Synthesis of MeOH and DME From CO2 Hydrogenation Over Commercial and Modified Catalysts

Growing concern about climate change has been driving the search for solutions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies have been proposed and developed as a way of giving CO₂ a sustainable and economically viable destination. An interesting approach is the conversion of CO₂ into valuable chemicals, such as methanol (MeOH) and dimethyl ether (DME), by means of catalytic hydrogenation on Cu-, Zn-, and Al-based catalysts. In this work, three catalysts were tested for the synthesis of MeOH and DME from CO₂ using a single fixed-bed reactor. The first one was a commercial CuO/γ-Al₂O₃; the second one was CuO-ZnO/γ-Al₂O₃, obtained via incipient wetness impregnation of the first catalyst with an aqueous solution of zinc acetate; and the third one was a CZA catalyst obtained by the coprecipitation method. The samples were characterized by XRD, XRF, and N₂ adsorption isotherms. The hydrogenation of CO₂ was performed at 25 bar, 230°C, with a H₂:CO₂ ratio of 3 and space velocity of 1,200 ml (g cat · h)⁻¹ in order to assess the potential of these catalysts in the conversion of CO₂ to methanol and dimethyl ether. The catalyst activity was correlated to the adsorption isotherms of each reactant. The main results show that the highest CO₂ conversion and the best yield of methanol are obtained with the CZACP catalyst, very likely due to its higher adsorption capacity of H₂. In addition, although the presence of zinc oxide reduces the textural properties of the porous catalyst, CZAWI showed higher CO₂ conversion than commercial catalyst CuO/γ-Al₂O₃.

Introduction

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is emitted mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels in power generation. The increasing concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is related to global warming and climate changes. Replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is likely to reduce this problem, but this is only a long-term solution since the current world energy matrix is highly dependent on coal and oil-fired power plants. Thus, in recent decades, technologies aiming at carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been developed as a potential short-term solution to decrease or stabilize CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere. Concomitantly, this greenhouse gas has also been investigated as a potential carbon feedstock, and a growing number of studies have been addressing the conversion of CO₂ into useful chemicals. It seems a more attractive alternative in comparison to geological storage, which has been the main post-capture destination for CO₂.

The main challenge in converting CO₂ to other chemicals is its relatively low reactivity so high reaction temperatures and/or pressures are usually required for its reaction. Nevertheless, advances in heterogeneous catalysis show promise to allow these reactions to occur under milder conditions. Different approaches drive the current research about CO₂ utilization as a feedstock (Song, 2006). Industrially, CO₂ is most commonly used to react with ammonia to obtain urea and with phenol to produce salicylic acid. Emerging applications of CO₂ conversion involve methane (CH₄) reforming (Chen et al., 2019; Chong et al., 2019) and tri-reforming (Damanabi et al., 2019), synthesis of dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (Li et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020), and hydrogenation that can be directed to form various products depending on the catalyst and the reaction conditions used (Wang et al., 2011; Ye et al., 2019; Saeidi et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2007).

Among different applications, CO₂ hydrogenation is a promising route to produce chemicals and fuels since the net reaction is usually exothermic, requiring less energy input (Li et al., 2018; Marlin et al., 2018). The key advantage of this type of catalytic conversion is its potential to transform large amounts of CO₂ with acceptable kinetics and considerable process efficiency (Alvarez et al., 2017). The main products formed from the hydrogenation of CO₂ are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME), higher alcohols, formic acid, and formamides (Wang et al., 2011).

Methanol is one of the main chemical commodities traded worldwide, with an expected demand of 190 Mt/year by 2030 (Battaglia et al., 2021). Its importance is mainly regarded from its value as an intermediate chemical, leading to products such as formaldehyde, DME, and acetic acid. It may also be used as a feedstock for the production of olefins, which are intermediates for the formation of several chemicals consumed in daily life, including paints, plastics, resins, adhesives, and antifreeze additives (Olah et al., 2008; Jadhav et al., 2014; Adnan and Kibria, 2020; Kim et al., 2021).

The “Methanol Economy” concept emerged from the fact that methanol may offer a viable solution for the efficient storage and transportation of sustainable energy, considering that it is produced by reacting CO₂ captured from large emitters and H₂ obtained from renewable sources. Taking into account the challenges of storing and transporting hydrogen in liquid or compressed forms, methanol emerges as a promising liquid carrier (Ganesh, 2014; Bowker, 2019).

Among the chemicals obtained from methanol, DME has the potential to be deployed as a fuel due to its physicochemical properties. Not only is it similar to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) with low emissions of NOx, SOx, and particulates (Arcoumanis et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2008; Marchionna et al., 2008; Bonura et al., 2017; Ateka et al., 2018), but it is also an important chemical intermediate in the production of light olefins and gasoline (Li et al., 2019; Magomedova et al., 2019). DME production from CO₂ occurs in two steps: first, methanol is obtained from CO₂ hydrogenation and then it is dehydrated to DME (An et al., 2008; Ateka et al., 2017). The main challenge of the direct DME synthesis is to develop an efficient multifunctional catalyst that has metal sites for methanol synthesis and acid sites for methanol dehydration to DME, both sites being highly selective to avoid the formation of by-products.

