Alumina removal from crystalline alumino-silicates with Cr(III) solutions

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the treatment of crystalline aluminosilicate compositions, especially crystalline aluminosilicate zeolites, with an ionic source of chromium whereby alumina is caused to be removed from the aluminosilicate composition. More particularly, this invention is directed to increasing the sorption capacity and the pore diameter of porous crystalline aluminosilicate zeolites having ordered three-dimensional networks of pores and channels by removal of alumina from the zeolite. This invention is further directed to incorporating a form of chromium into the zeolite in a non-ionic form where it can function, under appropriate conditions, as an oxidation catalyst. Thus, the invention is directed to a method of alumina removal, the resultant compositions and hydrocarbon conversion with the resultant compositions, especially cracking and oxidation.
2. Discussion of the Prior Art
Crystalline aluminosilicates have been contacted previously with sources of chromium. Thus, it is known to contact a zeolite with a solution of a chromium salt for purposes of ion exchange. U.S. Pat. No. 3,232,762 discloses room temperature ion exchange of the sodium form of zeolite Y employing an aqueous solution of CrCl.sub.3.6H.sub.2 O. The final water washed material, pursuant to an example, contained 9.9 weight percent Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 (or 6.7 weight percent chromium) and 2.9 weight percent Na.sub.2 O. These data indicate that the chromium chloride treatment of the zeolite is an ion exchange, chromium for sodium.
The Russian workers N. F. Ermolenko and L. V. Pansevich-Kolyada (Materialy Vses. Soveshch. po Tseolitam, 2nd, Leningrad 1964, pub. 1965, 171-178) reported that a zeolite A was prepared with alumina replaced by Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 via an ion exchange of chromium for aluminum. The method of Ermolenko et al. differs greatly from that of the present invention in that zeolite A has a SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 mole ratio of only 1.85 .+-. 0.5 (U.S. Pat. No. 2,882,243) and the treatment temperature was 110.degree.C. The present invention requires that the SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 mole ratio be greater than 3 to about 12 for the very important reason that when said ratio is 3 or less, and an acidic medium is used, i.e., one having a pH of less than 3.5 as in the present invention, the crystal structure is destroyed. The object of the method of the present invention is to maintain the crystallinity under the conditions employed for the subsequent benefits rendered thereby.
The Russians (L. V. Pansevich-Kolyada et al.) again reported (Vesti Akad. Navuk Belarus. SSR. Ser. Khim. Navuk, 1970, (1), 85-89) that they prepared Cr.sup.+.sup.3 - containing zeolite A, X, Y and M by ion exchange of the zeolite with 0.01N chromium acetate solution. Only minimal exchange was obtained and, when the concentration of chromium acetate was increased, the crystal structures were destroyed (Note that zeolite X has a SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 mole ratio of 2.5 .+-. 0.5, U.S. Pat. No. 2,882,244, and zeolite M has a ratio of 2.1 .+-. 0.1, U.S. Pat. No. 2,995,423). Although zeolite Y has a SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 mole ratio of between 3 and 6, their treatment conditions are different from those required in the present invention for effective removal, as opposed to exchange, of alumina (exemplified in Example 18 hereinafter).
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,459,815, there is disclosed a method of ion exchange of montmorillonite clay with a chromium salt. The ratio of chromium to aluminum in the patent method is less than 0.5, whereas said ratio required by the method of the present invention is greater than 0.5.
It is known, therefore, that zeolites generally can be treated with a source of chromium. However, the prior art has not revealed a method whereby a source of chromium can be used to substantially increase the sorption capacity of porous crystalline aluminosilicates by removal of substantial quantities of alumina as in the present invention. Moreover, not only is the alumina removed, but chromium is placed within the composition in a nonionic manner where it is available to function as an oxidation component. Treatment of crystalline aluminosilicates with a chromium salt of a mineral acid has heretofore, in the absence of the critical process parameters herein required, only provided ionically exchanged zeolites with no significant alumina removal while maintaining a substantially crystalline structure.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Broadly, this invention contemplates a process for removing alumina from a crystalline aluminosilicate composition having a SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 mole ratio of from above 3 to about 12 which comprises heating said aluminosilicate to a temperature of greater than 50.degree.C. to about 100.degree.C. in the presence of a cationic form of chromium in solution of above 0.01 Normal at pH of less than 3.5 for a time sufficient to remove the alumina. The atomic ratio of chromium to aluminum required in the process of this invention is greater than 0.5.
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
It has now been found that alumina can be removed from a crystalline aluminosilicate composition without substantially destroying its crystallinity by high temperature treatment of the aluminosilicate composition with an ionic source of chromium. Such can be accomplished in several ways, all of which require that the aluminosilicate composition and the source of ionic chromium be at a temperature of greater than 50.degree.C. to about 100.degree.C. Temperatures substantially lower than 50.degree.C. do not provide the desired alumina removal nor do they effectuate the deposition of the chromium in a non-exchangeable position within the composition being treated.
The preferred manner of effectuating alumina removal with concomitant increase in pore diameters of porous crystalline aluminosilicate compositions is to contact the composition with a solution of a chromium salt of a mineral acid. The aluminosilicate composition and salt solution are heated to a temperature of greater than 50.degree.C. to about 100.degree.C. and maintained at that temperature until at least about 5 percent by weight of the alumina is removed. Preferably, to insure that at least about 10 percent of the alumina is removed, the hot chromium salt solution is refluxed with the aluminosilicate composition for at least 1/2 hour. It will be understood that the temperature and duration of the hot chromium salt solution contact is a time-temperature phenomenon. Thus, if one chooses to contact the crystalline aluminosilicate composition and maintain the temperature at 50.degree.C., a longer time will be required to effectuate the alumina removal than if 100.degree.C. is the temperature. Higher temperatures provided by refluxing enable the alumina to be removed in a shorter period of time.
Further, the crystalline aluminosilicate treated in accordance herewith must have a silica/alumina mole ratio of above 3 to about 12 and the atomic ratio of chromium (in the solution of above 0.01 Normal having a pH of less than 3.5) to aluminum in the aluminosilicate must be greater than 0.5.
Crystalline aluminosilicate compositions which can be treated pursuant to the present invention include the crystalline aluminosilicate zeolites. While alumina can readily be removed from a silica/alumina cracking catalyst by the present method, the invention particularly contemplates the removal of alumina from porous zeolites. It should be understood that all crystalline zeolites can be treated, provided their silica/alumina mole ratio is from above 3 to about 12. These include both the natural types and the synthetic types. Non-limiting examples of natural zeolites which can be treated include faujasite, mordenite, erionite, phillipsite and clinoptilolite. Non-limiting examples of synthetic zeolites which can be treated include, in particular, mordenite, zeolites T, Y, synthetic offretite, ZSM-4, ZSM-5 and zeolite Beta. A particularly interesting aspect of the present invention involves the treatment of "dense" zeolites generally characterized by a pore diameter or aperture opening less than about 6 Angstroms. Erionite, offretite, zeolite T, phillipsite and cliniptilolite are all examples of dense zeolites. Generally speaking, these materials do not sorb substantial quantities of normal hexane or cyclohexane. Hence, their use in the catalytic cracking of gas oils has been severely restricted as gas oils contain molecules incapable of entering untreated or only ion exchanged dense zeolites. It will be understood that each zeolite species behaves differently to some extent from other members of the class, but that the present dealuminization procedure is applicable to all such materials.
In employing a chromium salt of a mineral acid to supply ionic forms of chromium, the chromium is in a trivalent positive state. Thus, when the term ionic chromium is utilized herein, trivalent positive chromium, i.e., Cr.sup.+.sup.+.sup.+, is especially contemplated. In fact, ionic forms of chromium wherein the chromium is in a negatively charged anion provided substantially no alumina removal from alumina-containing materials when treated under the aforementioned refluxing conditions.
