Direct liquefaction of coal." D. Tian et al.
resulted in a significant increase in activity. In these ash (db). The elemental composition (wt%) is: C, 81.9;
studies too, the catalysts were mixed with, rather than H, 6.3; N, 1.5; S, 0.9.
impregnated into, the coal.
The conversion of coal is also governed by the type of Catalyst
solvent used in liquefaction. According to McMillen Catalysts with varying amounts of second metal were
et al.ll, the role of the solvent is to stabilize the coal free- prepared. They are designated as A1-A3 (with magne-
radicals by donating hydrogen as well as to promote the sium) and B1 (with molybdenum).
cracking of coal molecules. The use of tetralin as solvent Catalysts of type A1 were not impregnated in situ.
is widely reported in the literature, owing to the strong Instead, they were prepared by mixing stoichiometric
hydrogen donor properties of tetralin. However, Stohl amounts of ferric chloride, sodium sulfide and mag-
and Diegert4 observed that catalytic effects in the nesium acetate, all in aqueous solutions. In order to
presence of tetralin are small, since tetralin itself can obtain small particles, weak solutions (0.01 M) of the
supply almost all the hydrogen necessary for the starting reagents were used. The precipitate was filtered,
liquefaction of coal. Phenanthrene is known to be a washed and dried under vacuum at 85°C. This catalyst
poor hydrogen donor solvent compared with tetralin ~2. was mixed with coal at a loading of 8.4 wt% (based on
Hence DCL conversions should be smaller in the daf coal). The Mg fractions (fMg, Mg/(Mg + Fe) ratio)
presence of phenanthrene than with tetralin, and were 0.01, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.5.
catalytic effects should be more pronounced in the Catalysts A2 and A3 were impregnated in situ on the
presence of phenanthrene than with tetralin. However, coal. To do this, coal was first added to the dilute
phenanthrene may enhance cracking reactions during aqueous ferric chloride solution. The slurry was mixed
DCL. thoroughly before adding the dilute sodium sulfide and
Anderson and Bockrath 13 observed that the activity of magnesium acetate solutions. The mixture was agitated
iron-based catalysts was improved by the addition of for 2h and filtered. The impregnated coal was dried
sulfur, especially when the S/Fe molar ratio of the overnight in N2 at 85°C under vacuum. The catalysts
catalyst was <1. The effect of sulfur was attributed loadings were 1.67wt% (A2) and 8.5wt% (A3), again
mainly to the formation of catalytically active pyrrhotite. based on daf coal. The values offMg were again 0.01,
The objective of the present study was to investigate 0.05, 0.1 and 0.5.
the performance of impregnated, iron-based, mixed- The molybdenum-containing catalysts were prepared
metal catalysts in DCL using various solvents. The basic in the same way as the F e - M g - S catalysts, except that
catalyst is an intimate mixture of pyrite and pyrrhotite ammonium heptamolybdate solution was used in place
obtained by disproportionation of ferric sulfide. The of magnesium acetate solution. The catalyst loading was
in situ impregnation technique used earlier for the iron- 1.67 wt%. The fMo ratios (Mo/(Fe + Mo)) were 0.05,
alone catalyst was modified to generate mixed-metal 0.08, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.25. A few runs were also made with
sulfides. The second metal was generally incorporated catalysts in which the ammonium heptamolybdate
before disproportionation and impregnation. The solution was added to Fe-impregnated coal after the
second metals used in this work were magnesium and filtration. In some cases, a small amount (5wt%) of
molybdenum, both of which meet the Hume-Rothery ferrous chloride was added to the ferric chloride solution,
criteria. Magnesium was selected to determine whether a to check if the extent of precipitation of MoS2 is altered
metal with a significantly lower cost and less strategic by the addition of ferrous chloride.