Regarding the catalysts applied in the CO₂ hydrogenation to methanol, copper is one of the most suitable metals due to its high activity at lower temperatures, low cost, diverse oxidation states, and high interactivity with other materials (Murthy et al., 2021). These features render copper-based catalysts probably with the best performance in converting CO₂ to methanol as compared to other metals (Catizzone et al., 2018). Furthermore, the occurrence of zinc species in copper-based catalysts has been reported to promote methanol synthesis significantly (Chinchen et al., 1986; Nakamura et al., 1995; Ma et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2003; Ahouari et al., 2013). The presence of ZnO leads to higher dispersion of Cu, thus preventing the agglomeration of metal particles and maintaining adequate copper surface area in the catalyst. This improves the resistance of Cu particles to poisoning and enhances CO₂ adsorption on the catalyst surface, providing higher availability of active sites to the reactants (Alvarez et al., 2017; Catizzone et al., 2018). Aluminum oxide combined with Cu–Zn–based catalysts has also been reported as a stable catalyst for methanol synthesis (Aguayo et al., 2007; Naik et al., 2011; Ereña et al., 2013). γ-Al₂O₃ has been extensively studied as a catalyst for the dehydration of methanol to DME due to its low cost, good thermal stability, and high specific surface area (Aboul-Fotouh, 2014). In addition to the nature of the active metal in the catalyst composition, the preparation methods also may affect the physicochemical and morphological properties, such as total surface area, metal dispersion, and crystallinity, which could influence the catalytic activity (Wambach et al., 1999). The degree of interfacial contact, for instance, is higher for materials prepared by coprecipitation than by impregnation, and it is a crucial factor for the catalytic performance (Koeppel et al., 1992). On the other hand, the presence of residual precipitant agents during the calcination of the precursors by the coprecipitation method tends to promote the agglomeration of copper particles, which decreases the metal dispersion and has a negative influence on the catalytic performance (Prieto et al., 2013; Alvarez et al., 2017).

The understanding of what occurs at the molecular level in these catalytic reactions is still under development, and there is no consensus about the mechanisms involved in the CO₂ hydrogenation reactions to produce methanol and DME (Alvarez et al., 2017). Because adsorption is one of the steps in the conversion of reactants into products, the evaluation of catalysts from the perspective of the adsorption phenomenon can shed some light on these questions.

The main purpose of this work is to provide insights into the CO₂ hydrogenation mechanism by correlating the catalytic activity with the adsorption of each reactant on the catalyst. Two catalysts were investigated: a commercial catalyst based on copper and the other one, which was the former loaded with zinc by wet impregnation. These materials were compared with those using a copper-zinc catalyst (CZA) obtained by coprecipitation since the latter is the most applied catalyst in the methanol production by carbon hydrogenation. Characterization techniques were carried out to identify the features that impact the catalytic activity of these materials in the methanol formation from CO₂ hydrogenation.

Materials and Methods

Catalysts for CO₂ Conversion

Commercial copper (II) oxide on alumina (13 wt % CuO on alumina) supplied by Sigma-Aldrich was crushed into a powder. This catalyst was used in the CO₂ conversion tests and labeled CA.

<

>Wet Impregnation

>

The CZAWI catalyst was prepared by wet impregnation of commercial CA with an aqueous solution of dihydrate zinc acetate (Sigma-Aldrich, 99%), similar to that described by Semelsberger et al., (2006) and Badmaev et al., (2015). In brief, 1 g of crushed CA was mixed with 16 ml zinc acetate 0.1 M and dried in a rotary evaporator (42 rpm) at 80°C for 1.5 h. Then, it was dried at 80°C in an oven overnight and calcined at 300°C for 2 h at 5°C/min. This procedure was carried out to obtain a Cu:Zn mass ratio of 1:1.

<

>Coprecipitation>

The coprecipitation method was used to prepare the catalyst labeled CZACP based on the methodology reported by Ereña et al., (2013) and Gayubo et al., (2014). The metal precursors were aqueous solutions of copper (II) nitrate trihydrate (Sigma-Aldrich), zinc acetate dihydrate (Sigma-Aldrich 99%), and aluminum nitrate nonahydrate (Sigma-Aldrich). 41.5 ml of Cu(NO₃)₂, 40.5 ml of Zn(CH₃COO)₂, and 33.3 ml of Al(NO₃)₃ aqueous solutions 0.1 M were mixed, and the corresponding metals were precipitated using a sodium carbonate (Sigma-Aldrich) solution as precipitating agent. Citric acid (Sigma-Aldrich) was used as a chelating agent. The precipitated solid was filtered, washed to remove alkaline cations, and dried at 70°C overnight. Then, the solid was calcined at 300°C for 2 h following a heating ramp of 5°C min⁻¹.

Catalyst Characterization

X-ray diffraction patterns were obtained in a Bruker D2 Phaser diffractometer operating at 30 kV and 10 mA with the Cu–Kα radiation in the 2θ range 15–70°.

Textural properties, such as specific surface area and pore and micropore volume, were obtained from nitrogen adsorption/desorption isotherms at −196°C using an Autosorb-iQ3 (Quantachrome Instruments, United States). Prior to the measurements, the catalysts were outgassed at 200°C for 6 h under a vacuum of 10^–6 bar.

The chemical composition of the samples was evaluated by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) semi-quantitative analysis using an ARL ADVANT`XP + X-ray spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, United States).

Adsorption Isotherms

Carbon dioxide and hydrogen adsorption isotherms were measured with the aid of a magnetic suspension balance (Rubotherm, Germany) at 50, 100, 150, and 200°C.