In carrying out the dealuminization pursuant to the present invention, it is important to utilize a high ratio of Cr.sup.+.sup.+.sup.+ to aluminum in the solid being treated. It has been found that the atomic ratio of chromium in the solution to aluminum in the material being treated should be greater than 0.5. Lesser ratios do not give any significant dealuminization as revealed in the examples herein.
Further, the pH of the solution of chromium cations must be less than 3.5 in order to achieve worthwhile results in accordance with the process of this invention.
Specifically contemplated chromium salts include CrCl.sub.3, Cr(NO.sub.3).sub.3, CrK(SO.sub.4).sub.2 and CrBr.sub.3. It has been found that by employing a chromium salt under the aforementioned conditions, especially by refluxing the chromium salt with the crystalline aluminosilicate material, the porosity of materials can be substantially and remarkably changed. Thus, dense zeolites such as erionite can have their sorption capacity and pore diameter substantially changed. The aperture opening for erionite is about 5 Angstroms and in its as received state it sorbs less than 2.0 weight percent cyclohexane at 25.degree.C. and 20 mm Hg. By refluxing a naturally obtained erionite sample with aqueous CrCl.sub.3, its sorption capacity can be remarkably affected. Indeed, it has also been found that the dealuminized erionite sample sorbs at least 2.5 weight percent, e.g., 3.7 weight percent cyclohexane. Its pore diameter increases to at least 5.5 Angstroms. This sample can subsequently undergo desilication whereby its cyclohexane sorption is greater than 6.0 weight percent determined under the conditions above specified. In such case, the water sorption and n-hexane sorption properties are also improved with increase in the surface area without substantially any adverse effects of the crystallinity of the material.
It has also been found that when clinoptilolite in its as received state is refluxed with a chromium salt solution of the mineral acid, its pore diameter can be increased from a value of about 3.5 to greater than 4 and its sorption properties improved such that it sorbs at least 1.5 weight percent cyclohexane determined at 25.degree.C. under 20 mm Hg. pressure. Similarly, phillipsite, initially having a pore diameter of about 4.0 Angstroms, can be so modified by treatment with a chromium salt solution that its pore diameter is at least 5.0 Angstroms and it becomes capable of sorbing at least 1.5 weight percent cyclohexane at 25.degree.C. and 20 mm Hg. Concomitantly, these materials become more useful for gas oil cracking especially in an ion exchanged form as will be seen from the data below.
Dealuminization has heretofore been performed employing either an acid or a chelating agent such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (hereinafter EDTA). However, the use of chromium chloride solution in the manner of this invention has been found to provide a substantially better weight percent removal of alumina than provided by treatment with an acid, e.g., hydrogen chloride. The chromium treatment is superior to EDTA treatment in that the resultant material is more porous. When zeolites were dealuminized and desilicated as explained below, it was found that both the n-hexane and cyclohexane sorption capacities increased after silica removal, in sharp contrast to the decreased sorption capacity after alumina removal by EDTA followed by silica removal.
Generally speaking, the amount of chromium salt solution used relative to the amount of crystalline aluminosilicate material being treated can vary widely. Many factors affect the selection of the relative amounts including the concentration of the chromium salt in the solution, temperature to be employed, the duration of the treatment, the degree of dealuminization desired and the specific material being treated. As a generalization, between 10 and 50 milliliters of salt solution are employed per gram of material being treated. The treatment at refluxing conditions is generally performed over a period of time ranging from 1/2 to 24 hours in which case the degree of alumina removal, depending on the amount of chromium in solution, is between 5 and 80 percent. Dealuminization can be performed on the materials in their as synthesized or as received states. In the case of aluminosilicate materials to be ion exchanged, the material can be treated with the chromium salt solution first, then ion exchanged or it can be initially ion exchanged, then dealuminized with the chromium salt solution as above set forth. Furthermore, dealuminization and ion exchange can be performed simultaneously by employing a single solution containing the chromium salt of the mineral acid and a salt, the cation of which is desired to be ionically exchanged for the cations of the aluminosilicate material.
While not wishing to be bound by any theory, it is believed that the alumina removal from crystalline aluminosilicates is a second step following an initial exchange of the chromium ions for ions of the alumina containing substance. Subsequent treatment at high temperatures in the presence of excess chromium salts and water effectuates removal of the alumina from the framework which combines with the chromium present. Alumina is removed from the substance during which time a portion of the chromium goes into a non-exchanged position, i.e., it does not satisfy the electronegativity of the remaining alumina. This is substantiated by data obtained by refluxing an aqueous chromium chloride solution with faujasite. It was found that up to 6 weight percent chromium could be incorporated into the faujasite in a non-exchangeable form. Subsequent catalytic evaluations of this material in a rare earth exchanged form but containing the chromium revealed substantially the same excellent cracking activity and selectivity as the rare earth form without chromium, but with oxidation properties enabling its use in the conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide during catalytic regeneration. Such solves a number of the problems which occur in cyclic cracking processes where the incomplete combustion of the coke affects the entire process.
Experimental results revealed that the effect of contact time of the aqueous solution of chromium salt from 1 to 24 hours with varying normality from 0.5 to 2.0 does not change the degree of alumina removal substantially. However, an increase in the volume of aqueous chromium salt solution appreciably affects the rate of alumina removal although the relationship is not linear. At low alumina removals, the ratio of chromium to aluminum atoms removed is 5/1. At higher alumina removals, the ratio increases to 10/1 and higher although not all crystalline aluminosilicate materials behave identically.
DESILICATION
Dealuminized crystalline aluminosilicate materials can be desilicated to remove silica from the composition. Thus, it has been found that by contacting the dealuminized material with an alkali metal salt or ammonium salt, silica can be removed from the material without adversely affecting the crystallinity of the substance being treated. For example, a dealuminized natural erionite having, say, 30 percent of its alumina removed, can be desilicated to thus open up the porous structure so that it sorbs materials not appreciably sorbed without the dealuminization-desilication treatment. The silica is removed usually from the channels or pores of the porous material or from the surface. Thus, erionite, for instance, in untreated form having a pore diameter of about 5 Angstroms can be dealuminized by the aforesaid chromium salt treatment and then subsequently desilicated such that its pore diameter is increased to at least 5.5 Angstroms. In so doing, the material is rendered substantially more porous and its cyclohexane sorption increases from about 2 weight percent to greater than 4 weight percent and generally greater than 6 weight percent determined at 25.degree.C. and 25 mm Hg. The relative amounts of alkali metal or ammonium salt employed, their normality, the duration of contact, the temperature of the solutions are not particularly critical in desilication after dealumination in accordance with the present invention. Generally speaking, a solution having a normality between 0.1 and 10.0 will be suitable. The degree of contact and the normality are generally correlated to the degree of silica removal desired bearing in mind that the silica being removed is silica which had previously been bonded to tetrahedral alumina in the crystal framework. Particularly suitable alkali metal and ammonium salts useful for this purpose include sodium chloride, sodium bromide, sodium sulfate, potassium chloride, potassium nitrate, lithium chloride, ammonium chloride, ammonium sulfate. If desired, an ammonium salt solution can be employed to effect removal of some of the occluded silica and ion exchange of at least a portion of the cations satisfying the electronegative charge of remaining aluminum in the structure, i.e., the tetrahedra in the case of a crystalline aluminosilicate zeolite.
HYDROCARBON CONVERSION
Using the preparative techniques described above, important and valuable catalytic substances can be prepared. For instance, as noted above, a synthetic faujasite of the Y variety can be dealuminized by chromium salt treatment of this invention. The chromium salt treatment can occur before, after or during ion exchange of the zeolite to remove originally contained alkali metal cations. The substance has been found to have exceptionally good catalytic uses. Based on gasoline selectivity and cracking activity of gas oils, it has been found that a steamed chromium salt treated dealuminized REY catalyst compares quite favorably to a steamed REY catalyst in cracking performance. The dealuminized material has the advantage over the REY catalyst of having high oxidation activity useful in promoting the conversion of CO to CO.sub.2 during the regeneration cycle of the cracking process.