importance than Ni or Mo could be used in conjunction
with iron to obtain comparable results. Molybdenum Liquefaction equipment and proeedure
was selected because of the performance of the non- A stainless steel tubing bomb reactor with a volume of
impregnated non-sulfide Fe-Mo catalysts described 27ml was used for the liquefaction. The reactor was
above. Different concentrations of these second metals charged with 3 g of impregnated coal, 4.7 g of tetralin or
were used, but the concentration of the second metal was phenanthrene, and 0-0.I ml CS2. After loading, the
kept low in all cases, so that these catalysts would be reactor was purged and pressurized with hydrogen to
economically and environmentally desirable. Tetralin 6.9MPa (cold). The reactor was heated in a fluidized
and phenanthrene were used as solvents to investigate sand bath which was preheated to the desired tempera-
the effects of facile hydrogen donation from the solvent. ture before the run. At the end of the run, the reactor was
Runs were made at 350-440°C with a hydrogen pressure quenched in water. The run duration was 30 min or 1 h.
of 6.9 MPa (cold). The products were analysed in terms In some runs, the gaseous products were collected in a
of the asphaltene fraction and the oil-plus-gas fraction. sampling flask and analysed by gas chromatography.
In all cases, the results were compared with those from The amount of gas was evaluated on a hydrogen-free,
iron-alone catalysts prepared similarly. ethane-equivalent basis, i.e. the response factors for
various components of the gaseous product (other than
EXPERIMENTAL hydrogen) were assumed to be the same as that for
ethane. Additional details on equipment and procedure
Coal are available elsewhere 2.
The coal used in this study was DECS-6, which is a The solid and liquid products in the reactor were
high-volatile-A bituminous coal from the Blind Canyon washed and extracted with tetrahydrofuran (THF) for
seam in Utah. The coal was received from the 24 h. The THF-insoluble material (TI) was separated by
Pennsylvania State University Coal Bank and ground filtration. The overall conversion of the original material
to <250 #m under nitrogen. DECS-6 was used in this was calculated from the amount of TI. After the removal
work because of its extremely low pyrite content, thus of THF by rotary evaporation, the THF-solubles were
allowing the effect of added iron catalyst to be obtained. extracted with hexane for 2 h. The extract was separated
The coal is of 49wt% volatile matter (daf) and 6.3 wt% into hexane-insoluble (HI) and hexane-soluble (HS)
752 Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6
D#ect fiquefaction of coaL D. Tian et al.
fractions by filtration. The THF-soluble-hexane- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
insoluble fraction, i.e. the HI fraction, was defined as
asphaltenes. The conversion (X) and the yield of Effect o f solvent
asphaltenes (A) were calculated on dry, ash-free (daf) Figure 1 compares the results for the two solvents
basis as follows: tetralin and phenanthrene. With tetralin, and in the
absence of any catalyst, 57 wt% of the coal is converted.
X = (F m - TI)/Fda f (1) On the other hand, with phenanthrene as solvent, the
uncatalysed conversion is much lower. These results are
A = HI/Fda f (2) consistent with those reported earlier4.
where Fm and Fda f represent the amount of feed on the The yield of oil-plus-gas is ~7 wt% in each case. This
moisture-free and daf bases, respectively. (The form of shows that the yield of asphaltenes is higher with tetralin
Equation (1) is used so that the ash content does not have than with phenanthrene. Clearly the solvent has a
to be subtracted separately from TI.) When the gas yield, considerable effect on the conversion and product slate
G, was determined (independently) from the gas analysis, for the uncatalysed reaction. Because of the lower values
the oil yield, O, was obtained by difference: of conversion and yield obtained in non-catalytic runs
with phenanthrene, experiments using this solvent can
O = X- A - G (3a) more easily differentiate between the activities of various
In runs where the gaseous product was not analysed, the catalysts than can experiments with tetralin.
combined oil-plus-gas yield (OG) was obtained by Catalytic results are also shown in Figure 1. For
difference: simplicity, a second metal is not considered. With either
solvent, the conversion increases when iron-alone
OG = X - A (3b) catalysts of loading 1.67wt% (type A2) are used. The
increase due to the catalytic activity is about 6 percentage
Most of the runs were made in duplicate and the points in the case of tetralin and 23 percentage points in
reproducibility was better than +3%. the case of phenanthrene. The yield of asphaltenes also
increases correspondingly in each case. Catalyst A3, with
the higher loading (8.4wt%), has even more dramatic
Coal mixtures containing iron-molybdenum catalysts effect on the results: the conversions are 8 percentage
were characterized in terms of pyrrhotite/pyrite ratio, points higher than those with A2, and the oil-plus-gas
PH/PY, before and after reaction. The amounts of PH yields are about 5 percentage points higher.
