Advances in iron-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with high carbon efficiency

doi:10.1016/S1872-2067(25)64738-3

Abstract

Abstract:

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis offers a promising route to convert carbon-rich resources such as coal, natural gas, and biomass into clean fuels and high-value chemicals via syngas. Catalyst development is crucial for optimizing the process, with cobalt- and iron-based catalysts being widely used in industrial applications. Iron-based catalysts, in particular, are favored due to their low cost, broad temperature range, and high water-gas shift reaction activity, making them ideal for syngas derived from coal and biomass with a low H₂/CO ratio. However, despite their long history of industrial use, iron-based catalysts face two significant challenges. First, the presence of multiple iron phases-metallic iron, iron oxides, and iron carbides-complicates the understanding of the reaction mechanism due to dynamic phase transformations. Second, the high water-gas shift activity of these catalysts leads to increased CO₂ selectivity, thereby reducing overall carbon efficiency. In Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, CO₂ can arise as primary CO₂ from CO disproportionation (the Boudouard reaction) and as secondary CO₂ from the water-gas shift reaction. The accumulation of CO₂ formation further compromises overall carbon efficiency, which is particularly undesirable given the current focus on minimizing carbon emissions and achieving carbon neutrality. This review focus on the ongoing advancements of iron-based catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, with particular emphasis on overcoming these two critical challenges for iron-based catalysts: regulating the active phases and minimizing CO₂ selectivity. Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing the overall catalytic efficiency and selectivity of iron-based catalysts. In this review, recent efforts to suppress CO₂ selectivity of iron-based catalysts, including catalyst hydrophobic modification and graphene confinement, are explored for their potential to stabilize active phases and prevent unwanted side reactions. This innovative approach offers new opportunities for developing catalysts with high activity, low CO₂ selectivity, and enhanced stability, which are key factors for enhancing both the efficiency and sustainability for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Such advancements are crucial for advancing more efficient and sustainable Fischer-Tropsch synthesis technologies, supporting the global push for net-zero emissions goals, and contributing to carbon reduction efforts worldwide.

Key words: Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Syngas conversion, Carbon dioxide, Carbon efficiency, Iron carbide, Graphene layer confinement

Xueqing Zhang, Wusha Jiye, Yuhua Zhang, Jinlin Li, Li Wang. Advances in iron-based Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with high carbon efficiency[J]. Chinese Journal of Catalysis, 2025, 74: 4-21.

×
share this article

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.cjcatal.com/EN/10.1016/S1872-2067(25)64738-3

https://www.cjcatal.com/EN/Y2025/V74/I7/4

Figures/Tables 14

Fig. 1. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process.

Fig. 2. (a) Qualitative interpretation of the ab initio atomistic thermodynamics study of the iron carbide structures. Reproduced from Ref. [42] with permission from American Chemical Society. (b) Scheme for the preparation of ε-Fe2C from the RQ Fe50Al50 alloy. Reproduced from Ref. [44] with permission from Nature Publishing Group. (c) Schematic Illustration of the Formation Mechanism of χ-Fe5C2 NPs. Reproduced from Ref. [52] with permission from American Chemical Society. (d) TEM images of the prepared single-phase θ-Fe3C sample. Reproduced from Ref. [60] with permission from Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. (e) Catalytic activity of iron carbide phases (Fe7C3, χ-Fe5C2, and ε-Fe2C) in FTS. Reproduced from Ref. [61] with permission from American Chemical Society.

Fig. 3. Phase transformation and dynamics of structural changes among different iron carbides.

Fig. 4. (a) Synthesis of the pure iron carbide phase. (b) The mechanism of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. (c) CO conversion as a function of time over α-Fe, ε-Fe2C, Fe7C3, and χ-Fe5C2 catalysts (reaction conditions: 270 °C, 30 bar, 20 mL min-1 syngas). Reproduced from Ref. [62] with permission from Chinese Chemical Society. (d) Two typical particle growth mechanisms. Reproduced from Ref. [70] with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry. (e) The deactivation methods of iron-based catalysts during Fischer-Tropsch reaction.

Fig. 5. (a) MOFMS strategy for the Fe-based FTS catalysts: direct pyrolysis of Basolite F-300 and impregnation of the MOF precursor with a carbon source (FA) followed by pyrolysis. Reproduced from Ref. [43] with permission from Nature Publishing Group. (b) Illustration of the green and facile preparation approach of the natural magnetite-based porous Fe@C nanohybrids for FTS. Reproduced from Ref. [103] with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 6. Schematic models of iron-based catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. (a) Conventional catalysts with unconfined iron carbide (FexC) particles as the active phase. (b) Graphene layer-confined ε-Fe2C. Reproduced from Ref. [105] with permission from Nature Publishing Group.

Fig. 7. Schematic models of the armor catalyst confined by two-dimensional materials. Reproduced from Ref. [107] with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry.

