left) and C 1s (right) XPS spectra of Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 after ca. 2 h TOS. Experiments designed to recover and characterize the activated catalyst were performed in a Hastelloy reactor with 9.1 mm internal diameter at 25 bar, 330 °C, with a CO:H2 ratio of 1:2 and a space velocity of 5.7 L·(gcat·h)−1.

In sharp contrast, Mo2CTx–500 displays, under identical testing conditions, an initial conversion of 94% and shows no further changes in CO conversion and product selectivity within the whole duration of the experiment (ca. 20 h TOS, Figure 2b and Table S1). The selectivity to CO2 on Mo2CTx–500 is 48%, while the partial selectivities to CH4, C2–C4 alkanes, and C5+ alkanes are 61, 37, and 2%, respectively. In contrast to β-Mo2C(400), no significant amounts of olefins (i.e., >0.5%) are detected for Mo2CTx–500. As in the case of β-Mo2C(400), no organic liquid fraction in amounts sufficient for analysis was produced during the catalytic test. Overall, Mo2CTx–500 is a poor FT catalyst that produces 19.9 mmol CH4 gcat h–1 and merely 0.6 mmol C5+ gcat h–1 (i.e., it is rather a methanation catalyst than a catalyst for FT).

Next, we assessed the FT activity of Mo2CTx–400 under identical conditions and observed a remarkable in situ activation of Mo2CTx–400 with TOS; that is, the initial CO conversion of 12% at ca. 1 h increased to 88% after 8 h of TOS and remained stable until the end of the experiment (ca. 20 h, Figure 2c). We denote the initial catalyst as Mo2CTx–400–TOS1h and the catalyst that has undergone the in situ activation and reached the steady-state conditions as Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h. The selectivity to CO2 for Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h is 50%, which parallels that of Mo2CTx–500. Yet, the partial selectivities to CH4, C2–C4 alkanes, and C5+ alkanes are 25, 20, and 55%, respectively (Figure 2c and Table S1, entry 4). The liquid fraction, accumulated throughout the experiment, consisted of water and higher alkanes, with an alkane distribution corresponding to a chain growth probability coefficient α = 0.87 (Figure 2d). This α value is ca. two times higher than the value reported for unsupported 3D molybdenum carbides (α-MoC1–x and β-Mo2C)14 and is similar to Fe-based FT catalysts.59 Furthermore, no oxygenates (Figure S6) or waxes were formed on Mo2CTx–400. When evaluating the transient period of the experiment, it is observed that with increasing CO conversion, the selectivity toward CO2 increases at the expense of hydrocarbon selectivity (Figure S7 and Table S1, entries 2–4).

The gravimetric rate of CO consumption and that of C5+ production for β-Mo2C(400), Mo2CTx–500, Mo2CTx–400–TOS1h, and Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h are plotted in Figure 2e and presented in Table S2. More specifically, Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h and Mo2CTx–500 convert CO with similar rates, i.e., 58 and 62 mmol CO gcat h–1, at 88 and 94% CO conversion, respectively. These rates are ca. 7 and 45 times higher relative to Mo2CTx–400–TOS1h and β-Mo2C(400), at 16 and 2% CO conversion, respectively. Interestingly, the gravimetric formation rate to C5+ alkanes (15.7 mmol C5+ gcat h–1) displayed by Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h is ca. 25 times higher than that of Mo2CTx–500. In what follows, we will rationalize the in situ activation results by correlating the activities of Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 to the ex situ XPS analysis of the activated catalysts.

Next, we compared the XPS spectra of Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 to that of active Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h and Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h. Here, Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 were tested in FT conditions (25 bar, 330 °C, CO:H2 ratio of 1:2 for 2 h), followed by their recovery and XPS analysis without exposure to air. Mo2CTx–400 displays an initial CO conversion of 13% that increases to 17% after 2 h TOS. We note that in this case, Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h has not yet reached the steady state. In contrast, Mo2CTx–500 displays a stable CO conversion of 93%. The values of CO conversion displayed by Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h and Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h are close to those of Mo2CTx–400 before and after its in situ activation, respectively, of the experiment described in Figure 2c; in addition, both experiments with Mo2CTx–500 show similar steady-state conversions (94 and 93%) and no activation period (Figure 2b and Figure S11). Compared to the catalytic FT experiments, in situ activation of Mo2CTx–400 is slower in the experiment designed to recover and characterize the activated catalyst. This is explained by a less efficient gas–solid contacting when using an undiluted (and therefore low volume) Mo2CTx–400 bed and a larger diameter of the reactor used (see experimental section for details).

Mo 3d XPS analysis of Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h and Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h shows little changes when compared to fresh Mo2CTx–400 and Mo2CTx–500 (Figure 2f, Figure S4, and Table S7). Interestingly, Mo2CTx–500 remains fully defunctionalized despite the presence of oxygenates (CO2 and water) under FT conditions. For Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h, there is a minor increase in its carbidic Mo component, from 38 to 41% relative to Mo2CTx–400, which is paralleled by a rise of 4% in its CO conversion during 2 h TOS. Turning to the C 1s XPS region, Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h shows an additional broad peak at a binding energy of ca. 288.9 eV, assigned to molecularly adsorbed CO*. A similar peak was observed by us previously on the active state of a 2D-Mo2C1–xOy reverse water–gas shift catalyst.50 In contrast, the peaks due to adsorbed CO*, C–O, and C=O are absent in Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h, which only shows a MXene peak due to carbidic carbon (Figure 2f).50 This observation correlates with a notably higher CO conversion in Mo2CTx–500 relative to Mo2CTx–400. The atomic ratio of Mo to Ccarb in Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h is found to be 1.9:1 (Figure S12), which is the same as in Mo2CTx–400, as discussed above. In contrast, fitting of Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h reveals a ratio of 2.6:1, which is slightly lower than 2.8:1 in Mo2CTx–500. The result indicates that the content of carbidic carbon in Mo2CTx–500 may increase slightly under FT conditions within 2 h of TOS. Overall, the substoichiometric ratio between Mo and carbidic carbon in Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h parallels the high and stable methanation selectivity (and low FT selectivity) displayed by Mo2CTx–500. Although elucidating the origin of the high methanation selectivity of Mo2CTx–500 is beyond the scope of this work, the methanation mechanism may involve carbon vacancy sites of Mo2CTx–500.