and PY were measured in terms of hydrochloric acid Significantly, the conversions and yields with the two
solubility and nitric acid solubility, respectively, in that solvents in the catalytic runs are almost indistinguish-
order. The solutions from the acid dissolution were able. In other words, this catalyst may make it
analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) to economically advantageous to use a cheaper poor-
obtain the amount of iron. The contributions of PH and hydrogen-donor solvent. Similar observations were
PY from the raw coal alone were also obtained. These made when the second metal was added to the catalyst.
could be subtracted from the values for the catalyst plus It is well known that the initial step in coal liquefaction
coal mixtures, at least for the pre-liquefaction samples. is the thermal fragmentation of the coal molecules to
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Auger electron spectro- produce free radical species u. These free radicals must
scopy (AES) of some samples were also carried out. be stabilized by hydrogen in order to prevent their
Conversion, Oil+Gas Yield
I I, ~ Thermal
1~7"~, ~ Catalyst A2
.o 60 ~, ~ Catalyst A3
Figure 1 Effect of solvent type on conversion and yield for catalysts A2 and A3 withfMg = 0. Reaction conditions: 350°C, 1 h, 4.7 g solvent, 0.1 ml
Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6 753
Direct fiquefaction of coaL" D. Tian et al.
recombination by the retrogressive reactions. The are probably due to better dispersion of the small catalyst
necessary hydrogen may come from the solvent, the particles on the coal than in the physical mixtures of
gaseous hydrogen or the coal itself. Tetralin is a good catalyst and coal. However, the yields of the oil-plus-gas
hydrogen donor and can supply almost all the hydrogen fraction are somewhat lower with the impregnated
necessary for the stabilization of the radicals, resulting in catalysts than those with A1. The improved conversion
the higher coal conversions seen in Figure 1. The catalyst and lower oil-plus-gas yields for the impregnated
in this case may have a role only in the hydrogenation of catalysts result in higher asphaltene yields for this
the spent solvent by the gaseous hydrogen. mode of preparation.
Phenanthrene on the other hand is a poor hydrogen In any case, the catalyst performance is not very
donor solvent and consequently the conversion of coal is largely altered by the addition of magnesium, as
lower than that with tetralin. However, it has been indicated by Figures 2 and 3.
reported that phenanthrene is a good hydrogen acceptor In order to determine if the catalytic activities are
and allows the transfer of hydrogen from the gas phase dependent on the amount of sulfur, runs were made at
to the coal radicals in the presence of iron sulfide various CS2 levels using catalyst A3 withfM~ = 0.01. The
catalyst 14. The increase in coal conversion in the catalytic conversion and oil-plus-gas yield increase with increasing
runs is probably due to the faster hydrogen transfer CS2, but by a maximum of 1 percentage point, again
processes from the gas phase. less than the expected error bars. This indicates that
presulfiding does not improve the activity and selectivity
Mixed-metal catalysts containing magnesium of these catalysts significantly, as observed previously3.
Figure 2 shows the effect of magnesium fractionfMg on The negligible effect of CS: addition is consistent with
conversion and product yield using the physically mixed observations of Anderson and Bockrath ~3, since the S/Fe
F e - M g - S catalysts, type A1. At 350°C when fMg = 0, molar ratio for these catalysts is higher than unity
64wt% of coal is converted, and the oil-plus-gas yield (nominally 1.5, based on Fe2S3).
(OG) is 15 wt%. The high conversions may be due to the
presence of tetralin as the solvent. The addition of Mixed-metal catalysts containing molybdenum
magnesium (fMg =0.01) can be seen to affect the These catalysts were tested at 350-440°C using
catalytic activity positively, but the improvement (one phenanthrene as solvent. In preliminary runs, no
percentage point) is well within the limits of error noted significant advantage in activity was gained when
earlier. At higherfMg values, conversions are lower than catalyst loading was increased above 1.67wt%. Hence
for the iron-alone catalyst 0cMg= 0), and oil-plus-gas the loading was kept constant at 1.67 wt% in all the runs.