Catalytic Tests

The catalytic reaction was carried out in a fixed-bed flow reactor, as shown in Figure 1. The reactor consisted of a column of 19 mm diameter and 300 mm long. The catalyst was placed in the central part of the column (about 30 mm long), and the catalyst bed was kept stationary by adding quartz wool on both sides. Prior to each run, the catalyst was reduced in situ under an H₂ flow (15 ml min⁻¹, 1 bar, 230°C, 2 h), aiming to reduce CuO species to Cu⁰. The system was then pressurized to 25 bar with H₂, and after thermal equilibrium was reached, the reaction was carried out with a velocity of 1,200 ml g⁻¹ h⁻¹ (60 ml min⁻¹, 1CO₂:3H₂ molar ratio) for 30 h. The reactor pressure was maintained at 25 bar by using a back-pressure-regulator (BPR) valve (Swagelok), the temperature was controlled by an electric resistance heater, and the flow rate of the reactant gas mixture was controlled by a Brooks^® mass flow controller. Products were analyzed by collecting samples at the exit of the column with the aid of a gas-tight sample valve, which were then injected into a gas chromatograph Agilent 7820 equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a thermal conductivity detector (TCD).

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1. Experimental setup.

CO₂ conversion $\left(X_{C{O}_2}\right)$ and the product (methanol and DME) selectivity $\left(S\right)$ and yield $\left(Y\right)$ were defined as follows (Eqs 1–3):

$X_{C{O}_2}(\%)=\frac{n_{in}-n_{out}}{n_{in}}\cdot 100,(1)$

$S(\%)=\frac{y_i\cdot n_p}{n_{in}-n_{out}}\cdot 100,(2)$

$Y(\%)=\frac{y_i\cdot n_p}{ n_{in}}\cdot 100,(3)$

where n_in is the amount (mol) of CO₂ in the inlet stream, n_out is the amount (mol) of CO₂ in the outlet stream, n_p is the amount (mol) of the product in the outlet stream, and y_i is the stoichiometric coefficient of product i.

" name="">

Results and Discussion

Characterization of the Catalysts

The XRD patterns for the commercial (CA), modified (CZAWI), and synthesized (CZACP) catalysts are shown in Figure 2. The impregnation of zinc does not significantly alter the amorphous structure of the commercial material. The patterns exhibit a peak at 2θ = 67°, indicating a poorly crystalline γ-Al₂O₃ mixed with the primary amorphous structures. A similar pattern is reported for a material prepared from a copper(II) nitrate aqueous solution to obtain catalysts supported by Al₂O₃ (Pires et al., 2015). The peaks corresponding to the CuO and ZnO phases cannot be observed probably due to high dispersion or low content in the catalysts. This behavior has already been observed in studies with metallic oxides supported on γ-Al₂O₃ (Afshar Taromi and Kaliaguine, 2018). Literature also reports that the diffraction peaks of CuO gradually decrease with increasing calcination temperature (Luo et al., 2005). After reaction in a fixed bed, only the spent CZACP sample presented a significant variation in the XRD pattern, suggesting structural modification, which can be related to the presence of residues of the precipitating agent, which is intrinsic to the preparation method.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2. XRD patterns of the catalysts before (A) and after (B) reactional tests.

Nitrogen adsorption isotherms are shown in Figure 3. The isotherms are type IV with hysteresis, which are typical features of mesoporous materials (Thommes et al., 2015). Table 1 summarizes the textural properties of the materials before and after the hydrogenation reaction, as calculated from the N₂ adsorption/desorption isotherms. For the catalyst CZAWI, prepared by wet impregnation, both surface area and total pore volume decrease when compared to CA, which is very likely due to the loading of pores with zinc species upon impregnation. Similar behavior is also reported for supported catalysts by Badmaev et al., (2015) and Bonura et al., (2017). Interestingly, micropores seemed to be unaffected by the impregnation process. Sample CZACP presents the lowest surface area, similar to the values reported in the literature for CZA catalysts obtained by coprecipitation (Aguayo et al., 2007; An et al., 2007; Ereña et al., 2013). After the reaction, pore volume and specific surface area slightly decrease for CA and CZACP, whereas for CZAWI, a slight increase of these properties is observed toward comparable values as those of CA. Considering the sensitivity of the methods applied to determine those properties, it is fair to say that textural features remain practically unchanged, despite the observed loss of zinc that had been previously impregnated.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3. N₂ adsorption isotherms at −196°C for catalysts (A) before and (B) after reaction.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1. Physical properties for samples.

The main elements detected by XRF in the commercial and prepared samples before and after the reaction tests are shown in Table 2 in terms of metal oxides. As expected, the commercial catalyst mainly comprises copper and aluminum oxides in the proportions reported by the supplier. The modified catalyst (CZAWI) presented zinc oxide, confirming that the wetness impregnation was effective in loading the metal into the sample. For CZACP, the same oxides with different composition were detected. After the reaction tests, the spent catalysts presented a slight decrease in CuO and ZnO at the expense of an increase in SiO₂. For the spent CZACP sample, a relevant amount of Na₂O has been detected, which consists of an unwashed residue of the precipitating agent, not found in the fresh sample. A possible cause for this discrepancy is sample heterogeneity with local variations in the composition of oxides. Nevertheless, even if Na₂O was discounted from the composition basis, CuO and ZnO would still be decreasing after the reaction tests.