Fig. 8. (a) Operando M?ssbauer spectroscopy of R-Fe catalysts. (b) FTS performance of the R-Fe catalyst as a function of time on stream. Reproduced from Ref. [121] with permission from American Association for the Advancement of Science. (c) Catalytic performance of optimized Mn-χ-Fe5C2. (d) In situ M?ssbauer spectra of the transformation of Mn-promoted Raney iron, showing as-prepared, after carburization and after Fischer-Tropsch to linear α-olefin reaction. Reproduced from Ref. [123] with permission from Springer Nature.

Fig. 9. (a) Catalytic performance of Fe2O3@SiO2-(CH3)3 catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [126] with permission from Elsevier. (b) Catalytic performance of FeMn@Si-c catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [124] with permission from American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Fig. 10. (a) Catalytic performance of FeNa@SiO2-c, FeNa@SiO2-c+HZSM-5 catalysts. Reproduced from Ref. [127] with permission from Wiley-VCH. (b) Catalytic performance of modified Fe/ZSM-5 catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [129] with permission from Elsevier. (c) Catalytic performance of Fe3O4@SiO2-PFTS catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [130] with permission from Elsevier.

Fig. 11. (a) Catalytic performance of FeK/G catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [136] with permission from American Chemical Society. (b) Catalytic performance of N-doped graphitic carbon encapsulated iron-based catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [137] with permission from Elsevier. (c) Catalytic performance of χ-Fe5C2 @Graphene catalyst. Reproduced from Ref. [138] with permission from National Academy of Sciences.

Fig. 12. (a) Surface-normalized carbon absorption energy (ωabs) of ε-Fe2C surfaces with and without graphene(-N) layers and the most stable structures labeled by the distances between ε-Fe2C and graphene (data in parenthesis referring to those of graphene-N). Reproduced from Ref. [105] with permission from Nature Publishing Group. (b) WGS reaction of 5Fe@C catalysts. (c) Absorption energies (Ead) of O, OH, H2O, CO, and CO/H species on pure, graphene-covered, or C-vacant-graphene-covered χ-Fe5C2 surfaces. Reproduced from Ref. [138] with permission from National Academy of Sciences.

Table 1 Summary of catalytic performance over iron-based catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

Strategies	Catalysts	Treatment	FT condition	TOS (h)	FTY μmol_CO^-1g_Fe^-1 s^-1	CO Conv. (%)	Sel. (%)				Ref.
Strategies	Catalysts	Treatment	FT condition	TOS (h)	FTY μmol_CO^-1g_Fe^-1 s^-1	CO Conv. (%)	CO₂	CH₄	C₂-C₄	C₅₊	Ref.
Conventional catalysts	38-Fe@C	H₂; 425 °C; 3 h	340 °C; H₂/CO = 1; 2 MPa; 30000 h^-1	10	380.0	72.0	46.8	15.0	28.0	57.0	[43]
	Fe/α-Al₂O₃	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	340 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 1500 h^-1	64	84.8	77.0	46.0	24.0	56.0	20.0	[51]
	Fe-in-CNT	H₂; 350 °C; 5 h	270 °C; H₂/CO=2; 5.1 MPa; 2 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	—	40.0	18.0	12.0	41.0	29.0	[57]
	35Fe/hNCNC-3	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	350 °C; H₂/CO=1; 0.1 MPa; 12 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	60	—	3.5	39.4	25.0	57.4	17.6	[70]
	FeK2/rGO	5%H₂; 450 °C; 16 h	340 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 24 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	220.0	61.0	51.0	20.0	73.3	6.7	[71]
	Fe/Ru/SiO₂	H₂/CO = 2; 280 °C; 20 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 2000 h^-1	73	—	46.1	21.2	19.7	44.3	36.0	[73]
Phase-pure iron carbide	θ-Fe₃C	NA	250 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	100	—	30.0	9.9	9.4	39.4	51.2	[60]
	ε-Fe₂C/ε'-Fe_2.2C	20%H₂; 280 °C; 12 h	235 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 2.3 MPa; 18000 h^-1	150	—	15.0	5.3	12.0	29.0	49.0	[121]
	Mn-χ-Fe₅C₂	H₂/CO = 30; 350 °C; 6 h	250 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 3 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	1100	—	46.1	9.4	8.1	44.4	47.5	[123]
Hydrophobic modification	Fe₁Mn_0.3@Si-c	H₂; 350 °C; 10 h; syngas; 320 °C; 5 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 3 MPa; 4000 h^-1	100	—	56.1	13.0	12.0	26.0	62.0	[124]
	B-Fe₂O₃@SiO₂-(CH₃)₃	H₂/CO = 2; 300 °C; 4 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 3000 h^-1	12	—	50.0	3.4	38.0	51.0	11.0	[126]
	FeNa@Si-c+HZSM-5	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	10	—	49.8	14.3	7.7	17.0	75.3	[127]
	Fe/SiO₂-HP3	H₂; 150 °C; 2 h; 250 °C; 2 h; 350 °C; 16 h	280 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 2 MPa; 2.4 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	160	—	19.7	16.0	18.0	32.0	50.0	[128]
	Fe/ZSM-5@S1-24(×2)	H₂/CO = 2; 300 °C; 4 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1 MPa; 6 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	NA	—	43.1	11.4	11.6	27.7	60.7	[129]
	Fe₃O₄@SiO₂-PFTS	H₂/CO = 2; 320 °C; 1 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 3000 h^-1	120	—	32.9	4.8	48.1	47.2	4.7	[130]
	Fe@Mn@0.2Si-c	H₂; 350 °C; 10 h; syngas; 320 °C; 5 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	—	55.0	7.5	13.5	41.5	45.0	[131]
Graphene confinement	ε-Fe₂C@graphene	H₂; 350 °C; 3 h	300 °C; H₂/CO=1; 1 MPa; 64 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	400	582.8	44.6	20.3	10.3	23.9	65.8	[105]
	Fe₁₅-G	H₂; 450 °C; 5 h	325 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 2.5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	48	103.0	51.5	2.0	1.5	32.0 (C_2-7)	66.5 (C₈₊)	[136]
	FeC-800	H₂; 400 °C; 5 h	300 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 12 °C L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	60	239.4	47.0	24.0	18.0	30.0	52.0	[137]
	χ-Fe₅C₂@Graphene	NA	260 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 0.25 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	180	—	17.2	4.6	5.9	11.8	82.3	[138]
	Fe/PGO-380	H₂; 380 °C; 6 h	270 °C; H₂/CO=2; 3 MPa; 15 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	25	—	30.4	5.1	21.2	46.6	32.2	[139]