yields are little changed. These decreases are greater than At 350°C, the conversion of coal is 2-3 percentage points
the error bars noted earlier. higher using the F e - M o - S catalyst withfMo = 0.05 than
Figure 3 compares the activities of physically mixed with the iron-alone catalyst. Similarly, the conversion
catalyst (A1) and impregnated catalyst (A3), both at to asphaltenes is 6-7 percentage points higher with the
8.4 wt% catalyst loading. The activities of catalysts A3 at F e - M o - S catalyst. These are significant differences.
all the fMg ratios are 5-10 wt % higher than those of A 1. The results at 400°C, presented in Figure 4, are even
These numbers are greater than the error bars, and more interesting. The conversion and yields with the F e -
indicate that the impregnated catalysts are superior to M o - S catalysts are considerably higher than those with
the physical mixtures of catalyst and coal. This result is iron-alone catalyst. A maximum conversion of 88 wt% is
consistent with the observations of Weller l, among achieved when fMo = 0.15. The oil-plus-gas yield is a
others. The higher activities of the impregnated catalysts maximum (25 wt%) when fMo is 0.1 or 0.15. The reason
~ 10 n
• Oil+Gas Yield
I I // I I
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.5
Mg/(Fe + Mg)
Figure 2 Effect of Mg/(Fe + Mg) ratio on conversion and oil-plus-gas yield for catalyst A1. Reaction conditions as in Figure 1, except that the solvent
754 Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6
Direct fiquefaction of coal." D. T/an et al.
[ I,~'/A Conversion
50 -- //
0.00 0.01 0.05
Mg/(Fe + Mg)
Figure 3 Comparison of the performance of physically mixed catalyst (A1) and impregnated catalyst (A3). Reaction conditions as in Figure I except
that the solvent is tetralin
for a decrease in conversion at fMo = 0.25 is not clear. to an improvement in the catalyst activity. However, the
One possibility for the lower activity atfMo = 0.25 may conversions of coal in these runs are not very different
be the lower iron content of the catalyst. It is also from those with catalysts prepared without the ferrous
possible that there is a maximum in the dispersion of Mo chloride addition. Further, the yield of gas appears to
on the catalyst surface corresponding to fMo = 0.1-0.15. increase slightly, whereas the oil yield decreases. This
Gardner et al. 15 observed a similar optimum in the Mo indicates that any early precipitation of the Mo sulfide
concentration in their studies on pyrene hydrogenation (in the absence of ferrous chloride) has at best little effect
over NiMo catalysts. on catalyst performance.
These results show that the addition of molybdenum is In some instances the Mo source (ammonium hepta-
beneficial to the activity and selectivity of the catalyst. molybdate) was added to the Fe-impregnated coal
Runs were also made with catalysts prepared using a after filtration. The corresponding results are shown in
mixture of ferrous and ferric chlorides instead of ferric Figure 5. The conversions and yields appear to be
chloride alone. It was thought that the extent of MoS2 independent of the stage at which the molybdenum
precipitation might be controlled by ferrous ions, leading solution is added to the coal. This would imply that the
20 - Thermal
0 I I
0.0 0.1 0.2
Mo/(Fe + Mo)
Figure 4 Effect of Mo/(Fe + Mo) ratio on conversion and yield for catalyst B1. Reaction conditions: 400°C, 0.5 h, 4.7 g phenanthrene, 0.1 ml CS2.
Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6 755
Direct fiquefaction of coaL" D. Tian et al.
Mo added before filtration, air-exposed
loo - I I Mo after filtration, air-exposed
Mo before filtration, not exposed to air
'~ 90 --
0.0 0.05 0.10 0.15
Mo/(Fe + Mo)
l~gm'e 5 Effects of order of Mo addition and of air exposure for F e - S and F e - M o - S catalyst on performance. Reaction conditions as in Figure 4
amount of molybdenum that is not on the coal but However, the oil-plus-gas yields in the catalytic runs at
remains in solution (and therefore is lost during 400 and 440°C are also higher than in the non-catalytic
filtration) is negligible. runs. Further, the gas yields in the F e - M o - S runs are
In order to study the effect of exposure to air on the much smaller than those in the non-catalytic runs and the
performance of the various F e - M o - S catalysts, runs iron-alone runs. Hence the molybdenum addition can be
were made in which the catalyst was not exposed to air at seen to improve the oil yield significantly at 400 and
any time during or after impregnation on coal. The 440°C.