TABLE 2

TABLE 2. Composition of samples in oxides by X-ray fluorescence.

Adsorption Isotherms

Figure 4 shows CO₂ and H₂ isotherms at different temperatures for (a) CA, (b) CZAWI, and (c) CZACP samples. All catalysts have a similar behavior regarding CO₂ adsorption, that is, the uptake decreases with increasing temperature, thus indicating that it is predominantly a physical and exothermic phenomenon under the studied conditions. Adsorption capacity is similar for CA and CZAWI materials at all pressures and temperatures, although the material modified with zinc has a slight advantage, despite the reduction in textural properties. These results suggest that the presence of zinc improves the interaction of the material with CO₂. Data of temperature programmed desorption of CO₂ available in the literature (Gao et al., 2013) corroborate the increase in CO₂ adsorption capacity for catalysts with ZnO. For the CZACP sample, the CO₂ adsorption behavior is very distinct, with similar adsorption uptakes for the four temperatures under study.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 4. CO₂ and H₂ isotherms on (A) CA, (B) CZAWI, and (C) CZACP.

Hydrogen isotherms, on the other hand, present a much more pronounced rise in uptake in the low-pressure range than CO₂, indicating strong adsorbate–adsorbent interactions. One can observe that a temperature increase leads to higher H₂ uptake for the commercial catalyst, whereas that modified with zinc (CZAWI) presents an optimum uptake with respect to the temperature but is always higher than that of CA for the studied temperature range. For CZACP, H₂ uptake is comparable to that of CZAWI, but in this case, it increases monotonically with temperature.

To better evaluate the results with respect to temperature, the data are presented as isobars, as shown in Figures 5, 6 for CO₂ and H₂, respectively. The pressures of 5 bar for CO₂ and 15 bar for H₂ are representative of the reaction conditions used in the catalytic tests (total pressure 25 bar, H₂:CO₂ = 3:1). CO₂ adsorption in sample CZAWI is superior to that of CA in this temperature range, whereas sample CZACP has much lower CO₂ uptakes than CA and CZA at low temperatures. On the other hand, at 150°C it reaches a similar uptake to CA and at 200°C, the CO₂ adsorption capacity is the highest. In Figure 6, it is notable that the samples CZAWI and CZACP have both higher H₂ uptakes than the pristine commercial sample CA, which suggests that the H₂ adsorption is influenced by the presence of zinc. The sample CZACP, despite the different zinc loading technique, has a similar H₂ uptake as compared to sample CZAWI at 200°C, although the latter sample shows a maximum uptake close to 100°C, whereas the uptake in the former increases continuously with temperature.

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 5. CO₂ isobars on CA, CZAWI, and CZACP catalysts.

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 6. H₂ isobars on CA, CZAWI, and CZACP.

Temperature programmed desorption measurements reported in the literature indicate that there is a direct relationship between CO₂ and H₂ adsorption capacity and the catalytic activity in methanol synthesis (Pokrovski and Bell, 2006; Xiao et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2019). This suggests that zinc-loaded catalysts should show a better performance than the commercial copper/alumina (CA) catalyst in the hydrogenation of CO₂.

Reaction Tests

Figure 7 shows the methanol concentration at the reactor outlet using the two catalysts, CA and CZAWI. The commercial catalyst, CA, has a continuous methanol production for up to 15 h, when the concentration reaches a constant value close to 300 μmol L⁻¹. This concentration is no longer modified until 30 h of reaction, indicating that the material does not lose activity during this time. For the CZAWI catalyst, methanol takes longer to be detected as a product, around 5 h of reaction, and its concentration increases more slowly when compared to the CA catalyst. The methanol production does not reach a steady value after 30 h of reaction. The CZACP catalyst has a similar methanol profile to that of CZAWI but with a higher concentration from the very first hours. According to the XRF results, this sample has the highest copper content, which may be associated with the presence of more available active sites for CO₂ hydrogenation.

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 7. Methanol concentration at the outlet of the reactor using CA, CZAWI, and CZACP.

In addition to methanol, DME, CO, and water are also detected as reaction products. Figure 8 shows DME concentration history at the outlet of the reactor for the evaluated catalyst. CA and CZAWI catalysts showed a similar behavior regarding DME concentration, whereas no such product was observed for the sample CZACP. Unlike the methanol concentration history, after 10 h, the DME concentration reaches a constant concentration of about 60 μmol L⁻¹ for both CA and CZAWI samples. DME is produced by methanol dehydration, which requires acidic sites in the catalyst in order to occur under the current conditions of pressure and temperature. The acid sites in the studied catalysts are provided by γ-Al₂O₃, which is present in the lowest concentration in the CZACP sample, according to the XRF results. This may be the reason for the negligible production of DME when using this catalyst.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 8. DME concentration at the end of the reactor using CA, CZAWI, and CZACP.

Figure 9 shows the CO concentration history at the reactor outlet for each catalyst. The concentration of carbon monoxide follows the same behavior in all cases: after 5 h of reaction, the concentration reaches a plateau that remains for the entire period that the reaction was monitored. However, this plateau has different values for each catalyst. For the commercial material, CA, the CO concentration reaches approximately 1,000 μmol L⁻¹; with the CZAWI catalyst, a concentration of 750 μmol L⁻¹ of CO was obtained; and for the CZACP, the concentration of CO was about 450 μmol L⁻¹. The lower CO concentration is probably related to methanol formation, which was higher for CZACP.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 9. CO concentration at the end of the reactor using CA, CZAWI, and CZACP.