This new technique enables the incorporation of an oxidation component into the molecular sieve component of a cracking catalyst without any adverse effect on its catalytic cracking properties. This oxidation component may be added either before or after or at the same time as the rare earth exchange of the molecular sieve. Thus, instead of adding a small amount of oxidation promoter into the amorphous matrix of the cracking catalyst, large amounts of oxidation promoter in the form of complexing chromium can be incorporated into the active molecular sieve material.
In order to more fully illustrate the nature of the present invention and the manner of practicing the same, the following examples are presented:

EXAMPLE 1
A natural erionite material obtained from Mt. Moses, Nevada and shown by X-ray to contain 20 percent clinoptilolite was employed for several treatments with a 1 Normal CrCl.sub.3 solution (pH 2.1) for the purpose of dealuminizing the zeolite. In each case the CrCl.sub.3 was refluxed through the erionite. The temperature of the treatment was about 100.degree.C. and the chromium to aluminum atomic ratio varied from 0.8 to 16.4, and times from 2 to 24 hours (Details in Table 4). Samples of erionite were withdrawn and the degree of alumina removal and the crystallinity of the sample was determined. Set forth below in Table 1 is a comparison of the degree of alumina obtained and the crystallinity of the sample over the various periods of refluxing.
TABLE 1______________________________________Alumina removed -- None 8 20 38 44 64Crystallinity, % -- 80 80 85 70 65 35______________________________________
The crystallinity was based upon the crystallinity of a standard. It should be noted that no crystallinity loss occurred until about 40 percent of the alumina was removed.
The 38 percent dealuminized sample was refluxed with 150 ml. per gram of 1.0 N NaCl for 1 hour, filtered, and the procedure repeated two more times, removing 16 percent silica. Sorption capacity in surface area increased by both the dealuminization and the desilication provided by the sodium salt treatment. The data for the various samples is set forth in the table below. The water sorption was determined at 12 mm Hg and 25.degree.C. and the normal hexane and the cyclohexane was determined at 20 mm Hg and 25.degree.C.
TABLE 2______________________________________ Sorption, Wt.% S.A., n- Cyclo- Crystal- H.sub.2 O hexane hexane m.sup.2 /g linity______________________________________Erionite 13.3 5.2 1.7 286 80Dealuminized 16.6 9.4 3.7 371 70Then Desilicated 17.9 10.7 6.8 408 70______________________________________
The surface area was determined by the Brunauer-Emmet-Teller Procedure using nitrogen at -195.degree.C.
TABLE 2______________________________________ Sorption, Wt.% S.A., n- Cyclo- Crystal- H.sub.2 O hexane hexane m.sup.2 /g linity______________________________________Erionite 13.3 5.2 1.7 286 80Dealuminized 16.6 9.4 3.7 371 70Then Desilicated 17.9 10.7 6.8 408 70______________________________________
EXAMPLE 2
10 Grams of a phillipsite-clinoptilolite composition was refluxed with 600 ml. of 1.0 Normal CrCl.sub.3 solution (pH 2.1) for 2 hours at about 100.degree.C. where the chromium to aluminum atomic ratio was 7.9. (Details in Table 10). Upon analysis, it was found that 41 percent of the alumina was removed. A 4g. portion of this sample was thereafter desilicated by contacting it with 600 ml. of 1.0 normal aqueous solution for NaCl for 1 hour, total of three contacts. In the table below, there is set forth the composition of the untreated material and its sorption properties as well as the composition after each of the above specified treatments.
TABLE 3__________________________________________________________________________PHILLIPSITE-CLINOPTILOLITEDESILICATION FOLLOWING DEALUMINIZATION Step 1 Step 2 Aluminum Removal Silicon Removal__________________________________________________________________________% Removal 41 14Washed, Dried Catalyst UntreatedAnalyses, Wt. % K 0.90 0.92 0.16 Na 5.0 0.84 3.7 Mg 3.90 1.8 2.42 SiO.sub.2 64.6 76.5 73.4 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 16.2 11.4 12.7 Fe 0.77 2.07 2.42 Cr -- 0.63 -- Ash 80 88.5 87.0SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 6.8 11.4 8.0Eq. K/Al 0.07 0.11 0.02Eq. Na/Al 0.74 0.16 0.64Eq. Mg/Al 1.02 0.67 0.87n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt. % 0.9 3.2 4.5Cyclohexane Adsorption, Wt.% 0.8 4.0 5.6__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 3
Several samples of a natural erionite containing clinoptilolite were treated in different ways with a CrCl.sub.3 solution. Various treatments and the properties of the resultant products compared with the untreated material are set forth in Table 4.
TABLE 4__________________________________________________________________________TREATMENT OF ERIONITE WITH CrCl.sub.3 -- DETAILS__________________________________________________________________________1.0 N. CrCl.sub.3, ml 120 600 1200(.times.2) 600(.times.3) 600(.times.3) 1200Erionite g. 20 20 40 20 20 4Contact Time (Reflux) Hrs. 2 2 2(.times.2) 2(.times.3) 24(.times.3) 1Contact Temperature, (approx.) .degree.C. 100 100 100 100 100 100No. of Contacts 1 1 2 3 3 1Ratio of Cr in Solution/Al in zeolite 0.8 4.1 8.2 16.4 16.4 41.0Washed, Dried Catalyst g. 16.9 15.0 27.6 13.5 12.7 3.2Analyses Wt% Untreated K 3.7 3.93 3.4 2.1 1.82 1.25 1.8 Na 3.3 0.80 0.25 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 Ca 3.0 2.66 0.90 0.57 -- -- 0.52 Mg 0.57 0.4 0.54 0.41 -- 0.31 0.43 SiO.sub.2 66.8 73.4 75.1 80.6 82.2 86.6 80.5 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 15.4 15.5 13.8 11.6 10.6 7.1 12.0 Fe 1.95 2.30 2.12 2.0 1.56 2.05 1.98 Cr -- 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.30 0.42 0.35 Ash 81.1 86.2 93.2 90.1 83.6 84.5 89.0Aluminum Removal, Wt. % -- 8 20 38 44 64 35SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 7.3 8.0 8.3 11.8 13.2 23.9 11.4Eq. K/Al 0.31 0.33 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.20Eq. Na/Al 0.48 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01Eq. Ca/Al 0.50 0.44 0.15 0.13 -- -- 0.11Eq. Mg/Al 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.15 -- 0.19 0.15n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt. % 5.2 5.7 7.5 9.4 8.2 9.6 --Cyclohexane Adsorption,Wt. % 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.7 5.8 7.4 --Crystallinity% Erionite 80 80 85 70 65 45 --% Clinoptilolite 20 35 35 40 30 35 --__________________________________________________________________________
From the table above, it will be seen that both the normal hexane and cyclohexane properties are improved from values of 5.2 to 9.6 and 1.7 to 7.4 weight percent respectively indicating utility of the treated material for cracking gas oils.
EXAMPLE 4
Two samples of a natural erionite were treated, one with a refluxing 1.0 normal aqueous CrCl.sub.3 solution and the other with a 0.01 N aqueous refluxing HCl solution. A summary of the two treatments is set forth in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5______________________________________ ErioniteSolution 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 0.01 N HCl______________________________________pH 2.1 1.9cc/g Catalyst 6 30 30(.times.2) 150(.times.4)Contact Temperature (approx) .degree.C. 100 100 100 100Reflux Time, hrs. 2 2 2 20Number of Contacts 1 1 2 4% Aluminum Removed 8 20 38 2______________________________________
Contact of erionite with 30 volumes of refluxing 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 (pH 2.1) for 2 hours removed 20 percent aluminum. Two such treats removed 38 percent aluminum. In contrast, contact of the erionite with 600 volumes of refluxing 0.01 N HCl (pH 1.9) in 4 treats, 20 hours each, removed only 2 percent aluminum. If the comparison is made on equal halide content, aluminum removal with CrCl.sub.3 (6 volumes refluxing 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 for 2 hours) is 8 percent vs. 2 percent for the HCl (600 volume refluxing 0.01 N HCl, and much longer contact time).