Table 1 Summary of catalytic performance over iron-based catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

Strategies	Catalysts	Treatment	FT condition	TOS (h)	FTY μmol_CO^-1g_Fe^-1 s^-1	CO Conv. (%)	Sel. (%)				Ref.
Strategies	Catalysts	Treatment	FT condition	TOS (h)	FTY μmol_CO^-1g_Fe^-1 s^-1	CO Conv. (%)	CO₂	CH₄	C₂-C₄	C₅₊	Ref.
Conventional catalysts	38-Fe@C	H₂; 425 °C; 3 h	340 °C; H₂/CO = 1; 2 MPa; 30000 h^-1	10	380.0	72.0	46.8	15.0	28.0	57.0	[43]
	Fe/α-Al₂O₃	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	340 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 1500 h^-1	64	84.8	77.0	46.0	24.0	56.0	20.0	[51]
	Fe-in-CNT	H₂; 350 °C; 5 h	270 °C; H₂/CO=2; 5.1 MPa; 2 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	—	40.0	18.0	12.0	41.0	29.0	[57]
	35Fe/hNCNC-3	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	350 °C; H₂/CO=1; 0.1 MPa; 12 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	60	—	3.5	39.4	25.0	57.4	17.6	[70]
	FeK2/rGO	5%H₂; 450 °C; 16 h	340 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 24 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	220.0	61.0	51.0	20.0	73.3	6.7	[71]
	Fe/Ru/SiO₂	H₂/CO = 2; 280 °C; 20 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 2000 h^-1	73	—	46.1	21.2	19.7	44.3	36.0	[73]
Phase-pure iron carbide	θ-Fe₃C	NA	250 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	100	—	30.0	9.9	9.4	39.4	51.2	[60]
	ε-Fe₂C/ε'-Fe_2.2C	20%H₂; 280 °C; 12 h	235 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 2.3 MPa; 18000 h^-1	150	—	15.0	5.3	12.0	29.0	49.0	[121]
	Mn-χ-Fe₅C₂	H₂/CO = 30; 350 °C; 6 h	250 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 3 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	1100	—	46.1	9.4	8.1	44.4	47.5	[123]
Hydrophobic modification	Fe₁Mn_0.3@Si-c	H₂; 350 °C; 10 h; syngas; 320 °C; 5 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 3 MPa; 4000 h^-1	100	—	56.1	13.0	12.0	26.0	62.0	[124]
	B-Fe₂O₃@SiO₂-(CH₃)₃	H₂/CO = 2; 300 °C; 4 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 3000 h^-1	12	—	50.0	3.4	38.0	51.0	11.0	[126]
	FeNa@Si-c+HZSM-5	H₂; 350 °C; 2 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	10	—	49.8	14.3	7.7	17.0	75.3	[127]
	Fe/SiO₂-HP3	H₂; 150 °C; 2 h; 250 °C; 2 h; 350 °C; 16 h	280 °C; H₂/CO=1.5; 2 MPa; 2.4 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	160	—	19.7	16.0	18.0	32.0	50.0	[128]
	Fe/ZSM-5@S1-24(×2)	H₂/CO = 2; 300 °C; 4 h	260 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1 MPa; 6 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	NA	—	43.1	11.4	11.6	27.7	60.7	[129]
	Fe₃O₄@SiO₂-PFTS	H₂/CO = 2; 320 °C; 1 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 3000 h^-1	120	—	32.9	4.8	48.1	47.2	4.7	[130]
	Fe@Mn@0.2Si-c	H₂; 350 °C; 10 h; syngas; 320 °C; 5 h	320 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	24	—	55.0	7.5	13.5	41.5	45.0	[131]
Graphene confinement	ε-Fe₂C@graphene	H₂; 350 °C; 3 h	300 °C; H₂/CO=1; 1 MPa; 64 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	400	582.8	44.6	20.3	10.3	23.9	65.8	[105]
	Fe₁₅-G	H₂; 450 °C; 5 h	325 °C; H₂/CO=2; 1.5 MPa; 2.5 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	48	103.0	51.5	2.0	1.5	32.0 (C_2-7)	66.5 (C₈₊)	[136]
	FeC-800	H₂; 400 °C; 5 h	300 °C; H₂/CO=2; 2 MPa; 12 °C L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	60	239.4	47.0	24.0	18.0	30.0	52.0	[137]
	χ-Fe₅C₂@Graphene	NA	260 °C; H₂/CO=1; 2 MPa; 0.25 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	180	—	17.2	4.6	5.9	11.8	82.3	[138]
	Fe/PGO-380	H₂; 380 °C; 6 h	270 °C; H₂/CO=2; 3 MPa; 15 L h^-1 g_cat.^-1	25	—	30.4	5.1	21.2	46.6	32.2	[139]