The concentration histories of the reaction products show that regardless of the catalyst sample, methanol production is much slower than DME and CO formation. This indicates that methanol dehydration to form DME and the reverse water–gas shift (RWGS) reaction producing carbon monoxide have faster kinetics than the CO₂ hydrogenation reaction, which is, therefore, the rate-limiting step of the global reaction rate (Aguayo et al., 2007; Qin et al., 2015). Although methanol is rapidly dehydrated to form DME and slowly produced from the carbon dioxide hydrogenation, it is still detected at the outlet of the reactor because methanol is also produced by the reaction of carbon monoxide hydrogenation (Alvarez et al., 2017; Battaglia et al., 2021).

Figure 10 shows the transient CO₂ conversion for the catalysts under study in this work. CO₂ conversion reaches a constant value in the first hours of reaction for CZACP, unlike the CA and CZAWI catalysts, which present variation with respect to a trend. However, after 24 h of reaction, no significant variations are observed in the conversion for both materials.

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 10. CO₂ conversion with time using CA, CZAWI, and CZACP.

The selectivity of products is shown in Figure 11. Methanol selectivity increases until a constant value is reached after 20 h of reaction for both CA and CZAWI catalysts, while for CZACP, there is a rising trend at 30 h of reaction. For DME, the selectivity reaches steady values for CA and CZA after 5 h of reaction. The carbon monoxide selectivity profiles quickly reach a steady state, at which CA and CZACP samples show the highest and lowest CO selectivity, respectively.

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 11. Selectivity of methanol (A), DME (B), and carbon monoxide (C) for tested catalysts.

Figure 12 summarizes the CO₂ conversion and selectivity calculated according to Eqs 1, 2, respectively, for the products identified in the CO₂ hydrogenation reaction after 30 h when a steady state was roughly reached. Figure 13 shows the product yield, estimated according to Eq. 3, under the same conditions.

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 12. Product selectivity and CO₂ conversion (hatched area) at a steady state.

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 13. Product yield at a steady state.

The most active catalyst in this study was the one produced by coprecipitation (CZACP), presenting a CO₂ conversion of 24%. The highest yield for methanol and the lowest yield for CO were obtained with this catalyst. The catalytic performance obtained in this study is comparable to that reported in the literature for the direct synthesis of DME (Aguayo et al., 2007; Ateka et al., 2017; Ateka et al., 2018).

By correlating the catalytic activity with the adsorption isotherms of the reactants, it was possible to confirm that the catalyst with the highest adsorption capacity for CO₂ and mainly H₂, CZACP, is the one that shows a better performance in the hydrogenation of CO₂ to form methanol. Hence, there is strong evidence that the reaction mechanism is based on the adsorption of hydrogen onto the material, in agreement with the mechanism proposed by Graaf et al. (1988).

Conclusion

The commercial material CA showed activity comparable to the results obtained in the literature for the methanol production under the studied conditions. DME was produced more likely due to the acid sites introduced by γ-Al₂O₃ on this catalyst.

Even though zinc loading decreases the textural properties of the CA catalyst, it increases the interaction with CO₂ and H₂, thus improving the adsorption capacity when compared with the pristine catalyst. CO₂ conversion, methanol selectivity, and yield were improved by the presence of ZnO, while DME production was not affected. Furthermore, DME formation was suppressed in the sample that was loaded with zinc by coprecipitation.

Although CA and CZAWI presented results that indicate potential application in methanol production, the CZACP material showed better CO₂ conversion and higher methanol yield, in addition to producing less CO. This suggests that it enhances the CO₂ hydrogenation reaction rather than the RWGS reaction.

In summary, the main impact of this work is regarding the insights on the reaction mechanism provided by the CO₂ and H₂ adsorption isotherms on the catalysts. The adsorption capacity of the reactants, evaluated under temperature and pressure conditions close to the hydrogenation reaction conditions, correlates well with the catalytic activity and hence the conversion and yield. This novel approach can be used to evaluate and aid the development of new catalysts.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

RS, MP, SL, and MB-N contributed to the conception and design of the study. RS performed the syntheses and catalytic tests. RS, JC, and ER-C performed the characterization tests. RS and JC wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RS, MP, SL, ER-C, DA, and MB-N revised, edited, and provided a formal analysis of the manuscript. AM, DA, and MB-N acquired and provided funds for the development of this work. All authors approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research was funded by the Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (Agência Nacional de Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis–ANP, Brazil) and PETROBRAS through the Clause of Investments in Research, Development, and Innovation (Cláusula de Investimentos em Pesquisa, Desenvolvimento e Inovação) in the contracts for Exploration, Development and Production of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Funds for publication fees were provided by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) in the frame of Project CAPES/Print 88887.311867/2018-00.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). ER-C acknowledges project RTI 2018-099668-BC22 of Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, and project UMA18-FEDERJA-126 of Junta de Andalucía and FEDER funds.