Aluminum was also removed more easily from zeolite T prepared pursuant to U.S. Pat. No. 2,950,952 with CrCl.sub.3 than with HCl.
TABLE 6______________________________________Solution 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 0.01 N HCl______________________________________pH 2.1 1.9cc/g Catalyst 300 300 300 300Contact Temperature (approx.) .degree.C. 100 100 100 100Reflux Time, minutes 10 60 10 60% Aluminum Removed 15 89 nil 4______________________________________
EXAMPLE 5
40 Grams of a natural erionite containing clinoptilolite was dealuminized by contacting with 1200 ml. of an aqueous solution of 1.0 N normal CrCl.sub.3 (pH 2.1) at refluxing conditions for 2 hours, two contacts, the contact temperature being about 100.degree.C. Thereafter a portion of it was desilicated by refluxing the dealuminized erionite with 150 ml. of a 1.0 N NaCl solution 3 times, each for an hour. 16 percent of the silica of the original sample was removed. Another portion was treated in the same manner with 1.0 N NH.sub.4 Cl, removing 15 percent of the silica. A portion of the dealuminized desilicated (NaCl) erionite was thereafter refluxed 4 times for an hour with 20 ml. 1.0 NH.sub.4 Cl aqueous solution. The data summarizing the resultant product is set forth in Table 7 below:
TABLE 7__________________________________________________________________________ERIONITE - DESILICATION FOLLOWING DEALUMINIZATION Then Then NH.sub.4 Cl Original De-Silicated Exchanged Erionite De-Aluminized NaCl NH.sub.4 Cl After NaCl__________________________________________________________________________SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 7.3 11.8 9.9 10.1 10.0Fe Content, Wt. % 1.95 2.0 2.12 2.3 2.1Cr Content, Wt. % -- 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.19Equivalents K/Al 0.31 0.24 0.17 0.16 0.18Na/Al 0.48 0.01 0.63 0.01 0.01Ca/Al 0.50 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.03Mg/Al 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.06NH.sub.4 /Al(By Diff.) -- -- -- 0.76 0.63Total 1.45 0.53 0.90 1.00 1.00Adsorptions, Wt. % (20 mm Press., Equilibrium, Room Temp.)H.sub.2 O 13.3 16.6 17.9 -- --n-Hexane 5.2 9.4 10.7 8.2 9.4Cyclohexane 1.7 3.7 6.8 9.2 7.7Surface Area, m.sup.2 /g 286 371 408 -- --Crystallinity, 80 70 70 85 90% Erionite% Clinoptilolite 20 40 30 40 35__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 6
Several samples of zeolite T were refluxed for different periods of time with a 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 solution. Other samples of zeolite T were refluxed with varying concentrations of the CrCl.sub.3 solution. Still other samples were given single and stepwise treatment of CrCl.sub.3 solution at reflux. Table 8 set forth below summarizes the effects of time, normality and methods of treatment with respect to the weight percent alumina removed.
TABLE 8__________________________________________________________________________VARIABLESTREATMENT OF ZEOLITE T WITH CrCl.sub.31. Effect of Time (Reflux) ml. 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 /g T Time, Hrs. % Aluminum Removed__________________________________________________________________________15 1 2815 6 2715 24 322. Effect of Normality (Reflux)Normality ml/g T Time, Hrs. % Aluminum Removed__________________________________________________________________________0.5 (2.5 pH) 30 1 221.0 (2.1 pH) 15 1 282.0 (1.9 pH) 7.5 1 283. Effect of Amount of CrCl.sub.3 (Reflux) Ratio of Cr in Solution to AlNormality ml/g T Time, Hrs. in Zeolite % Aluminum Removed__________________________________________________________________________a. Single Treats1.0 7.5 6 0.8 151.0 15 6 1.5 272.0 7.5 1 1.5 282.0 30 1 6.2 70 Ratio of Cr in Solution to Alb. Stepwise Treats ml/g T Time,Hrs. in Zeolite % Aluminum Removed__________________________________________________________________________1.0 15 1 1.5 281.0 15 + 12 1 + 1 1.5 + 1.7 40__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 7
Several samples of zeolite T were refluxed for 1 hour (temperature approx. 100.degree.C.) with different chromium salt solutions each of which was a 1.0 normal solution. 15 ml. solutions were employed per gram of zeolite T. Set forth in Table 9 below is a summary of the analysis and sorption properties of resultant materials compared with the untreated material.
TABLE 9__________________________________________________________________________COMPARISON OF CHROMIUM SALTS 1.0 N 1.0 N 1.0 NSolution CrCl.sub.3 Cr(NO.sub.3).sub.3 CrK(SO.sub.4).sub.2__________________________________________________________________________pH 2.1 2.3 2.7cc 600 600 600Zeolite T, g. 40 40 40Contact Time (approx. 100.degree.C.), Hrs. 1 1 1Washed, Dried Catalyst, g. 31.6 32.1 36.1Analyses, Wt.% Untreated K 11.3 7.3 6.63 10.7 Na 2.3 0.24 0.24 0.17 SiO.sub.2 65.3 74.0 74.5 69.3 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 18.5 15.2 15.1 15.9 Cr -- 0.91 1.0 <0.2 Ash 83.3 90.6 88.8 90.2Aluminum Removal, Wt.% -- 28 28 19SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 6.0 8.3 8.4 7.4Eq. K/Al 0.73 0.63 0.57 0.88Eq. Na/Al 0.28 0.03 0.04 0.02n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt.% 6.3 7.5 7.6 5.0Cyclohexane Adsorption,Wt. % 2.1 2.1 3.4 3.8__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 8
Set forth in Table 10 is a comparison of the ease of aluminum removal from zeolites by refluxing the zeolite with a 1.0 N aqueous CrCl.sub.3. The duration of refluxing was as indicated in Table 10 below.
TABLE 10__________________________________________________________________________COMPARISON OF EASE OF ALUMINUM REMOVALFROM DENSE ZEOLITES WITH 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 Phillipsite-Zeolite T Erionite Clinoptilolite Na Mordenite ZSM-4__________________________________________________________________________Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Content, Wt. % 18.5 15.4 16.2 11.4 11.2SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 6.0 7.3 6.8 11.9 12.61.0 N CrCl.sub.3, Reflux, Hrs. 1 2 2 2 1cc/g. 15 30 60 30 15Ratio, Cr in Sol/Alin cat. 1.7 4.1 7.9 5.2 3.6% Aluminum Removed 28 20 41 7 --SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 8.3 8.3 11.4 12.9 12.8Cr, Wt. % 0.91 0.16 0.63 0.27 0.54Adsorption, n-Hexane 7.5 7.5 3.2 5.7 4.4Cyclohexane 3.2 2.7 4.0 7.2 4.5__________________________________________________________________________
It will be noted that the ZSM-4 zeolite was quite resistant to alumina removal with the treatment conditions employed. The increase in its silica to alumina mole ratio was slight i.e., 12.6 to 12.8.
