Hydrogen Production in a Sorption-Enhanced Fluidized-Bed Membrane Reactor: Operating Parameter Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sorption-enhanced steam reforming, assisted by membrane separation of H 2 in a fluidized bed reactor, is simulated numerically based on a kinetic two-phase model. A residence time distribution function method is implemented to account for CO 2 capture in continuous operation. The effects of operating pressure, total gas feed rate, solid recycle rate, fresh sorbent feed rate, effective membrane area, and permeate pressure on the performance of a continuous fluidized bed reactor are investigated. A CH 4 conversion of >91% for operation at 0.6 MPa and 550 °C is predicted to be possible with the assistance of the sorbent and membranes. The reforming performance is very sensitive to the effective surface area of membranes. A sorbent fraction of >0.7 (by mass) is necessary to achieve a product with H 2 selectivity of >98%, free of CO and CO 2, for realistic membrane effectiveness factors. Adding fresh sorbent or increasing the sorbent mass fraction improves the H 2 productivity for a moderate solids recycling rate. Effective CO 2 capture rate depends greatly on the sorbent feed rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".