Fig. 13. Schematic representation of strategies for suppressing CO2 selectivity in iron-based FTS.

References

[1]	K. Xie, W. Li, W. Zhao, Energy, 2010, 35, 4349-4355.
[2]	Y. Wang, C. H. Guo, X. J. Chen, L. Q. Jia, X. N. Guo, R. S. Chen, M. S. Zhang, Z. Y. Chen, H. D. Wang, China Geol., 2021, 4, 720-746.
[3]	W. Zhou, K. Cheng, J. Kang, C. Zhou, V. Subramanian, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2019, 48, 3193-3228.
[4]	F. Jiao, J. Li, X. Pan, J. Xiao, H. Li, H. Ma, M. Wei, Y. Pan, Z. Zhou, M. Li, S. Miao, J. Li, Y. Zhu, D. Xiao, T. He, J. Yang, F. Qi, Q. Fu, X. Bao, Science, 2016, 351, 1065-1068.
[5]	L. Zhong, F. Yu, Y. An, Y. Zhao, Y. Sun, Z. Li, T. Lin, Y. Lin, X. Qi, Y. Dai, L. Gu, J. Hu, S. Jin, Q. Shen, H. Wang, Nature, 2016, 538, 84-87.
[6]	K. Cheng, B. Gu, X. Liu, J. Kang, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2016, 55, 4725-4728.
[7]	J. Xu, J. Wei, J. Zhang, N. Liu, Q. Ge, J. Sun, Chem. Catal., 2023, 3, 100584.
[8]	M. E. Dry, Catal. Today, 2002, 71, 227-241.
[9]	E. de Smit, B. M. Weckhuysen, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2008, 37, 2758-2781.
[10]	M. Martinelli, M. K. Gnanamani, S. LeViness, G. Jacobs, W. D. Shafer, Appl. Catal. A, 2020, 608, 117740.
[11]	D. B. Bukur, B. Todic, N. Elbashir, Catal. Today, 2016, 275, 66-75.
[12]	B. S. Zainal, P. J. Ker, H. Mohamed, H. C. Ong, I. M. R. Fattah, S. M. Ashrafur Rahman, L. D. Nghiem, T. M. Indra Mahlia, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2024, 202, 114734.
[13]	Q. Hassan, S. Algburi, A. Z. Sameen, H. M. Salman, A. K. Al-Jiboory, Energy Harvest. Syst., 2024, 11, 20220127.
[14]	B. C. Enger, A. Holmen, Catal. Rev., 2012, 54, 437-488.
[15]	V. Ragaini, R. Carli, C. L. Bianchi, D. Lorenzetti, G. Predieri, P. Moggi, Appl. Catal. A, 1996, 139, 31-42.
[16]	S. Ali, N. A. Mohd Zabidi, D. Subbarao, Chem. Cent. J., 2011, 5, 68-76.
[17]	K. T. Rommens, M. Saeys, Chem. Rev., 2023, 123, 5798-5858.
[18]	C. Du, P. Lu, N. Tsubaki, ACS Omega, 2020, 5, 49-56.
[19]	C. G. Visconti, L. Lietti, P. Forzatti, R. Zennaro, Appl. Catal. A, 2007, 330, 49-56.
[20]	T. Qiu, L. Wang, S. Lv, B. Sun, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, W. Yang, J. Li, Fuel, 2017, 203, 811-816.
[21]	W. Chen, T. Lin, Y. Dai, Y. An, F. Yu, L. Zhong, S. Li, Y. Sun, Catal. Today, 2018, 311, 8-22.
[22]	J. Zhang, M. Abbas, J. Chen, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2017, 7, 3626-3636.
[23]	M. E. Dry, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal., 2004, 152, 533-600.
[24]	J. Zhang, T. Sun, J. Ding, H. Xiao, F. Kong, J. Chen, RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 60349-60354.
[25]	J. Zhang, M. Abbas, W. Zhao, J. Chen, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2022, 12, 4217-4227.
[26]	C.-H. Zhang, H.-J. Wan, Y. Yang, H.-W. Xiang, Y.-W. Li, Catal. Commun., 2006, 7, 733-738.
[27]	Y. Yang, H.-W. Xiang, L. Tian, H. Wang, C.-H. Zhang, Z.-C. Tao, Y.-Y. Xu, B. Zhong, Y.-W. Li, Appl. Catal. A, 2005, 284, 105-122.
[28]	Z. Di, X. Feng, Z. Yang, M. Luo, Catal. Lett., 2020, 150, 2640-2647.
