INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 34 (2001) 2798–2803 PII: S0022-3727(01)23229-X

Syngas production via methane steam

reforming with oxygen: plasma reactors
versus chemical reactors
Jean Marie Cormier1 and Iulian Rusu2
1
GREMI, Universite´ d’Orleans,´ 14 rue d’Issoudun, BP 6744-45067, Orleans´ Cedex 2, France
2 Faculty of Industrial Chemistry, Technical University ‘Gh Asachi’,

Bd Dimitrie Mangeron 71, Iasi 6600, Romania

E-mail: jean-marie.cormier@univ-orleans.fr

Received 22 March 2001, in final form 8 July 2001

Published 5 September 2001
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysD/34/2798
Abstract
Steam reforming with oxygen (SRO) is a combination of non-catalytic
partial oxidation and steam reforming of methane, industrially used for
syngas production. There are several models of the chemical reactors used
for this purpose but in the last decade a new direction has developed—
plasma devices. The aim of the present paper is to make a comparative
analysis between the autothermal reformers, including their improved
variants, and the plasma reactors. The study is conceived in terms of
advantages and disadvantages coming from the exploitation parameters,
methane conversion, selectivity, energy efficiency and investment costs.
Although SRO by means of chemical reactors may be the most efficient,
plasma reactors represent an incisive approach by their simplicity,
compactness and low price.

1. Introduction production of hydrogen for automotive applications [1, 2].

Synthesis gas or syngas is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide used as a major intermediary for the production of
pure hydrogen or other chemical compounds. Among these
we have to mention ammonia with its inestimable utility for
industry and agriculture and the liquid products derived by
the process known as SCL (syngas conversion to liquids)
(e.g. methanol and other alcohols, solvents, diesel fuel, jet
fuel, gasoline, etc).
The growing demand for chemicals derived from syngas
has led to the development of several technologies (e.g.
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, NH3 or oxygenate production).
These processes are of strategic importance for any country. For
example, the synthesis developed by Fischer and Tropsch was
used by the Germans during the Second World War to produce
fuel from coal. South Africa also produced fuel this way during
the political sanctions against the apartheid regime. Today, as
the fuels obtained from syngas do not contain sulphur or
nitrogen compounds, their combustion in engines leads to
reduced environmental pollution. Hydrogen itself was taken
into account in the last period as a clean fuel, important steps
being made in the research in recent years on the on-board
Syngas is also the main source of carbon monoxide, which is
used in an expanding list of carbonylation reactions.
Originally, coal was the primary source of carbon for
syngas, but today natural gas has replaced it for economic
reasons. Despite the fact that coal reserves are large and the
price of coal is lower than that of the hydrocarbons, the
investment in a coal-based syngas plant is about three times
higher than that required for a natural-gas-based plant [3].
However, there are also technologies producing syngas from
petroleum coke, heavy residuals and even biomasses [4, 5].
Natural gas can be processed by several methods, e.g.
partial oxidation with oxygen (PO), steam reforming (SR),
steam reforming with oxygen (SRO), CO2 reforming (CDR)
and CO2 reforming with oxygen (CDRO) [6]. One of the most
attractive technologies seems to be the SRO, which is also
known as autothermal reforming. The main reasons for
recommending this technology over the other variants are the
low energy requirements, the high space velocity (at least one
order of magnitude relative to traditional SR), a lower process
temperature than PO and the H2/CO ratio is easily regulated by
the inlet gas ratio [7–9]. The process can be performed by
means of various reactor models including plasma reactors.

0022-3727/01/182798+06$30.00 © 2001 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 2798


