MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407802085 · doi:10.1016/j.jgsce.2025.205581

Comparison of conventional and simplified heterogeneous modeling frameworks for simulation of sulfur poisoning in methane reforming catalyst

2025· article· en· W4407802085 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Fabrik, Amgad Salama, Hussameldin Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueGas Science and Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMethaneSulfurCatalysisMethane reformerEnvironmental scienceChemistrySteam reformingMaterials scienceMetallurgyHydrogen productionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen production from methane and carbon dioxide offers a promising route to add value and mitigate climate change. These gases often contain hydrogen sulfide, a well-known catalyst poison, driving the development of sulfur-tolerant catalysts. However, sulfur poisoning has received limited attention in fixed-bed reactor modeling. In this study, two modeling frameworks—simplified and conventional heterogeneous—are developed and compared. The conventional model explicitly accounts for reaction and heat and mass transfer within the catalyst pellet, while the simplified model represents these effects using a catalyst effectiveness factor. Both models are discretized using the finite volume method and programmed in MATLAB, with predictions validated against experimental data from the literature. Kinetic modeling identifies activation energy corrections of 24.4 k J / m o l and 27.0 k J / m o l for the simplified and conventional models, respectively. Transport limitations appear above 1173 K . The order of deactivation was determined to be n = 1.0 , with an average absolute error of 27.2% and 26.2% for methane conversion predictions in simplified and conventional models, respectively, contrasting the more commonly assumed n = 3.0 . Under industrial conditions, both models performed similarly when unpoisoned. However, the conventional model showed an increase in catalyst effectiveness as poisoning occurred, reflecting the slower reaction kinetics relative to mass transport. When the effectiveness in the simplified model was adjusted to match the conventional model, their results realigned. While conventional modeling is more robust, it has a higher computational cost. Simplified modeling remains desirable for assessing catalyst poisoning, but further research is needed to determine how it can account for changes in catalyst effectiveness during poisoning. • Compare simplified and conventional models for reactor during sulfur poisoning in reforming. • Conventional model shows n = 1.0 deactivation order, matching simplified model, unlike literature. • Comparison shows need to update factors in simplified model during catalyst deactivation. • Conventional model is robust, but simplified model is preferred for lower computational cost.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGas Science and EngineeringSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207