[29]	Y. Chen, Y. Ni, Y. Liu, H. Liu, X. Ma, S. Liu, W. Zhu, Z. Liu, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2018, 8, 5943-5954.
[30]	R. A. Diffenbach, D. J. Fauth, J. Catal., 1986, 100, 466-476.
[31]	W. Hou, B. Wu, X. An, T. Li, Z. Tao, H. Zheng, H. Xiang, Y. Li, Catal. Lett., 2007, 119, 353-360.
[32]	H. M. Torres Galvis, A. C. J. Koeken, J. H. Bitter, T. Davidian, M. Ruitenbeek, A. I. Dugulan, K. P. de Jong, J. Catal., 2013, 303, 22-30.
[33]	K. Jothimurugesan, S. K. Gangwal, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1998, 37, 1181-1188.
[34]	S.-H. Kang, J. W. Bae, K.-J. Woo, P. S. Sai Prasad, K.-W. Jun, Fuel Process. Technol., 2010, 91, 399-403.
[35]	S.-H. Kang, J. W. Bae, P. S. Sai Prasad, K.-W. Jun, Catal. Lett., 2008, 125, 264-270.
[36]	R. A. Dictor, A. T. Bell, J. Catal., 1986, 97, 121-136.
[37]	D. H. Chun, G. B. Rhim, M. H. Youn, D. Deviana, J. E. Lee, J. C. Park, H. Jeong, Top. Catal., 2020, 63, 793-809.
[38]	P. Munnik, P. E. de Jongh, K. P. de Jong, Chem. Rev., 2015, 115, 6687-6718.
[39]	J. M. Jablónski, J. Okal, D. Potoczna-Petru, L. Krajczyk, J. Catal., 2003, 220, 146-160.
[40]	M. Oschatz, J. P. Hofmann, T. W. Van Deelen, W. S. Lamme, N. A. Krans, E. J. M. Hensen, K. P. De Jong, ChemCatChem, 2017, 9, 620-628.
[41]	J. W. Niemantsverdriet, A. M. van der Kraan, J. Catal., 1981, 72, 385-388.
[42]	E. de Smit, F. Cinquini, A. M. Beale, O. V. Safonova, W. van Beek, P. Sautet, B. M. Weckhuysen, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 14928-14941.
[43]	V. P. Santos, T. A. Wezendonk, J. J. D. Jaén, A. I. Dugulan, M. A. Nasalevich, H.-U. Islam, A. Chojecki, S. Sartipi, X. Sun, A. A. Hakeem, A. C. J. Koeken, M. Ruitenbeek, T. Davidian, G. R. Meima, G. Sankar, F. Kapteijn, M. Makkee, J. Gascon, Nat. Commun., 2015, 6, 6451.
[44]	K. Xu, B. Sun, J. Lin, W. Wen, Y. Pei, S. Yan, M. Qiao, X. Zhang, B. Zong, Nat. Commun., 2014, 5, 5783.
[45]	P. Zhai, G. Sun, Q. Zhu, D. Ma, Nanotechnol. Rev., 2013, 2, 547-576.
[46]	B. Chen, D. Wang, X. Duan, W. Liu, Y. Li, G. Qian, W. Yuan, A. Holmen, X. Zhou, D. Chen, ACS Catal., 2018, 8, 2709-2714.
[47]	H. Jung, W. J. Thomson, J. Catal., 1992, 134, 654-667.
[48]	A. V. Puga, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2018, 8, 5681-5707.
[49]	J. Gorimbo, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2018, 8, 2022-2029.
[50]	J. B. Butt, Catal. Lett., 1991, 7, 61-81.
[51]	H. M. Torres Galvis, J. H. Bitter, C. B. Khare, M. Ruitenbeek, A. I. Dugulan, K. P. de Jong, Science, 2012, 335, 835-838.
[52]	C. Yang, H. Zhao, Y. Hou, D. Ma, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 15814-15821.
[53]	Y. Jin, J. Deng, J. Yu, C. Yang, M. Tong, Y. Hou, J. Mater. Chem. B, 2015, 3, 3993-4000.
[54]	X. Han, Q. Zhao, H. Gong, C. Wei, J. Lv, Y. Wang, M. Wang, S. Huang, X. Ma, ACS Catal., 2023, 13, 6525-6535.
[55]	X. Teng, S. Huang, J. Wang, H. Wang, Q. Zhao, Y. Yuan, X. Ma, ChemCatChem, 2018, 10, 3883-3891.
[56]	E. M. Cohn, L. J. E. Hofer, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1950, 72, 4662-4664.
