Technical Challenges and Prospects in Sustainable Plasma Catalytic Ammonia Production from Methane and Nitrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ammonia is crucial for human life as an important ingredient for fertilizer, industrial and household chemicals, and is considered as a future fuel alternative and hydrogen storage molecule. There remain no viable alternatives to the energy‐and capital‐intensive Haber–Bosch (H−B) process. Efforts in the development of novel catalytic processes operated at milder conditions (low temperatures and ambient pressure), prominently electrochemistry and non‐thermal plasma (NTP), and utilization of lower‐cost H sources for ammonia formation than the ultrapure H2 have been witnessed in the last few years. Yet, limited progress from these routes has been made to date given unresolved low ammonia yield and technical challenges. Several rare works attempted to activate methane (CH4) and nitrogen (N2) by non‐thermal plasma to produce ammonia and valued‐added hydrocarbons have proven to be a promising research direction, rivalling the reaction between N2 and ultrapure H2 or water. The direct conversion of CH4 and N2 to ammonia is still at the beginning level, and it remains unclear that what extent these technologies must be improved to develop a commercial process. Toward this goal, this Perspective critiques current steps and miss‐steps of sustainable plasma catalytic ammonia production from CH4 and N2 in terms of technology, plasma‐catalyst synergy, mechanistic insights, and experimental protocols. We discuss mechanistic understandings of catalyst‐promoted ammonia production and translate such discussions as well as key metrics achieved in the field into recommendations of feasible processes for ammonia and value‐added hydrocarbons formation from CH4 and N2.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".