MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316600651 · doi:10.1021/ef101479y

Influence of the Catalyst Preparation Method, Surfactant Amount, and Steam on CO<sub>2</sub>Reforming of CH<sub>4</sub>over 5Ni/Ce<sub>0.6</sub>Zr<sub>0.4</sub>O<sub>2</sub>Catalysts

2011· article· en· W2316600651 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCatalysisSteam reformingPulmonary surfactantMaterials scienceChemical engineeringNuclear chemistryChemistryOrganic chemistryHydrogen production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of ceria−zirconia mixed oxide supports with nominal composition “Ce 0.6 Zr 0.4 O 2 ” were synthesized by two different routes, namely, a surfactant-assisted route and a coprecipitation route. Among the supports obtained by the surfactant-assisted route, different surfactant/metal molar ratios (namely, 1.25, 0.8, and 0.5) were employed to study the influence of the surfactant amount on the catalyst performance. A nominal 5 wt % Ni was impregnated on the supports by a wet impregnation method. These catalysts were evaluated for CO 2 reforming of CH 4 in both the presence and absence of steam. The textural, structural, and physicochemical characteristics of the catalysts were thoroughly investigated with the help of various bulk and surface characterization techniques. The activity results indicate the superior nature of the catalysts obtained by the surfactant-assisted route over the one obtained by coprecipitation. Also, within the limits of the surfactant ratios used, the amount of surfactant employed during the course of support preparation seems to affect the activity, with catalysts prepared with the higher surfactant/metal molar ratio exhibiting better activity and enhanced stability. Structure−activity relationships (SARs) were formulated for some of the characteristics in order to explain the marked difference in activity between the catalysts obtained by the surfactant-assisted and coprecipitation methods and between the catalysts prepared by the surfactant-assisted route but with different surfactant/metal molar ratios. The SARs helped to identify that high oxygen storage capacity, high surface area, high reducibility, higher nickel surface area, better nickel dispersion, and higher surface nickel content are necessary for good performance in the CO 2 reforming of CH 4 . On the whole, catalysts obtained by the surfactant-assisted route exhibit a reasonably good performance in the CO 2 reforming reaction but were prone to deactivation in the presence of steam. The inherent hydrophilic nature of the ceria−zirconia support is the main cause for the apparent deactivation in the presence of steam.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it