EXAMPLE 9
In order to determine the effects of temperature of the chromium salt solution on the sodium form of zeolite Y, several comparative experiments were performed and the results are itemized in Table 11 below:
TABLE 11__________________________________________________________________________ STARTING ZEOLITENaY, g. 50 100 50 20 20 20 201.0 N CrCl.sub.3 Solution, ml. 750 1500 750 600 600(.times.2) 600 600(.times.2)Ratio, Cr in Sol/Al in Cat. 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.9 5.9 2.9 5.9Temperature, (approx.).degree.C. 100 100 100 100 100 25 25Contact Time, hr. 0.5 2 24 2 2(.times.2) 2 2(.times.2)Number of Contacts 1 1 1 1 2 1 2Washed, Dried Cat.,g. 43.4 95.6 42.2 15.0 11.1 19.2 18.3Analysis, Wt.% SiO.sub.2 63.6 71.4 71.6 74.0 81.5 96.8 66.9 67.4 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 21.2 16.7 16.1 14.0 10.4 1.35 21.6 21.2 Na 8.55 1.4 1.7 1.4 0.95 0.02 3.14 2.34 Cr -- 6.4 7.1 7.0 4.9 1.04 4.8 4.8 Ash 82.2 84.4 81.8 83.8 82.3 87.8 81.3 81.1Alumina Removal, wt.% -- 30 32 43 62 96 3 6SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 5.1 7.3 7.6 9.0 13.3 122 5.4 5.4Eq. Na/Al 0.89 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.25n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt.% 17.5 9.3 11.0 13.7 11.0 12.9 12.6 10.6Cyclohexane Adsorption, Wt.% 15.4 8.9 14.1 17.8 11.8 13.0 15.3 12.2__________________________________________________________________________
It is noted that alumina removal occurred at reflux (100.degree.C) in every case. However, at room temperature, alumina was not removed from the zeolite as indicated by the SiO.sub.2 ratio. The CrCl.sub.3 treatment at room temperature had effected the exchange of chromium ions into the zeolite as taught by prior art.
It should be stated that in each case of chromium salt solution treatment, the material was filtered and washed until anion free. Thereafter it was generally dried at 100.degree.C. Such complete washing procedure is generally recommended to prevent the volitalization of undesirable components, for example the volitalization upon calcination of chromium oxychlorides, which is formed when excess CrCl.sub.3 is not completely washed out of the treated zeolite.
EXAMPLE 10
In illustration of the requirement that the crystalline aluminosilicate treated in accordance with this invention must have a silica/alumina mole ratio of between greater than 3 and about 12, the same analysis as outlined in Table 11 for zeolite Y (silica/alumina ratio between 3 and 6) was conducted on zeolite X (silica/alumina ratio of 2.5 .+-. 0.5). That analysis appears in Table 12, following. Note that the crystallinity of the zeolite X is destroyed and an amorphous product is obtained.
TABLE 12__________________________________________________________________________Zeolite X, g. Starting 50 50CrCl.sub.3 Solution Normality Zeolite 1.0 0.5Volume of solution, ml. 750 750Atomic Ratio, Cr. in Sol./Al in zeolite 0.8 0.4Temperature (approx.) .degree.C. 100 100Contact Time, Hrs. 2 2Number of Contacts 1 1Washed, Dried Cat., g. 10.8 54.6Analysis, Wt.% SiO.sub.2 48.7 60.7 48.4 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 32.8 22.0 31.8 Na 14.9 0.06 0.11 Cr -- 13.2 12.7 Ash 81.7 -- 79.6Aluminum Removal -- 46 2SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 2.5 4.7 2.6Eq. Na/Al 1.01 0.01 0.01n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt.% 15.8 5.9 --Cyclohexane Adsorption, Wt.% 18.2 -- 8.6Crystallinity, X-ray 100 Amorphous Amorphous__________________________________________________________________________
Observe also that, aside from the fact that the crystallinity of the zeolite X was destroyed, there was a drastic decrease in the amount of alumina removed when the atomic ratio of Cr to Al was dropped below 0.5 (e.g., 0.4).
EXAMPLE 11
Several forms of a dealuminized lanthanum exchanged form of zeolite Y were prepared by different techniques. One involved treatment with a 15 ml. per gram zeolite 1.0 normal aqueous solution of CrCl.sub.3 followed by ion exchange with a 1.0 normal aqueous solution of LaCl.sub.3. Another such treatment involved initial exchange with the LaCl.sub.3 solution then dealuminization with the refluxing solution of CrCl.sub.3, 15 ml. per gram zeolite. A third exchange involved refluxing a mixed solution involving CrCl.sub.3 and LaCl.sub.3. The CrCl.sub.3 refluxing in each case was performed for 24 hours. A comparison of the resultant products against the original non-dealuminized sodium zeolite Y is set forth in Table 13.
TABLE 13__________________________________________________________________________ Single Original CrCl.sub.3 LaCl.sub.3 Solution NaY then LaCl.sub.3 then CrCl.sub.3 CrCl.sub.3 + LaCl.sub.3__________________________________________________________________________SiO.sub.2, Wt. % 63.6 71.4 71.6 66.0Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, Wt. % 21.2 14.5 13.1 12.4Na, Wt. % 8.55 0.91 0.46 1.36Cr, Wt. % -- 6.36 4.8 4.1La, Wt. % -- 4.6 6.05 3.54SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 5.1 8.4 9.3 9.0% Alumina Removal -- 37 45 43__________________________________________________________________________
Several different dealuminized forms of zeolite Y were prepared by contacting the zeolite Y in a sodium form for varying periods of time with an aqueous solution of CrCl.sub.3 under refluxing conditions. A portion of the dealuminized zeolite Y in each case was back exchanged with a 1.0 N NaCl aqueous solution. The exchange comprised 3 refluxing operations, each of which was for one hour and utilized 300 ml. solution per gram zeolite. The various compositions of the dealuminized back sodium exchanged zeolite Y compositions are indicated in Table 14 below:
TABLE 14__________________________________________________________________________BACK EXCHANGE WITH 1.0 N NaCl Cr [-32% Al] Y Cr [-43% Al] Y Cr [-62% Al] Y Cr [-96% Al] Y As Is After Ex.* As Is After Ex. As Is After Ex. As Is After__________________________________________________________________________ Ex.SiO.sub.2, Wt. % 71.6 67.6 74.0 72.5 81.5 78.8 96.8 96.0Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, Wt. % 16.1 16.6 14.0 14.8 10.4 12.1 1.35 2.4Na, Wt. % 1.7 4.09 1.4 3.7 0.95 3.0 0.02 0.16Cr, Wt. % 7.1 5.68 7.0 5.93 4.9 5.33 1.04 1.40SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, Ratio 7.6 6.9 9.0 8.4 13.3 11.1 122 68Equivalents Na/Al 0.24 0.55 0.22 0.55 0.20 0.55 0.03 0.15Catalyst Identifi-cation Number 1A 2A 3A 4A__________________________________________________________________________ *125 ml/g?
Another portion of the same dealuminized but not back exchanged zeolite Y was given 3 similar ion exchange treatments with an aqueous 1.0 N NH.sub.4 Cl solution. The composition of the various resultant materials is set forth in Table 15 below:
TABLE 15__________________________________________________________________________BACK EXCHANGE WITH 1.0 N NH.sub.4 Cl Cr [-32% Al] Y Cr [-43% Al] Y Cr [-62% Al] Y Cr [-96% Al] Y As Is After Ex. As Is After Ex. As Is After Ex. As Is After__________________________________________________________________________ Ex.SiO.sub.2, Wt. % 71.6 73.5 74.0 76.8 81.5 81.8 96.8 95.9Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, Wt. % 16.1 18.6 14.0 16.0 10.4 13.0 1.35 2.3Na, Wt. % 1.7 0.07 1.4 0.07 0.95 0.06 0.02 0.05Cr, Wt. % 7.1 6.36 7.0 6.73 4.9 5.44 1.04 1.38N, Wt. % -- 2.50 -- 1.87 -- 1.58 -- 0.40SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 7.6 6.2 9.0 8.2 13.3 10.7 122 71Equivalents Na/Al 0.24 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.03 0.05N/Al -- 0.49 -- 0.43 -- 0.44 -- 0.59Catalyst Identifi-cation Number 1B 2B 3B 4B__________________________________________________________________________
Another portion of the 33 percent by weight dealuminized zeolite Y was exchanged with an aqueous 1.0 N lanthanum chloride solution. The exchange comprised 3 refluxing operations, each of which was for 1 hour employing 35 ml. per gram zeolite. The resultant composition had the properties indicated in Table 16 below:
TABLE 16______________________________________BACK EXCHANGE WITH 1.0 N LaCl.sub.3 Cr [-43% Al] Y As Is After Exchange______________________________________SiO.sub.2, Wt. % 74.0 71.4Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, Wt. % 14.0 14.5Na, Wt. % 1.4 0.91Cr, Wt. % 7.0 6.36La, Wt. % -- 4.6SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 9.0 8.4Equivalents Na/Al 0.22 0.14 La/Al -- 0.35Catalyst Identifi-cation Number 2C______________________________________
EXAMPLE 12
The various catalytic substances were calcined at 1000.degree.F. for 16 hours and evaluated for the cracking of an East Texas light gas oil at 900.degree.F. in a micro cat-c test. The weight and space velocities and catalyst to oil ratios are as reported in Table 17 below.
