MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182224742 · doi:10.3390/catal11070827

Dry Reforming of Methane Using Ni Catalyst Supported on ZrO2: The Effect of Different Sources of Zirconia

2021· article· en· W3182224742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed A. Ibrahim, Anis H. Fakeeha, Ahmed E. Abasaeed, Ahmed S. Al‐Fatesh

Bibliographic record

VenueCatalysts · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Plan for Science, Technology and InnovationKing Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology
KeywordsCatalysisCarbon dioxide reformingCubic zirconiaMaterials scienceMethaneBET theoryChemical engineeringNuclear chemistryChemistryMetallurgySyngasOrganic chemistryCeramic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry reforming of methane (DRM) has a substantial potential to provide a cost-effective process and in reducing greenhouse gases. Its application has been hindered by carbon deposition and instability problems. The use of an appropriate catalyst is influenced by the support type. The objective of this investigation is to elucidate the effect of different sources of ZrO2 support. Four kinds of ZrO2, namely RC-100 and Z-3215, MKnano, and ELTN were acquired from Japan, Canada, and China, respectively. The catalyst samples were analyzed by BET, XRD, TPR, TPD, TEM, TGA, TPO, FT-IR, and Raman. The analysis of the structural properties displayed that all Ni-supported catalysts, regardless of their source, are mesoporous and that 5Ni-RC-100 possessed the highest BET surface area of 17.7 m2/g and 5Ni-MKnano had the lowest value of BET 3.16 m2/g. In the TPD and TEM analysis, the 5Ni-RC-100 catalyst presented the highest intensity of basicity and the minimum average particle size of 3.35 nm, respectively. The 5Ni-RC-100 catalyst outperformed 5Ni-ELTN by exhibiting 44% higher CH4 conversion; however, 5Ni-RC-100 gave the highest weight loss in the TGA analysis of 66%.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatalystsSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207