[57]	W. Chen, Z. Fan, X. Pan, X. Bao, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 9414-9419.
[58]	Y. Zeng, X. Li, J. Wang, M. T. Sougrati, Y. Huang, T. Zhang, B. Liu, Chem Catal., 2021, 1, 1215-1233.
[59]	K. Opeyemi Otun, Y. Yao, X. Liu, D. Hildebrandt, Fuel, 2021, 296, 120689.
[60]	W. Zhang, C. P. Ma, X. W. Liu, Y. Yang, Y. W. Li, X. D. Wen, Catalysts, 2022, 12, 1140.
[61]	Q. Chang, C. Zhang, C. Liu, Y. Wei, A. V. Cheruvathur, A. I. Dugulan, J. W. Niemantsverdriet, X. Liu, Y. He, M. Qing, L. Zheng, Y. Yun, Y. Yang, Y. Li, ACS Catal., 2018, 8, 3304-3316.
[62]	H. Zhao, J.-X. Liu, C. Yang, S. Yao, H.-Y. Su, Z. Gao, M. Dong, J. Wang, A. I. Rykov, J. Wang, Y. Hou, W.-X. Li, D. Ma, CCS Chem., 2021, 3, 2712-2724.
[63]	S. Li, R. J. O’Brien, G. D. Meitzner, H. Hamdeh, B. H. Davis, E. Iglesia, Appl. Catal. A, 2001, 219, 215-222.
[64]	D. Mahajan, P. Gütlich, J. Ensling, K. Pandya, U. Stumm, P. Vijayaraghavan, Energy Fuels, 2003, 17, 1210-1221.
[65]	W. Ning, N. Koizumi, H. Chang, T. Mochizuki, T. Itoh, M. Yamada, Appl. Catal. A, 2006, 312, 35-44.
[66]	E. de Smit, A. M. Beale, S. Nikitenko, B. M. Weckhuysen, J. Catal., 2009, 262, 244-256.
[67]	S. Li, W. Ding, G. D. Meitzner, E. Iglesia, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2002, 106, 85-91.
[68]	S. Lyu, C. Liu, G. Wang, Y. Zhang, J. Li, L. Wang, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2019, 9, 1013-1020.
[69]	D. J. Duvenhage, N. J. Coville, Appl. Catal. A, 2006, 298, 211-216.
[70]	O. Zhuo, L. Yang, F. Gao, B. Xu, Q. Wu, Y. Fan, Y. Zhang, Y. Jiang, R. Huang, X. Wang, Z. Hu, Chem. Sci., 2019, 10, 6083-6090.
[71]	Y. Cheng, J. Lin, K. Xu, H. Wang, X. Yao, Y. Pei, S. Yan, M. Qiao, B. Zong, ACS Catal., 2016, 6, 389-399.
[72]	J. A. Kritzinger, Catal. Today, 2002, 71, 307-318.
[73]	L. Wang, B. Wu, Y. Li, Chin. J. Catal., 2011, 32, 495-501.
[74]	W. Yu, B. Wu, J. Xu, Z. Tao, H. Xiang, Y. Li, Catal. Lett., 2008, 125, 116-122.
[75]	P. Zhai, C. Xu, R. Gao, X. Liu, M. Li, W. Li, X. Fu, C. Jia, J. Xie, M. Zhao, X. Wang, Y.-W. Li, Q. Zhang, X.-D. Wen, D. Ma, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2016, 55, 9902-9907.
[76]	Y. Yang, H. Zhang, H. Ma, W. Qian, Q. Sun, W. Ying, Fuel, 2022, 326, 125090.
[77]	X. Wu, W. Qian, H. Ma, H. Zhang, D. Liu, Q. Sun, W. Ying, Fuel, 2019, 257, 116101.
[78]	T. Li, H. Wang, Y. Yang, H. Xiang, Y. Li, J. Energy Chem., 2013, 22, 624-632.
[79]	Y. Liu, F. Lu, Y. Tang, M. Liu, F. F. Tao, Y. Zhang, Appl. Catal. B, 2020, 261, 118219.
[80]	X. Wu, H. Ma, H. Zhang, W. Qian, D. Liu, Q. Sun, W. Ying, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2019, 58, 21350-21362.
[81]	M. Luo, B. H. Davis, Appl. Catal. A, 2003, 246, 171-181.
[82]	Z. Ma, H. Li, X. Zhang, F. Liu, J. Liu, H. Sun, M. Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Yan, Fuel, 2024, 374, 132485.
[83]	Y. Cheng, J. Lin, T. Wu, H. Wang, S. Xie, Y. Pei, S. Yan, M. Qiao, B. Zong, Appl. Catal. B, 2017, 204, 475-485.
[84]	S. Qin, C. Zhang, J. Xu, Y. Yang, H. Xiang, Y. Li, Appl. Catal. A, 2011, 392, 118-126.