SEM images of the as-prepared and activated catalysts show that the layered nanoplatelet morphology is preserved during the FT reaction (Figure S13). XRD analysis of Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h and Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h, both opened to air, confirms the maintenance of a 2D morphology (cell parameter c of 15.50 and 15.45 Å, respectively) and the absence of any new crystalline phases (Figure S14).

A note concerning the determination of the amount of Mo surface sites in our 2D catalysts is that determining the quantity of Mo surface sites by CO chemisorption is challenging because of the low temperature of CO desorption from Mo carbides; that is, 2D-Mo2C features a broad CO desorption peak centered at ca. 24 °C,50 necessitating the use of low-temperature CO chemisorption experiments to ensure that a full CO coverage is being measured (details about the CO chemisorption experiments are provided in the Supporting Information). However, performing CO chemisorption at −30 °C likely results in gas diffusion limitations into the interlayer space of MXenes, as can be seen from a (unexpected) higher CO chemisorption capacity of Mo2CTx–400 relative to Mo2CTx–500 (Table S3). Low-temperature gas diffusion limitation is a known issue for the determination of specific surface area of MXenes using N2 physisorption (i.e., reported surface area values are notably lower than theoretically predicted values; see further details in the SI).

To conclude, the higher CO conversion displayed by Mo2CTx–500 relative to Mo2CTx–400 (prior to in situ activation) correlates with the absence of Tx passivating species in Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h and the presence of Tx species in Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h, as shown by the detection of Mo4+ and Mo5+ electronic states, in addition to the carbidic Mo2+ state, in Mo2CTx–400–TOS2h. The selectivity of Mo2CTx–500 to C5+ (i.e., FT products) is low, while its selectivity to methane is high, and this correlates with the substoichiometric ratio of Mo to carbidic carbon in both Mo2CTx–500 and Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h, owing to a loss of carbidic carbon during the H2 pretreatment at 500 °C. Carbon vacancies in Mo2CTx–500 are not readily replenished under the FT testing conditions used in this work (i.e., there is only a small increase of carbidic carbon in Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h relative to Mo2CTx–500 that is within the experimental uncertainty). In contrast, H2 pretreatment of Mo2CTx at 400 °C does not form significant amounts of carbon vacancies while exposure of Mo2CTx–400 to the FT conditions leads to the in situ removal of the remaining Tx passivating species (without the concomitant formation of carbon vacancies). The active state of Mo2CTx–400 after in situ activation can therefore be described as 2D-Mo2C, while the active state of Mo2CTx–500 is more correctly described as 2D-Mo2C1–x (Figure 3). These results underline the importance of optimized reductive surface defunctionalization protocols to achieve the full potential of Mo2CTx-derived catalysts in FT. In the following, we rationalize the selectivities displayed by 2D-Mo2C using DFT calculations and map out the most likely FT reaction pathway.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Schematic representation of the likely routes of reductive defunctionalization of Mo2CTx in H2 and under FT conditions and implications for FT selectivity.

DFT Study

Model Surface

For our DFT model, we used a fully defunctionalized surface of 2D-Mo2C (i.e., absence of any O*) species as a representative model of the Mo2CTx-400 catalyst in the steady state, to calculate the Gibbs energy profile and obtain mechanistic insights. As discussed above, the choice of this model is consistent with the presence of only carbidic Mo in the Mo 3d XPS spectrum of active Mo2CTx–500–TOS2h, as well as the lack of peaks due to CO* species in the C 1s XPS region, which excludes the presence of a CO* adlayer. The model corresponds to the Mo2C (0001) surface and consists of two exterior Mo layers and a central carbon layer sandwiched by two Mo layers.56,60 First, we examined the adsorption of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen on the 3-fold hollow, bridge, and on-top sites (Figure 4a and Figure S17). The adsorption energies and reference energies are given in Table S6. The DFT results show that H* and C* adsorb preferentially on 3-fold hollow sites above a Mo atom (denoted Inline graphic, Figure 4a), whereas O* adsorbs preferentially on 3-fold hollow sites above a C atom (denoted Inline graphic, Figure 4a). The calculated Gibbs energy profiles and snapshots of selected transition states for ethane formation are shown in Figure 4b and c, respectively.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

(a) Top and side views of the 2D-Mo2C DFT model showing 3-fold hollow sites over a Mo atom (Inline graphic) and over a carbon atom (Inline graphic). (b) Energy profile for ethane formation including the C*–CH* coupling steps. (c) Key steps of the calculated reaction mechanism on 2D-Mo2C with selected transition states and intermediates. Energies are referenced against the sum of the reactants’ energy (4 CO and 3 H2) and the catalytic surface in eV (Grel). The pathway connecting intermediates 1 and 4 is repeated also between intermediates 7 and 8.