References

Aboul-Fotouh, S. M. K. (2014). Production of Dimethylether (DME) as a Clean Fuel Using Sonochemically Prepared CuO And/or ZnO-Modified γ -alumina Catalysts. J. Fuel Chem. Technol. 42, 3. doi:10.1016/S1872-5813(14)60020-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adnan, M. A., and Kibria, M. G. (2020). Comparative Techno-Economic and Life-Cycle Assessment of Power-To-Methanol Synthesis Pathways. Appl. Energy 278, 115614. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115614

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Afshar Taromi, A., and Kaliaguine, S. (2018). Green Diesel Production via Continuous Hydrotreatment of Triglycerides over Mesostructured γ-alumina Supported NiMo/CoMo Catalysts. Fuel Process. Technol. 171, 20–30. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.10.024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguayo, A. T., Ereña, J., Mier, D., Arandes, J. M., Olazar, M., and Bilbao, J. (2007). Kinetic Modeling of Dimethyl Ether Synthesis in a Single Step on a CuO−ZnO−Al2O3/γ-Al2O3 Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46, 5522–5530. doi:10.1021/ie070269s

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahouari, H., Soualah, A., Le Valant, A., Pinard, L., Magnoux, P., and Pouilloux, Y. (2013). Methanol Synthesis from CO2 Hydrogenation over Copper Based Catalysts. Reac Kinet. Mech. Cat. 110, 131–145. doi:10.1007/s11144-013-0587-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez, A., Bansode, A., Urakawa, A., Bavykina, A. V., Wezendonk, T. A., Makkee, M., et al. (2017). Challenges in the Greener Production of Formates/Formic Acid, Methanol, and DME by Heterogeneously Catalyzed CO2 Hydrogenation Processes. Chem. Rev. 117, 9804–9838. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00816

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

An, X., Li, J., Zuo, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, D., and Wang, J. (2007). A Cu/Zn/Al/Zr Fibrous Catalyst that Is an Improved CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol Catalyst. Catal. Lett. 118, 264–269. doi:10.1007/s10562-007-9182-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

An, X., Zuo, Y.-Z., Zhang, Q., Wang, D.-z., and Wang, J.-F. (2008). Dimethyl Ether Synthesis from CO2 Hydrogenation on a CuO−ZnO−Al2O3−ZrO2/HZSM-5 Bifunctional Catalyst. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 6547–6554. doi:10.1021/ie800777t

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arcoumanis, C., Bae, C., Crookes, R., and Kinoshita, E. (2008). The Potential of Di-methyl Ether (DME) as an Alternative Fuel for Compression-Ignition Engines: A Review. Fuel 87, 1014–1030. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2007.06.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ateka, A., Ereña, J., Sánchez-Contador, M., Perez-Uriarte, P., Bilbao, J., and Aguayo, A. (2018). Capability of the Direct Dimethyl Ether Synthesis Process for the Conversion of Carbon Dioxide. Appl. Sci. 8, 677. doi:10.3390/app8050677

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ateka, A., Pérez-Uriarte, P., Gamero, M., Ereña, J., Aguayo, A. T., and Bilbao, J. (2017). A Comparative Thermodynamic Study on the CO2 Conversion in the Synthesis of Methanol and of DME. Energy 120, 796–804. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.11.129

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Badmaev, S. D., Pechenkin, A. A., Belyaev, V. D., and Sobyanin, V. A. (2015). Hydrogen Production by Steam Reforming of Dimethoxymethane over Bifunctional CuO-ZnO/γ-Al 2 O 3 Catalyst. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40, 14052–14057. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.05.188

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Battaglia, P., Buffo, G., Ferrero, D., Santarelli, M., and Lanzini, A. (2021). Methanol Synthesis through CO2 Capture and Hydrogenation: Thermal Integration, Energy Performance and Techno-Economic Assessment. J. CO2 Util. 44, 101407. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101407

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonura, G., Cannilla, C., Frusteri, L., Mezzapica, A., and Frusteri, F. (2017). DME Production by CO2 Hydrogenation: Key Factors Affecting the Behaviour of CuZnZr/ferrierite Catalysts. Catal. Today 281, 337–344. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2016.05.057

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowker, M. (2019). Methanol Synthesis from CO 2 Hydrogenation. ChemCatChem 11, 4238–4246. doi:10.1002/cctc.201900401

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Catizzone, E., Bonura, G., Migliori, M., Frusteri, F., and Giordano, G. (2018). CO2 Recycling to Dimethyl Ether: State-Of-The-Art and Perspectives. Molecules 23, 31. doi:10.3390/molecules23010031

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chang, K., Wang, T., and Chen, J. G. (2017). Hydrogenation of CO2 to Methanol over CuCeTiO Catalysts. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 206, 704–711. doi:10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.01.076

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, C., Wang, X., Huang, H., Zou, X., Gu, F., Su, F., et al. (2019). Synthesis of Mesoporous Ni-La-Si Mixed Oxides for CO2 Reforming of C with a High H2 Selectivity. Fuel Process. Technol. 185, 56–67. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.11.017

CrossRef Full Text | +with+a+High+H2+Selectivity&btnG=">Google Scholar

Chinchen, G. C., Waugh, K. C., and Whan, D. A. (1986). The Activity and State of the Copper Surface in Methanol Synthesis Catalysts. Appl. Catal. 25. doi:10.1016/S0166-9834(00)81226-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chong, C. C., Abdullah, N., Bukhari, S. N., Ainirazali, N., Teh, L. P., and Setiabudi, H. D. (2019). Hydrogen Production via CO2 Reforming of C over Low-Cost Ni/SBA-15 from Silica-Rich Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) Waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 20815–20825. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.06.169

CrossRef Full Text | +over+Low-Cost+Ni/SBA-15+from+Silica-Rich+Palm+Oil+Fuel+Ash+(POFA)+Waste&btnG=">Google Scholar

