Spent nickel steam-reforming catalyst secondary resource
Used nickel-bearing catalyst from primary steam reforming, represented by a spent nickel-oxide/alumina formulation supplied by an unnamed fertilizer plant. This use-defined secondary resource is distinct from vegetable-oil hydrogenation catalyst, platinum petroleum-reforming catalyst, fresh catalyst and elemental nickel. The selected feed composition does not define every steam-reforming formulation. No constituent criticality or mineral identifier is inherited.
Microbial & Biochemical Mechanisms (1)
EDTA extraction and acid dechelation of nickel from spent steam-reforming catalyst
separation
Disodium EDTA in alkaline solution extracted nickel from prepared spent catalyst; acid dechelation separated reusable EDTA from a nickel-bearing solution. This is an abiotic laboratory experiment. The paper describes a nickel nitrate solution after nitric-acid treatment, not an isolated metallic nickel product.
Experimental Context & Analytical Limits:
The abstract and Table 1 identify primary steam-reformer catalyst from a local fertilizer company. Table 1 reports nickel oxide 16%, alumina 78%, calcium oxide below 6% and silicon below 0.1%, all by weight; 16% NiO is not 16% elemental nickel. The original pellets were cylindrical, 1.5 cm outer diameter, 1 cm inner diameter and 1 cm long. Methods describe crushing 100 g to 5 mm, coke removal at 600 degrees C for 6 hours, then screening to 1-2 mm. Laboratory batch extraction used 5 g prepared catalyst and EDTA dissolved with NaOH at pH 10-12. The source names pH 10 for its extraction comparisons and reported best conditions. Methods describe filtration of alumina residue, nitric-acid dechelation, EDTA filtration, washing with hot distilled water and drying at 80 degrees C. Nickel analysis used AAS and UV-visible spectrophotometry at 394 nm. Replicate counts, error bars, a full nickel mass balance and cycle-resolved EDTA reuse data are not established.
The abstract and Table 1 identify primary steam-reformer catalyst from a local fertilizer company. Table 1 reports nickel oxide 16%, alumina 78%, calcium oxide below 6% and silicon below 0.1%, all by weight; 16% NiO is not 16% elemental nickel. The original pellets were cylindrical, 1.5 cm outer diameter, 1 cm inner diameter and 1 cm long. Methods describe crushing 100 g to 5 mm, coke removal at 600 degrees C for 6 hours, then screening to 1-2 mm. Laboratory batch extraction used 5 g prepared catalyst and EDTA dissolved with NaOH at pH 10-12. The source names pH 10 for its extraction comparisons and reported best conditions. Methods describe filtration of alumina residue, nitric-acid dechelation, EDTA filtration, washing with hot distilled water and drying at 80 degrees C. Nickel analysis used AAS and UV-visible spectrophotometry at 394 nm. Replicate counts, error bars, a full nickel mass balance and cycle-resolved EDTA reuse data are not established.
Curated Evidence Points:
Support
Source:
oza_2011_edta
The abstract, Results and Discussion on page 200, and Conclusion report up to 95% nickel extraction after 7 hours at 1 M EDTA, solid:liquid 1:10 g/mL, 1-2 mm particles, pH 10, 400 rpm and 90 degrees C. This is the authors' reported laboratory extraction result, subject to the internal inconsistencies below; it is not an independently reconciled mass-balance yield or evidence of isolated product recovery.
Partial
Source:
oza_2011_edta
Methods on page 198 state a 4-6 hour reaction, whereas the abstract and conclusion name 7 hours; Table 2 spans 0-8 hours. Table 2 labels concentration as acid concentration 10-80% by volume, unlike the EDTA series of 0.1-1.0 M in the results. Its solid:liquid range ends at 1:30 while the results also test 1:40. These protocol discrepancies remain unresolved.
Partial
Source:
oza_2011_edta
Figures 2-4 on page 199 give visibly different extraction values at nominally shared 30 degrees C, 1 M EDTA, solid:liquid 1:10 g/mL, 400 rpm and 5 hours. Figures 4 and 5 also disagree at nominally shared 90 degrees C and 5 hours. No precise values are inferred from these plots or silently reconciled; confidence in the numerical response surface and reported optimum is limited.
Partial
Source:
oza_2011_edta
Figure 1 labels sulfuric/hydrochloric acid in dechelation, whereas the abstract and methods specify nitric acid. The printed nickel formula, complex charge and calibration equation do not independently establish solution speciation or a validated calibration. The record follows the explicit methods for the named arm and does not adopt the printed reaction stoichiometry as verified chemistry.
Partial
Source:
oza_2011_edta
The Conclusion reports 97-99% EDTA recovery and describes repeated reuse and economic viability, but no cycle-resolved performance, independent economic assessment or industrial implementation is demonstrated. Extraction into solution and EDTA recovery are different endpoints; no universal selectivity, closed-loop performance or commercial-scale recovery claim is accepted.
Sources & References
-
oza_2011_edta: Oza, Rachit; Shah, Nikhil; Patel, Sanjay (2011). Extraction of Nickel from Spent Catalyst Using EDTA as Chelating Agent. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 10(2):197-200. Complete four-page publisher original; Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, Tables 1-2 and Figures 1-5. No DOI verified.
https://neptjournal.com/upload-images/NL-32-6-(6)B-1633com.pdf (accessed 2026-10-15)
Curation History
| Timestamp | Curator | Action | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
2026-10-15T23:51:39.376500+00:00 |
Codex (GPT-6; Codex) | CREATE | Created a use-defined spent nickel steam-reforming catalyst resource with narrowly qualified laboratory EDTA extraction and explicit protocol, figure and product-scope limitations. |
Record source: data/records/spent-nickel-steam-reforming-catalyst.yaml