[85]	X. Zhao, S. Lv, L. Wang, L. Li, G. Wang, Y. Zhang, J. Li, Mol. Catal., 2018, 449, 99-105.
[86]	T. Wang, X.-X. Tian, Y.-W. Li, J. Wang, M. Beller, H. Jiao, ACS Catal., 2014, 4, 1991-2005.
[87]	Y. Chen, L. Ma, R. Zhang, R. Ye, W. Liu, J. Wei, V. V. Ordomsky, J. Liu, Appl. Catal. B, 2022, 312, 121393.
[88]	J. Liu, A. Zhang, M. Liu, S. Hu, F. Ding, C. Song, X. Guo, J. CO₂ Util., 2017, 21, 100-107.
[89]	Y. He, P. Zhao, J. Yin, W. Guo, Y. Yang, Y.-W. Li, C.-F. Huo, X.-D. Wen, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2018, 122, 20907-20917.
[90]	H. I. Faraoun, Y. D. Zhang, C. Esling, H. Aourag, J. Appl. Phys., 2006, 99, 093508.
[91]	Q. Chang, K. Li, C. Zhang, A. V. Cheruvathur, L. Zheng, Y. Yang, Y. Li, ChemCatChem, 2019, 11, 2206-2216.
[92]	G. Lanzani, A. G. Nasibulin, K. Laasonen, E. I. Kauppinen, Nano Res., 2009, 2, 660-670.
[93]	R. P. Mogorosi, N. Fischer, M. Claeys, E. van Steen, J. Catal., 2012, 289, 140-150.
[94]	K. Chen, Y. Li, M. Wang, Y. Wang, K. Cheng, Q. Zhang, J. Kang, Y. Wang,, Small, 2021, 17, 2007527.
[95]	M. Moyo, M. A. M. Motchelaho, H. Xiong, L. L. Jewell, N. J. Coville, Appl. Catal. A, 2012, 413, 223-229.
[96]	G. Yu, B. Sun, Y. Pei, S. Xie, S. Yan, M. Qiao, K. Fan, X. Zhang, B. Zong, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 935-937.
[97]	K. O. Otun, X. Liu, D. Hildebrandt, J. Energy Chem., 2020, 51, 230-245.
[98]	H. Xiong, L. L. Jewell, N. J. Coville, ACS Catal., 2015, 5, 2640-2658.
[99]	B. Sun, K. Xu, L. Nguyen, M. Qiao, F. F. Tao, ChemCatChem, 2012, 4, 1498-1511.
[100]	S. Das, J. Pérez-Ramírez, J. Gong, N. Dewangan, K. Hidajat, B. C. Gates, S. Kawi, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2020, 49, 2937-3004.
[101]	M. Oschatz, T. W. van Deelen, J. L. Weber, W. S. Lamme, G. Wang, B. Goderis, O. Verkinderen, A. I. Dugulan, K. P. de Jong, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2016, 6, 8464-8473.
[102]	W. Chen, X. Pan, X. Bao, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2007, 129, 7421-7426.
[103]	Q. Zhang, J. Gu, J. Chen, S. Qiu, T. Wang, Chem. Commun., 2020, 56, 4523-4526.
[104]	X. Liu, C. Zhang, Y. Li, J. W. Niemantsverdriet, J. B. Wagner, T. W. Hansen, ACS Catal., 2017, 7, 4867-4875.
[105]	S. Lyu, L. Wang, Z. Li, S. Yin, J. Chen, Y. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Wang, Nat. Commun., 2020, 11, 6219.
[106]	T. W. van Deelen, C. Hern ndez Mejía, K. P. de Jong, Nat. Catal., 2019, 2, 955-970.
[107]	Q. Fu, X. Bao, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2017, 46, 1842-1874.
[108]	J. Deng, D. Deng, X. Bao, Adv. Mater., 2017, 29, 1606967.
[109]	L. Tang, X. Meng, D. Deng, X. Bao, Adv. Mater., 2019, 31, 1901996.
[110]	Y. Wang, J. Mao, X. Meng, L. Yu, D. Deng, X. Bao, Chem. Rev., 2019, 119, 1806-1854.
[111]	L. Yu, D. Deng, X. Bao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2020, 59, 15294-15297.
[112]	J. Deng, L. Yu, D. Deng, X. Chen, F. Yang, X. Bao, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 14868-14873.
[113]	Y. Wei, C. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Wang, Q. Chang, M. Qing, X. Wen, Y. Yang, Y. Li, Catal. Sci. Technol., 2018, 8, 1113-1125.
[114]	L. Gao, Q. Fu, M. Wei, Y. Zhu, Q. Liu, E. Crumlin, Z. Liu, X. Bao, ACS Catal., 2016, 6, 6814-6822.
[115]	D. B. Bukur, K. Okabe, M. P. Rosynek, C. P. Li, D. J. Wang, K. R. P. M. Rao, G. P. Huffman, J. Catal., 1995, 155, 353-365.
[116]	M. E. Dry, Catal. Lett., 1990, 7, 241-251.
[117]	C. H. Bartholomew, M. W. Stoker, L. Mansker, A. Datye, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal., 1999, 126, 265-272.
[118]	E. S. Lox, G. F. Froment, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1993, 32, 71-82.
[119]	C. K. Rofer-DePoorter, Chem. Rev., 1981, 81, 447-474.
[120]	D. G. Rethwisch, J. A. Dumesic, J. Catal., 1986, 101, 35-42.
[121]	P. Wang, W. Chen, F.-K. Chiang, A. I. Dugulan, Y. Song, R. Pestman, K. Zhang, J. Yao, B. Feng, P. Miao, W. Xu, E. J. M. Hensen, Sci. Adv., 2018, 4, eaau2947.
[122]	M. Ojeda, R. Nabar, A. U. Nilekar, A. Ishikawa, M. Mavrikakis, E. Iglesia, J. Catal., 2010, 272, 287-297.
[123]	P. Wang, F.-K. Chiang, J. Chai, A. I. Dugulan, J. Dong, W. Chen, R. J. P. Broos, B. Feng, Y. Song, Y. Lv, Q. Lin, R. Wang, I. A. W. Filot, Z. Men, E. J. M. Hensen, Nature, 2024, 635, 102-107.
[124]	Y. Xu, X. Li, J. Gao, J. Wang, G. Ma, X. Wen, Y. Yang, Y. Li, M. Ding, Science, 2021, 371, 610-613.
[125]	S. Zhang, K. Wang, F. He, X. Gao, S. Fan, Q. Ma, T. Zhao, J. Zhang, Molecules, 2023, 28, 5521.
[126]	X. Yu, J. Zhang, X. Wang, Q. Ma, X. Gao, H. Xia, X. Lai, S. Fan, T.-S. Zhao, Appl. Catal. B, 2018, 232, 420-428.
[127]	Y. Xu, H. Liang, R. Li, Z. Zhang, C. Qin, D. Xu, H. Fan, B. Hou, J. Wang, X.-K. Gu, M. Ding, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2023, 62, e202306786.
[128]	C. G. Okoye-Chine, M. Moyo, D. Hildebrandt, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 2021, 97, 426-433.
[129]	M. Javed, G. Zhang, W. Gao, Y. Cao, P. Dai, X. Ji, C. Lu, R. Yang, C. Xing, J. Sun, Catal. Today, 2019, 330, 39-45.
[130]	B. Yan, L. Ma, X. Gao, J. Zhang, Q. Ma, T.-S. Zhao, Appl. Catal. A, 2019, 585, 117184.
[131]	Y. F. Xu, Z. X. Zhang, K. Wu, J. G. Wang, B. Hou, R. T. Shan, L. Li, M. Y. Ding, Nat. Commun., 2024, 15, 7099.
[132]	D. Deng, X. Pan, L. Yu, Y. Cui, Y. Jiang, J. Qi, W.-X. Li, Q. Fu, X. Ma, Q. Xue, G. Sun, X. Bao, Chem. Mater., 2011, 23, 1188-1193.
[133]	D. Deng, K. S. Novoselov, Q. Fu, N. Zheng, Z. Tian, X. Bao, Nat. Nanotechnol., 2016, 11, 218-230.
[134]	D. Deng, L. Yu, X. Chen, G. Wang, L. Jin, X. Pan, J. Deng, G. Sun, X. Bao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2013, 52, 371-375.
[135]	J. Deng, P. Ren, D. Deng, X. Bao, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2015, 54, 2100-2104.
[136]	S. O. Moussa, L. S. Panchakarla, M. Q. Ho, M. S. El-Shall, ACS Catal., 2014, 4, 535-545.
[137]	L. Tang, X.-L. Dong, W. Xu, L. He, A.-H. Lu, Chin. J. Catal., 2018, 39, 1971-1979.
[138]	X. Zhang, Z. Li, W. Sun, Y. Zhang, J. Li, L. Wang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2024, 121, e2407624121.
[139]	H. Zhao, Q. Zhu, Y. Gao, P. Zhai, D. Ma, Appl. Catal. A, 2013, 456, 233-239.