TABLE 17__________________________________________________________________________E. TEXAS LGO CRACKING Product Distribution, Wt.% Cat/Oil Conversion Selectivity, C.sub.5 + Ratio WHSV Wt. % C.sub.5 + Gaso. C.sub.1 --C.sub.3 C.sub.4 Coke Gaso.__________________________________________________________________________NaY 2 3 33.5 73.4 7.0 5.0 14.6 24.6Cr[-32% Al]Y 2 3 82.9 45.5 14.8 17.7 21.9 37.7NaCl Exchanged 1A 2 3 76.6 46.7 12.1 13.2 27.9 35.8NH.sub.4 Cl Exchanged 1B 2 3 36.1 56.8 12.3 13.8 16.1 20.5Cr[-43% Al]Y 2 3 83.1 41.2 14.4 17.6 26.8 34.2NaCl Exchanged 2A 2 3 75.2 44.9 12.0 12.0 31.1 33.8NH.sub.4 Cl Exchanged 2B 2 3 74.7 31.9 21.2 18.8 28.1 23.8Cr[-62% Al]Y 2 3 75.2 42.7 13.0 27.4 16.8 32.1NaCl Exchanged 3A 2 3 70.7 51.5 11.0 12.5 25.0 36.4NH.sub.4 Cl Exchanged 3B 2 3 49.5 50.2 13.9 14.8 21.1 24.8Cr[-96% Al]Y 2 3 62.7 52.6 16.1 20.6 10.7 33.0NaCl Exchanged 4A 2 3 29.6 61.9 12.1 11.1 14.9 18.3NH.sub.4 Cl Exchanged 4B 2 3 54.8 47.1 17.5 15.5 19.9 25.8La Exchanged Cr[-43% Al]Y (2C) 2 3 87.8 36.8 14.4 17.0 31.8 32.3Calcined 16 Hrs. at 950.degree.F. 2 3 91.3 42.9 12.6 21.3 23.0 39.2Steamed 24 Hrs. at 1200.degree.F. 2 3 86.1 63.9 10.4 18.8 7.0 55.0 1 6 80.7 66.7 8.7 21.0 3.6 53.8 0.2 30 64.0 79.0 6.2 14.3 0.5 50.6REY, Steamed 24 Hrs. at1200.degree.F. 1 6 92.7 54.1 14.4 22.2 9.3 50.2 0.2 30 78.6 75.4 7.3 15.7 1.7 59.3 0.1 60 70.6 79.1 5.8 14.4 0.7 55.8__________________________________________________________________________
It will be seen that while the activity and selectivity did not compare favorably that after steaming it compared quite favorably to the standard REY material especially at the higher space velocities.
EXAMPLE 13
A fresh rare earth exchanged zeolite Y catalyst material was compared for its ability to oxidize carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide to another REY zeolite which had been dealuminized by treatment pursuant to this invention involving refluxing the zeolite with an aqueous solution of CrCl.sub.3 prior to the rare earth exchange. The silica to alumina mole ratio of the CrCl.sub.3 treated material was 8.4 (chromium content 6.36 weight percent) while the ratio of untreated material was 4.9. In Table 18 below there is set forth the oxidation abilities of the various materials at the temperatures specified. The carbon monoxide oxidation test was carried out by flowing a stream of 2 percent by volume carbon monoxide in air at 100 ml/min. over 1 cc. catalyst.
TABLE 18______________________________________Temperature, Wt. % Oxidized to CO.sub.2.degree.F. Fresh REY Dealuminized REY______________________________________450 -- 7500 -- 55550 -- 92600 2 97650 4 100700 9 --750 54 --800 100 --______________________________________
EXAMPLE 14
Several samples of 42 weight percent dealuminized REY catalyst containing 6.36 weight percent chromium were employed for the cracking of a Mid-Continent wide cut gas oil at 900.degree.F. over a period of 10 minutes. Similarly, a REY catalyst material which had not been dealuminized was tested for cracking of the same material under the same conditions. In Table 19 below, there is set forth a comparison of the cracking activities of these two materials both fresh and after regeneration. It will be noted that the C.sub.5 + gasoline selectivity compares quite favorably with the results obtained employing a non-dealuminized REY material. Bearing in mind the oxidation activity of this catalyst as shown from the table above, it is evident that it is a valuable cracking catalyst to maintain a favorable heat balance during catalytic cracking and regeneration steps normally employed.
TABLE 19__________________________________________________________________________MID-CONTINENT WIDE-CUT GAS OIL CRACKING Product Distribution, Wt.% Cat/Oil Conversion Selectivity, C.sub.5 + Ratio WHSV Wt. % C.sub.5 + Gaso. C.sub.1 --C.sub.3 C.sub.4 Coke Gaso.__________________________________________________________________________42% Dealuminized REYFresh 1 6 72.6 58.4 9.4 20.4 0.4 42.4Regenerated once 1 6 61.5 59.3 7.4 14.6 3.0 36.5Regenerated twice 1 6 71.9 58.6 8.6 18.5 2.7 42.1Fresh 1 6 69.1 56.9 8.7 17.8 3.3 39.3Regenerated once 1 6 66.0 56.5 8.5 16.9 3.3 37.3REYFresh 1 6 82.8 48.8 11.7 24.0 6.7 40.4Regenerated once 1 6 81.3 46.9 12.3 25.1 5.8 38.1Fresh 0.5 12 73.9 55.8 9.5 20.0 3.2 41.2Regenerated once 0.5 12 71.0 56.1 9.4 18.9 3.0 39.8__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 15
In Table 20, set forth below, there is set forth the comparison of the cracking activity of various dense aluminosilicate zeolites and silica alumina. The cracking activity is expressed in the as is, i.e., the untreated form, the dealuminized form and the desilicated form. The extent of dealuminization and desilication is itemized. The table also presents the values obtained employing in one instance an erionite sample which was dealuminized, desilicated and ammonium exchanged.
TABLE 20__________________________________________________________________________GAS OIL CRACKING*WITH DE-ALUMINIZED AND DE-SILICATED ZEOLITES Selec- tivity Yields Conversion C.sub.5 + C.sub.5 +Catalyst Wt. % Gaso. Gaso. Dry Gas C.sub.4 coke__________________________________________________________________________Zeolite Phillipsite-ClinoptiloliteAs is 4.5De-aluminized 41% 28.3 56.7 16.0 4.4 4.6 3.3Then De-silicated 14% 20.0 66.9 13.4 2.0 2.1 2.6Zeolite TAs is 5.3De-aluminized 70% 59.8 45.4 27.2 13.5 13.7 5.4De-silicated 30% 40.4 63.4 25.6 5.4 6.3 3.1Natural ErioniteAs is 8.8De-aluminized 38% 40.1 27.0 10.8 15.6 3.7 9.9Then de-silicated 16% 38.6 38.7 14.9 10.7 6.4 6.5Then NH.sub.4 Cl Exchanged 46.4 24.3 11.3 18.0 3.6 13.5Silica Alumina (7.6% Al.sub.2 O.sub.3)As is (S.A. 477 m.sup.2 /g) 61.6 56.4 34.7 8.9 13.5 4.4Steamed 6 hrs., 1300.degree.F. 33.6 64.3 21.6 4.4 7.0 0.6__________________________________________________________________________ *E. Texas light gas oil, 900.degree.F., 2 cat/oil, 10 min.
