Comparative Study of Ni-based Mixed Oxide Catalyst for Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide reforming of methane (CDRM) to synthesis gas was studied over various Ni-based catalysts. It is shown that the mixed oxide supports CeO 2 −ZrO 2, CeO 2 −Al 2 O 3, and La 2 O 3 −Al 2 O 3, prepared using surfactant, exhibit a high catalytic activity and stability for CDRM. Temperature program reduction (TPR) results demonstrate that the presence of CeO 2, ZrO 2, or La 2 O 3 leads to the enhancement of the Ni reducibility compared to Al 2 O 3, which is an important indicator of high activity and stability of these Ni catalysts for CDRM. Our thermodynamic calculations indicate that CeO 2 could react with CH 4 to produce synthesis gas, and then CO 2 might reoxidize CeO 2− x to its oxidation state. Furthermore, CeO 2 might help in gasification of deposited carbon to inhibit the carbon formation and therefore improve catalyst stability. The presence of alumina tends not to affect the stability of the catalyst as well.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".