Surface-Bound Intermediates in Low-Temperature Methanol Synthesis on Copper: Participants and Spectators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivity of surface-adsorbed species present on copper catalysts during methanol synthesis at low temperatures was studied by simultaneous infrared spectroscopy (IR) and mass spectroscopy (MS) measurements during “titration” (transient surface reaction) experiments with isotopic tracing. The results show that adsorbed formate is a major bystander species present on the surface under steady-state methanol synthesis reaction conditions, but it cannot be converted to methanol by reaction with pure H 2 or with H 2 plus added water. Formate-containing surface adlayers for these experiments were produced during steady-state catalysis in (a) H 2:CO 2 (with substantial formate coverage) and (b) moist H 2:CO (with no IR visible formate species). These reaction conditions both produce methanol at steady state with relatively high rates. Adlayers containing formate were also produced by (c) formic acid adsorption. Various “titration” gases were used to probe these adlayers at modest temperatures ( T = 410–450 K) and 6 bar total pressure. Methanol gas (up to ∼1% monolayer equivalent) was produced in “titration” from the H 2:CO 2 catalytic adlayers by H 2 plus water, but not by dry hydrogen. The decay in the formate IR features accelerated in the presence of added water vapor. The H 2:CO:H 2 O catalytic adlayer produced similar methanol titration yields in H 2 plus water but showed no surface formate features in IR (less than 0.2% monolayer coverage). Finally, formate from formic acid chemisorption produced no methanol under any titration conditions. Even under H 2:CO 2 catalytic reaction conditions, isotope tracing showed that preadsorbed formate from formic acid did not contribute to the methanol produced. Although non-formate species exist during low-temperature methanol synthesis on copper which can be converted to methanol gas by titration with pure H 2 plus water in sufficient quantities for that intermediate to be observable by IR, formate itself is only a “spectator” in this reaction and gives no observable methanol upon any titration we performed with H 2 or H 2 plus water.
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 | 0.001 | 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".