Study of physicochemical characteristics and layer-dependent deactivation behavior of industrial residue hydrodesulfurization (RHDS) catalysts

Huu Cuong Nguyen; Thi Thuy Le; Thi Hai Nam Chu; Anh Vu Nguyen; Hong Lien Nguyen

doi:10.62239/jca.2026.029

Authors

Nguyen Huu Cuong School of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
Le Thi Thuy School of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
Chu Thi Hai Nam School of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
Nguyen Anh Vu School of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
Nguyen Hong Lien School of Chemistry and Life Sciences, Hanoi University of Science and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62239/jca.2026.029

Keywords:

RHDS, catalyst, physicochemical , characterization

Abstract

This study systematically examines the physicochemical characteristics and layer-dependent deactivation behavior of industrial residue hydrodesulfurization (RHDS) catalysts. A combination of EDS, XRD, BET, NH₃-TPD, and H₂-TPR analyses was employed to correlate elemental composition, structural characteristics, surface acidity, and reducibility. The results confirm that most of catalysts are based on alumina supports with highly dispersed active phases. Some catalyst layers exhibited enhanced acidity and a greater abundance of strong acid sites supporting for their different functions. Characterization of spent catalysts reveals significant deactivation caused by coke deposition and the accumulation of metal contaminants, particularly V and Fe, leading to pore blockage and structural alterations. These findings highlight the combined influence of acidity, reducibility, and catalyst-bed configuration on catalyst performance and deactivation, providing valuable guidance for improving RHDS catalyst efficiency and operational lifetime.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S.Y. Ahn, W.J. Na, K.J. Kim, B.J. Kim, H.K. Park, H.S. Roh, Catalysts, 13(4) (2023) 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13040738

A.K. Rhodes, Oil Gas J., 92(22) (1994) 64-74.

J.M. Amigó, F.J. Serrano, M.A. Kojdecki, J. Bastida, V. Esteve, M.M. Reventós, F. Martí, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 25(9) (2005) 1479-1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2004.05.019

R.S. Suharbiansah, M.F. Lukman, C. Nannuzzi, A. Wach, K. Góra-Marek, M. Liebau, M. Jabłońska, Catal. Sci. Technol., 13(13) (2023) 3804-3817. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CY00269A

H. Yan, D. Zhang, J. Xu, Y. Lu, Y. Liu, K. Qiu, Y. Luo, Nanoscale Res. Lett., 9(1) (2014) 424. https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-9-424

F. Saira, N. Firdous, R. Qureshi, A. Ihsan, Turk. J. Chem., 44(2) (2020) 448-460. https://doi.org/10.3906/kim-1910-21

H. Li, J. Li, Y. Han, X. Chen, C. Fan, G. Liu, X. Wang, Carbon Resour. Convers., (2026) 100418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crcon.2026.100418

A. Stanislaus, A. Marafi, M.S. Rana, Catal. Today, 153(1-2) (2010) 1-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2010.05.011

S. Beshkoofeh, B. Ghalami-Choobar, Z. Shahidian, S. Khosharay, Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng., 40(6) (2021) 1777-1792. https://doi.org/10.30492/ijcce.2020.127829.4161

S.Y. Ahn, W.J. Na, K.J. Kim, B.J. Kim, S.J. Ryu, H.S. Roh, H.K. Park, Catal. Today, 425 (2024) 114335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2023.114335