If syngas processing is of strategic importance, research
regarding the use of plasma reactors has also become strategic
for different countries. For example, Germany, Japan and the
USA employ large funding regarding automotive applications
of plasma reactors. The Russian Federal R&D programme in
the field of hydrogen energy and technology for the period
1994–96 also included in the eight most promising processes
for the production and use of hydrogen two concerning plasma-
chemical technologies [10].
Therefore, the aim of the present paper is to make a
comparative analysis of the chemical and plasma reactors
used for SRO, in order to estimate the real prospects for
plasma processes in this field.
2. Syngas production by SRO
SRO is a combination of non-catalytic partial oxidation and
steam reforming developed by Haldor Topsøe in the late
1950s in order to perform reforming in a single reactor [9].
There are probably five main chemical reactions in the
reforming process:
CH4 + H2O ⇔ CO + 3H2 H298 = 206 kJ (1)
CH4 + 2H2O ⇔ CO2 + 4H2 H298 = 164.9 kJ (2)
CH4 + O2 ⇔ CO2 + 2H2 H298 = −318.9 kJ (3)
2CH4 + O2 ⇔ 2CO + 4H2 H298 = −71.8 kJ (4)
CO + H2O ⇔ CO2 + H2 H298 = −41 kJ. (5)
Partial oxidation is an exothermic process, while steam
reforming is endothermic. The thermal energy generated by the
former can be adjusted by its molar air/methane ratio so that the
overall autothermal process can be carried out without an extra
external heat source for the SR process. Classic thermodynamic
analysis performed by Chan and Wang
[11] indicated that the optimal operating regime is with an
air/methane molar ratio of 3.5 and a 2.5 to 4 water/methane
molar ratio. Under these operating conditions, the number of
moles of hydrogen per mole of natural gas consumed is
2.19–2.22. The results also showed that under these
conditions, the solid carbon is suppressed, the mole fraction
of CO ranges from 2.24–4.38%, the methane conversion rate
is 99.04– 99.45% and the operating temperature is between
820 and 871 K.
Taking into account the use of plasma reactors, Bromberg
and co-workers [12] have simulated the homogeneous SRO
process (CH4 + 0.5O2 + 1.88N2 + H2O) by means of non-
equilibrium thermodynamics [13]. This method has been used
to determine the reaction trajectory in an adiabatic reactor. The
calculations performed for initial temperatures of 500, 1500 and
2000 K indicate that the reaction is characterized by two distinct
stages. During the first stage, complete
combustion of part of the methane occurs, producing mainly
CO2 and water, increasing the temperature of the system. In
the second stage, the remaining methane reacts with CO2
and H2O producing syngas and decreasing the system’s
temperature. The calculated rate of methane conversion
ranged between 97.5 and 100%, leading to a final hydrogen
mole fraction of about 35% and for the CO 8–16%.
Syngas production with SRO: plasmas or chemicals
However, since a plasma is a mixture of electrons, highly
excited atoms and molecules, ions, radicals, photons, etc, the
chemistry is very complex and the present understanding of it is
quite limited. It is difficult to predict theoretically the final
products and their concentration. Unfortunately, most practical
achievements are based on experiments.
3. Other methods of syngas production
There is an entire literature concerning the chemical
technologies used or proposed for syngas production.
Therefore, in this section we shall briefly summarize only
reports on syngas production by means of plasma methods.
The plasmatron experiments performed at Michigan
Institute of Technology (MIT) on the PO of methane
revealed that for energy inputs of less than 25 MJ kg−1 CH4,
hydrogen output reaches 38% of equilibrium levels and the
CO output is 65% of equilibrium [14]. In these conditions
the resulting energy cost was as high as 267 MJ kg−1 H2
because most of the hydrogen turns into water.
Czernichowski et al used a gliding arc installation for this
process with a similar energy cost [15–17].
Chapelle et al have used a classic gliding arc reactor for
syngas generation by SR [18]. For an electric power of 1.4
kW and a steam-to-methane ratio of 2–4, the maximum CH4
conversion was 44%, with an output energy efficiency of
33% at an energy cost of about 97 MJ kg−1 H2.
CDR is currently of great interest both for the
transformation of natural gas and for environmental control.
Chapelle et al [18] has performed the reaction in both
transferred arc and gliding arc reactors. In the first case the
hydrogen concentration in the exit gases decreased from 48
to 22% for a CO2/CH4 ratio increasing from 0.5 to 2. The
necessary energy for the production of 1 kg of hydrogen was
of 234 MJ, corresponding to an energy efficiency of about
27%. In the second case the energy cost decreased to 226 MJ
kg−1 H2, with an energy efficiency of about 31%. The same
reaction was performed by means of glow discharges, micro-
arc plasmas and dielectric-barrier discharges, but with low
energy efficiency [19, 20].
The advantage of oxygen addition in the CDRO process is
the supply of additional energy for methane conversion, due to a
parallel reaction of methane oxidation. Laboratory-scale
experiments gave 100% conversion but at a very high energy
−1
expenditure (190–270 MJ kg H2), the energy efficiency
ranging between 23 and 42% [17]. In order to promote an
efficient reforming process, Fridman’s team has used a pulsed
corona discharge reactor with preheating of the inlet gases at
◦
about 900 C [21]. They succeeded in lowering the plasma
−1
energy cost to 34 MJ kg H2. However, the energy spent for
−1
preheating the mixture was about 340 MJ kg H2.
The literature also presents results regarding the use of
thermal plasmas for syngas production starting from gasoline
and diesel fuel, biofuels (canola and corn oil) and even used
tires [22, 23].
4. Chemical reactors
The reformer basically consists of a ceramic lined tube and a
Ni-based fixed catalyst bed for equilibration of the gas
2799
J M Cormier and I Rusu
(figure 1(a)). The preheated feed streams (CH4 + H2O and H2O
+ O2) are mixed in a burner placed at the top where partial
oxidation of the methane occurs. The final steam reforming
takes place in the catalyst bed below the burner. Typically, the
SRO reactor operates at about 2200 K in the combustion zone
and 1200–1400 K in the catalytic zone. Operating pressures
range from 12 to 70 atm. Tests carried out on fixed bed reactors
