**4. Conclusions**

This study compares MgAl2O4-supported Rh and Ir catalysts for the reforming reaction of methane, ethane, and natural gas simulant (a C1-C4 mixture) under industrially relevant conditions. In reforming of a natural gas simulant mixture, the Ir catalyst showed a lower capacity for converting C2+ hydrocarbons compared to Rh in the lower 600–700 ◦C range of reforming temperatures. At higher temperatures (700–900 ◦C), there is no real distinction in the activity for the two metals. In a more detailed study of the reaction at 600 ◦C, the Ir-based catalyst showed a limited capacity for ethane reforming compared to methane. Additionally, the formation of ethylene as a byproduct was accompanied by a higher amount of carbon deposited on the catalyst when ethane is used as a reactant. On the contrary, the reforming rate of ethane was faster over the Rh catalyst. Less carbon was deposited and a negligible amount of ethylene was formed. A lower reaction rate of ethane over Ir is likely related to a lower C–C scission rate. Literature reports for ethane hydrogenolysis explain how this decreased rate depends on the nature of the metal. The kinetic study found there to be a lower reaction order for ethane reforming over Ir compared to Rh and Ni (0.29, 0.79, 0.76, respectively), which is consistent with a higher coverage of the catalysts by carbon deposits. Calculated activation energies also were found to be higher for Ir compared to Rh and Ni (95, 26, 79 kJ/mol, respectively) in the lower temperature reforming range.

Adsorbed hydrogen assists hydrocarbon reactions on metal supported catalysts by hydrogenating C1 species to form methane. In an attempt to extend the analysis that H adsorption has on Ir and Rh reforming catalysts, we performed H2 adsorption measurements on Ir, Rh, and Ni at reforming reaction temperatures (600 ◦C). Results indicate that hydrogen saturates the Rh surface in a ratio 1:1 with respect to metal atoms on the surface. Coverages over Ir and Ni were found lower (0.7:1 for Ir, and 0.2:1 for Ni). A summary of main findings is presented in Table 4.


**Table4.**Summaryofkeyfindings.

Given the low capacity of Ir to reform ethane and higher hydrocarbons, Rh was chosen for additional catalyst durability studies. Long-term stability tests revealed the Rh catalyst to be very stable under SMR conditions, and under relatively harsh conditions (up to 900 ◦C and with S/C molar feed ratios up to 1.5). However, when a more complex mixture of hydrocarbons was added to the methane feed, catalyst stability was adversely affected. Here, the S/C molar feed ratio and operating temperature can be adjusted to extend catalyst life. Stable catalyst operation was observed for the Rh catalyst when using a natural gas simulant and operating under a relatively low S/C ratio of 2.0 and at 850 ◦C. Thus, we note that improvements in catalyst life can be achieved through both proper choice of the catalyst material and operational conditions. In addition, temperature and S/C molar feed ratio are critical processing variables to consider when optimizing catalyst performance. The results of this study conclude that a Rh-supported catalyst was developed that enables very high activities and excellent catalytic stability for both the steam reforming of methane and other higher hydrocarbons contained in natural gas, and under conditions of operation that are amendable to solar thermochemical operations.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/9/10/801/s1, Figure S1. (A) TEM analysis of 5Ir/MgAl2O4 (top) and 5Rh/MgAl2O4 (bottom) catalysts used in this study. (B) Effect of ageing on Rh/MgAl2O4 catalyst. (950 ◦C) under H2. Figure S2. Hydrogen uptake at 600 and 800 ◦C. Evolution of hydrogen uptake is calculated as H coverage (per mole of metal surface) vs H2 pulsed. Volumetric pulse hydrogen adsorption measurements were carried out at 600 ◦C and 800 ◦C. First, 50 mg of the sample was reduced at 850 ◦C for 16 h using H2 (flow 10% in N2, 100 mL/min) and purged for 4 in pure N2. After ramping at the adsorption temperature, 5% Hydrogen/Ar is pulsed using a 100 μL loop with 1 minute intervals between injections. Figure S3. Conversion of the individual components of a simulant natural gas mixture. Butane conversion was complete. Reaction conditions: S/C:1.5, t = 4.5 ms, 1h TOS, Simulant gas feed (94.5%v methane, 4% ethane, 1% propane, 0.5% butane) was supplied by Matheson. Figure S4. Ethane reforming conversion vs time on stream at 600 ◦C. Reaction conditions: S/C = 2.75, 9 mg of catalyst. τ = 28.3 ms, 35 sccm ethane, 80 sccm N2, 9 mg of catalyst. Table S1. Deactivation check experiments for the Ir catalyst under ethane reforming experiments shown in Figure S4. Fresh catalyst was tested for methane activity before ("initial") and after reaction with ethane to check for deactivation ("final"). Figure S5. Ethane reforming conversion and carbon selectivity vs contact time (ms) for the reforming of ethane at 600 ◦C over MgAl2O4-supported Ir and Rh catalysts (A-top), ethylene selectivity (mol %) vs contact time (ms) (B-middle), and linear correlation for ethane conversion vs contact time. Reaction conditions: S/C = 2.75, 9 mg of catalyst. Changes in contact time were achieved by changing gas flow over the same mass of catalyst in a continuous experiment. Each point corresponds to a steady state measurement after stabilizing for 1h. Ethane over iridium catalyst was changed from 35 to 3.5 sccm. For the case of Rh, ethane

flow was varied from 35 to 100 sccm. Figure S6. Ethane reforming conversion over 5Ir/MgAl2O4 catalyst at 600 ◦C. (A) Ethane conversion vs time on stream at increase carbon/steam ratio (10 for empty symbols) at two different concentration of ethane in the gas (8 and 14 vol %). (B) Ethane conversion vs time on stream comparing Ir activity over two different supports, MgAl2O4 (red) and Al2O3 (blue). Figure S7. (A) Product selectivity for ethane steam reforming over Ir at 600 ◦C (8.2% conversion). (B) Ethane conversion over Rh and Ir catalysts at 600◦C (S/C = 3 mol, τ = 28 ms (Rh), τ = 167 ms (Ir)). Figure S8. Conversion vs time on stream for methane steam reforming over the Rh and Ir supported catalysts at 850 ◦C (S/C = 3 mol, τ = 12.4 ms; Methane feed = 22.6 vol. %). Figure S9. Methane conversion (A) and H2/CO ratio for methane steam reforming products (B) over benchmark 5% Rh/MgAl2O4 catalyst. CH4, S/C = 3, 9 mg of catalyst. 5% Rh MgAl2O4 catalyst reduced in-situ at 850 ◦C for 16 h under flowing 10% H2 in N2.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.S.L., R.A.D. and V.L.D.; Methodology, R.A.D., V.L.D., L.K., and J.S.L.; Investigation, J.S.L., V.L.D., L.K. and C.A.D.; Data Curation and Formal Analysis, J.S.L. and R.A.D.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.S.L.; Writing—Review & Editing and Supervision, R.A.D.; Project Administration and Funding Acquisition, R.A.D. and R.S.W.

**Funding:** This work was financially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Solar Energy Technology Office (SETO) and was performed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

**Acknowledgments:** Catalyst characterization equipment use was granted by a user proposal at the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, which is a national scientific user facility sponsored by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research and located at PNNL. The authors would like to thank David L. King for offering a technical review and Cary A. Counts for providing technical editing support of this manuscript. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
