Simplified kinetic model for steam reforming of ethanol on a Ni/Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ethanol steam reforming is a promising method for hydrogen production. Kinetic studies are carried out over a nickel‐based catalyst from 200 to 600°C. A simplified Langmuir–Hinshelwood–Hougen–Watson (LHHW) kinetic model was proposed with nine parameters, where the surface decomposition of methane is assumed as the rate determining step (RDS), and while all other reaction steps are set as reversible. It is postulated that the velocity of the backward reaction step of the dissociative methane adsorption is similar to all other equilibrium reactions proposed, while the forward reaction step is set as the RDS. In addition, the formation of adsorbed carbon species is excluded due to the fact that SRE experiments were performed with excess water, suggesting that OH species, excluding O species formation, stick better on active Ni surface than methane. In addition, a power law kinetic model was used for analysis; the activation energy was 31.8 kJ/mol, and the reaction order of ethanol pressure was 1.52. Experimental results were successfully demonstrated by both kinetic models. The purpose of this work was to develop a simplified mechanistic model to replace empirical models (power rate model) and other proposed kinetic models that are too complex for an applied kinetic process. It was found that the simplified LHHW kinetic model has a better fit than that of the power law model. The proposed kinetic model works well over a wide temperature range (200–600°C).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".