results from these runs are also presented in Figure 5. As An exact comparison of the present results with those
seen in the figure, for iron-alone catalysts, the conversion in literature is difficult, due to the differences in the type
increases by 3 percentage points when the catalyst is not of coal used as well as in the liquefaction conditions such
exposed to air. Also, the oil-plus-gas yield increases by as reaction time and type of solvent. Cugini et al. 6
about 4 percentage points. These increases are consistent studied the liquefaction of Blind Canyon bituminous
and significant. Similar observations can be made for the coal (DECS-6) at 425°C and 6.9 MPa H2 pressure for
F e - M o - S catalysts, for which the increase in conversion 30min reaction time, using Panasol (a mixture of
is greatest atfMo = 0.1. However, the increase in oil-plus- alkylated naphthalenes) as solvent. The conversion of
gas yield appears smaller in this case than for the iron- coal in the absence of catalyst was ,,,58 wt%, with an oil
alone catalyst. yield of 30 wt%. Using impregnated FeOOH as catalyst,
The decrease in the activity of the catalysts on the conversion and yield increased to 85 and 41 wt%
exposure to air may be due to structural changes and respectively. With molybdenum catalyst, the conversion
oxidation of the small particles of the catalyst, and the increased further to 90 wt%, with a small increase in oil
changes in the surface structure that follow. However, it yield. These values are similar to those in the present
has not been possible to demonstrate this unequivocally study (Figure 6). Hager et al. 9 used iron-based mixed-
for the impregnated samples, because of the difficulty in metal catalysts to study the liquefaction of a Wyodak
locating the catalytic material in the coal matrix. Some Black Thunder subbituminous coal at 415°C with
characterization results are given in the following tetralin as solvent. The activity of a catalyst containing
subsection. Mo was 6 percentage points higher than for the iron-
The effect of temperature on catalyst activity is alone catalyst. Zhao et al. 5 used a ferrihydrite catalyst to
presented in Figure 6. Results of thermal (non-catalytic) study the liquefaction of a Blind Canyon bituminous
runs are also shown for comparison. The catalysts were coal (DECS-17) at 400°C with tetralin as solvent. It was
not exposed to air and the fMo values were 0, 0.1 and observed that the conversion increased from 81 wt%
0.15. The results from runs at fMo = 0.15 are not (without catalyst) to 85 wt%. The increase in oil yield
included in the figure, since they were similar to those was <2 wt%.
atfMo = 0.1. At 350°C, the addition of a small amount of Even though the above results cannot be compared
molybdenum serves to double the difference between the directly with those from the present study, the activities
catalytic and non-catalytic conversions. When the of the present mixed-metal catalysts are as high or as
temperature is 400 or 440°C, the conversions with iron- better than those of the catalysts used. In particular,
alone catalyst far surpass the non-catalytic conversions. for the studies where tetralin was used as solvent, the
Using F e - M o - S catalysts, the conversions increase still results are comparable with the present results using
further. The increase due to Mo addition at the higher phenanthrene.
temperatures are less significant than at the lowest
temperature, perhaps because the conversion with the Catalyst characterization
iron-alone catalyst is so close to 100 wt% to begin with. The amounts of iron in the impregnated coal and the
756 Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6
Direct fiquefaction of coal. D. Tian et al.
Thermal fMo=O fMo=O.1
V-1. I~ Conv.