revealed that one of the most important features concerns the
adiabatic working conditions. Methane conversions up to 90%
with residence times of up to 0.1 s have been found.
Exxon developed a fluidized-bed system in which the
CH4/H2O mixture is fed to the bottom of the reactor and
oxygen is fed into the middle of a fluidized bed of catalyst
(figure 1(b)). The fluidized bed offers the advantage of an
optimal temperature distribution, with the absence of radial and
axial gradients and a lower pressure drop with respect to a fixed
bed operating at the same dimension and space velocity.
The usual catalyst is a Ni catalyst supported on a
refractory material containing a variety of promoters. The
additives are potassium and/or calcium alkali ions, which
mainly serve to suppress excessive carbon deposit on the
catalyst [24]. Recent studies show that catalysts based on
noble metals seem to be more active for SRO [7, 25].
There are several studies presenting comparisons
between different processes of syngas synthesis and the
implied economics [9, 26–30]. The basis of comparisons
rested mainly on four points: raw material consumption,
energy consumption and energy recovery, investments and
operational costs. The conclusion that one can draw from
these studies is that autothermal reforming improves the
steam reforming cost by 10–20%. This means that the
investment varies between 750 and 900 euro per N m3 h−1
and a final hydrogen cost of 0.05–0.08 euro per Nm3.
The shortcomings of the chemical autothermal
reformers concern size, the large investments, the limitations
on rapid response, the extreme operating conditions that
limit the lifetime of a reactor, heat management (during the
front end of the catalyst bed as the methane undergoes total
oxidation), safety and operability.
Possible improvements of the SRO include the use of
membrane technology, the achievement of integrated
autothermal reforming/fuel cell systems and periodically
operated fluidized bed reactors.
Conventional SRO often leads to low hydrogen yield since
the formed H2 may react with oxygen to yield water. To avoid
this problem several authors have proposed a periodic system
with a feed composition alternating between CH4/O2 and
CH4/H2O mixtures [31–33]. It was envisaged that this would
promote independent methane oxidation and steam reforming
steps, and thus minimize hydrogen reconversion. The results
indicate that under periodic cycling, SRO proceeds via the
interaction of entities derived from the dissociative adsorption
of CH4 and H2O leading predominantly to CO2 and H2.
A membrane reactor combines the separation properties of
a membrane with the performance of a catalytic system (figure
1(c)). The combined efforts of Amoco, BP Chemicals, Praxair,
Sasol and Statoil developed an innovative technology, named
OTM (oxygen transport membrane) that can convert natural gas
to syngas with very high selectivity [7]. In this process, a
ceramic perovskite type membrane permits SRO
2800
with separation of oxygen. Air and methane are introduced
into opposite sides of the membrane, the oxygen dissociated
into ions diffuses through the membrane reacting with
methane to give oxidation products.
Air Products, the US Department of Energy, Ceramatec and
other partners have developed a similar reactor technology [34,
35]. The laboratory-scale apparatus has operated with methane
at 7–30 atm and an air feed to the interior membrane at
atmospheric pressure. In the second phase, an engineering
process development unit will test subscale membranes under
3
full operating conditions at a nominal 700 m per day.
The weak point of the membrane reactors is the mass
transfer, which is limited if the membrane does not have
sufficient flux to satisfy the productivity of the catalyst.
Other practical issues, such as membrane pore blockage and
thermal and mechanical stability have limited for the
moment the usefulness of these systems.
Variants of the membrane reactors are the solid oxide fuel
cells (SOFC) and, in the last decade, there has been an increased
interest in the use of SOFC to produce H2 [1, 36, 37]. The
membrane in this case is also an electrode (the anode), made of
porous carbon plates laced with a catalyst. The hydrogen
−
combines with HO ions to produce water vapour and electric
power. Therefore, the chemical energy is converted directly into
electricity. On the anode side, the natural gas is first ejected into
a reforming chamber where it draws waste thermal energy from
the stack and is converted into H2 and CO. It then flows into the
anode manifold where most of the H2 and CO is oxidized. This
gas stream is then partly recycled to the reforming chamber
where the resulting water is used as a reagent. On the cathode
side, air is first blown into a heat exchanger where it reaches
nearly operating temperature. The air is brought up to the
operating temperature by combustion of the remaining H2 and
CO from the anode. The oxygen in the cathode manifold is
converted into an oxygen ion that travels back to the anode. For
hydrogen users, the CO can be converted by the established
mode into CO2 and H2 using a shift reactor followed by CO2
separation.
For a cell voltage ranging between 0.5 and 0.8 V, the
thermodynamic calculations show an efficiency of electricity
and hydrogen generation of about 80% [37]. The system is
simple, efficient, tolerant to impurities and uses cheap
catalysts. Due to the high operating temperatures air
compression is not required. Another advantage is that both
hydrogen and CO are used in the cell. While in other cases,
CO is a poison, in SOFC it is a fuel. Moreover, SOFCs can
provide an effective energy conversion system even for
small-scale plants.
Tanaka et al [38] have designed a combined cycle
system with a solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine.
According to their economic calculations the total electricity
generation efficiency can rise up to 60–70%. The gas turbine
accounts for the greatest investment input (35%), with the
next highest being the fuel cell module (including the
reformer—23%), followed by the heat exchanger (20%).
Although the unit investment cost is higher than that for a
large-scale coal power plant it can still be considered as a
competitive alternative for urban areas. However, a cheaper
reformer would decrease the investment costs.
Among the disadvantages we have to mention that the
SOFCs run at temperatures of 800–1000 ◦C and, therefore,
 Syngas production with SRO: plasmas or chemicals

