MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416425526 · doi:10.1016/j.ces.2025.123027

Investigating reaction rates in microwave heating-assisted methane pyrolysis

2025· article· en· W4416425526 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdelrahman I. Hussain, Mohammad Monzavi

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Engineering Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOCP GroupTotal
KeywordsMicroscale chemistryActivation energyPyrolysisMethaneFluidized bedKinetic energyAtmospheric temperature rangeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Kinetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Estimation of kinetic parameters for CH 4 pyrolysis in a microwave-heated fluidized bed reactor. • Development of a global kinetic model incorporating gas–solid temperature differences. • Comparison with conventional heating shows higher CH 4 conversion and lower activation energy under microwave heating. • Identification of microwave-induced hotspots originating from particle–particle interactions. • Quantification of microscale hotspots by integrating experimental analysis and numerical simulation. Microwave (MW)-assisted methane (CH 4 ) pyrolysis is a novel method for hydrogen (H 2 ) production without direct CO 2 emissions. MW heating benefits from selective volumetric heating and rapid energy transfer. In this work, we investigated the kinetics of CH 4 thermal pyrolysis under MW heating in a fluidized bed reactor (MW-FBR), and we compared it to a conventional heating-assisted fluidized bed reactor (CH-FBR). We conducted experiments across a temperature range of 950–1065 °C and residence times of 0.5–8.0 s at atmospheric pressure. The reaction kinetics were described by a first-order global kinetic model and considered the non-isothermal conditions in MW-FBR between the solid phase and the gas phase. The solid temperature exceeded the gas temperature by ∼200 °C and the bulk temperature by ∼100 °C. MW-FBR showed higher CH 4 conversion and lower apparent activation energy compared to CH-FBR. These observations are attributed to localized microscale hotspots. We estimated an apparent activation energy of 288 kJ/mol for MW-FBR and 310 kJ/mol for CH-FBR. We estimated the thermal contribution of hotspots to the reaction by comparing the activation energies between MW-FBR and CH-FBR. The hotspots effect corresponds to a 5 % higher bed effective temperature than the measured solid temperature. Numerical simulation showed that particle–particle contact causes hotspots due to higher MW power dissipation at contact points compared to isolated particles. Model predictions based on the estimated kinetic parameters indicate that complete CH 4 conversion is achieved at solid temperatures of 1100–1200 °C, corresponding to bulk temperatures of 1000–1075 °C, at mean residence times of 3–10 s.

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)0.000
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Engineering ScienceSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207