_ _ , Gas
350 400 440
Figure 6 Effect o f temperature on performance of F e - S and Fe M o - S catalysts. Reaction conditions as in Figure 4 except that the temperature is as
indicated and the catalysts were not exposed to air
liquefaction residue, and the corresponding PH/PY exposure of the catalyst to high temperatures and
ratios, are presented in Table 1. The figures indicate hydrogen pressures during liquefaction. This is consist-
that a very large fraction of the iron used is actually ent with earlier observations 2 with iron-alone catalyst.
impregnated on the coal, but a not negligible fraction is An attempt was made to characterize the F e - M o - S
lost during DCL. catalysts by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Auger electron
From the first column, the total amount of iron spectroscopy (AES). However, due to the presence of the
detected in the impregnated coal is 8 - 9 m g g -1. This coal, the crystallinity of the samples was too low for the
amount is only 6-9% less than the amount of iron used XRD pattern to be meaningful. Charging of the
in the catalyst preparation. The difference is the amount impregnated coal was also a major difficulty for AES,
of iron lost in the filtrate from catalyst preparation. In hence many samples could not be analysed. To remedy
the second column, the amount of iron in the sample this, an F e - M o - S catalyst with fMo = 0.1 was impreg-
after reaction is obtained per gram of residue. Hence this nated on comparable graphite particles. Spectra of
figure is much higher than that in the previous column. catalyst-coal particles, where obtained, were compar-
Multiplying this value by (1 - X) leads to a calculated able with those of the corresponding catalyst-graphite
amount of iron per weight of coal after reaction, shown samples. Finally, some F e - M o - S catalysts were pre-
in the third column. This figure can be compared with the cipitated during preparation in the absence of coal or
value before reaction. The comparison shows that the graphite.
decrease is ,,~25% atfM o = 0.05, 44% atfM o = 0.1 and The AES results are summarized in Table 2. Here
34% atfMo = 0.15. This indicates that some iron is lost 'precipitated' refers to the catalyst in the absence
to the liquefaction products. of graphite (or coal), 'catalyst-graphite' refers to the
PH/PY ratios are also shown in Table 1. These figures as-impregnated graphite, while 'THF-insoluble' refers to
indicate that the pre-liquefaction values of the ratios the liquefaction residue. In some cases, the carbonaceous
for catalysts increase with increase in Mo content, from material from the liquefaction residue was removed by
7.4 for iron-alone catalyst (fMo = 0) to ~15 when dissolution in N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP); the resulting
fMo = 0.1-0.15. Interestingly, the high PH/PY ratios at material, presumably the catalyst and other inorganic
fMo = 0.1-0.15 correspond to catalysts which have matter, was analysed by AES. Accordingly, in Table 2,
higher activities than those with lower fMo ratios. The 'NMP-insoluble' refer to the residue after washing with
PH/PY ratios in the residues obtained after liquefaction NMP.
are much lower than in the impregnated coal before The results are shown as fractions of S and Mo relative
liquefaction. The decrease is probably due to the to Fe plus Mo on the surface. They indicate that the
Table 1 Total iron and PH/PY ratio of F e - M o - S catalyst
Total Fe PH/PY ratio
Before DCL After DCL After DCL Before After
fMo (mgg -1 coal) (mgg i residue) (mgg -1 coal) DCL DCL
0.0 8.58 n.d. a n.d. 7.47 n.d.
0.05 7.74 46.07 5.82 9,76 1.22
0.1 8.6 39.82 4.78 15.39 1.05
0.15 8.18 42.12 5.36 14.18 1.05
Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6 757
Direct liquefaction of coal." D. Tian et al.
Table 2 Surfaceanalysis of Fe-Mo-S catalysts (fMo= 0.1) to the oil yield. Activity and selectivity to the oil
Surface ratio fraction increase with temperature, at least up to
Catalyst type S/(Fe + Mo) Mo/(Fe + Mo) 5. With the precipitated F e - M o - S catalysts, the surface
Precipitated 1.2 0.17 is Mo-rich and S-poor. On impregnation, the S and
Catalyst-graphite 1.1 0.0 M o contents of the catalyst surface decrease appre-
THF-insoluble 0.5 1.0 ciably. After DCL, carbonaceous material covers all
NMP-insoluble 1.8 0.17 the Fe sites on the surface and a large fraction of the S
sites on the surface.
surface of precipitated catalyst is slightly S-poor, relative 6. Catalytic effects during D C L are more evident when
to the bulk value of S / ( F e + Mo) = 1.4 (assuming Fe2S3 phenanthrene is used as solvent, relative to tetralin.
with fMo = 0.1). On the other hand, the surface of the 7. Isolation of F e - M o - S catalysts from air improves
fresh catalyst is enriched with Mo, relative to the their performance.