CH4 + H2O H2O + O2 Syngas Exhaust

Syngas

Burner Cyclone

Membrane
O2
Catalyst
bed
Catalyst Fluidised
bed bed

Syngas CH4 + H2O

Reactants

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Different kinds of chemical reformers.

(2)
Cathode
W/2
Insulator
Air W

Anode
Cooling water W/2

(1) (4)
(3)
Cooling water
Figure 3. Diagram of a microwave plasmatron.

Reactants
Syngas
Figure 2. Diagram of a thermal plasma reactor.
several minutes of fuel burning is required to reach operating
temperature. This delay is considered to be a shortcoming for
automotive applications. However, most of the cells generate
H2 at 1 atm or less and for bulk production this will then require
higher compression to apply the chemical technology [24].
5. Plasma reactors
Depending on their energy, temperature and ionic density,
plasmas are usually classified as either thermal plasmas or
non-thermal (non-equilibrium) plasmas. Generally, the
plasma used for chemical applications is required to provide
a high operating power together with a very selective energy
input while simultaneously maintaining a non-equilibrium
condition [15].
Thermal plasma reactors (plasmatrons) have different con-
structive variants (induction, DC and microwave plasmatrons)
[18, 39]. Basically, the plasmatron comprises two water-cooled
metallic tubular electrodes (figure 2). A spark occurs
in the gap between the electrodes, and the incoming feedstock
gas blows the arc into the arc chamber. The working gas can be
injected directly or tangentially into the gap between elec-
trodes. Applying an external magnetic field can enhance the gas
rotation. The electrodes are usually made of copper but it is
possible to use some new improved alloys, such as beryllium
bronze and tungsten–copper–nickel.
The SRO reaction performed by Bromberg and his team
[40] by the means of a plasmatron, without a catalyst, resulted
in a hydrogen yield of 40% (defined as the ratio of hydrogen
released to hydrogen content in methane) for an input power of
3.5 kW. At low values of input power, the homogeneous
plasma process resulted in low methane conversions (about
3 −1
40%). The device’s productivity was about 4000 m h H2 per
cubic metre of reactor. The minimum power consumption
−1
without heat recovery was about 100 MJ kg H2.
Furthermore, in order to decrease this specific power
consumption a nickel-based catalyst on an alumina support was
used through. The hydrogen yield increased by up to 80%, for
an input power of 2.7 kW and a methane conversion
rate of 70%. The plasma composition of the reformate was of
35%H2, 5%CH4, 3.7%CO, 15%CO2, 41%N2 and traces of C2
hydrocarbons. The required specific energy was reduced to less
−1
than 17 MJ kg H2. The productivity also increased to about
3 −1
10 000 m h H2 per cubic metre of reactor.
The main drawback of using thermal plasmas is the
overheating of the reaction media, when the reagents in all

2801
J M Cormier and I Rusu
V1
C a tho d e
D isc h a rge s
T°
Measure
G a s inle t
Figure 4. Diagram of a three-discharge glidarc reactor.
Table 1. Comparative data for SRO reactors.
Investment cost
(euro/Nm3 h−1 H2 )
Chemical reactors 750–900
Plasma reactors 65
degrees of freedom uniformly consume energy. It is the high
electron temperature that determines the reaction evolution
in non-thermal plasmas, while the gas temperature can
remain as low as room temperature. Non-thermal plasmas
have several types if discharge: glow, corona, dielectric
barrier, microwave, radiofrequency and gliding arc [41, 42].
The microwave discharge operates at very high
frequencies, with which only light electrons can follow the
oscillations of the electric field. Therefore, this discharge is
far from local thermodynamic equilibrium and has the
advantage that it can be used in a wide pressure range.
The electron temperatures in a microwave discharge are
mainly defined by the electric field (Eel ) in the discharge
and by the pressure (P ); however the maximization of the
Eel /P ratio at the discharge axis may be sufficient for
electrodynamic stabilization [43]. This can be achieved by
the interference of microwaves. Practically, the radiation is
introduced into the microwave device along a waveguide
(1), the power W being divided into two identical coherent
components (W/2) by means of a metal pin (2) mounted in a
metal cylinder (3) (figure 3). The discharge is formed into a
dielectric tube (4), Eel taking the highest value in its central
plane. This is due to the fact that the system is symmetrical
with respect to the electric field. Scientists from Kurchatov
Institute of Moscow have studied the SRO experimentally
(5% oxygen for a ratio H2O/CH4 < 1) using such a
continuous microwave discharge plasmatron [43, 44]. The
discharge power was up to 200 kW, the frequency was 915
MHz, the gas-flow rate up to 200 m3 h−1, and the gas
pressure in the reaction zone varied in the range 0.1–1 atm.
In this case the energy consumption was of 42–47 MJ kg−1
H2 for a methane conversion rate higher than 90%.
Quite recently, a simpler alternative approach for plasma
SRO has been proposed–the gliding arc [15, 45]. In this cold
plasma the ionization processes induced by the electric field
dominate the thermal ones and give relatively high-energy
2802
A no d e s
V2 V3
G a s o utle t
T°
M e a su re
C he m ic a l
d ia gno stic s
Investment cost
H2 cost SOFC-GT-SRO system
(euro/Nm3) (euro/W)
0.05–0.08 5.12
0.23 4.59
electrons as well as excited ions, atoms or molecules that
promote selective chemical transitions efficiently. Such a
gliding arc occurs when the plasma is generated between two
or more diverging electrodes placed in a fast gas flow [46].
The average residence time of the reagents in the reaction
zone is about 10−3 s. This fact allows very high specific
throughputs in the reaction zone, which generally exceed, by
four orders of magnitude, other chemical methods, including
electrochemical and thermal ones. The literature presents
several studies modelling the behaviour of glidarcs trying to
predict the working parameters in different experimental
conditions [47–53].
The electrical circuit of a gliding arc consists of a high
voltage generator (up to 10 kV) used to ignite the discharge
and a second power generator with a voltage up to 1 kV and
a total current up to 10 A. Current limitation is achieved by
means of inductance.
The experiments for generating syngas by SRO in gliding
arc reactors have only been performed in the laboratory.
Researchers from GREMI, Universite´ d’Orleans,´ have used a
reactor with an inner cone-shaped electrode and an external
metallic tube as a second electrode. This plasma reactor
generates turning gliding arc discharges, produced by the radial
injection of the gas mixture. Approximately 40% of the methane
submits to chemical transformation at a conversion cost of about
−1 −1
89 MJ kg H2 and to 125 kJ mole of converted methane,
when a ratio of H2O/CH4 = 4.5 was used through. The electric
power ranged between 0.1 and 0.3 kW with an output energy
efficiency of 40%. The productivity was as high as 10 000 m
3
−1 3
h H2 per m of reactor, operating at atmospheric pressure.
Further tests started in Spring 2001 with a multiple discharge
reactor (figure 4) using various catalysts.
We now present some preliminary results concerning the
costs of syngas production by means of plasma reformers. There
are three major costs in the manufacturing of hydrogen-rich gas:
the natural gas cost, the electricity cost and the

investment for the reactor system. For both the plasmatron
and the turning gliding-arc reactor a capital cost of 0.6 euro
per Watt of electrical power, that means about 65 euro per
Nm3 h−1 of hydrogen is estimated. This includes the cost of
the power supply and the reactor. The calculation assumes
that the capital equipment depreciates over a three-year
period. For a specific energy consumption of 16 MJ kg−1 H2
the cost of the produced hydrogen is about 0.23 euro m −3.
However, larger systems will produce hydrogen at lower
costs and one must appreciate the high productivity of
plasma reactors, due to their low dimensions.
6. Conclusion
SCL is becoming increasingly important for economic,
environmental and strategic reasons. Different authors admit
that a 25% capital cost reduction in current technology
would have a major impact on the overall economics of SCL
[11, 17, 54]. Plasma reactors represent an incisive approach
by their simplicity, compactness and low price (see table 1).
For small-scale units providing hydrogen for fuel cells, not
only for automotive applications, the choice of technology
may be dictated by such parameters as simplicity and quick
response to transients. Although SRO by means of chemical
reactors may be the most efficient, the use of plasma
reactors may quite soon become the preferred choice. Much
more work has to be done on the use of catalysts and reactor
design (including heat recovery).
References
[1] Fouhy K and Ondrey G 1996 Chem. Eng. August 46–7
[2] Cohn D R, Rabinovich A, Titus C H and Bromberg L 1997
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 22 715–23
[3] Newsome D S and Mandelik B G 1981 Kirk-Othmer
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology vol 12, 3rd
edn (New York: Wiley-Interscience) p 938
[4] Wender I 1996 Fuel Process Technol. 48 189–297
[5] Minchener A J 1999 Mech. Engng Mag. on line July
[6] Liu C, Mallison R and Lobban L 1998 J. Catalysis 179 326–34
[7] Freni S, Calogero G and Cavallaro S 2000 J. Power Sources
86 90–7
[8] Wilhelm D J, Simbeck D R, Karp A D and Dickenson R L
2001 Fuel Process Technol. 71 139–48
[9] Pena˜ M A, Gomez´ J P and Fierro J L G 1996 Appl. Catal.
A 144 7–57
[10] Pekhota F N, Rusanov V D and Malyshenko S P 1998 Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 23 967–70
[11] Chan S H and Wang H M 2000 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
25 441–9
[12] Bromberg L, Cohn D R, Rabinovich A and Alexeev N 1999
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 24 1131–7
[13] Trusov B G 1994 Dokl. Phys. Chem. 339 239–42
[14] O’Brien C J, Hochgreb S, Rabinovich A, Bromberg L and Cohn
D R 1996 Proc. 31st Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conf. (Piscataway, USA: IEEE) 1747–52
[15] Fridman A, Nester S, Kennedy L A, Saveliev A and
Yardimci O M 1999 Progr. Energy Comb. Sci. 25 211–31
[16] Dalaine V and Czernichowski A 1993 Application of Gliding
Discharges to Plasma Chemistry (Research Report)
(Orleans:´ GREMI) p 10
[17] Lesueur H, Czernichowski A and Chapelle A 1994 Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 19 139–44
[18] Meguernes K, Chapelle J and Czernichowski A 2001
Thermal Plasma Processes at press
Syngas production with SRO: plasmas or chemicals
[19] Huang A, Xia G, Wang J, Suib S L, Hayashi Y
and Matsumoto H 2000 J. Catalysis 189 349–59
[20] Zhou L M, Xue B, Kogelschatz U and Eliasson B 1998 Energy
& Fuels 12 1191–9
[21] Mutaf-Yardimci O, Saveliev A, Fridman A and Kennedy L
A 1998 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 23 1109–11
[22] Bromberg L, Cohn D R, Rabinovich A, Surma J E and
Virden J 1999 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 24 341–50
[23] Chang J S 1996 J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Environ.
Sci. Eng. Toxic Hazard. Subst. Control 7 1781–99
[24] Armor J N 1999 Appl. Catalysis A 176 159–76
[25] Sanfilippo D, Basini L and Marchionna M EU Patent
Appl. 94202270.8
[26] Gaudernack B and Lynum S 1999 Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
24 1131–7
[27] Assberg-Petersen K, Stub Nielsen C and Jorgensen S L G
1998 Catalysis Today 46 193–201
[28] Agee K L, Agee M A, Willingham F Y and Trepper E L
1996 Proc. 75th GPA Ann. Conv. 134–9
[29] Gradassi M J and Green N W 1995 Fuel Process Technol.
42 65–83
[30] Zaman J 1999 Fuel Process Technol. 58 61–81
[31] Lapidus L and Amundsen N R (eds) 1977 Chemical Reactor
Theory: A Review (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall) p 758
[32] Opoku-Gyamafi K and Adesina A A 1999 Chem. Eng. Sci. 54
2575–83
[33] Opoku-Gyamafi K, Vieira-Dias J and Adesina A A
2000 Catalysis Today 63 507–15
[34] Armor J N 1998 J. Membr. Sci. 147 217–33
[35] Dyer P N, Richards R E, Rusek S L and Taylor D M
2000 Solid State Ionics 134 21–33
[36] Cavallaro S and Freni S 2000 J. Power Sources 76 190–6
[37] Vollmar H E, Maier C U, Nolscher¨ C, Merklein T
and Poppinger M 2000 J. Power Sources 86 90–7
[38] Tanaka K, Wen C and Yamada K 2000 Fuel 79 1493–507
[39] Bromberg L, Cohn D R and Rabinovich A 1997 Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 22 83–94
[40] Bromberg L, Cohn D R, Rabinovich A, O’Brien C
and Hochgreb S 1998 Energy & Fuels 12 11–18
[41] Eliasson B and Kogelschatz U 1991 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.
19 1063–77
[42] Liu C, Xu G and Wang T 1999 Fuel Process Technol. 58
119–34
[43] Potapkin B, Rusanov V and Jivotov V K 2000 Microwave
Discharge for the Environment Protection (Electrical
Discharges for Environmental Purposes. Fundamentals
and Applications) ed E M Van Veldhuizen (Huntington:
Nova) p 345
[44] Azizov R, Krotov M, Potapkin B and Rusanov V 1998
Proc. Int. Conf. on Microwave Chemistry (Prague:
Academy of Sciences) 62–7
[45] Reveau N, Nikravech M, Martinie O, Lefaucheux P and
Cormier J M 2000 Proc. HAKONE VII ed H E Wagner, J
F Behnke and G Babucke 252–6
[46] Lesueur H, Czernichowski A and Chapelle J 1990 J.
Physique Coll. C5 51–7
[47] Richard F, Cormier J-M, Pellerin S and Chapelle J
1996 J. Appl. Phys. 79 2245–50
[48] Pellerin S, Cormier J-M, Chapelle J and Kassabji F 1997 Proc.
13th Int. Symp. Plasma Chem. vol II ed C K Wu
(Peking: Peking University Press) pp 813–18
[49] Pellerin S, Cormier J-M, Musiol K, Pokrzywka B, Koulidiati
J, Richard F and Chapelle J 1998 High Temp. Mater. Proc.
2 49–68
[50] Pellerin S, Cormier J-M, Richard F, Musiol K and Chapelle
J 1999 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 32 891–7
[51] Pellerin S, Martinie O, Cormier J-M, Chapelle J and
Lefaucheux P 1999 J. High Temp. Mater. Proc. 3 167–80
[52] Mutaf-Yardimci O, Saveliev A V, Porshnev P I, Fridman A A and
Kennedy L A 1999 Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 891 304–8
[53] Pellerin S, Richard F, Chapelle J, Cormier J-M and Musiol
K 2000 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 33 1–13
[54] Rostrup-Nielsen J R 2000 Catalysis Today 63 159–64
2803