Dissociation of CO and H2 and O* Removal

Adsorption of carbon monoxide on a Inline graphic site is exergonic by 1.07 eV. CO binds via carbon in a μ31 fashion orthogonal to the surface. This interaction weakens the C–O bond that elongates by 0.05 Å, consistent with a decrease in the calculated stretching frequency from 2129 to 1670 cm–1 owing to π-back-donation and rehybridization of CO.61 In the unassisted dissociation pathway, CO* species 1 tilts toward the surface and forms C* and O* species in vicinal 3-fold hollow sites (Inline graphic and Inline graphic, respectively; Figure S18). This state is denoted 2 (Figure S19). The associated transition state TS1 has a Gibbs energy barrier of 1.51 eV. The direct CO dissociation step is exergonic by 1.02 eV, which is similar to the values reported for the (100) surface of β-Mo2C.35 The dissociative chemisorption of H2 on the 2D-Mo2C surface starts from a physisorbed state with a shallow minimum of −20 meV and proceeds to dissociated H2 via a small energy barrier (0.15 eV).62,63 In this process, the distance from the surface to the center-of-mass of H2 decreases from 3.1 to1.4 Å while dH–H increases from 0.74 to 3.03 Å (two H*), corresponding to the distance between two adjacent Inline graphic sites. The Gibbs energy barrier for the recombination of C* and O* species on 2D-Mo2C is 2.53 eV, which is considerably higher than the Gibbs energy barrier for the hydrogenation of C* to CH* (0.90 eV), indicating that the direct dissociation of CO* is essentially irreversible in our reaction conditions (330 °C and 25 bar).

Next, we evaluated the energetics of the H2-assisted pathways for CO activation and they were found to be less favorable than TS1, owing to the higher energy barriers of 1.77 and 2.18 eV for the formyl and hydroxycarbonyl routes, respectively (Figure S19). Further details on the H2-assisted pathways are discussed in the Supporting Information. The O* species formed via the direct dissociation of CO* can be removed as CO2 through its reaction with CO* or as H2O via the reaction with 2H*. The formation of CO2 requires CO* to adopt a distorted μ32 coordination in the intermediate 3, located at −3.35 eV with respect to initial reactants. In the transition state TS2, O* migrates from a vicinal Inline graphic site atop the intersecting Mo atom (that is, the Mo atom that separates the Inline graphic and Inline graphic sites, Figure S18) with a barrier of 2.05 eV. In the product, the C atom of CO2* is on a bridge position and the O atoms are located on top positions (atop) of adjacent Mo atoms (4). The Gibbs desorption energy of a CO2 molecule under reaction conditions is 0.44 eV. Therefore, the Gibbs energy required to remove O* through a reaction with CO* (intermediate 3) and regenerate the active site is 2.02 eV. The removal of O* species via the hydrogenation of a hydroxyl yielding water has a barrier of 2.56 eV and is, therefore, less favorable. O* removal via proton transfer between neighboring hydroxyls has a an even higher energy barrier of 2.66 eV. These kinetically less favorable routes are endergonic by 2.15 eV and are discussed in detail in the SI (Figure S20).

C–C Coupling and Hydrogenation

Subsequently, we calculated the energetics of the potential C–C coupling and hydrogenation steps for ethane formation to investigate the chain growth mechanism. The calculated Gibbs energies are given in Table S4, and the optimized geometries of the initial, transition, and final states are presented in Figures S21–S24. Figure S25 shows the Gibbs energy of the respective energy barriers plotted against the Gibbs reaction energy for the elementary steps. Generally, hydrogenation steps have lower activation barriers to form CxHy species with larger y. In contrast, the C–C coupling steps have lower activation barriers for lower y with one exception that is the coupling between two C* species, which has an energy barrier of 1.43 eV, higher than the coupling barrier between C* and CH* (1.20 eV). The average barrier for the hydrogenation of various CxHy species via reactions presented in Table S4 (reactions 19–34) is ca. 1.00 (±0.29) eV. Therefore, since the hydrogenation of CxHy* involves lower barriers than the one calculated for the H*-assisted activation of CO* (1.77 and 2.18 eV for the formyl and hydroxycarbonyl routes, respectively), H* will be consumed preferentially through the hydrogenation of CxHy* rather than through the H-assisted activation of CO*. The average barrier for C–C coupling, presented in Table S4 (reactions 10–18), is ca. 1.35 (±0.22) eV, i.e., higher than the average barrier for the hydrogenation of CxHy* species. However, although the coupling of two CH* species (14 in Figure S26) is energetically favored, with the lowest Gibbs energy barrier of 0.85 eV among the possible coupling steps, the high bonding energy of CHCH* species to the surface (−2.75 eV) leads to a high Gibbs energy barrier of 1.41 eV (TS11) for transferring H* to convert CHCH* into CHCH2* (16 in Figure S26). The high energy barrier to form CHCH2* and consequently also CH2CH2* species is consistent with the absence of ethene in the experimental product distribution.

An alternative FT pathway involves the coupling between two CH* species and the H*-assisted transformation of acetylene to ethylidyne (i.e., ≡CCH3*).64 In this alkylidyne mechanism, H* adsorbed on an Inline graphic site in close proximity to the bound acetylene (15 in Figure S27), induces a hydrogen transfer from one CH group of acetylene to another. The barrier for this process is 2.26 eV (TS24 in Figure S27). The formed vinylidene (i.e., =C=CH2*) species features the sp carbon residing over an Inline graphic site and the methylidene fragment over a Mo atom. At this point, the transfer of H* from the Inline graphic site to the Mo atom interacting with the methylidene fragment converts the =C=CH2* species to ≡CCH3* (11 in Figure S27). Overall, this alternative route is not only associated with a high barrier (i.e., it is kinetically unfavorable) but also endergonic by 1.24 eV and is therefore an unlikely FT pathway on 2D-Mo2C.

The C–C coupling route with the second lowest barrier occurs between C* and CH* species (8, Figure 4). Between states 7 (that corresponds to methylidyne, CH*) and 8 in Figure 4, states 1 to 4 are repeated to account for the deposition of an additional C* on the surface. This step involves the migration of C* and CH* species from vicinal Inline graphic sites to a bridge position, via a TS4 with an energy barrier of 1.20 eV, forming CCH* (9). The CCH* species adsorbs parallel to the surface, and the H atom of CCH* does not interact with the surface. The barrier for adding adsorbed H* species to CCH* yielding CCH2* is 0.98 eV (TS5), i.e., 0.43 eV, lower than for the hydrogenation of CCH* to give CHCH* species. This low energy barrier suggests that ethane formation occurs on 2D-Mo2C via the CCH* and CCH2* intermediates. The hydrogenation of CCH* species proceeds in the bridge position, such that the C–C axis of the resulting CCH2* is nearly parallel to the surface (10). Adding a third H* to CCH2* to form CCH3* requires a reorientation of the molecular axis of CCH2* toward a configuration orthogonal to the surface with the hydrogenated C on top of a Mo atom and the bare C still over an Inline graphic site. In the transition state (TS6), the H–C–H angle (as seen from above, Figure S23) decreases from ca. 180° to ca. 120°, with an energy cost of 0.70 eV. After H* addition, only one of the H atoms of the formed ethylidyne interacts with the Mo atom in intermediate 11, as seen from the significant elongation of the C–H bond of the interacting atom (1.18 Å) compared to the other two C–H bonds (1.09 Å).

No notable geometrical change occurs, while a further hydrogen migrates from an Inline graphic site over a Mo atom to yield the CHCH3* species, associated with an energy barrier of 0.75 eV (TS7). In the CHCH3* species, the methine hydrogen interacts with one of the two remaining vicinal Mo atoms. Adding a further H* to CHCH3* to form CH2CH3* via TS8 has a Gibbs energy barrier of 0.81 eV and preserves the geometry of the CHCH3* species. Both H atoms of the CH2 group interact with Mo atoms (intermediate 12). For the final hydrogenation step, this interaction breaks such that only one H of CH2 interacts with the surface (intermediate 13). In the transition state TS9 (1.28 eV), the methylene carbon decoordinates from the 3-fold hollow site and moves atop the neighboring Mo atom while the H–C–H angle decreases from 180 to 120° (Figure S23). The hydrogenation of the CH2CH3* species to ethane has a Gibbs energy barrier equal to 1.28 eV (TS9), which is lower than the barrier to form CH4 from CH3* species (1.57 eV, Figure S28). Note that the energetic cost to form CH4 from CH3* also exceeds the average barrier for the C–C coupling steps discussed above. Therefore, our DFT results suggest that chain propagation is favored over methanation, in agreement with the experimental observations.

Lastly, to provide a rationale for the lower CO conversion rate of Mo2CTx–400–TOS1h relative to Mo2CTx–400–TOS8h (i.e., prior to and after in situ activation), we considered a 2D-Mo2C-0.67 O ML model and calculated also for this model the Gibbs energy barriers and Gibbs reaction energies of the key elementary steps identified for the 2D-Mo2C model (vide supra). Results show that the lower activity of the surface with 0.67 O* ML compared to the pristine surface can be attributed to the significantly higher barrier for the dissociation of CO on 2D-Mo2C-0.67 O ML relative to 2D-Mo2C. Further details and results for the 2D-Mo2C-0.67 O ML model are provided in the SI (Table S5 and Figure S29).

Discussion

Since the first catalytic applications of Mo2C, its reactivity was generally compared to that of Ru.65 More recently, it has been reported that the adsorption energies of C-containing intermediates on the Mo-terminated (100) surface of 3D-Mo2C are indeed similar to that of Ru (in particular the (211) surface).35 However, the adsorption energies of O-containing intermediates on the β-Mo2C (100) surface are significantly higher (i.e., more negative) due to the oxophilicity of Mo.35 Interestingly, DFT studies of Ru surfaces have shown that in the absence of a dense CO* adlayer, CO* undergoes a direct dissociation to C* and O* species on stepped sites.6668 DFT results presented here also suggest the direct dissociation of CO on the 2D-Mo2C surface in the absence of a CO* adlayer, showing further similarities with Ru surfaces.

Our DFT calculations identify notable differences between the reaction barriers and the stability of intermediates on 2D-Mo2C and those reported for 3D-Mo2C. For instance, on 3D-Mo2C, it has been suggested that the H-assisted CO dissociation pathway prevails. In this route, HCO* is formed first, which subsequently dissociates into CH* and O*. The formation of the HCO* intermediate was associated with a low barrier for different facets of 3D-Mo2C (energies ranging from 0.12 to 0.36 eV; note that these reported energies are total energy or electronic energy with a zero-point-energy correction),69,70 compared to 1.04 eV for the 2D-Mo2C (0001) surface. Furthermore, the formation of HCO* is strongly endergonic for 2D-Mo2C (1.04 eV) and can vary from exergonic (−0.32 eV) to mildly endergonic (0.13 eV) on 3D-Mo2C.69,70 Therefore, the hydrogenation of CO* to HCO* is both kinetically and thermodynamically less favorable on 2D-Mo2C than on surfaces of 3D-Mo2C. The high endothermicity of steps associated with the formation of HCO* and COH* intermediates (1.04 and 1.17 eV, respectively) on the 2D-Mo2C (0001) surface is generally consistent with the absence of oxygenates in the reaction products, suggesting the prevalence of the carbidic chain growth mechanism.

The O* removal from the 2D-Mo2C (0001) surface is endergonic, with barriers as high as ca. 2 and 2.7 eV for CO2 and H2O, respectively, owing to the high Mo–O bond strength.7174 In contrast to the desorption of H2O, steps associated with the dissociation of hydrogenated oxygen-containing species (OH* and H2O*) have lower energy barriers, that is, reactions OH* → O* + H* and H2O → OH* + H* proceed via transition states that are only 0.98 and 0.77 eV high, respectively. This indicates that the dissociation of hydrogenated oxygen-containing species occurs faster than the removal of water (assuming similar pre-exponential factors). Remembering that H* has lower barriers for its reaction with C-containing species than with O* or OH* species (Figure S20), one can conclude that CO2 is the preferred oxygenate product, which agrees well with the high experimental CO2 selectivity. A high rate of CO2 formation on 2D-Mo2C indicates a high activity for the water gas shift reaction. Interestingly, WGS occurs in FT conditions already at 330 °C, a significantly lower temperature than previously observed for Mo2CTx (ca. 450–500 °C).49 This is explained by the fully functionalized surface of Mo2CTx in WGS conditions and a (fully) defunctionalized surface under FT conditions.32

In conclusion, a MXene-derived 2D-Mo2C-based catalyst, prepared via in situ activation under FT conditions, enables the hydrogenation of CO to higher alkanes with a chain growth probability coefficient α of 0.87. The value of α is ca. two times higher than reported previously for other molybdenum carbides. The CO conversion rate of MXene-based catalysts depends strongly on the extent of defunctionalization of the surface passivating groups (Tx) such that fully defunctionalized 2D-Mo2C and 2D-Mo2C1–x catalysts show notably higher gravimetric CO conversion rates relative to only a partially defunctionalized catalyst (i.e., initial Mo2CTx–400). However, the gravimetric CO consumption rates of 2D catalysts are significantly higher, for both fully and partially defunctionalized catalysts, relative to a reference 3D β-Mo2C(400), underlining a yet unharnessed potential of 2D materials such as MXenes in heterogeneous catalysis. In the FT synthesis conditions used here, the partially defunctionalized catalyst Mo2CTx–400 undergoes a strong in situ activation explained by the reductive defunctionalization of the Tx groups in Mo2CTx–400 to form a 2D-Mo2C state. Progressive defunctionalization of Mo2CTx–400 leads also to an increase in the WGS activity (evidenced by a higher CO2 selectivity). The concomitant increase in CO conversion leads to an overall higher hydrocarbon productivity, in particular for C5+ products. H2 pretreatment at 500 °C does not only fully defunctionalize the passivating Tx groups in Mo2CTx but also partly removes carbidic carbon of Mo2CTx, yielding a 2D-Mo2C1–x catalyst active in CO methanation. In contrast, a 2D-Mo2C catalyst prepared via the in situ activation of Mo2CTx–400 does not feature a depleted content of carbidic carbon and is selective in FT. DFT calculations identified feasible energy profiles for the chain growth mechanism on a 2D-Mo2C (0001) surface under reaction conditions and in the absence of a CO adlayer. In particular, according to DFT results, CO directly dissociates into C* and O*, consistent with the absence of oxygenate products (beyond CO2). The high barrier for the hydrogenation of CH3* species to methane relative to the lower chain growth barrier explains the formation of higher alkanes. Oxygen removal is the rate-limiting step, owing to the high oxophilicity of the carbidic surface, with CO2 being the major reaction product (WGS reaction).

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by ETH Zürich through a doctoral fellowship to E.K. (ETH-40 19-2) and Z.C. (ETH-40 17-2). We are grateful to Scientific Centre for Optical and Electron Microscopy (ScopeM, ETH Zürich) for providing access to electron microscopy facilities. We thank Prof. Dr. Victor Mougel for providing access to the XPS instrumentation and Dr. Agnieszka Kierzkowska for SEM analysis (both ETH Zürich). V.V.O. acknowledges support from ANR (project DEZECO ANR-22-CE05-0005). A.C.-V. thanks the Spanish “Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación” for funding the “I + D Generación del Conocimiento” project (PID 2021-128416NB-I00). This publication was created as a part of NCCR Catalysis (grant number 180544), a National Centre of Competence in Research funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscatal.3c03956.

  • Experimental procedures, characterization, computational details, additional computational results, XPS and Raman spectra, TPD and CO chemisorption results, XRD diffractograms, and catalytic results (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

cs3c03956_si_001.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)