expected value of 0.1. Both these effects are counter to
those observed previously with Ni catalyst 8. Hence it
is not surprising that the catalytic performances of the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
F e - N i - S and F e - M o - S materials are different. This work was conducted under US Department of
The presence of graphite decreases slightly the fraction Energy Contract No. DE-FC22-90PC90029 under the
S/(Fe + Mo) on the surface, relative to the precipitated Cooperative Agreement with the Consortium for Fossil
sample. However, the surface Mo ratio is considerably Fuel Liquefaction Science. The authors are grateful to
diminished when the catalyst is impregnated on the A. Chadha for the AES analysis and to J. Yang for
graphite, again compared with the precipitated sample. performing the AAS.
(The value of zero for this entry in Table 2 indicates that
the signal for Mo was below the detection limit.
Typically, AES can detect species comprising 0.1% of REFERENCES
the atoms on the surface. Recall that the bulk Mo
loading is 0.1 of 1.67 wt%. Hence a small but detectable 1 Weller, W. Energy Fuels 1994,8, 415.
signal would be expected if the Mo was present to the 2 Dadyburjor, B., Stewart, W. E., Stiller, A. H., Stinespring,
C. D., Wann, J. P. and Zondlo, J. W. Energy Fuels 1994,8, 19
same extent on the surface as it was in the bulk.). 3 Stansberry, G., Wann, J. P., Stewart, W. R., Yang, J., Zon-
In the THF-insoluble fraction, the Fe signal is dlo, J. W., Stiller, A. H. and Dadyburjor, D. B. Fuel 1993,72,
negligible, but it reappears after the N M P wash. This 793
indicates the presence of significant carbonaceous 4 Stohl, F.V. andDiegert, K . V . EnergyFuels1994,8,117
material ('coke') on Fe during DCL, but not on Mo. 5 Zhao,J., Feng, Z., Huggins, F. E. and Huffman, G. P. Energy
Fuels 1994,8, 38
The S signal is reduced after liquefaction, but to a lesser 6 Cugini,A. V., Krastman, D., Lett, R. G. and Balsone, V. D.
extent than the Fe signal, and the S signal also reappears Catalysis Today 1994, 19, 395
after the N M P wash. 7 Liu, Z., Yang, J., Zondlo, J. W., Stiller,A. H. and Dadyburjor,
D. B. Fuel 1996, 75, 51
8 Dadyburjor,D. B., Stiller, A. H., Stinespring, C. D., Zondlo,
CONCLUSIONS J. W., Wann, J. P., Sharma, R. K., Tian, D., Agarwal, S. and
Chadha, A. Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 1994,
1. Mixed-metal sulfide catalysts can be made with the 39, 1088
primary metal iron based on the disproportionation 9 Hager,G. T., Compton, A. L., Givens, E. N. and Derbyshire,
of ferric sulfide. F. J. Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 1994,39, 1083
10 Pradhan,V. R., Herrick, D. E., Tierney,J. W. and Wender, I.
2. The catalysts can be precipitated separately and later Energy Fuels 1991,5, 712
physically mixed with the coal, or the catalysts can be 11 McMillen, F., Malhotra, R. and Tse, D. S. Am. Chem. Soc.
impregnated in situ on the coal. DCL activities of the Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 1991,36, 498
latter catalysts are higher, while oil yields are smaller. 12 Whitehurst,D. D., Mitchell, T. D. and Farcasiu, M. 'Coal
Liquefaction', AcademicPress, New York, 1980
3. Mixed-metal catalysts containing magnesium provide 13 Anderson,R. R. and Bockrath, C. B. Fuel 1984,63, 329
no particular advantage over the iron-alone catalyst. 14 Wilson,M. A., Rottendorf, H., Collins, P. J., Vassallo, M. A.
4. The presence of 0.1-0.15 atom fraction of Mo in iron- and Barron, P. F. Fuel 1982,61,357
based catalysts results in an active catalyst for DCL. 15 Gardner,T. J., McLaughlin,L. I., Lott, S. E. and Oelfke,J. B.
Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 1994,39, 1078
The addition of molybdenum is especially beneficial
758 Fuel 1996 Volume 75 Number 6