Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,546 studies31 sourcesUpdated 26 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Catalysts

Catalytic Steam Reforming of Methanol, Ethanol, and Glycerol for Hydrogen Production: A Critical Review of Reaction Chemistry, Catalyst Design, Performance Metrics, and Deactivation

  • Symbat Naurzkulova1
  • Tolkyn Baizhumanova2,3
  • Bakytgul Massalimova4
  • Raushan Orazbekova2,3
  • Meruert Yerkibaeva5
5 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Taraz University Named After M.Kh. Dulaty, Tole Bi Str. 60, Taraz 080000, Kazakhstan
  2. 2Laboratory of Oxidative Catalysis D.V. Sokolsky Institute of Fuel, Catalysis and Electrochemistry, 142 Kunaev Str., Almaty 050010, Kazakhstan
  3. 3Department of Physical Chemistry, Catalysis and Petrochemistry Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, 71, al-Farabi Str., Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
  4. 4Department of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, M. Kozybayev North Kazakhstan University, Pushkin Str. 80, Petropavlovsk 150000, Kazakhstan
  5. 5Higher school of natural science, Pavlodar Pedagogical University Named After Alkey Margulan, Mira Str. 60, Pavlodar 140002, Kazakhstan
Open at sourceDOICite

Abstract

Catalytic steam reforming of oxygenated feedstocks is an important route to hydrogen-rich gases, but methanol, ethanol, and glycerol differ substantially in C–C bond content, reaction-network complexity, catalyst requirements, and deactivation behavior. This critical review compares the three feedstocks using feedstock-specific reaction chemistry rather than a generalized reforming mechanism. The stoichiometric maxima for complete conversion to CO2 and H2 are 3, 6, and 7 mol H2 per mol of methanol, ethanol, and glycerol, respectively, but these limits are not treated as experimental catalyst rankings. Cu-based systems dominate low-temperature methanol steam reforming, whereas Ni-, Co-, bimetallic, noble-metal, and perovskite-derived catalysts are prominent in ethanol and glycerol reforming, where C–C activation and carbon suppression become increasingly important. Emphasis is placed on the nature and evolution of active sites, metal–support interactions, carbon deposition, sintering, regeneration, and the distinction among conversion, H2 yield, H2 selectivity, and dry-gas H2 concentration. Recent studies through 2026 are integrated with foundational mechanistic work to identify catalyst-design principles and evidence gaps relevant to durable hydrogen production.

Related

  1. Defect-engineered Silver–ceria nanostructures: Linking interfacial chemistry to catalytic and antimicrobial performance
    Naif Mohammed Al-Hada, M.N. Azlan, Suriani Abu Bakar +4
    Results in Surfaces and InterfacesPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textMaterials & polymersDOAJ
  2. Effect of Catalyst Deactivation on Ignition and Combustion Characteristics in a Catalytic Micro-Reactor: Numerical Study with Resolved Catalyst Coating
    Zhen Wang, Lili Ma, Qingyun Sun +5
    CatalystsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0CatalysisCrossref
  3. Syngas Production by Dry and Steam Reforming of a Model Biogas over Highly Active Bimetallic Co-Ir/Al2O3 Catalysts
    Sholpan S. Itkulova, Yerzhan Y. Nurmakanov, Yerzhan A. Boleubayev +2
    CatalystsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0CatalysisCrossref
  4. Hierarchical Copper-Based Metal-Organic Frameworks for Improved Catalytic Performance
    Huan Doan, Ken Chiang, Srinivasan Madapusi +4
    ChemRxivPreprintLicence not statedGeneral chemistryChemRxiv
  5. Catalytic Performance of Post-Treated Thin-Plate ZSM-5 for Allyl Alcohol Etherification
    Gideon Abaidoo Ocran, Huali Tan, Bosong Zhang +4
    Molecules (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral chemistryEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{naurzkulova2026catalytic,
  title = {{Catalytic Steam Reforming of Methanol, Ethanol, and Glycerol for Hydrogen Production: A Critical Review of Reaction Chemistry, Catalyst Design, Performance Metrics, and Deactivation}},
  author = {Symbat Naurzkulova and Tolkyn Baizhumanova and Bakytgul Massalimova and Raushan Orazbekova and Meruert Yerkibaeva},
  journal = {Catalysts},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/catal16100920},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/16/10/920},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Catalytic Steam Reforming of Methanol, Ethanol, and Glycerol for Hydrogen Production: A Critical Review of Reaction Chemistry, Catalyst Design, Performance Metrics, and Deactivation
AU  - Symbat Naurzkulova
AU  - Tolkyn Baizhumanova
AU  - Bakytgul Massalimova
AU  - Raushan Orazbekova
AU  - Meruert Yerkibaeva
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/18
JO  - Catalysts
DO  - 10.3390/catal16100920
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/16/10/920
AB  - Catalytic steam reforming of oxygenated feedstocks is an important route to hydrogen-rich gases, but methanol, ethanol, and glycerol differ substantially in C–C bond content, reaction-network complexity, catalyst requirements, and deactivation behavior. This critical review compares the three feedstocks using feedstock-specific reaction chemistry rather than a generalized reforming mechanism. The stoichiometric maxima for complete conversion to CO2 and H2 are 3, 6, and 7 mol H2 per mol of methanol, ethanol, and glycerol, respectively, but these limits are not treated as experimental catalyst rankings. Cu-based systems dominate low-temperature methanol steam reforming, whereas Ni-, Co-, bimetallic, noble-metal, and perovskite-derived catalysts are prominent in ethanol and glycerol reforming, where C–C activation and carbon suppression become increasingly important. Emphasis is placed on the nature and evolution of active sites, metal–support interactions, carbon deposition, sintering, regeneration, and the distinction among conversion, H2 yield, H2 selectivity, and dry-gas H2 concentration. Recent studies through 2026 are integrated with foundational mechanistic work to identify catalyst-design principles and evidence gaps relevant to durable hydrogen production.
SN  - 2073-4344
ER  -