Damanabi, A. T., Servatan, M., Mazinani, S., Olabi, A. G., and Zhang, Z. (2019). Potential of Tri-reforming Process and Membrane Technology for Improving Ammonia Production and CO2 Reduction. Sci. Total Environ. 664, 567–575. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.391

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ereña, J., Vicente, J., Aguayo, A. T., Olazar, M., Bilbao, J., and Gayubo, A. G. (2013). Kinetic Behaviour of Catalysts with Different CuO-ZnO-Al2O3 Metallic Function Compositions in DME Steam Reforming in a Fluidized Bed. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 142-143, 315–322. doi:10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.05.034

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fang, X., Men, Y., Wu, F., Zhao, Q., Singh, R., Xiao, P., et al. (2019). Promoting CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol by Incorporating Adsorbents into Catalysts: Effects of Hydrotalcite. Chem. Eng. J. 378, 122052. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.122052

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ganesh, I. (2014). Conversion of Carbon Dioxide into Methanol - a Potential Liquid Fuel: Fundamental Challenges and Opportunities (A Review). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 221–257. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, P., Li, F., Zhao, N., Xiao, F., Wei, W., Zhong, L., et al. (2013). Influence of Modifier (Mn, La, Ce, Zr and Y) on the Performance of Cu/Zn/Al Catalysts via Hydrotalcite-like Precursors for CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol. Appl. Catal. A General 468, 442–452. doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2013.09.026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gayubo, A. G., Vicente, J., Ereña, J., Oar-Arteta, L., Azkoiti, M. J., Olazar, M., et al. (2014). Causes of Deactivation of Bifunctional Catalysts Made up of CuO-ZnO-Al2O3 and Desilicated HZSM-5 Zeolite in DME Steam Reforming. Appl. Catal. A General 483, 76–84. doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2014.06.031

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Graaf, G. H., Stamhuis, E. J., and Beenackersz, A. A. C. M. (1988). Kinetics of Low-Pressure Methanol Synthesis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 43, 12. doi:10.1016/0009-2509(88)85127-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jadhav, S. G., Vaidya, P. D., Bhanage, B. M., and Joshi, J. B. (2014). Catalytic Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation to Methanol: A Review of Recent Studies. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92, 2557–2567. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2014.03.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, H., Kim, A., Byun, M., and Lim, H. (2021). Comparative Feasibility Studies of H2 Supply Scenarios for Methanol as a Carbon-Neutral H2 Carrier at Various Scales and Distances. Renew. Energy 180, 552–559. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.08.077

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, M. Y., Yoon, S. H., Ryu, B. W., and Lee, C. S. (2008). Combustion and Emission Characteristics of DME as an Alternative Fuel for Compression Ignition Engines with a High Pressure Injection System. Fuel 87, 2779–2786. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2008.01.032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koeppel, R. A., Baiker, A., and Wokaun, A. (1992). Copper/zirconia Catalysts for the Synthesis of Methanol from Carbon Dioxide: Influence of Preparation Variables on Structural and Catalytic Properties of Catalysts. Appl. Catal. A General 84, 1. doi:10.1016/0926-860X(92)80340-I

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, A., Pu, Y., Li, F., Luo, J., Zhao, N., and Xiao, F. (2017). Synthesis of Dimethyl Carbonate from Methanol and CO 2 over Fe-Zr Mixed Oxides. J. CO2 Util. 19, 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2017.02.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J., Han, D., He, T., Liu, G., Zi, Z., Wang, Z., et al. (2019). Nanocrystal H[Fe, Al]ZSM-5 Zeolites with Different Silica-Alumina Composition for Conversion of Dimethyl Ether to Gasoline. Fuel Process. Technol. 191, 104–110. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2019.03.029

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, W., Wang, H., Jiang, X., Zhu, J., Liu, Z., Guo, X., et al. (2018). A Short Review of Recent Advances in CO2 Hydrogenation to Hydrocarbons over Heterogeneous Catalysts. RSC Adv. 8, 7651–7669. doi:10.1039/C7RA13546G

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, X.-M., Lu, G. Q., Yan, Z.-F., and Beltramini, J. (2003). Recent Advances in Catalysts for Methanol Synthesis via Hydrogenation of CO and CO2. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, 6518–6530. doi:10.1021/ie020979s

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Luo, M.-F., Fang, P., He, M., and Xie, Y.-L. (2005). In Situ XRD, Raman, and TPR Studies of CuO/Al2O3 Catalysts for CO Oxidation. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 239, 243–248. doi:10.1016/j.molcata.2005.06.029

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, Y., Sun, Q., Wu, D., Fan, W-H., Zhang, Y-L., and Deng, J-F. (1998). A Pratical Approach for the Preparation of High Activity Cu/ZnO/ZrO2 Catalyst for Methanol Synthesis from CO2 Hydrogenation. Appl. Catal. A General 171, 1. doi:10.1016/S0926-860X(98)00079-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Magomedova, M., Galanova, E., Davidov, I., Afokin, M., and Maximov, A. (2019). Dimethyl Ether to Olefins over Modified ZSM-5 Based Catalysts Stabilized by Hydrothermal Treatment. Catalysts 9, 485. doi:10.3390/catal9050485

