A Comparative Study of Copper-Promoted Water−Gas-Shift (WGS) Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the catalytic water−gas shift reaction over commercial Cu−ZnO−Al 2 O 3 (LTS-C) and Cu-promoted Fe−Cr oxide (HTS-C) catalysts as well as a high-temperature Cu-promoted (UFR-C) catalyst developed in our laboratory. The catalysts were characterized by different techniques such as X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetry/differential scanning calorimetry, temperature-programmed reduction, and sorption analyses. The activities of these catalysts were evaluated in the compositions of mole fractions having 2.6−16.8% CO, 45% H 2 O, and the balance nitrogen in the range of 473−973 K. It was observed that the reduction temperature, the ratio of the mass of the catalyst to the mass flow rate of CO (g (cat) h/mol of CO), and CO concentrations have significant effects on the catalytic activities. In the presence of 2.6% CO, the Cu−ZnO−Al 2 O 3 catalyst was most active at 473 K while the Cu-promoted Fe−Cr oxide catalyst was most active at 773 K. The catalytic activities of HTS-C and LTS-C were compared with that of UFR-C in the presence of both CO in different concentrations and reformate streams as a feed. The results showed that ceria−zirconia-supported non-noble metal catalysts can give very high water−gas shift activity at very short contact times compared to that of the commercial water−gas shift catalyst.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".