MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410944408 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25756

Optimizing the <scp> CH <sub>4</sub> </scp> / <scp> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> dry reforming catalysts: Insights from Ni/ <scp>SBA</scp> ‐16, Ni/ <scp>KIT</scp> ‐6, and Ni/ <scp>MCM</scp> ‐41 supported on silica with different mesopore symmetries

2025· article· en· W4410944408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarmad Soomro, Zhenkun Sun, Dennis Lu, Z. C. Zhou, Lin Li, Lunbo Duan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsCatalysisChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Catalyst deactivation due to carbon deposition and sintering poses a significant challenge to the efficient dry reforming of CH 4 and CO 2 into syngas, particularly at high Ni loadings. To tackle this difficulty, ordered mesoporous silicas with varied pore symmetries were employed as supports in this study to synthesize the Ni‐based catalysts using hydrothermal treatment. The 10% Ni/MCM‐41 catalyst exhibited the highest conversion rates for CO 2 (81%) and CH 4 (77%), with favourable H 2 /CO (0.92) ratios indicating efficient syngas production Higher Ni concentrations increase active sites and catalytic performance, they also increase carbon deposition, reducing catalyst durability. At lower Ni loadings (4% Ni), catalysts with a 3D pore structure showed improved activity and stability, effectively reducing carbon deposition. This study demonstrates that optimized mesopore symmetries and Ni loadings can enhance catalyst efficiency and durability for syngas production.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207