References

  1. Dry M. E. The Fischer–Tropsch Process: 1950–2000. Catal. Today 2002, 71, 227–241. 10.1016/S0920-5861(01)00453-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Rommens K. T.; Saeys M. Molecular Views on Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Chem. Rev. 2023, 123, 5798–5858. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fratalocchi L.; Visconti C. G.; Groppi G.; Lietti L.; Tronconi E. Intensifying Heat Transfer in Fischer–Tropsch Tubular Reactors through the Adoption of Conductive Packed Foams. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 349, 829–837. 10.1016/j.cej.2018.05.108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Filot I. A. W.; Broos R. J. P.; van Rijn J. P. M.; van Heugten G. J. H. A.; van Santen R. A.; Hensen E. J. M. First-Principles-Based Microkinetics Simulations of Synthesis Gas Conversion on a Stepped Rhodium Surface. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 5453–5467. 10.1021/acscatal.5b01391. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rofer-DePoorter C. K. A Comprehensive Mechanism for the Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Chem. Rev. 1981, 81, 447–474. 10.1021/cr00045a002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bezemer G. L.; Bitter J. H.; Kuipers H. P. C. E.; Oosterbeek H.; Holewijn J. E.; Xu X.; Kapteijn F.; van Dillen A. J.; de Jong K. P. Cobalt Particle Size Effects in the Fischer–Tropsch Reaction Studied with Carbon Nanofiber Supported Catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 3956–3964. 10.1021/ja058282w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Filot I. A. W.; van Santen R. A.; Hensen E. J. M. The Optimally Performing Fischer–Tropsch Catalyst. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 12746–12750. 10.1002/anie.201406521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Khodakov A. Y.; Chu W.; Fongarland P. Advances in the Development of Novel Cobalt Fischer–Tropsch Catalysts for Synthesis of Long-Chain Hydrocarbons and Clean Fuels. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 1692–1744. 10.1021/cr050972v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ordomsky V. V.; Luo Y.; Gu B.; Carvalho A.; Chernavskii P. A.; Cheng K.; Khodakov A. Y. Soldering of Iron Catalysts for Direct Synthesis of Light Olefins from syngas under Mild Reaction Conditions. ACS Catal. 2017, 7, 6445–6452. 10.1021/acscatal.7b01307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Subramanian V.; Cheng K.; Lancelot C.; Heyte S.; Paul S.; Moldovan S.; Ersen O.; Marinova M.; Ordomsky V. V.; Khodakov A. Y. Nanoreactors: an Efficient Tool to Control the Chain-Length Distribution in Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 1785–1792. 10.1021/acscatal.5b01596. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen Y.; Batalha N.; Marinova M.; Impéror-Clerc M.; Ma C.; Ersen O.; Baaziz W.; Stewart J. A.; Curulla-Ferré D.; Khodakov A. Y.; et al. Ruthenium Silica Nanoreactors with Varied Metal–Wall Distance for Efficient Control of Hydrocarbon Distribution in Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. J. Catal. 2018, 365, 429–439. 10.1016/j.jcat.2018.06.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Zaman S.; Smith K. J. A Review of Molybdenum Catalysts for Synthesis Gas Conversion to Alcohols: Catalysts, Mechanisms and Kinetics. Catal. Rev. - Sci. Eng. 2012, 54, 41–132. 10.1080/01614940.2012.627224. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Patterson P. M.; Das T. K.; Davis B. H. Carbon Monoxide Hydrogenation over Molybdenum and Tungsten Carbides. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 2003, 251, 449–455. 10.1016/S0926-860X(03)00371-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Schaidle J. A.; Thompson L. T. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis over Early Transition Metal Carbides and Nitrides: CO Activation and Chain Growth. J. Catal. 2015, 329, 325–334. 10.1016/j.jcat.2015.05.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim H.-G.; Lee K. H.; Lee J. S. Carbon Monoxide Hydrogenation over Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts. Res. Chem. Intermed. 2000, 26, 427–443. 10.1163/156856700X00435. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Griboval-Constant A.; Giraudon J. M.; Leclercq G.; Leclercq L. Catalytic Behaviour of Cobalt or Ruthenium Supported Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts for FT Reaction. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 2004, 260, 35–45. 10.1016/j.apcata.2003.10.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Woo H. C.; Park K. Y.; Kim Y. G.; Nam I. S.; Chung J. S.; Lee J. S. Mixed Alcohol Synthesis from Carbon Monoxide and Dihydrogen over Potassium-Promoted Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts. Appl. Catal. 1991, 75, 267–280. 10.1016/S0166-9834(00)83136-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wu Q.; Christensen J. M.; Chiarello G. L.; Duchstein L. D. L.; Wagner J. B.; Temel B.; Grunwaldt J.-D.; Jensen A. D. Supported Molybdenum Carbide for Higher Alcohol Synthesis from syngas. Catal. Today 2013, 215, 162–168. 10.1016/j.cattod.2013.03.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Li T.; Virginie M.; Khodakov A. Y. Effect of Potassium Promotion on the Structure and Performance of Alumina Supported Carburized Molybdenum Catalysts for Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 2017, 542, 154–162. 10.1016/j.apcata.2017.05.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vo D.-V. N.; Nguyen T.-H.; Kennedy E. M.; Dlugogorski B. Z.; Adesina A. A. Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Effect of Promoter Type on Alumina-Supported Mo Carbide Catalysts. Catal. Today 2011, 175, 450–459. 10.1016/j.cattod.2011.04.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fischer F.; Tropsch H. Über die Direkte Synthese von Erdöl-Kohlenwasserstoffen bei Gewöhnlichem Druck. (Zweite Mitteilung.). Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 1926, 59, 832–836. 10.1002/cber.19260590443. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Biloen P.; Sachtler W. M. H.. Mechanism of Hydrocarbon Synthesis over Fischer–Tropsch Catalysts. In Adv. Catal., Eley D. D., Pines H., Weisz P. B., Eds.; Vol. 30; Academic Press, 1981; pp 165–216. [Google Scholar]