EXAMPLE 16
In Table 21 there is set forth a comparison of alumina removal from erionite with CrCl.sub.3 and alumina removal with EDTA.
TABLE 21__________________________________________________________________________ Via 1.0 N CrCl.sub.3 Via EDTA__________________________________________________________________________Step 1 Aluminum Removal From Erionite % 38 44 n-Hexane Adsorption, Wt. % 9.4 6.7 Cyclohexane Adsorption, Wt. 3.7 3.6 %Step 2 Silica Removal, Wt. %* 16 22 Analyses, Wt. %K 3.7 1.7 2.1Na 3.3 3.8 4.4Ca 3.0 0.15 0.08Mg 0.57 2.12 0.09SiO.sub.2 66.8 78.0 79.8Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 15.4 13.4 13.3Fe 1.95 2.12 0.09Cr -- 0.18 --Ash 81.1 91.4 85.0SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 7.3 9.9 9.8Eq. K/Al 0.31 0.17 0.20Eq. Na/Al 0.48 0.63 0.73Eq. Ca/Al 0.50 0.03 0.02Eq. Mg/Al 0.16 0.07 0.03n-Hexane Adsorption,Wt. %** 5.2 10.7 5.8Cyclohexane Adsorp-tion, Wt. %** 1.7 6.8 1.2__________________________________________________________________________ *4 g. of zeolite from Step 1 contacted with 600 cc. refluxing 1.0 N NaCl for one hour, filtered, repeated two more times. **determined at 20 mm Hg and 25.degree.C.
It will be noted that while EDTA is equally effective for alumina removal and provides substantially the same silica/alumina ratio of the erionite treated sample that for some unexplainable reason the sorption properties of the product provided by EDTA treatment are substantially inferior to those provided by treatment with CrCl.sub.3. Thus, the normal hexane sorption for the EDTA treated sample is little more than 1/2 the value obtained for the CrCl.sub.3 sample. The cyclohexane sorption value after subsequent silica removal is about 1/5 the value obtained for the CrCl.sub.3 treated sample after silica removal.
Dealuminized aluminosilicate compositions containing chromium prepared by the present method are useful in both hydrogenation and dehydrogenation of organic compounds especially paraffins. At temperatures between 200.degree. and 800.degree.F. and between pressures of 0 and 3000 psig., a dealuminized zeolite, e.g., dealuminized zeolite Y can be employed to catalyze the hydrogenation of propylene. Similarly, by employing higher temperatures generally between the temperatures of 800.degree. and 1300.degree.F. and pressures between 0 and 700 psig., hydrocarbons, e.g., paraffins, can be dehydrogenated. In Table 22 below, there is set forth a comparison of propane dehydrogenation over various dealuminized zeolite Y samples in the as is and sodium back exchanged forms.
TABLE 22__________________________________________________________________________PROPANE DEHYDROGENATIONAtmospheric Pressure, 1 cc. Cat., 10 cc. Propane/Min. 62% Dealuminized Commercial 32% Dealuminized Zeolite Y Zeolite Y Cr[-96% Al]YCatalyst Catalyst As Is NaCl Exch. NaCl Exch. NaCl Exch.__________________________________________________________________________Wt. % Cr. 8.58 7.1 5.7 5.33 1.40g Cr in 1 cc. Cat. 0.071 0.043 0.031 0.021 0.004Propane Conversion C.sub.3 = C.sub.1 +C.sub.2 C.sub.3 = C.sub.1 +C.sub.2 C.sub.3 = C.sub.1 +C.sub.2 C.sub.3 = C.sub.1 +C.sub.2 C.sub.3 = C.sub.1 +C.sub.2__________________________________________________________________________850.degree.F 1.5 0.1 2.0 Nil 3.3 <0.1 3.9 0.1 0.7 0.1900.degree.F. 2.2 1.0 2.1 <0.1 4.2 0.1 5.5 0.2 2.0 0.1950.degree.F. 4.3 0.2 4.1 0.3 6.0 0.2 9.5 0.6 2.0 0.11000.degree.F. 9.8 0.6 6.1 1.2 8.3 0.3 12.3 1.2 6.0 0.51050.degree.F. 17.6 2.0 8.4 3.9 11.7 0.7 17.1 3.2 7.8 1.0__________________________________________________________________________
The propane dehydrogenation is compared with a commercial catalytic substance comprising two volumes of silica gel powder mixed with 1 volume of a substance comprising a Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3 activated alumina supported catalyst containing 19 percent by weight Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3. The zeolite samples were back exchanged with sodium to decrease the cracking activity of the zeolite. It will be noted that at lower temperatures in particular the dealuminized silica/alumina composition provides a desirable amount of propylene with good selectivity.
EXAMPLE 17
In order to more specifically establish the criticality of the required limitations of the present invention, that is to remove alumina from a crystalline aluminosilicate without substantially destroying crystallinity, the following tests were conducted on Linde 13X (to establish criticality of silica/alumina mole ratio); erionite (to establish criticality of the chromium compound employed); Linde 5A (to establish criticality of the chromium compound and silica/alumina ratio); and zeolite NaY (to establish criticality of temperature, chromium to aluminum atomic ratio, pH and dilution). The results appear in Table 23.
TABLE 23__________________________________________________________________________ Cr Compound & DilutionCritical Variable SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio Cr Compound SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Temp. Cr/Al pH & Cr/AlStarting Zeolite Linde 13X Erionite Linde 5A NaYg Base 50 50 Base 20 Base 17.8 17.8 Base 20 20 20 4__________________________________________________________________________Chromium Compound CrCl.sub.3 CrCl.sub.3 (NH.sub.4).sub.2 CrO.sub.4 (NH.sub.4).sub.2 CrO.sub.4 Cr(OAC).sub.3 CrCl.sub.3Solution Normality 1.0 0.5 0.7 2.9 1.0.sup.(1) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1pH 2.1 2.5 7.6 7.2 4.5 2.1 2.1 4.0.sup.(2) 2.4ml. 750 750 600 240 240 200 120 120 400Temp. (approx.).degree.C. 100 100 100 100 100 70 100 100 100Contact Time, Hours 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2Number of Contacts 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1Ratio, Cr in Solu-tion/Al In Zeolite 0.8 0.4 7.1 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 6.0Washed, DriedZeoliteCode A B C D E F G H I J K L MAnalysis, Wt.%SiO.sub.2 48.7 60.7 48.4 66.8 75.3 44.2 47.5 28.4 63.8 66.0 65.9 61.4 77.1Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 52.8 22.0 31.8 15.4 17.3 38.2 40.8 23.8 21.0 18.5 17.4 19.1 9.9Na 14.9 0.06 0.1 3.3 0.7 4.7 1.4 3.0 10.2 2.2 2.4 3.2 0.8Ca -- -- -- 3.0 -- 8.8 7.6 5.8 -- -- -- -- --Cr -- 13.2 12.7 -- 0.03 -- 0.04 18.8 -- 6.9 7.6 8.9 6.9Ash 81.7 -- 79.6 81.1 87.5 >95 67.5 67.5 80 81.6 82.4 76.9 78.2Alumina Removal,Wt. % -- 46 2 -- NIL -- NIL NIL -- 15 20 5 61SiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 2.5 4.7 2.6 7.3 7.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.2 6.1 6.4 5.5 13.2n-HexaneAdsorption, Wt.% 15.8 5.9 -- 5.2 6.8 12.6 7.6 5.6 17.5 11.8 15.5 14.1 8.3CyclohexaneAdsorption Wt.% 18.2 -- 8.6 1.7 -- 0.4 -- -- 18.3 12.8 13.5 14.4 11.3Crystallinity, Amor-X-ray 100 phous -- -- 100 55 15 100 45 60 70 30__________________________________________________________________________
EXAMPLE 18
To establish the absolute minimum dilution for the chromium salt solution as being greater than 0.01 Normal, the procedure for Example 17 was repeated for zeolite Y, code M (Table 23), wherein the solution of CrCl.sub.3 used had a normality of 0.01. It is observed from the data thus generated (Table 23A) that, although chromium is exchanged into the zeolite structure at the expense of sodium as one would expect from the prior art, there is absolutely no alumina removal.
