Statistical Optimization of Process Variables for Methane Conversion over Zn‐Mo/H‐ZSM‐5 Catalysts in the Presence of Methanol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The direct conversion of methane to higher hydrocarbons is considered as one of the most promising methods to produce liquid fuels. Different percentages of Zn loaded on zeolitic 5 % Mo/H‐ZSM‐5 catalysts were prepared by using a conventional impregnation method; these catalysts were used to convert methane into a range of liquid hydrocarbon fuels in the presence of methanol. The catalysts were characterized by using Brunauer–Emmett–Teller surface area, temperature‐programmed reduction, temperature‐programmed desorption, SEM‐energy dispersive X‐ray, and XRD analysis. Response surface methodology was used to optimize the process variables for the conversion of methane into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The catalytic activity tests were carried out in a fixed‐bed microreactor and methanol was used as a co‐reactant to activate the methane molecules. Central composite experimental design was used to study the effects of each variable on methane conversion. Analysis of variance indicated a high coefficient of determination value (R2=0.96), and a satisfactory prediction for a second‐order regression model was developed. The optimum methane conversion (30.7 %) was obtained with flow rates of 1500 and 1.25 mL h−1 for methane and methanol, respectively, over a 3 % Zn‐Mo/H‐ZSM‐5 catalyst. The major reaction products were ethane, ethylene, C4+ aliphatic hydrocarbons, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Kinetic studies were also performed for methane conversion using a power law model; the activation energy for the reaction was 61.6 kJ mol−1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".