Steam reforming of ethanol over mesoporous Rh/CeZrO<sub>2</sub>: Mechanistic evaluation using in situ DRIFT spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mesoporous CeZrO2support was prepared by a homogeneous urea coprecipitation route and loaded with 0.05 g/g (5 wt%) Rh2O3to prepare supported Rh/CeZrO2catalyst. The mesoporous nature of the catalyst was confirmed by N2adsorption‐desorption studies, which revealed a type IV isotherm with a characteristic H2 hysteresis. Rh impregnation led to a decrease in the BET surface area and an increase in the CO uptake, as established by pulse chemisorption studies. Temperature‐programmed reduction (TPR) studies revealed significant alteration in the reducibility of the support due to introduction of the active metal. Catalytic ethanol steam reforming (ESR) over the supported catalyst was performed in a tubular microreactor under varying temperatures and space velocities at a constant ethanol‐to‐water ratio of 1:6. Increasing the temperature was found to positively influence both the conversion and hydrogen selectivity. Mesoporous Rh/CeZrO2catalyst exhibited almost complete ethanol conversion and 62.9 % H2selectivity at 600 °C and 0.3 mL · min−1flow rate. The nature of intermediate species and products formed during ethanol steam reforming was established using in situ diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy (DRIFTS), which brought out the significant role of Rh toward aiding ethanol decomposition. Based on these studies, a plausible mechanism for catalytic ethanol steam reforming over Rh/CeZrO2was proposed. Time‐on‐stream studies revealed the excellent stability of the catalyst over extended periods. Detailed investigations of the spent catalyst revealed the amorphous nature of coke formed on the surface of the catalyst post‐reforming.
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 | 0.000 | 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".