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marchionna, M., Patrini, R., Sanfilippo, D., and Migliavacca, G. (2008). Fundamental Investigations on Di-methyl Ether (DME) as LPG Substitute or Make-Up for Domestic Uses. Fuel Process. Technol. 89, 1255–1261. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2008.07.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marlin, D. S., Sarron, E., and Sigurbjörnsson, Ó. (2018). Process Advantages of Direct CO2 to Methanol Synthesis. Front. Chem. 6. doi:10.3389/fchem.2018.00446

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murthy, P. S., Liang, W., Jiang, Y., and Huang, J. (2021). Cu-Based Nanocatalysts for CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol. Energy fuels. 35, 8558–8584. doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00625

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Naik, S. P., Ryu, T., Bui, V., Miller, J. D., Drinnan, N. B., and Zmierczak, W. (2011). Synthesis of DME from CO2/H2 Gas Mixture. Chem. Eng. J. 167, 362–368. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.12.087

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nakamura, J., Nakamura, I., Uchijima, T., Kanai, Y., Watanabe, T., Saito, M., et al. (1995). Methanol Synthesis over a Zn-Deposited Copper Model Catalyst. Catal. Lett. 31, 325–331. doi:10.1007/BF00808596

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olah, G. A., Goeppert, A., and Prakash, G. K. S. (2008). Chemical Recycling of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol and Dimethyl Ether: from Greenhouse Gas to Renewable, Environmentally Carbon Neutral Fuels and Synthetic Hydrocarbons. J. Org. Chem. 74, 487–498. doi:10.1021/jo801260f

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pires, C. A., Santos, A. C. C. d., and Jordão, E. (2015). Oxidation of Phenol in Aqueous Solution with Copper Oxide Catalysts Supported on γ-Al2O3, Pillared Clay and TiO2: Comparison of the Performance and Costs Associated with each Catalyst. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 32, 837–848. doi:10.1590/0104-6632.20150324s00002232

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pokrovski, K., and Bell, A. (2006). Effect of Dopants on the Activity of Cu/M0.3Zr0.7O2 (M = Ce, Mn, and Pr) for CO Hydrogenation to Methanol. J. Catal. 244, 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.jcat.2006.07.031

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prieto, G., de Jong, K. P., and de Jongh, P. E. (2013). Towards 'greener' Catalyst Manufacture: Reduction of Wastewater from the Preparation of Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 Methanol Synthesis Catalysts. Catal. Today 215, 142–151. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2013.03.033

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Qin, Z.-z., Su, T.-m., Ji, H.-b., Jiang, Y.-x., Liu, R.-w., and Chen, J.-h. (2015). Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Intrinsic Kinetics for Dimethyl Ether Synthesis from CO2over Cu-Fe-Zr/HZSM-5. AIChE J. 61, 1613–1627. doi:10.1002/aic.14743

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Saeidi, S., Najari, S., Hessel, V., Wilson, K., Keil, F. J., Concepción, P., et al. (2021). Recent Advances in CO2 Hydrogenation to Value-Added Products - Current Challenges and Future Directions. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 85, 100905. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2021.100905

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Semelsberger, T. A., Ott, K. C., Borup, R. L., and Greene, H. L. (2006). Generating Hydrogen-Rich Fuel-Cell Feeds from Dimethyl Ether (DME) Using Cu/Zn Supported on Various Solid-Acid Substrates. Appl. Catal. A General 309, 210–223. doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2006.05.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Song, C. (2006). Global Challenges and Strategies for Control, Conversion and Utilization of CO2 for Sustainable Development Involving Energy, Catalysis, Adsorption and Chemical Processing. Catal. Today 115, 2–32. doi:10.1016/j.cattod.2006.02.029

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sun, W., Zheng, L., Wang, Y., Li, D., Liu, Z., Wu, L., et al. (2020). Study of Thermodynamics and Experiment on Direct Synthesis of Dimethyl Carbonate from Carbon Dioxide and Methanol over Yttrium Oxide. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59, 4281–4290. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.9b06092

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thommes, M., Kaneko, K., Neimark, A. V., Olivier, J. P., Rodriguez-Reinoso, F., Rouquerol, J., et al. (2015). Physisorption of Gases, with Special Reference to the Evaluation of Surface Area and Pore Size Distribution (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 87, 1051–1069. doi:10.1515/pac-2014-1117

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wambach, J., Baiker, A., and Wokaun, A. (1999). CO2 Hydrogenation over Metal/zirconia Catalysts. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 1, 5071–5080. doi:10.1039/A904923A

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, W., Wang, S., Ma, X., and Gong, J. (2011). Recent Advances in Catalytic Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide. Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 3703. doi:10.1039/C1CS15008A

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xiao, J., Mao, D., Guo, X., and Yu, J. (2015). Effect of TiO2, ZrO2, and TiO2-ZrO2 on the Performance of CuO-ZnO Catalyst for CO2 Hydrogenation to Methanol. Appl. Surf. Sci. 338, 146–153. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.02.122

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, H., Zhang, C., Gao, P., Wang, H., Li, X., Zhong, L., et al. (2017). A Review of the Catalytic Hydrogenation of Carbon Dioxide into Value-Added Hydrocarbons. Catal. Sci. Technol. 7, 4580–4598. doi:10.1039/C7CY01403A

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ye, R.-P., Ding, J., Gong, W., Argyle, M. D., Zhong, Q., Wang, Y., et al. (2019). CO2 Hydrogenation to High-Value Products via Heterogeneous Catalysis. Nat. Commun. 10. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13638-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar