The catalytic role played by praseodymium molybdate phases (Pr 6MoO 12, Pr 2MoO 6, Pr 2Mo 3O 12) generated in Pr 6O 11–MoO 3 catalysts during their use in the selective oxidation of isobutene to methacrolein is evaluated in order to determine whether the observed synergetic effects have to be assigned to cooperation between binary praseodymium and molybdenum oxides, or to the occurrence of praseodymium molybdate phases, that would be catalytically active themselves or would act synergetically with MoO 3 or Pr 6O 11. X-ray diffraction, infrared spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF SIMS) are used to determine the composition of the used Pr 6O 11–MoO 3 catalysts. Pr 6MoO 12 appears to be the major ternary phase present in the bulk and Pr 2Mo 3O 12 is predominant at the surface. To understand the catalytic behaviour of the Pr 6O 11–MoO 3 mixtures, the catalytic performances of the pure praseodymium molybdate phases and those of their mixtures with MoO 3, Sb 2O 4 and Pr 6O 11 were also examined. It is shown that the cooperative effects previously observed in the MoO 3–Pr 6O 11 mixtures most probably cannot be assigned exclusively to the intrinsic catalytic properties of praseodymium molybdates. A cooperation is also observed between other couples of oxide phases, i.e. Pr 6MoO 12 displays donor properties with respect to MoO 3. It appears also that the evolution of the catalytic properties of Pr 6MoO 12–MoO 3 mixtures with respect to the Pr/Mo content is completely different from the one observed in MoO 3–Pr 6O 11 mixtures. In addition, it does not seem that the observed synergetic effects could be assigned to the simultaneous presence of ternary Pr x Mo y O z phases and Pr 6O 11. The generation of praseodymium molybdate phases during the catalytic tests seems therefore to play no significant role in the catalytic behaviour of MoO 3–Pr 6O 11 mixtures.
Read full abstract