TABLE 23A______________________________________Critical Variable DilutionStarting Zeolite NaY g. 4Chromium Compound CrCl.sub.3 Solution Normality 0.01 pH 3.2 ml. 2400Temperature (approx.) .degree.C. 100Contact Time, Hours 2Number of Contacts 1Ratio, Cr in solution/Alin Zeolite 0.6Analysis, Wt.% SiO.sub.2 62.6 Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 21.4 Na 1.8 Cr 7.9 Ash 83.3Alumina Removal, Wt.% NILSiO.sub.2 /Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 Ratio 5.0n-Hexane Adsorption,Wt.% 10.5Crystallinity, X-Ray 90______________________________________
Generally speaking, the compositions prepared by the treatment pursuant to the present invention can, if desired, be ion exchanged into a metal form, a hydrogen form or a hydrogen precursor form, in accordance with known techniques as described, for instance, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,140,253. Dealuminized compositions can be used for a wide variety of hydrocarbon conversion processes including isomerization, disproportionation, hydration of olefins, amination of olefins, oxidation, dehydrogenation, dehydration of alcohols, desulfurization, hydrofinishing, hydrogenation, reforming, hydrocracking, polymerization and the like. The temperatures, pressures, space velocities and other reaction conditions for these processes are those generally known in the art and described in numerous patents and publications. The reactants also are those described in the art. For reactions involving a hydrogenation or dehydrogenation function, it is desirable that the catalytic substance include a hydrogenation/dehydrogenation component suitably a Group VIII metal, especially a metal of the platinum series.
In the above specification, reference is made to a zeolite identified as ZSM-4. ZSM-4 is a relatively new zeolite which, in its as synthesized aluminosilicate form, has the following composition, expressed in terms of mole ratios of oxides:
0.9 .+-. 0.2 M.sub.2/n O : Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 : 3-20 SiO.sub.2
where M is a mixture of tetramethylammonium cations and alkali metal cations, especially sodium. Generally, the tetramethylammonium cations comprise between 1 and 50 percent of the cations in the as synthesized form. The particular ZSM-4 zeolite for use in the dealuminization process of this invention has a silica/alumina mole ratio of above 3 to about 12. ZSM-4 has a distinctive X-ray diffraction pattern which further identified it from other known zeolites. The original alkali metal cations of ZSM-4 can be exchanged by ion exchange with other ions to form species of the zeolite which have exceptional catalytic properties.
ZSM-4 is generally prepared by forming a mixture of alumina, silica, sodium oxide, water and tetramethylammonium compounds such that the mixture has a composition, in terms of mole ratios of oxides, falling within the following range: ##EQU1## wherein R is a tetramethylammonium cation. The mixture is maintained under conditions of temperature and pressure until crystals are formed which crystals are separated and recovered.
Members of the family of ZSM-4 zeolites possess a definite distinguishing crystalline structure whose X-ray diffraction pattern has the following values:
TABLE 24______________________________________Interplanar Spacing d(A) Relative Intensity______________________________________9.1 .+-. .2 vs7.94 .+-. .1 mw6.90 .+-. .1 m5.97 .+-. .07 s5.50 .+-. .05 mw5.27 .+-. .05 mw4.71 .+-. .05 mw4.39 .+-. .05 w3.96 .+-. .05 w3.80 .+-. .05 s3.71 .+-. .05 m3.63 .+-. .05 m3.52 .+-. .05 s3.44 .+-. .05 m3.16 .+-. .05 s3.09 .+-. .05 m3.04 .+-. .05 m2.98 .+-. .05 m2.92 .+-. .05 s______________________________________
These values were determined by standard techniques. The radiation was the K-alpha doublet of copper, and a Geiger counter spectrometer with a strip chart pen recorder was used. The peak heights, I, and the positions as a function of 2 times theta, where theta is the Bragg angle, were read from the spectrometer chart. From these, the relative intensities, 100 I/I.sub.o, where I.sub.o is the intensity of the strongest line or peak, and d(obs.), the interplanar spacing in A, corresponding to the recorded lines, were calculated. In Table 24, the relative intensities are given in terms of the symbols vs = very strong, s = strong, m = medium, and mw = medium weak. It should be understood that this X-ray diffraction pattern is characteristic of all the species of ZSM-4 compositions. Ion exchange of the sodium ion with another cation reveals substantially the same pattern with some minor shifts in interplanar spacing and variation in relative intensity.
ZSM-5 compositions can be identified, in terms of mole ratios of oxides, as follows:
0.9 .+-. 0.2 M.sub.2 O : Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 : > 5 SiO.sub.2 :
where M is a cation and n is the valence of said cation. In a preferred synthesized form the zeolite has a formula, in terms of mole ratios of oxides, as follows:
0.9 .+-. 0.2 M.sub.2/n O : Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 : 5-300 SiO.sub.2
wherein M is selected from the group consisting of a mixture of alkali metal cations, especially sodium, and tetraalkylammonium cations, the alkyl groups of which preferably contain 2-5 carbon atoms. Of course, the ZSM-5 zeolite for use in the present dealuminization process has a silica/alumina mole ratio of greater than 5 to about 12.
The original cations can be replaced in accordance with techniques well-known in the art, at least in part, by ion exchange with other cations. Preferred replacing cations include tetraalkylammonium cations, metal ions, ammonium ions, hydrogen ions and mixtures of the same. Particularly preferred cations are those which render the zeolite catalytically active, especially for hydrocarbon conversion. These include hydrogen, rare earth metals, aluminum, metals of Group II and VIII of the Periodic Table and manganese.
Members of the family of zeolites designated herein as ZSM-5 have an exceptionally high degree of thermal stability thereby rendering them particularly effective for use in processes involving elevated temperatures. In this connection, ZSM-5 zeolites appear to be one of the most stable families of zeolites known to date.
Members of the family of ZSM-5 zeolites possess a definite distinguishing crystalline structure whose X-ray diffraction pattern shows the following significant lines:
TABLE 25______________________________________Interplanar Spacing d(A) Relative Intensity______________________________________11.1 .+-. 0.3 s10.0 .+-. 0.3 s7.4 .+-. 0.2 w7.1 .+-. 0.2 w6.3 .+-. 0.2 w6.04 .+-. 0.2 w5.97 .+-. 0.2 w5.69 .+-. 0.1 w5.56 .+-. 0.1 w5.01 .+-. 0.1 w4.60 .+-. 0.1 w4.35 .+-. 0.1 w4.25 .+-. 0.1 w3.85 .+-. 0.1 vs3.75 .+-. 0.05 s3.71 .+-. 0.05 s3.64 .+-. 0.05 m3.04 .+-. 0.05 w2.99 .+-. 0.05 w2.94 .+-. 0.05 w______________________________________
These values were determined by the same technique used to determine the X-ray values of Table 24, with the relative intensities given in terms of the symbols s= strong m = medium, w = weak, and vs = very strong.

Number	Name	Date
3374182	Young	Mar 1968
3459815	Noddings	Aug 1969
3652459	Partasarathy	Mar 1972
3691099	Young	Sep 1972
3794600	Schutt	Feb 1974
3803256	Kirsch et al.	Apr 1974
3836561	Young	Sep 1974

Alumina removal from crystalline alumino-silicates with Cr(III) solutions

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

US Classifications

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

US Referenced Citations (7)

Non-Patent Literature Citations (2)

Continuation in Parts (1)

Entry
pansevich-Kolyada et al., Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 72, June 15, 1970, No. 125391w.
Ermolenko et al., Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 64, 1966, Col. 17093c.