  23. Craxford S. R.; Rideal E. K. 338. The Mechanism of the Synthesis of Hydrocarbons from Water Gas. J. Chem. Soc. 1939, 1604–1614. 10.1039/jr9390001604. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Brady R. C. III; Pettit R. Reactions of Diazomethane on Transition-Metal Surfaces and Their Relationship to the Mechanism of the Fischer–Tropsch Reaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 6181–6182. 10.1021/ja00539a053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Joyner R. W. Mechanism of Hydrocarbon Synthesis from Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. J. Catal. 1977, 50, 176–180. 10.1016/0021-9517(77)90020-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Maitlis P. M.; Zanotti V. Organometallic Models for Metal Surface Reactions: Chain Growth Involving Electrophilic Methylidynes in the Fischer–Tropsch Reaction. Catal. Lett. 2008, 122, 80–83. 10.1007/s10562-007-9359-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ciobîcă I. M.; Kramer G. J.; Ge Q.; Neurock M.; van Santen R. A. Mechanisms for Chain Growth in Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis over Ru(0001). J. Catal. 2002, 212, 136–144. 10.1006/jcat.2002.3742. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Weststrate C. J.; Sharma D.; Garcia Rodriguez D.; Gleeson M. A.; Fredriksson H. O. A.; Niemantsverdriet J. W. Mechanistic Insight into Carbon-Carbon Bond Formation on Cobalt under Simulated Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis Conditions. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 750. 10.1038/s41467-020-14613-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu Z.-P.; Hu P. A New Insight into Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11568–11569. 10.1021/ja012759w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pichler H.; Schulz H. Neuere Erkenntnisse auf dem Gebiet der Synthese von Kohlenwasserstoffen aus CO und H2. Chem. Ing. Technol. 1970, 42, 1162–1174. 10.1002/cite.330421808. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Storch H. H.; Golumbic N.; Anderson R. B.. The Fischer–Tropsch and Related Syntheses: Including a Summary of Theoretical and Applied Contact Catalysis; Wiley, 1951; p 592. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ranhotra G. S.; Bell A. T.; Reimer J. A. Catalysis over Molybdenum Carbides and Nitrides: II. Studies of CO hydrogenation and C2H6 hydrogenolysis. J. Catal. 1987, 108, 40–49. 10.1016/0021-9517(87)90153-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Posada-Perez S.; Vines F.; Ramirez P. J.; Vidal A. B.; Rodriguez J. A.; Illas F. The Bending Machine: CO2 activation and hydrogenation on δ-MoC(001) and β-Mo2C(001) Surfaces. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 14912–14921. 10.1039/C4CP01943A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kojima I.; Miyazaki E. Catalysis by Transition Metal Carbides: V. Kinetic Measurements of Hydrogenation of CO over TaC, TiC, and Mo2C catalysts. J. Catal. 1984, 89, 168–171. 10.1016/0021-9517(84)90292-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Medford A. J.; Vojvodic A.; Studt F.; Abild-Pedersen F.; Nørskov J. K. Elementary Steps of syngas Reactions on Mo2C(001): Adsorption Thermochemistry and Bond Dissociation. J. Catal. 2012, 290, 108–117. 10.1016/j.jcat.2012.03.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kurlov A.; Huang X.; Deeva E. B.; Abdala P. M.; Fedorov A.; Müller C. R. Molybdenum Carbide and Oxycarbide from Carbon-Supported MoO3 Nanosheets: Phase Evolution and DRM Catalytic Activity Assessed by TEM and In Situ XANES/XRD Methods. Nanoscale 2020, 12, 13086–13094. 10.1039/D0NR02908D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schaidle J. A.; Blackburn J.; Farberow C. A.; Nash C.; Steirer K. X.; Clark J.; Robichaud D. J.; Ruddy D. A. Experimental and Computational Investigation of Acetic Acid Deoxygenation over Oxophilic Molybdenum Carbide: Surface Chemistry and Active Site Identity. ACS Catal. 2016, 6, 1181–1197. 10.1021/acscatal.5b01930. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sullivan M. M.; Chen C.-J.; Bhan A. Catalytic Deoxygenation on Transition Metal Carbide Catalysts. Catal. Sci.Technol. 2016, 6, 602–616. 10.1039/C5CY01665G. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sullivan M. M.; Bhan A. Effects of Oxygen Coverage on Rates and Selectivity of Propane-CO2 Reactions on Molybdenum Carbide. J. Catal. 2018, 357, 195–205. 10.1016/j.jcat.2017.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mo T.; Xu J.; Yang Y.; Li Y. Effect of Carburization Protocols on Molybdenum Carbide Synthesis and Study on its Performance in CO Hydrogenation. Catal. Today 2016, 261, 101–115. 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.07.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnson G. E.; Mitrić R.; Bonačić-Koutecký V.; Castleman A. W. Clusters as Model Systems for Investigating Nanoscale Oxidation Catalysis. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2009, 475, 1–9. 10.1016/j.cplett.2009.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nørskov J. K.; Bligaard T.; Logadottir A.; Bahn S.; Hansen L. B.; Bollinger M.; Bengaard H.; Hammer B.; Sljivancanin Z.; Mavrikakis M.; Xu Y.; Dahl S.; Jacobsen C. J. H.; et al. Universality in Heterogeneous Catalysis. J. Catal. 2002, 209, 275–278. 10.1006/jcat.2002.3615. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pacchioni G.; Freund H.-J. Controlling the Charge State of Supported Nanoparticles in Catalysis: Lessons from Model Systems. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 8474–8502. 10.1039/C8CS00152A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kunkel C.; Viñes F.; Illas F. Surface Activity of Early Transition-Metal Oxycarbides: CO2 Adsorption Case Study. J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 3664–3671. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b11942. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Naguib M.; Mashtalir O.; Carle J.; Presser V.; Lu J.; Hultman L.; Gogotsi Y.; Barsoum M. W. Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Carbides. ACS Nano 2012, 6, 1322–1331. 10.1021/nn204153h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Anasori B.; Lukatskaya M. R.; Gogotsi Y. 2D Metal Carbides and Nitrides (MXenes) for Energy Storage. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2017, 2, 16098. 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.98. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Naguib M.; Mochalin V. N.; Barsoum M. W.; Gogotsi Y. 25th Anniversary Article: MXenes: a New Family of Two-Dimensional Materials. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 992–1005. 10.1002/adma.201304138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lim K. R. G.; Shekhirev M.; Wyatt B. C.; Anasori B.; Gogotsi Y.; Seh Z. W. Fundamentals of MXene Synthesis. Nat. Synth. 2022, 1, 601–614. 10.1038/s44160-022-00104-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Deeva E. B.; Kurlov A.; Abdala P. M.; Lebedev D.; Kim S. M.; Gordon C. P.; Tsoukalou A.; Fedorov A.; Müller C. R. In Situ XANES/XRD Study of the Structural Stability of Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Carbide Mo2CTx: Implications for the Catalytic Activity in the Water–Gas Shift Reaction. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 4505–4513. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b01105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhou H.; Chen Z.; Kountoupi E.; Tsoukalou A.; Abdala P. M.; Florian P.; Fedorov A.; Müller C. R. Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Carbide 2D-Mo2C as a Superior Catalyst for CO2 Hydrogenation. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5510. 10.1038/s41467-021-25784-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hu C.; Lai C. C.; Tao Q.; Lu J.; Halim J.; Sun L.; Zhang J.; Yang J.; Anasori B.; Wang J.; et al. Mo2Ga2C: a New Ternary Nanolaminated Carbide. Chem. Commun. 2015, 51, 6560–6563. 10.1039/C5CC00980D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Meshkian R.; Näslund L.-Å.; Halim J.; Lu J.; Barsoum M. W.; Rosen J. Synthesis of Two-Dimensional Molybdenum Carbide, Mo2C, from the Gallium Based Atomic Laminate Mo2Ga2C. Scripta Mater. 2015, 108, 147–150. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2015.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Halim J.; Kota S.; Lukatskaya M. R.; Naguib M.; Zhao M.-Q.; Moon E. J.; Pitock J.; Nanda J.; May S. J.; Gogotsi Y.; et al. Synthesis and Characterization of 2D Molybdenum Carbide (MXene). Adv. Funct. Mater. 2016, 26, 3118–3127. 10.1002/adfm.201505328. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kresse G.; Furthmüller J. Efficient Iterative Schemes for Ab Initio Total-Energy Calculations Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169–11186. 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kresse G.; Hafner J. Ab Initio Molecular-Dynamics Simulation of the Liquid-Metal–Amorphous-Semiconductor Transition in Germanium. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 49, 14251–14269. 10.1103/PhysRevB.49.14251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kurlov A.; Deeva E. B.; Abdala P. M.; Lebedev D.; Tsoukalou A.; Comas-Vives A.; Fedorov A.; Müller C. R. Exploiting Two-Dimensional Morphology of Molybdenum Oxycarbide to Enable Efficient Catalytic Dry Reforming of Methane. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4920. 10.1038/s41467-020-18721-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kamysbayev V.; Filatov A. S.; Hu H.; Rui X.; Lagunas F.; Wang D.; Klie R. F.; Talapin D. V. Covalent Surface Modifications and Superconductivity of Two-Dimensional Metal Carbide MXenes. Science 2020, 369, 979–983. 10.1126/science.aba8311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yorulmaz U.; Özden A.; Perkgöz N. K.; Ay F.; Sevik C. Vibrational and Mechanical Properties of Single Layer MXene Structures: a First-Principles Investigation. Nanotechnology 2016, 27, 335702 10.1088/0957-4484/27/33/335702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Eliason S. A.; Bartholomew C. H. Reaction and Deactivation Kinetics for Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis on Unpromoted and Potassium-Promoted Iron Catalysts. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 1999, 186, 229–243. 10.1016/S0926-860X(99)00146-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhou H.; Chen Z.; López A. V.; López E. D.; Lam E.; Tsoukalou A.; Willinger E.; Kuznetsov D. A.; Mance D.; Kierzkowska A.; et al. Engineering the Cu/Mo2CTx (MXene) Interface to Drive CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol. Nat. Catal. 2021, 4, 860–871. 10.1038/s41929-021-00684-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Föhlisch A.; Nyberg M.; Hasselström J.; Karis O.; Pettersson L. G. M.; Nilsson A. How Carbon Monoxide Adsorbs in Different Sites. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 3309–3312. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Nørskov J. K.; Houmøller A.; Johansson P. K.; Lundqvist B. I. Adsorption and Dissociation of H2 on Mg Surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1981, 46, 257–260. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. King D. A. Kinetics of Adsorption, Desorption, and Migration at Single-Crystal Metal Surfaces. Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci. 1978, 7, 167–208. 10.1080/10408437808243438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Weststrate C. J.; van Helden P.; Niemantsverdriet J. W. Reflections on the Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis: Mechanistic Issues from a Surface Science Perspective. Catal. Today 2016, 275, 100–110. 10.1016/j.cattod.2016.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Leclercq L.; Imura K.; Yoshida S.; Barbee T.; Boudart M.. Synthesis of New Catalytic Materials: Metal Carbides of the Group VI B Elements. In Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal., Delmon B., Grange P., Jacobs P., Poncelet G., Eds.; Vol. 3; Elsevier, 1979; pp 627–639. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shetty S.; Jansen A. P. J.; van Santen R. A. Direct versus Hydrogen-Assisted CO Dissociation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 12874–12875. 10.1021/ja9044482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Shetty S.; van Santen R. A. CO Dissociation on Ru and Co Surfaces: The Initial Step in the Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Catal. Today 2011, 171, 168–173. 10.1016/j.cattod.2011.04.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Loveless B. T.; Buda C.; Neurock M.; Iglesia E. CO Chemisorption and Dissociation at High Coverages during CO Hydrogenation on Ru Catalysts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 6107–6121. 10.1021/ja311848e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Qi K.-Z.; Wang G.-C.; Zheng W.-J. A First-Principles Study of CO Hydrogenation into Methane on Molybdenum Carbides Catalysts. Surf. Sci. 2013, 614, 53–63. 10.1016/j.susc.2013.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Dang Y.; Li S. Catalytic Mechanism and Selectivity Prediction for syngas Conversion over Pure and K-promoted Mo2C Catalysts. Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 2021, 610, 117945 10.1016/j.apcata.2020.117945. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sullivan M. M.; Held J. T.; Bhan A. Structure and Site Evolution of Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts upon Exposure to Oxygen. J. Catal. 2015, 326, 82–91. 10.1016/j.jcat.2015.03.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Lee W.-S.; Kumar A.; Wang Z.; Bhan A. Chemical Titration and Transient Kinetic Studies of Site Requirements in Mo2C-Catalyzed Vapor Phase Anisole hydrodeoxygenation. ACS Catal. 2015, 5, 4104–4114. 10.1021/acscatal.5b00713. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Kumar A.; Bhan A. Oxygen Content as a Variable to Control Product Selectivity in Hydrodeoxygenation Reactions on Molybdenum Carbide Catalysts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 197, 371–378. 10.1016/j.ces.2018.12.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Liu N.; Rykov S. A.; Chen J. G. A Comparative Surface Science Study of Carbide and Oxycarbide: the Effect of Oxygen Modification on the Surface Reactivity of C/W(111). Surf. Sci. 2001, 487, 107–117. 10.1016/S0039-6028(01)01070-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

cs3c03956_si_001.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)

Articles from ACS Catalysis are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES