# Chemical Looping CH4 Reforming Through Isothermal Two-Step Redox Cycling of SrFeO3 Oxygen Carrier in a Tubular Solar Reactor

Stéphane Abanades, Xinhe Wang, Srirat Chuayboon

► To cite this version:

Stéphane Abanades, Xinhe Wang, Srirat Chuayboon. Chemical Looping CH4 Reforming Through Isothermal Two-Step Redox Cycling of SrFeO3 Oxygen Carrier in a Tubular Solar Reactor. Molecules, 2025, 30 (5), pp.1076. 10.3390/molecules30051076. [hal-04983160](https://hal.science/hal-04983160v1)

HAL Id: hal-04983160

https://hal.science/hal-04983160v1

Submitted on 8 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Chemical Looping CH₄ Reforming Through Isothermal Two-Step Redox Cycling of SrFeO₃ Oxygen Carrier in a Tubular Solar Reactor

Stéphane Abanades <fnref n="1" />,* ID, Xinhe Wang <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> and Srirat Chuayboon <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" /> ID

**Abstract:** The chemical looping reforming of methane using an SrFeO₃ oxygen carrier to produce synthesis gas from solar energy was experimentally investigated and validated. High-temperature solar heat was used to provide the reaction enthalpy, and therefore the methane feedstock was entirely dedicated to producing syngas. The two-step isothermal process encompassed partial perovskite reduction with methane (partial oxidation of CH₄) and exothermic oxidation of SrFeO₃-δ with CO₂ or H₂O splitting under the same operating temperature. The oxygen carrier material was shaped in the form of a reticulated porous foam structure for enhancing heat and mass transfer, and it was cycled in a solar-heated tubular reactor under different operating parameters (temperature: 950-1050 °C, methane mole fraction: 5-30%, and type of oxidant gas: H₂O vs. CO₂). This study aimed to assess the fuel production capacity of the two-step process and to demonstrate the potential of using strontium ferrite perovskite during solar cycling for the first time. The maximum H₂ and CO production rates during CH₄-induced reduction were 70 and 25 mL/min at 1000 °C and 15% CH₄ mole fraction. The increase in both the cycle temperature and the methane mole fraction promoted the reduction step, thereby enhancing syngas yields up to 569 mL/g during reduction at 1000 °C under 30% CH₄ (778 mL/g including both cycle steps), and thus outperforming the performance of the benchmark ceria material. In contrast, the oxidation step was not significantly affected by the experimental conditions and the material's redox performance was weakly dependent on the nature of the oxidizing gas. The syngas yield remained above 200 mL/g during the oxidation step either with H₂O or CO₂. Twelve successive redox cycles with stable patterns in the syngas production yields validated material stability. Combining concentrated solar energy and chemical looping reforming was shown to be a promising and sustainable pathway toward carbon-neutral solar fuels.

**Keywords:** chemical looping; methane reforming; concentrated solar energy; solar reactor; perovskite; thermochemical redox cycle; solar fuel; hydrogen; water/CO₂ splitting

## 1. Introduction

Concentrated solar power is a renewable energy source for process heat supply to drive high-temperature thermochemical reactions, such as pyrolysis, reforming, and gasification reactions, or two-step redox cycles for fuel production. Solar energy is clean, abundant, and

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

Academic Editor: Eun Duck Park

Received: 2 February 2025

Revised: 17 February 2025

Accepted: 24 February 2025

Published: 26 February 2025

**Citation:** Abanades, S.; Wang, X.; Chuayboon, S. Chemical Looping CH₄ Reforming Through Isothermal Two-Step Redox Cycling of SrFeO₃ Oxygen Carrier in a Tubular Solar Reactor. *Molecules* **2025**, *30*, 1076.
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30051076

**Copyright:** © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote n="1">1 CNRS, Processes, Materials and Solar Energy Laboratory (PROMES-CNRS), 7 Rue du Four Solaire, 66120 Font-Romeu, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, China</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Prince of Chumphon Campus, Chumphon 86160, Thailand</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: stephane.abanades@promes.cnrs.fr</footnote>
carbon-neutral [1,2], but it is dilute and intermittent. Thermochemical redox cycles driven with concentrated sunlight are a promising pathway to store intermittent solar energy as transportable and dispatchable chemical fuels by H₂O or CO₂ splitting to produce syngas. The resulting syngas (a mixture of H₂ and CO) can be further converted to liquid hydrocarbon fuel via Fischer–Tropsch [3] or utilized for the production of methanol, ammonia, or dimethyl ether [4]. Nevertheless, the major issues of cyclic processes like these are the high reduction temperature required for a significant reduction extent (typically > 1400 °C), and the required temperature swing between the reduction and oxidation steps to enhance fuel production capacity, resulting in high sensible heat losses and leading to a decrease in solar-to-fuel energy conversion efficiency.

Alternatively, the conventional production of syngas through the reforming of CH₄ (steam or dry reforming [5–9]) requires a catalyst, which may lead to catalyst deactivation issues through carbon deposition. The Ni catalysts commercially used in reforming suffer from rapid deactivation due to severe coke deposition [10]. Therefore, a steam excess (about 3–5 times the stoichiometric amount) is required in steam reforming to avoid carbon formation, thereby leading to energy losses.

Chemical looping reforming of methane (CLRM) over metal oxide oxygen carrier materials can be used to overcome such issues [11–15]. CLRM results in the partial oxidation of methane without the use of gaseous oxidants or catalysts, while the process can be operated as a two-step cycle at relatively low temperatures (about 800–1000 °C) thanks to the use of a gaseous reductant [16–19]. The oxygen carrier redox material is first partially reduced by methane, producing syngas (also known as the methane partial oxidation step), according to Equation (1).

$$MeO_x + \delta CH_4 \rightarrow MeO_{x-\delta} + \delta CO + 2 \delta H_2 \quad (1)$$

In a second step (Equation (2)), the reduced material is oxidized by H₂O or CO₂, recovering the lattice oxygen and generating pure H₂ or CO (water or CO₂ splitting step), while the solid oxide can be recycled back.

$$MeO_{x-\delta} + \delta H_2O/CO_2 \rightarrow MeO_x + \delta H_2/CO \quad (2)$$

The above global reactions are equivalent to conventional reforming, which consists of steam methane reforming (SMR, Equation (3)) and dry reforming of methane (DRM, Equation (4)):

$$CH_4 + H_2O \rightarrow 3H_2 + CO \quad (3)$$

$$CH_4 + CO_2 \rightarrow 2H_2 + 2CO \quad (4)$$

The heat required for the endothermic reaction can be supplied by solar energy using concentrating solar technologies, enabling solar energy conversion to clean and storable chemical fuels [20]. This two-step combined process (methane reforming and H₂O/CO₂ splitting) requires a significantly lower reduction temperature in comparison with the two-step metal oxide redox cycles [21,22], thanks to the use of a reducing gas (CH₄) in the first step. Hence, isothermal cycling is made possible because the metal oxide reduction with CH₄ and the H₂O/CO₂ splitting steps can be carried out at the same temperatures. Accordingly, the thermal constraints imposed on the reactor and oxygen carrier materials are alleviated, the need for sensible heat recovery between cycle steps is eliminated, and thermal radiation losses are reduced. Moreover, the deposited carbon can be concomitantly gasified in the H₂O or CO₂ splitting step before the next reduction step, and the two-step process eliminates the need for a catalyst, thereby avoiding any catalyst deactivation issues through carbon deposition that may occur in the conventional reforming process. Com-
pared with direct combustion, the conversion of methane to syngas driven by solar energy has more favorable economics, with a reduced environmental footprint. When bio-methane is utilized as feedstock, produced syngas becomes carbon neutral. Solar energy storage as high-value syngas is achieved, for subsequent conversion into liquid hydrocarbons used as transportable and dispatchable chemical fuels. Solar chemical looping reforming allows for the valorization of methane and provides an attractive pathway for the sustainable storage of intermittent solar energy as renewable fuels.

The feasibility of using different metal oxides as oxygen carriers for CH₄ partial oxidation has been experimentally reported, including zinc oxide [23–27], iron oxide [28], tungsten oxide [29], ceria (CeO₂) [11–13,30], and cerium-based mixed oxides [11,31,32]. Among the potential metal oxides previously investigated, ceria has emerged as an attractive oxygen carrier candidate owing to its favorable physical and chemical properties [33–35], such as high oxygen storage and release capacities combined with rapid oxygen exchange rates through lattice transfer, crystallographic stability through thermochemical cycles [36], and reversible transition between Ce(IV)/Ce(III) oxidation states [37,38]. These materials, based on either doped or undoped ceria, have been shown to be attractive for the partial oxidation of CH₄ [11,20,32,37,39–43]. The selection of new suitable oxygen carrier materials for solar-driven CLRM is required, and they should exhibit high redox activity and selectivity, thermal stability, and be low-cost and environmentally friendly [15]. Different single metal oxides, including Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Ce-based oxides, have been investigated as oxygen carrier materials for chemical looping applications [44–46]. Mixed oxides also attract attention, since their redox performance can be promoted via doping, compositing, or encapsulating [47–49]. Perovskite-based oxygen carriers represent another promising class of materials for CLRM, because they offer attractive redox properties, high oxygen exchange capacity, and a fast oxygen anion migration rate [50,51]. However, the redox activity of perovskites in solar reactors applied to CLRM has not been extensively investigated to date.

In addition, different structured materials have been considered to promote surface reactions including porous foam [34,52], macroporous structures [53], or fibers/felts [54]. The coating of ceria foam with La₀.₅Sr₀.₅Mn₀.₉Mg₀.₁O₃ was tested for two-step CO₂/H₂O splitting [55], and enhanced the oxygen exchange between redox phases in the reduction step and led to increased fuel production. Oxygen carriers with porous structures like this exhibit a beneficial effect on heat and mass transfer in solar thermochemical processes. In contrast, oxygen carriers in the form of powder may induce high flow resistance, causing pressure drop, powder packing hindering the access of the reactive gases to the bulk material, and possible particle entrainment by the gas flow. Conversely, porous structures acting as the reactive material itself inherently combine the advantages of volumetric radiative absorption, low-pressure drop, high geometric surface area, rapid reaction rates, and high mass loading of the reactive material in the reactor.

Among various oxygen carrier materials, ABO₃ perovskites exhibit remarkable redox reversibility, oxygen mobility, oxygen storage capacity, and electronic and crystal structural flexibility [56–58]. The A site of perovskite oxides usually contains large metal cations, such as La, Sr, and other alkali metals, which coordinate to 12 oxygen ions. The B site contains smaller cations, such as transition metals (Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, etc.), where six O atoms form a hexagonal BO₆-type structure. Several strategies have been proposed to improve the redox performance of perovskite-type oxygen carriers [59,60]. The doping of LaFeO₃ perovskite with Co increased the reactivity of LaFeO₃ and inhibited methane cracking, while LaFe₀.₇Co₀.₃O₃ showed the best performance and remained stable over 20 redox cycles [59]. High activity in solar-driven CL-SMR was observed for Fe-doped BaMnO₃ perovskite with a syngas yield and a steam conversion approaching 90% [60].
Strontium ferrite (SrFeO₃⁻δ, SFO) has been proposed as a potential material for CLRM [61]. According to thermodynamics, strontium ferrite perovskite appears to be a promising oxygen carrier for CLRM at temperatures of 800–1200 °C [61–64]. Besides favorable thermodynamic properties, it has also the advantages of being low-cost while being easily tunable. Dispersing SrFeO₃⁻δ in a CaO medium could enhance the reactivity, cyclability, and thermal stability of SrFeO₃⁻δ. Zhang et al. [63] dispersed the SrFeO₃⁻δ reactive perovskite phase into a CaO support to make a mixed oxide nanocomposite, which significantly increased the redox stability and kinetics. The influence of the composition of SrFeO₃⁻δ-CaO nanocomposite on CL-DRM was investigated, in order to optimize CH₄ conversion and syngas production rate. The composition of 10 wt% SrFeO₃⁻δ-CaO nanocomposite led to the maximum CH₄ conversion (88%) and syngas production rate (1.8 mol kgSFO⁻¹ min⁻¹), whereas the composition of 80 wt% SrFeO₃⁻δ-CaO nanocomposite showed the maximum syngas production (27.3 mol kgSFO⁻¹) [64]. Wang et al. [65] studied the SrFeO₃⁻δ/CaO–MnO nanocomposite as an effective oxygen carrier for chemical looping partial oxidation of methane. SrFeO₃⁻δ-Ca₀.₅Mn₀.₅O nanocomposite exhibited high activity and facilitated coke gasification [66]. In the reduction step of 27 successive redox cycles, the production rate of CO changed marginally, and the CO yield was maintained at about 1.9 mmol/g while the production of H₂ tended to be stable at 3.8 mmol/g (i.e., twice the CO yield). However, using inert supports may also induce process limitations. Indeed, dispersing the active phase in an inert supporting medium downgrades the overall fuel production capacity of the system (i.e., fuel yield per unit mass of involved material), while it also requires an additional energy supply to heat the whole structure. Moreover, chemical interactions with the support may occur. Therefore, the use of pure active phases should be preferred for enhanced process efficiency.

Modifications via partial substitution of other cations for Sr and/or Fe cations have also been considered [67,68]. Zhu et al. [69] synthesized the Sr₀.₉₈Fe₀.₇Co₀.₃O₃⁻δ perovskite-structured oxygen carrier while they combined both A-site defects and B-site doping of SrFeO₃⁻δ. Isothermal CL-DRM experiments were conducted at 850 °C, and the material achieved CH₄ conversion of 87% and a CO selectivity of 94% during the first step (CH₄ partial oxidation), while a syngas yield of 8.5 mmol/g and CO yield of 4.2 mmol/g were obtained in the second step (CO₂ splitting). In addition, the redox performance of La₀.₉Sr₀.₁FeO₃ perovskite modified with yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) was investigated during chemical looping (CH₄ partial oxidation/CO₂ splitting) at 850 °C, showing syngas yields of 476 µmol min⁻¹ g⁻¹ for H₂ and 432 µmol min⁻¹ g⁻¹ for CO [70]. A CuO-modified La₀.₇Sr₀.₃FeO₃ (LSF) was investigated to improve the redox activity of the oxygen carrier at moderate temperatures (750 °C) [68]. Finally, SrFeO₃⁻δ perovskites doped with low amounts of Co or Ni were studied as oxygen carriers for CL-DRM [71]. These doped materials had an accelerated phase transition in the first reduction step, compared with pristine SrFeO₃⁻δ. Accordingly, the cation doping resulted in enhancing both the CH₄ conversion and the amount of lattice oxygen consumption.

In this study, strontium ferrite perovskite was used as an oxygen carrier for CLRM to demonstrate the feasibility of solar fuel synthesis using an affordable and efficient redox material, without including any additional inert support. The solar process aims to produce hydrogen-rich syngas from methane reforming combined with the splitting of H₂O and CO₂ molecules using concentrated solar energy as the process heat source, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A foam structure was synthesized by replication and cycled to evaluate the thermochemical performance in a solar-heated tubular reactor. In most previous studies, electrically-heated reactors have been used, whereas solar reactors have scarcely been developed for cycling operations under real conditions with variable incident sunlight and non-uniform heat flux conditions. In this work, the material was thus
subjected to consecutive isothermal redox cycles under highly concentrated solar heating to determine its redox activity and fuel production performance during both cycle steps, including methane partial oxidation and H₂O/CO₂ splitting. While ceria redox materials have mostly been considered for solar-driven CLRM, the performance of a strontium ferrite perovskite material in a solar-heated reactor has never been investigated before. The solar reactor was successfully tested during continuous redox cycling of perovskite porous foam. The effect of the main operating parameters (including cycle temperature, CH₄ mole fraction, and type of oxidant gas) on the syngas production capacity was unraveled. The redox cyclability and thermochemical stability of the material were also investigated to provide insights into the applicability of this material for solar-driven chemical looping fuel production.

## 2. Results and Discussion

The oxygen carrier material was cycled in the solar tubular reactor (mass of loaded sample: m = 1.93 g) to investigate the impact of the main operating parameters on the redox cycling performance during methane CLR. The effect of the reaction temperature, oxidant gas (H₂O vs. CO₂), and CH₄ mole fraction on the gas production rates and yields was evidenced through 12 consecutive cycles. Successive cycles were carried out without changing the material to confirm that the same oxygen carrier can be cycled under various operating conditions without any significant change in the redox activity. This confirms that the reactivity is not altered due to modification of the operating conditions. Moreover, the parameters were studied in sequence, for example, cycles #3 to #5 for the effect of temperature (950–1000–1050 °C), and cycles #9 to #12 for the effect of the CH₄ mole fraction (5–30%). Repeatability tests were also performed at the reference condition (1000 °C and 15% CH₄) to check the results’ reproducibility. This operating condition was repeated several times to check the stability of redox performance. In particular, cycles #1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 were performed under the same operating conditions to evaluate the performance of cyclic experiments. A summary of the experimental performance results is reported in Table S1 (Supplementary Materials).

### 2.1. Influence of Temperature on Syngas Production

A series of five consecutive cycles with CH₄ partial oxidation followed by H₂O splitting was performed to investigate the effect of temperature (950 °C, 1000 °C, 1050 °C) on syngas production capacity. Both the reduction and the oxidation steps were carried out at the same temperature through isothermal redox cycling. The obtained syngas production rates versus time profiles are reported in Figure 1. Globally, the evolution patterns are similar, which confirms the results’ reproducibility and material stability, as evidenced by cycles #1, #2, and #4 repeated at 1000 °C. During CH₄-induced reduction (CH₄ flowrate: 75 mL/min, with 15% mole fraction), the methane flowrate in the outlet stream increased rapidly after feeding methane into the solar reactor and then reached a maximum during the initial stage. H₂ and CO flowrates increased promptly as soon as CH₄ was injected, then slowed down and finally increased again to reach a peak about 8 min after CH₄ injection at 1000 °C. The maximum H₂ and CO flowrates were about 70 and 25 mL/min at 1000 °C (cycles #1 and #2). In the meantime, the flowrate of CH₄ decreased and reached a minimum value when the H₂ and CO flowrates were maximum, which denotes maximum CH₄ conversion. Subsequently, H₂ and CO started to decline while the CH₄ flowrate increased again to reach the inlet value, denoting the end of the reaction. The formation of CO₂ was detected only in the initial stage at the beginning of CH₄ injection, due to the reaction of surface oxygen with CH₄ according to Equation (10). The simultaneous production of both CO₂ and H₂O (twice the amount of CO₂) was thus expected from complete methane oxidation,
although H₂O was not measured by gas analysis. At the end of the reaction, the H₂ and CO production rates returned to negligible values while the CH₄ flowrate approached the inlet value (75 mL/min), thus indicating reaction completion. The slight production of H₂ at the end of the reaction (H₂ flowrate not returning to zero as in the case of CO) was attributed to the CH₄ cracking reaction forming H₂ and solid carbon (coke) on the surface of the oxygen carrier.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** *Cont.*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Influence of temperature on syngas production rates for CH₄ partial oxidation and H₂O splitting steps in (a,b) cycle #1 @ 1000 °C, (c,d) cycle #2 @ 1000 °C, (e,f) cycle #3 @ 950 °C, (g,h) cycle #4 @ 1000 °C, and (i,j) cycle #5 @ 1050 °C. Reaction conditions: m<sub>SFO</sub> = 1.93 g, F<sub>red</sub> = 0.5 NL/min (15% CH₄), F<sub>ox</sub> = 0.736 NL/min (32.1% H₂O).</figcaption></figure>

It can be noted that the production of light hydrocarbons (C<sub>n</sub>H<sub>m</sub>, n ≥ 2) was detected in the outlet stream, but their amount remained low (3 mL in cycle #1) and such species were attributed to methane coupling reactions (nCH<sub>4</sub> → C<sub>n</sub>H<sub>m</sub> + (2n − 0.5m)H<sub>2</sub>). Their production occurred chiefly at the initial stage of the reduction step, when methane flowrate in the outlet stream reached the local maximum. The flowrate of light hydrocarbons then decreased smoothly and then slowly increased at the end of the reaction when H<sub>2</sub> and CO declined.

During the oxidation step, H₂O was injected (0.19 g/min, 0.24 NL/min, 32.1% in Ar) to reoxidize the partially reduced perovskite material. A sharp production of H₂ was measured along with a moderate production of CO due to the reaction of coke with H₂O forming both CO and additional H₂ (Equation (11)). The production of CO₂ (Equations (12) and (13)) remained negligible. The time to reach maximum flowrates was shorter for CO and H₂ than for CO₂. This delay in CO₂ evolution can be attributed to the sequential mechanism leading to the formation of CO₂ (carbon gasification, Equation (11), followed by a water-gas shift reaction, Equation (12)). At the early stage of the oxidation step, steam is mainly consumed by the oxidation reaction of the material, and the water-gas shift reaction remains negligible. At the late stage of the oxidation step, steam is in excess and thus the shift reaction is favored. The maximum H₂ flowrate reached 170 mL/min in cycles #1 and
#2 and increased to over 180 mL/min in other cycles, whereas the CO flowrate remained below 30 mL/min in all the cycles. Moreover, the CO flowrate decreased to zero faster than the H₂ flowrate. This means that the carbon gasification (Equation (11)) was faster than the perovskite oxidation with H₂O producing H₂ (Equation (6)).

A significant impact of temperature on syngas production rates and reaction duration was noticed and was more pronounced for the reduction than for the oxidation step. The maximum H₂ flowrate in the first step increased from 31 mL/min at 950 °C (cycle #3) to 100 mL/min at 1050 °C (cycle #5), while the CO flowrate also increased moderately from 11 to 36 mL/min. The maximum CH₄ conversion (ratio of CH₄ converted to CH₄ in the feed gas) also increased with the temperature from 21.5% at 950 °C (cycle #3) to 62.4% at 1050 °C (cycle #5). The duration of the reduction step was also drastically shortened when the temperature was increased (13 min at 1050 °C vs. >35 min at 950 °C). In contrast, the oxidation step duration was not drastically influenced by the temperature (5 min at 950 °C vs. 4 min at 1050 °C).

Figure 2 illustrates the influence of temperature on the gas production yields for cycles #1 to #5. Globally, the H₂ and CO yields in the CH₄ reduction step increased slightly with temperatures between 950 and 1050 °C, whereas the H₂ and CO yields in the second oxidation step remained stable. The H₂ yield increased from 639 mL at 950 °C to 675 mL at 1050 °C, while the CO yield rose from 240 mL to 260 mL in the first step. A higher syngas yield was observed during the first cycle at 1000 °C, presumably due to the fresh material not being cycled, resulting in the absence of coke deposit on the surface, which is associated with a higher reactivity. The total H₂ and CO yields including both steps were 1046 and 270 mL at 950 °C, increasing to 1065 and 289 mL at 1050 °C, respectively. The total CO₂ yield remained low (e.g., up to about 9 mL at 950 °C and 1050 °C).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Influence of temperature on syngas production yields for CH₄ partial oxidation (1st step, solid lines) and H₂O splitting (2nd step, dotted lines) at 950 °C (cycle #3), 1000 °C (cycles #1, 2, 4), and 1050 °C (cycle #5).</figcaption></figure>
## 2.2. Influence of the Oxidizing Agent in Second Step on Syngas Production

The oxidation step was carried out under CO₂ in cycles #6 and #7 to investigate the influence of the oxidizing agent during the second step. The CO₂ mole fraction was fixed at 30% (150 mL/min CO₂ in Ar) to allow comparison with the other cycles carried out under H₂O at a similar steam mole fraction (for instance, cycle #8). These cycles were performed at 1000 °C and 1050 °C with 15% CH₄ (75 mL/min) in the reduction step. Figure 3 provides the syngas production rate profiles in both steps from cycles #6 to #8. During the reduction step, the maximum H₂ flowrate was reached in cycle #7 (over 96 mL/min, which is similar to cycle #5 at the same temperature, confirming data repeatability). Similarly, the CO flowrate reached a maximum in cycle #7 at 36 mL/min (similar to cycle #5). The amount of syngas produced in the reduction step increased slightly due to the different temperatures between cycles #6 and #7. As a result, the amount of CO produced in the oxidation step was also enhanced from 414 mL in cycle #6 to 433 mL in cycle #7. At the initial stage, CO₂ conversion was almost close to 100% as the CO₂ flowrate was near zero while the CO flowrate was increasing steeply. As the oxidation was proceeding after reaching the peak in CO production, the CO₂ conversion dropped rapidly as the CO₂ flowrate increased.

The oxidation step's total duration was about 5 min regardless of the oxidation temperature corresponding to the period of CO detection. CO production started as soon as CO₂ was injected, and the CO flowrate promptly reached a peak (at 140 mL/min). In the meantime, the CO₂ flowrate increased steadily to reach the inlet value (150 mL/min) when the reaction was complete, as confirmed by the CO flow rate returning to zero.

Due to coke formation in the reduction step, carbon gasification by CO₂ (C + CO₂ → 2CO) likely occurred simultaneously in the oxidation step. The oxidation behaviors between CO₂ and H₂O oxidants were similar because the concentration of CO₂ was very close to that of H₂O (30 vol.% vs. 32 vol.%). Similar H₂ and CO production rate patterns were achieved with close kinetic rates. This suggests that the chemical reaction of oxidizing gases (CO₂ or H₂O) at the surface was not a rate-controlling step in the oxidation step.

Figure 4 compares the syngas yields in both steps for cycles performed at 1000 °C and 1050 °C with either H₂O or CO₂ during oxidation (following a same reduction step under CH₄). In comparison with the cycles performed with H₂O, the oxidation with CO₂ only produced CO (mixed with unconverted CO₂), whereas oxidation with H₂O produced H₂ and CO (due to reaction with carbon, Equation (11)). However, the total amount of syngas produced including both cycle steps remained stable at a given temperature (e.g., 1363 mL in cycle #5 with H₂O vs. 1373 mL in cycle #7 with CO₂ at 1050 °C).

## 2.3. Influence of CH₄ Mole Fraction in First Step on Syngas Production

Different cycles were carried out to investigate the impact of CH₄ mole fraction on syngas production capacity at a constant cycling temperature of 1000 °C. The experimental production rate profiles are represented in Figure 5 for cycles #9 to #12. The CH₄ mole fraction was varied while keeping constant the global inlet gas flowrate (at 0.5 NL/min). The corresponding inlet CH₄ flowrate was 25 mL/min (5% in cycle #9), 75 mL/min (15% in cycle #12), and 150 mL/min (30% in cycles #10-11). The maximum CH₄ conversion was about 63% in cycle #9, 27% in cycles #10-11, and 39% in cycle #12. The CH₄ conversion thus increased when the methane flowrate or mole fraction decreased. The syngas production rate increased consistently with the increase of the CH₄ flowrate. Indeed, the maximum H₂ flowrate produced was 20 mL/min at 5% CH₄, and it increased to 61 mL/min at 15% CH₄ and 88 mL/min at 30% CH₄. The CO flowrate increased from 9 mL/min to 23 and 30 mL/min, respectively. During the oxidation step, the syngas flowrate also increased, from 22 and 142 mL/min for CO and H₂ at 5% CH₄ to 23 and 163 mL/min at 30% CH₄. The total duration of the reduction step was also strongly affected by the CH₄ mole fraction.
It dropped from 41 min to 15 min when the CH₄ mole fraction increased from 5% to 30%.
Similarly, the oxidation duration slightly decreased from 5 min to 4 min, respectively.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Influence of the oxidizing agent on syngas production rates for CH₄ partial oxidation and CO₂/H₂O splitting steps in (a,b) cycle #6 (@ 1000 °C with 30% CO₂), (c,d) cycle #7 (@ 1050 °C with 30% CO₂), and (e,f) cycle #8 (@ 1000 °C with 32% H₂O). Reaction conditions: *m*<sub>SFO</sub> = 1.93 g, *F*<sub>red</sub> = 0.5 NL/min (15 vol.% CH₄).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Influence of the oxidizing agent (CO₂ or H₂O) on syngas production yields at 1000 °C and 1050 °C (reduction step under 15% CH₄).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** *Cont.*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Influence of CH₄ mole fraction on syngas production rates for CH₄ partial oxidation and H₂O splitting steps at 1000 °C in (a,b) cycle #9 (5% CH₄), (c,d) cycle #10 (30% CH₄), (e,f) cycle #11 (30% CH₄), and (g,h) cycle #12 (15% CH₄). Reaction conditions: *m*<sub>SFO</sub> = 1.93 g, *F*<sub>red</sub> = 0.5 NL/min, *F*<sub>ox</sub> = 0.736 NL/min (32.1% H₂O).</figcaption></figure>

Figure 6 shows the influence of CH₄ mole fraction on the gas production yields for cycles #8 to #12. Globally, the H₂ and CO yields in the CH₄ reduction step increased with CH₄ mole fraction between 5% and 30%. It can be noticed that the CO amount produced increased slightly from 240 mL at 5% CH₄ to 275 mL at 30% CH₄ (representing a 15% increase), whereas the H₂ volume increased more steeply from 475 to 819 mL, respectively (corresponding to a 72% increase). Therefore, the yield of CO varied slightly compared to H₂ as the methane flowrate/mole fraction increased, although the maximum production rate of CO increased. In fact, the rise in the maximum syngas production rate was caused by the rapid partial oxidation rate at high partial pressures of methane. Conversely, the total CO yield depends mainly on the amount of available lattice oxygen involved in the reduction step, which does not rely on CH₄ feeding conditions provided that the reduction step has reached completion. Thus, this explains why the yield of CO remains nearly the same. The yield of syngas increases as the methane flowrate increases, chiefly because the H₂ yield in the first step is enhanced, which is mainly due to methane cracking and coupling rather than partial oxidation. The amount of coke formed in the reduction step is, however, not directly related to the methane flowrate, because it depends on the relative rate of methane cracking to carbon gasification (with H₂O or CO₂). No clear trend can thus be drawn. When the reaction conditions change, more coke is formed only if methane cracking
becomes faster than coke gasification. Thus, the relative rate of coke formation is dependent on the various oxidation reactions involving carbon and occurring simultaneously.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Influence of CH₄ mole fraction on syngas production yields for CH₄ partial oxidation (1st step, solid lines) and H₂O splitting (2nd step, dotted lines) at 1000 °C in cycle #8 (15% CH₄), cycle #9 (5% CH₄), cycle #10 (30% CH₄), cycle #11 (30% CH₄), and cycle #12 (15% CH₄).</figcaption></figure>

Regarding H₂O splitting, the H₂ and CO yields in the second oxidation step remained stable. Moreover, the results' reproducibility was confirmed as the obtained syngas yields were similar for the two cycles performed repeatedly at 15% and 30% of CH₄.

In summary, it appeared that the effect of the methane flowrate on the syngas (H₂ and CO) production rate was significant, because the reduction rate is affected by the CH₄ partial pressure. In contrast, based on the fact that the higher H₂ yield in the first step was just due to higher methane cracking, the total yield produced from redox reactions with the perovskite oxygen carrier (Equations (5) and (6)) remained unchanged. This is because both the formation and replenishment of lattice oxygen reached a threshold value that depends on the cycling temperature and partial pressure of water, which were maintained unchanged in these redox cycles.

## 2.4. Thermochemical Cycling Stability and Materials Characterization

Figure 7 illustrates the redox performance of SrFeO₃ foam in 12 successive cycles under the corresponding experimental conditions. It provides an overview of the syngas production yields in both steps (expressed in mL/g of oxide), which aims to show the evolution of redox performance through successive cycles. In the methane partial oxidation step (Figure 7a), the total syngas yield fluctuates in the range 464–512 mL/g when using 15% CH₄ (cycle #1 to cycle #8, and cycle #12), except in cycle #3, which was carried out at 950 °C, leading to a slightly lower yield (458 mL/g). The lowest syngas yield of 374 mL/g was obtained at 5% CH₄ (cycle #9), whereas the syngas yield was in the range of 550–569 mL/g under 30% CH₄ (cycle #10 and cycle #11). Moreover, the CO yield in the reduction step was stable between cycle #1 and cycle #12 at ~136 mL/g, indicating remarkable stability in 12 cycles, without any loss in the oxygen exchange capacity. The yield of H₂ was more
influenced by the experimental conditions (both temperature and CH₄ mole fraction) than the CO yield. It was slightly higher in the first cycle (371 mL/g) than in subsequent cycles, because the fresh material was not subjected to any cycle and coke deposition. In comparison with the CO yield, the higher H₂ yield is attributed to methane cracking or coupling. The resulting H₂ to CO ratio is thus higher than two (2.7 in cycle #1, decreasing to 2.4–2.6 in the next cycles). The amount of CO₂ produced is also higher in the first cycle (~4.7 mL/g) and then decreases to lower values (~1.9 mL/g in cycle #12).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Thermochemical performance of SFO foam during 12 consecutive cycles: (a) syngas yields in CH₄ partial oxidation (1st step) and (b) syngas yields in H₂O/CO₂ splitting steps (2nd step).</figcaption></figure>
During the oxidation step for H₂O splitting (Figure 7b), the H₂ production yield slightly decreases from 215 mL/g in cycle #1 to 187 mL/g in cycle #8, and then slightly increases and remains almost constant as the cycle number increases (195 mL/g in cycle #12). In addition, the average CO production yield does not change significantly (in the range 13–16 mL/g). The decrease in H₂ yield may likely be attributable to sintering, in addition to coke deposition. In the oxidation step, the total yield of syngas (H₂O splitting step) remains stable at about 207 mL/g after 12 cycles. Moreover, the yield of CO achieved during the CO₂ splitting step (cycles #6 and #7) is also similar and reached up to 224 mL/g in cycle #7 at 1050 °C. This demonstrates that the material can be used for both H₂O and CO₂ splitting without altering its redox performance, thus warranting the material’s flexibility upon cycling under different conditions.

The repeatability of syngas production performance was also validated through cycles performed under identical operating conditions: for instance, cycle #8 compared to cycle #12 (at 1000 °C and 15% CH₄ mole fraction) and cycle #10 compared to cycle #11 (at 1000 °C and 30% CH₄ mole fraction).

In comparison, cycling experiments have previously been carried out with ceria porous foams at 1000 °C [34]. As a result, during the reduction step, the H₂ (CeO₂ + CH₄), CO, and CO₂ yields were stable, ranging between 3.39 and 3.68 mmol/g for H₂ (75.9–82.4 mL/g), 1.69 and 1.84 mmol/g for CO (37.9–41.2 mL/g), and 0.05 and 0.07 mmol/g for CO₂ (1.1–1.6 mL/g). During oxidation (CeO₂–δ + H₂O), the H₂ yield was fairly stable (1.94–2.05 mmol/g, 43.5–45.9 mL/g). Thus, the performance of SrFeO₃ outperformed those of ceria (by a factor of about x4) under similar operating conditions. In another work [52], cycling experiments with ceria foam were carried out with both steps performed at 1000 °C (CH₄ flowrate of 0.2 NL/min during reduction and H₂O flowrate of 0.2 g/min during oxidation). As a result, the total yields of H₂ and CO during cycling were stable (5.55–5.80 and 1.74–1.82 mmol/g, respectively), thus resulting in an almost constant H₂/CO ratio (3.13–3.2), while the total syngas yield (7.55–7.89 mmol/g; i.e., 169.1–177.5 mL/g) was significantly lower compared to this study, thus confirming a higher oxygen release and syngas production with SrFeO₃ than with CeO₂. Thus, this perovskite material enhances fuel production capacity and can be cycled without any significant performance loss.

The crystalline phase of the material and the foam porous structure also remained unchanged after redox cycles. According to XRD analysis, the initial material’s stoichiometry was SrFeO₂.₇₅ while it was SrFeO₂.₅ after the performed cycles (Figure S1). XRD then confirmed that the non-stoichiometric perovskite phase is preserved during cycles. These observations suggest that the stability and cyclability of the perovskite foam during CLRM is maintained after the performed redox cycles. As shown in Figure 8, the global porous morphology is not altered by the solar-driven thermochemical reactions, and the average particle size of the material is not significantly changed after 12 redox cycles, which suggests that sintering is not significant.

The shaping of the reactive material as a reticulated porous structure with high geometrical surface area was thus beneficial for enhancing syngas production. Surface reactions indeed benefit from active materials with easily accessible pores and high surface areas to promote oxygen transport and exchange properties. Key challenges remain in scaling up this technology for industrial applications, including the design of a suitable large-scale solar reactor integrating the porous oxide foam, and the synthesis of large amounts of perovskite oxygen carrier in the form of reticulated porous structures.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** SEM analysis of SFO material before (a,b) and after 12 chemical looping reforming cycles (c,d).</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Experimental Set-Up, Materials, and Methods

#### 3.1. Principle of the Chemical Looping Process, Involved Reactions, and Quantification of Product Yields

The chemical looping reforming process encompasses two consecutive steps. In the first endothermic step, the reaction of partial oxidation of methane (or partial perovskite reduction) producing syngas can be written as:

$$ \mathrm{SrFeO_3} + \delta\mathrm{CH_4} \rightarrow \mathrm{SrFeO_3-\delta} + \delta\mathrm{CO} + 2\delta\mathrm{H_2} \quad (5) $$

In the second exothermic step, the oxygen-deficient perovskite can then react with either $H_2O$ or $CO_2$ to produce additional $H_2$ or CO:

$$ \mathrm{SrFeO_3-\delta} + \delta\mathrm{H_2O} \rightarrow \mathrm{SrFeO_3} + \delta\mathrm{H_2} \quad (6) $$

$$ \mathrm{SrFeO_3-\delta} + \delta\mathrm{CO_2} \rightarrow \mathrm{SrFeO_3} + \delta\mathrm{CO} \quad (7) $$

The global net reaction thus corresponds to either steam or dry methane reforming. Possible secondary reactions may occur during the reduction step with methane:

$$ \mathrm{CH_4} \rightarrow \mathrm{C} + 2\mathrm{H_2} \quad (8) $$
$$ \mathrm{SrFeO_3} + \delta\mathrm{C} \rightarrow \mathrm{SrFeO_3}_{-\delta} + \delta\mathrm{CO} \qquad (9) $$

Other possible reactions are the oxide reduction with H₂ and CO (formed from Equation (5)) yielding H₂O and CO₂ (reverse of Equations (6) and (7)), with the net reaction as follows:

$$ 4\mathrm{SrFeO_3} + \delta\mathrm{CH_4} \rightarrow 4\mathrm{SrFeO_3}_{-\delta} + \delta\mathrm{CO_2} + 2\delta\mathrm{H_2O} \qquad (10) $$

During perovskite oxidation with H₂O (2nd step), side reactions related to the carbon deposition in the first step (Equation (8)) are expected:

$$ C + H_2O \rightarrow CO + H_2 \qquad (11) $$

$$ CO + H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + H_2 \qquad (12) $$

The sum of the above reactions corresponds to:

$$ C + 2H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + 2H_2 \qquad (13) $$

When the perovskite is oxidized with CO₂, the Boudouard reaction can occur as a potential side reaction associated with the carbon deposition in the first step:

$$ C + CO_2 \rightarrow 2CO \qquad (14) $$

The amount of hydrogen produced from reaction (5) is obtained from the total amount of hydrogen measured in the first step minus the amount of H₂ produced by CH₄ cracking (CH₄ → C + 2H₂). It is assumed that the H₂ coming from the formation of CₙHₘ (nCH₄ → CₙHₘ + (4n - m)/2 H₂) is negligible.

$$ n_{H_2} = n_{H_2,\text{total}} - n_{H_2,\text{cracking}} \qquad (15) $$

$$ n_{H_2,\text{cracking}} = n_{H_2,\text{total}} - 2n_{CO} \qquad (16) $$

The amount of carbon (coke) produced by CH₄ cracking can then be deduced:

$$ n_C = n_{H_2,\text{cracking}}/2 = n_{H_2,\text{total}}/2 - n_{CO} \qquad (17) $$

The amount of C can also be calculated from the amount of CO and CO₂ produced in the second step (Equations (11) and (12)):

$$ n_C = n_{CO} + n_{CO_2} \qquad (18) $$

During partial reduction with methane (Equation (5)), oxygen is released from the oxide lattice and is then recovered at the outlet in the form of CO, CO₂, and H₂O. Therefore, the amount of oxygen released from the oxide (oxygen consumed) can be calculated by:

$$ n_{O,\text{red}} = n_{CO} + 2n_{CO_2} + n_{H_2O} \qquad (19) $$

where nᵢ are the mole amounts of species i.

During the oxidation step with H₂O (Equation (6)), oxygen is replenished in the oxide and the amount of oxygen recovered can be calculated from the total amount of H₂ produced minus the amounts of H₂ produced by the reactions of carbon with H₂O (equal to the amount of CO and twice the amount of CO₂) (Equations (11)–(13)):

$$ n_{O,\text{ox}} = n_{H_2} - n_{CO} - 2n_{CO_2} \qquad (20) $$
In the case of an oxidation step with CO₂ (Equation (7)), the amount of oxygen recovered can be calculated using a mass balance on oxygen:

$$n_{O,ox} = 2n_{CO_2,in} - n_{CO,out} - 2n_{CO_2,out} \quad (21)$$

When carbon deposition occurs, the amount of additional CO produced from Equation (14) (equal to the total outlet CO minus the CO produced from Equation (7)) can be quantified separately (=$n_{CO,out} - n_{O,ox} = 2n_{CO,out} + 2n_{CO_2,out} - 2n_{CO_2,in}$). The amount of reacted CH₄ can be calculated as follows:

$$n_{CH_4,reacted} = n_{CO,red} + n_{CO_2,red} + n_{CO,oxi} + n_{CO_2,oxi} \quad (22)$$

Syngas and coke selectivity are calculated as follows,

$$S_{Syn}(\%) = \frac{\int_{0}^{t_{red}} F_{CO,red} dt + \int_{0}^{t_{red}} F_{H_2,red} dt}{3(t_{red}F_{CH_4,i} - \int_{0}^{t_{red}} F_{CH_4,out} dt)} \quad (23)$$

$$S_{coke}(\%) = \frac{n_{coke}}{t_{red}F_{CH_4,i} - \int_{0}^{t_{red}} F_{CH_4,out} dt} \quad (24)$$

where F<sub>CH₄,out</sub>, F<sub>H₂,red</sub>, and F<sub>CO,red</sub> are the molar flowrates of output CH₄, H₂, and CO, respectively. F<sub>CH₄,i</sub> is the molar flowrate of input methane. t<sub>red</sub> is the duration of the reduction step. n<sub>coke</sub> is the total mole amount of coke, which is calculated using the amount of CO and CO₂ in the H₂O splitting step. S<sub>syn</sub> and S<sub>coke</sub> are syngas selectivity and coke selectivity, respectively.

## 3.2. Materials Synthesis and Characterization

The detailed procedure of preparing SFO powder has been described previously [37]. The material was shaped in the form of a porous foam structure made of the redox material itself, thus avoiding the use of any additional inert support. The SFO powder was ground to less than 20 µm and then mixed with the organic adhesive polyvinyl butyral (Butvar B-98). The mass ratio of SFO to Butvar B-98 was 5:1. The mixture was then placed in ethanol. The mass ratio of SFO powder to ethanol was 2:1. Afterwards, the slurry was agitated (300 rpm) at 60 °C until a suspension was obtained, followed by cooling down to room temperature. A polyurethane template of 10 ppi (pore per inch) was used and shaped into a cylinder to match the reactor tube. The template was dipped into the suspension several times to obtain sufficient SFO coating. The resulting coated template was first dried at room temperature for 20 min and then calcined for 6 h at 1000 °C. The oxygen carrier was thus shaped as a reticulated porous ceramic (RPC) structure with a well-connected and open porosity, offering high surface-to-volume ratio for solid-gas reactions and favorable heat and mass transfer.

The crystalline phase of the samples was examined by X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Shimadzu XRD-6100 (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) diffractometer, equipped with a Cu Kα radiation source (λ = 0.154056 nm) at the operating power of 2.2 kW. The samples were scanned over a 2θ range of 8–90° with a scan rate of 6°/min at ambient conditions. The morphology of the samples was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on a TESCAN MAIA3 LMH (TESCAN, Brno, Czech Republic) operated with an accelerating voltage of 5–15 kV. Samples for SEM were deposited onto an adhesive conductive carbon belt attached to the sample holder.
### 3.3. Solar Tubular Reactor

Cycling experiments for chemical looping methane reforming were carried out in an indirectly irradiated packed-bed tubular solar reactor at the focus of a solar concentrator (Figure 9). The solar thermochemical reactor was developed to investigate various high-temperature gas-solid reactions under controlled atmospheres [37,72,73]. This reactor was settled at the focal point of a medium-size horizontal-axis solar furnace, comprising a sun-tracking heliostat that horizontally reflects the incident solar radiation flux towards a concentrator (2 m-diameter parabolic dish), thereby supplying the required high-temperature solar heat (Figure 10). Real concentrated solar energy thus provided the high-temperature process heat used as the energy source for driving the isothermal chemical looping redox process. The solar reactor mainly consisted of a cavity-type solar receiver (made of graphite), with a front disc aperture (20 mm-diameter) settled at the focus of the solar concentrator to let concentrated solar energy enter and be absorbed. The cavity was surrounded by thermal insulation and the reactor was tightly closed by a transparent Pyrex glass window fixed at its front face. The nominal concentrated solar power absorbed within the cavity via the front aperture reached ~1.5 kW (with a Direct Normal Irradiation-DNI of 1 kW·m⁻²). The oxygen carrier porous foam material was placed at the center of an alumina tube (20 mm internal diameter, 25 mm external diameter) crossing the solar absorber cavity vertically and was supported by an inert support layer (3 mm-thick disc) made of porous zirconia felt (Zircar Inc., Florida, NY, USA) that is stable and chemically inert under the operating conditions to avoid unwanted side reactions. The solar heat was transferred to the redox material via the alumina tube (indirect heating). This cavity-type configuration provides homogeneous temperature distribution along the tubular reacting zone (40 mm height), where the sample is placed.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Scheme of the windowed solar tubular reactor for two-step chemical looping reforming with solid oxygen carrier materials as a reticulated porous foam inside the vertical tube.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Pictures of (a) solar reactor during on-sun operation, (b) parabolic dish solar concentrator and reactor installed, and (c) sun-tracking heliostat.</figcaption></figure>

The reactor was first flushed with inert gas (0.2 NL/min of pure argon, 99.999% Ar purity, [O₂] < 2 ppm) to remove residual air in the tube and was then heated to the targeted cycle temperature. A shutter positioned on the path of the reflected sunlight was used to control the solar energy input, thereby adjusting the operating temperature of the cycle by controlling the shutter opening in real time. Once the isothermal conditions were reached, the cycle was started. During the reduction step under solar heating, CH₄ (mixed with Ar at a total gas flowrate of 0.5 NL/min to keep the gas residence time constant) was injected through the tube to react with the oxide (partial oxidation step) for the production of syngas. When the amount of CO was close to zero, methane injection was stopped, and then Ar purging was kept until the baseline signals of gases stabilized. The oxidation step (with either H₂O or CO₂) of the oxygen-deficient material was then performed at the same temperature under solar heating to produce H₂ or CO. When the signal of H₂ or CO was close to zero, the feeding of water or CO₂ was stopped, followed by purging with Ar until the signals of gases were stable. Then, the next redox cycle could be started.

The reaction temperature was directly measured by a K-type thermocouple inside the reacting sample. In addition, a solar-blind pyrometer (Heitronics KT15, 4.9–5.5 µm, Wiesbaden, Germany) pointing to the tube external wall was used to measure the tube temperature at the external wall side directly exposed to concentrated radiation through a CaF₂ window. The inlet gas flow rate (Ar carrier gas with 99.999% purity, CH₄ with 99.95% purity, CO₂ with 99.995% purity) and liquid H₂O flowrate (deionized water) were regulated using electronic mass flow controllers (Brooks Instruments, Hatfield, PA, USA, range 0–2 NL/min, precision ±0.2% of full scale for CH₄ and CO₂, range 0–30 g/h ± 1% of full scale for H₂O). The flowrate of H₂O was set at 0.19 g/min (32.1% in 0.5 NL/min Ar) and the volume fraction of CO₂ was 30% at a total flowrate of 0.5 NL/min. Water was injected into the tube from the top above the material via a stainless-steel capillary and was vaporized when exiting the hot capillary tube. Steam was then entrained by the inert gas and flowed through the reactive material to oxidize it and produce H₂. All the gases flowed from the top to the bottom of the tube and the outlet gas flowed through a gas drying unit (bubbler and desiccant column to eliminate excess steam) and filter (pore diameter of 0.1 µm) prior to gas products analysis. Then, the outlet products (syngas) were transported by the carrier gas to an online gas analyzer (GEIT 3100, Pollutek, Pellenberg, Belgium, uncertainty ≤ 2% FS) for continuous measurement of H₂, CO, CO₂, CH₄, and CₙHₘ concentrations. A gas chromatograph was also used for complementary analysis (micro-GC, Varian CP4900, Palo Alto, CA, USA), for data comparison and validation.
The gas production yields were then quantified by time integration of the gas production rates. All the physical data measurements were acquired by an automated data acquisition system every 1 s. Based on the uncertainty of gas analysis systems, the relative uncertainty for the calculation of the syngas yields and other reactor performance metrics was found to be ±2.5%. The detailed operating conditions of each cycle are listed in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Summary of experimental conditions during 12 successive cycles with SFO foam.</caption><thead><tr><th>Cycle No.</th><th>Ar in 1st Step (mL/min)</th><th>CH<sub>4</sub> in 1st Step (mL/min)</th><th>Ar in 2nd Step (mL/min)</th><th>H<sub>2</sub>O (g/min)/CO<sub>2</sub> (mL/min) in 2nd Step</th><th>T (°C)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>950</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1050</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>350</td><td>150 mL/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>350</td><td>150 mL/min</td><td>1050</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>475</td><td>25</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>350</td><td>150</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>350</td><td>150</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>425</td><td>75</td><td>500</td><td>0.19 g/min</td><td>1000</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4. Conclusions

The solar-driven production of long-term storable and transportable renewable fuels is an efficient decarbonation pathway. This study investigated isothermal chemical looping methane reforming using $SrFeO_{3-δ}$ oxygen carrier porous foam. The thermochemical redox performance was assessed in a solar tubular reactor heated by real concentrated solar irradiation. The impact of the cycling temperature (950–1050 °C), methane concentration in the input stream (5–30% with a constant total flowrate of 0.5 NL/min), and type of oxidizing gas ($H_2O$ vs. $CO_2$) on syngas production performance was unraveled. The increase in temperature and $CH_4$ mole fraction chiefly enhanced the syngas production rate in the first step. The syngas yield was also enhanced mainly due to the increase in $H_2$ production from the methane cracking reaction. The maximum $H_2$ and CO flowrates were about 70 and 25 mL/min at 1000 °C during $CH_4$-induced reduction (with 75 mL/min $CH_4$ flowrate and 15% mole fraction). The maximum $H_2$ flowrate in the first step was increased from 31 mL/min at 950 °C to 100 mL/min at 1050 °C, while the CO flowrate also increased moderately from 11 to 36 mL/min. When the $CH_4$ mole fraction was increased from 5% to 30%, the maximum $H_2$ flowrate was enhanced from 20 to 88 mL/min, and the CO flowrate increased from 9 to 30 mL/min.

In contrast, the oxidation step was not significantly affected by the experimental conditions (temperature and $CH_4$ flowrate). Moreover, the redox performance of the oxygen carrier material was weakly dependent on the nature of oxidizing gas. The total amount of syngas produced including both cycle steps remained stable at a given temperature using either $H_2O$ or $CO_2$ (1363 mL with $H_2O$ vs. 1373 mL with $CO_2$ at 1050 °C). A total syngas yield in the range 660–744 mL/g was achieved at 1000 °C with 15% $CH_4$ during reduction, increasing up to 778 mL/g with 30% $CH_4$. The global performance of the $SrFeO_{3-δ}$ perovskite foam strongly outperformed the previous values reported to date for ceria.

The thermochemical material performance was not significantly altered during 12 successive cycles. Both the yield and the production rate of syngas in the reduction and oxidation steps remained relatively stable through redox cycles, while the material retained
its morphological structure. After the consecutive redox cycles, the material thermochemical stability is confirmed. The proposed SrFeO₃ redox material thus exhibits good syngas production capacity and cyclability in the solar reactor under real solar irradiation conditions. The considered foam perovskite oxygen carrier is thus suitable for solar-driven chemical looping methane reforming, enabling solar energy storage as valuable chemical fuels. Future work should focus on optimizing the redox performance of the material via fine tuning of experimental conditions while addressing long-term cycling stability.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules30051076/s1, Table S1: Overview of the experimental results obtained during 12 successive cycles with SFO foam (1.93 g), Figure S1: XRD analysis of SrFeO₃ materials before and after thermochemical cycles.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.A., X.W. and S.C.; methodology, S.A.; software, S.A., X.W. and S.C.; validation, S.A.; formal analysis, S.A., X.W. and S.C.; investigation, S.A., X.W. and S.C.; resources, S.A.; data curation, S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A.; visualization, S.A.; supervision, S.A.; project administration, S.A.; funding acquisition, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The one-year research stay of X. Wang at CNRS-PROMES was supported by State Scholarship Fund (No. 201906280369) granted by China Scholarship Council (CSC).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data will be made available on request.

**Acknowledgments:** Solar experiments were carried out at CNRS-PROMES Laboratory (France).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

## References

1. Kuravi, S.; Trahan, J.; Goswami, D.Y.; Rahman, M.M.; Stefanakos, E.K. Thermal Energy Storage Technologies and Systems for Concentrating Solar Power Plants. *Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.* **2013**, *39*, 285–319. [CrossRef]

2. Tian, Y.; Zhao, C.Y. A Review of Solar Collectors and Thermal Energy Storage in Solar Thermal Applications. *Appl. Energy* **2013**, *104*, 538–553. [CrossRef]

3. Klerk, A. Fischer–Tropsch Process. In *Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology*; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.

4. Graves, C.; Ebbesen, S.D.; Mogensen, M.; Lackner, K.S. Sustainable Hydrocarbon Fuels by Recycling CO₂ and H₂O with Renewable or Nuclear Energy. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2011**, *15*, 1–23. [CrossRef]

5. Zheng, Q.; Janke, C.; Farrauto, R. Steam Reforming of Sulfur-Containing Dodecane on a Rh–Pt Catalyst: Influence of Process Parameters on Catalyst Stability and Coke Structure. *Appl. Catal. B Environ.* **2014**, *160–161*, 525–533. [CrossRef]

6. Song, Q.; Xiao, R.; Li, Y.; Shen, L. Catalytic Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane to Synthesis Gas over Activated Carbon Catalyst. *Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.* **2008**, *47*, 4349–4357. [CrossRef]

7. Zhang, G.; Dong, Y.; Feng, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, W.; Cao, H. CO₂ Reforming of CH₄ in Coke Oven Gas to Syngas over Coal Char Catalyst. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2010**, *156*, 519–523. [CrossRef]

8. Zhang, G.; Su, A.; Du, Y.; Qu, J.; Xu, Y. Catalytic Performance of Activated Carbon Supported Cobalt Catalyst for CO₂ Reforming of CH₄. *J. Colloid Interface Sci.* **2014**, *433*, 149–155. [CrossRef]

9. Zhang, G.; Du, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Effects of Preparation Methods on the Properties of Cobalt/Carbon Catalyst for Methane Reforming with Carbon Dioxide to Syngas. *J. Ind. Eng. Chem.* **2014**, *20*, 1677–1683. [CrossRef]

10. Kathiraser, Y.; Oemar, U.; Saw, E.T.; Li, Z.; Kawi, S. Kinetic and Mechanistic Aspects for CO₂ Reforming of Methane over Ni Based Catalysts. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2015**, *278*, 62–78. [CrossRef]

11. Otsuka, K.; Wang, Y.; Nakamura, M. Direct Conversion of Methane to Synthesis Gas through Gas–Solid Reaction Using CeO₂–ZrO₂ Solid Solution at Moderate Temperature. *Appl. Catal. A Gen.* **1999**, *183*, 317–324. [CrossRef]
12. Otsuka, K.; Ushiyama, T.; Yamanaka, I. Partial Oxidation of Methane Using the Redox of Cerium Oxide. *Chem. Lett.* **1993**, *22*, 1517–1520. [CrossRef]

13. Otsuka, K.; Wang, Y.; Sunada, E.; Yamanaka, I. Direct Partial Oxidation of Methane to Synthesis Gas by Cerium Oxide. *J. Catal.* **1998**, *175*, 152–160. [CrossRef]

14. Zeng, L.; Cheng, Z.; Fan, J.A.; Fan, L.-S.; Gong, J. Metal Oxide Redox Chemistry for Chemical Looping Processes. *Nat. Rev. Chem.* **2018**, *2*, 349–364. [CrossRef]

15. Luo, M.; Yi, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; Du, M.; Pan, J.; Wang, Q. Review of Hydrogen Production Using Chemical-Looping Technology. *Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.* **2018**, *81*, 3186–3214. [CrossRef]

16. Skocypec, R.D.; Hogan, R.E.; Muir, J.F. Solar Reforming of Methane in a Direct Absorption Catalytic Reactor on a Parabolic Dish: II—Modeling and Analysis. *Sol. Energy* **1994**, *52*, 479–490. [CrossRef]

17. Gokon, N.; Yamawaki, Y.; Nakazawa, D.; Kodama, T. Kinetics of Methane Reforming over Ru/γ-Al₂O₃-Catalyzed Metallic Foam at 650–900 °C for Solar Receiver-Absorbers. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2011**, *36*, 203–215. [CrossRef]

18. Lu, J.; Chen, Y.; Ding, J.; Wang, W. High Temperature Energy Storage Performances of Methane Reforming with Carbon Dioxide in a Tubular Packed Reactor. *Appl. Energy* **2016**, *162*, 1473–1482. [CrossRef]

19. Yu, T.; Yuan, Q.; Lu, J.; Ding, J.; Lu, Y. Thermochemical Storage Performances of Methane Reforming with Carbon Dioxide in Tubular and Semi-Cavity Reactors Heated by a Solar Dish System. *Appl. Energy* **2017**, *185*, 1994–2004. [CrossRef]

20. Welte, M.; Warren, K.; Scheffe, J.R.; Steinfeld, A. Combined Ceria Reduction and Methane Reforming in a Solar-Driven Particle-Transport Reactor. *Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.* **2017**, *56*, 10300–10308. [CrossRef]

21. Furler, P.; Scheffe, J.; Marxer, D.; Gorbar, M.; Bonk, A.; Vogt, U.; Steinfeld, A. Thermochemical CO₂ Splitting via Redox Cycling of Ceria Reticulated Foam Structures with Dual-Scale Porosities. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2014**, *16*, 10503–10511. [CrossRef]

22. Haeussler, A.; Abanades, S.; Julbe, A.; Jouannaux, J.; Drobek, M.; Ayral, A.; Cartoixa, B. Remarkable Performance of Microstructured Ceria Foams for Thermochemical Splitting of H₂O and CO₂ in a Novel High-Temperature Solar Reactor. *Chem. Eng. Res. Des.* **2020**, *156*, 311–323. [CrossRef]

23. Wieckert, C.; Steinfeld, A. Solar Thermal Reduction of ZnO Using CH₄:ZnO and C:ZnO Molar Ratios Less Than 1. *J. Sol. Energy Eng.* **2001**, *124*, 55–62. [CrossRef]

24. Steinfeld, A.; Frei, A.; Kuhn, P.; Wuillemin, D. Solar Thermal Production of Zinc and Syngas via Combined ZnO-Reduction and CH4-Reforming Processes. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **1995**, *20*, 793–804. [CrossRef]

25. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S. Combined ZnO Reduction and Methane Reforming for Co-Production of Pure Zn and Syngas in a Prototype Solar Thermochemical Reactor. *Fuel Process. Technol.* **2021**, *211*, 106572. [CrossRef]

26. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S. Thermochemical Performance Assessment of Solar Continuous Methane-Driven ZnO Reduction for Co-Production of Pure Zinc and Hydrogen-Rich Syngas. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2022**, *429*, 132356. [CrossRef]

27. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S. Solar Carbo-Thermal and Methano-Thermal Reduction of MgO and ZnO for Metallic Powder and Syngas Production by Green Extractive Metallurgy. *Processes* **2022**, *10*, 154. [CrossRef]

28. Shimizu, T.; Kitayama, Y.; Kodama, T. Thermochemical Conversion of CH₄ to C2-Hydrocarbons and H₂ over SnO₂/Fe₃O₄/SiO₂ in Methane-Water Co-Feed System. *Energy Fuels* **2001**, *15*, 463–469. [CrossRef]

29. Villafán-Vidales, H.I.; Abanades, S.; Montiel-González, M.; Romero-Paredes-Rubio, H. Carbo- and Methanothermal Reduction of Tungsten Trioxide into Metallic Tungsten for Thermochemical Production of Solar Fuels. *Energy Technol.* **2017**, *5*, 692–702. [CrossRef]

30. Otsuka, K.; Hatano, M.; Morikawa, A. Hydrogen from Water by Reduced Cerium Oxide. *J. Catal.* **1983**, *79*, 493–496. [CrossRef]

31. Li, K.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Yan, D. Syngas Production from Methane and Air via a Redox Process Using Ce-Fe Mixed Oxides as Oxygen Carriers. *Appl. Catal. B Environ.* **2010**, *97*, 361–372. [CrossRef]

32. Li, K.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Yan, D. Direct Conversion of Methane to Synthesis Gas Using Lattice Oxygen of CeO₂-Fe₂O₃ Complex Oxides. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2010**, *156*, 512–518. [CrossRef]

33. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S.; Rodat, S. Stepwise Solar Methane Reforming and Water-Splitting via Lattice Oxygen Transfer in Iron and Cerium Oxides. *Energy Technol.* **2020**, *8*, 1900415. [CrossRef]

34. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S.; Rodat, S. Solar Chemical Looping Reforming of Methane Combined with Isothermal H₂O/CO₂ Splitting Using Ceria Oxygen Carrier for Syngas Production. *J. Energy Chem.* **2020**, *41*, 60–72. [CrossRef]

35. Haeussler, A.; Abanades, S.; Jouannaux, J.; Drobek, M.; Ayral, A.; Julbe, A. Recent Progress on Ceria Doping and Shaping Strategies for Solar Thermochemical Water and CO₂ Splitting Cycles. *AIMS Mater. Sci.* **2019**, *6*, 657–684. [CrossRef]

36. Furler, P.; Scheffe, J.; Gorbar, M.; Moes, L.; Vogt, U.; Steinfeld, A. Solar Thermochemical CO₂ Splitting Utilizing a Reticulated Porous Ceria Redox System. *Energy Fuels* **2012**, *26*, 7051–7059. [CrossRef]

37. Nair, M.M.; Abanades, S. Tailoring Hybrid Nonstoichiometric Ceria Redox Cycle for Combined Solar Methane Reforming and Thermochemical Conversion of H₂O/CO₂. *Energy Fuels* **2016**, *30*, 6050–6058. [CrossRef]

38. Sørensen, O.T. Thermodynamic Studies of the Phase Relationships of Nonstoichiometric Cerium Oxides at Higher Temperatures. *J. Solid State Chem.* **1976**, *18*, 217–233. [CrossRef]
39. Pantu, P.; Kim, K.; Gavalas, G.R. Methane Partial Oxidation on Pt/CeO₂–ZrO₂ in the Absence of Gaseous Oxygen. *Appl. Catal. A Gen.* **2000**, *193*, 203–214. [CrossRef]

40. Li, K.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Yan, D. Transformation of Methane into Synthesis Gas Using the Redox Property of Ce–Fe Mixed Oxides: Effect of Calcination Temperature. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2011**, *36*, 3471–3482. [CrossRef]

41. Li, K.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Yan, D. Partial Oxidation of Methane to Syngas with Air by Lattice Oxygen Transfer over ZrO₂-Modified Ce–Fe Mixed Oxides. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2011**, *173*, 574–582. [CrossRef]

42. Warren, K.J.; Reim, J.; Randhir, K.; Greek, B.; Carrillo, R.; Hahn, D.W.; Scheffe, J.R. Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Solar Methane Reforming through the Nonstoichiometric Ceria Redox Cycle. *Energy Technol.* **2017**, *5*, 2138–2149. [CrossRef]

43. Krenzke, P.T.; Fosheim, J.R.; Zheng, J.; Davidson, J.H. Synthesis Gas Production via the Solar Partial Oxidation of Methane-Ceria Redox Cycle: Conversion, Selectivity, and Efficiency. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2016**, *41*, 12799–12811. [CrossRef]

44. Cho, P.; Mattisson, T.; Lyngfelt, A. Comparison of Iron-, Nickel-, Copper- and Manganese-Based Oxygen Carriers for Chemical-Looping Combustion. *Fuel* **2004**, *83*, 1215–1225. [CrossRef]

45. Zhu, X.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Li, K.; Cheng, X. Hydrogen and Syngas Production from Two-Step Steam Reforming of Methane Using CeO₂ as Oxygen Carrier. *J. Nat. Gas Chem.* **2011**, *20*, 281–286. [CrossRef]

46. Johansson, M.; Mattisson, T.; Lyngfelt, A. Investigation of Mn3O4 With Stabilized ZrO₂ for Chemical-Looping Combustion. *Chem. Eng. Res. Des.* **2006**, *84*, 807–818. [CrossRef]

47. Neal, L.M.; Shafiefarhood, A.; Li, F. Dynamic Methane Partial Oxidation Using a Fe₂O₃ @La₀.₈Sr₀.₂FeO₃-δ Core–Shell Redox Catalyst in the Absence of Gaseous Oxygen. *ACS Catal.* **2014**, *4*, 3560–3569. [CrossRef]

48. Zhu, X.; Wei, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, K. Ce–Fe Oxygen Carriers for Chemical-Looping Steam Methane Reforming. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2013**, *38*, 4492–4501. [CrossRef]

49. Qin, L.; Guo, M.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, Z.; Fan, J.A.; Fan, L.-S. Enhanced Methane Conversion in Chemical Looping Partial Oxidation Systems Using a Copper Doping Modification. *Appl. Catal. B Environ.* **2018**, *235*, 143–149. [CrossRef]

50. Zheng, Y.; Li, K.; Wang, H.; Tian, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Wei, Y.; Zheng, M.; Luo, Y. Designed Oxygen Carriers from Macroporous LaFeO₃ Supported CeO₂ for Chemical-Looping Reforming of Methane. *Appl. Catal. B Environ.* **2017**, *202*, 51–63. [CrossRef]

51. Haeussler, A.; Julbe, A.; Abanades, S. Investigation of Reactive Perovskite Materials for Solar Fuel Production via Two-Step Redox Cycles: Thermochemical Activity, Thermodynamic Properties and Reduction Kinetics. *Mater. Chem. Phys.* **2022**, *276*, 1253–1258. [CrossRef]

52. Chuayboon, S.; Abanades, S.; Rodat, S. Syngas Production via Solar-Driven Chemical Looping Methane Reforming from Redox Cycling of Ceria Porous Foam in a Volumetric Solar Reactor. *Chem. Eng. J.* **2019**, *356*, 756–770. [CrossRef]

53. Haeussler, A.; Abanades, S.; Costa Oliveira, F.A.; Barreiros, M.A.; Caetano, A.P.F.; Novais, R.M.; Pullar, R.C. Solar Redox Cycling of Ceria Structures Based on Fiber Boards, Foams, and Biomimetic Cork-Derived Ecoceramics for Two-Step Thermochemical H₂O and CO₂ Splitting. *Energy Fuels* **2020**, *34*, 9037–9049. [CrossRef]

54. Abanades, S.; Haeussler, A. Two-Step Thermochemical Cycles Using Fibrous Ceria Pellets for H₂ Production and CO₂ Reduction in Packed-Bed Solar Reactors. *Sustain. Mater. Technol.* **2021**, *29*, e00328. [CrossRef]

55. Haeussler, A.; Abanades, S.; Julbe, A.; Jouannaux, J.; Cartoixa, B. Two-Step CO₂ and H₂O Splitting Using Perovskite-Coated Ceria Foam for Enhanced Green Fuel Production in a Porous Volumetric Solar Reactor. *J. CO₂ Util.* **2020**, *41*, 101257. [CrossRef]

56. Zhang, X.; Pei, C.; Chang, X.; Chen, S.; Liu, R.; Zhao, Z.-J.; Mu, R.; Gong, J. FeO₆ Octahedral Distortion Activates Lattice Oxygen in Perovskite Ferrite for Methane Partial Oxidation Coupled with CO₂ Splitting. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2020**, *142*, 11540–11549. [CrossRef]

57. Royer, S.; Duprez, D.; Can, F.; Courtois, X.; Batiot-Dupeyrat, C.; Laassiri, S.; Alamdari, H. Perovskites as Substitutes of Noble Metals for Heterogeneous Catalysis: Dream or Reality. *Chem. Rev.* **2014**, *114*, 10292–10368. [CrossRef]

58. Hwang, J.; Rao, R.R.; Giordano, L.; Katayama, Y.; Yu, Y.; Shao-Horn, Y. Perovskites in Catalysis and Electrocatalysis. *Science* **2017**, *358*, 751–756. [CrossRef]

59. Zhao, K.; He, F.; Huang, Z.; Wei, G.; Zheng, A.; Li, H.; Zhao, Z. Perovskite-Type Oxides LaFe1-xCoxO3 for Chemical Looping Steam Methane Reforming to Syngas and Hydrogen Co-Production. *Appl. Energy* **2016**, *168*, 193–203. [CrossRef]

60. Haribal, V.P.; He, F.; Mishra, A.; Li, F. Iron-Doped BaMnO₃ for Hybrid Water Splitting and Syngas Generation. *ChemSusChem* **2017**, *10*, 3402–3408. [CrossRef]

61. Wang, X.; Du, X.; Yu, W.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J. Coproduction of Hydrogen and Methanol from Methane by Chemical Looping Reforming. *Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.* **2019**, *58*, 10296–10306. [CrossRef]

62. Heifets, E.; Kotomin, E.A.; Bagaturyants, A.A.; Maier, J. Thermodynamic Stability of Non-Stoichiometric SrFeO₃-δ: A Hybrid DFT Study. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2019**, *21*, 3918–3931. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

63. Zhang, J.; Haribal, V.; Li, F. Perovskite Nanocomposites as Effective CO₂-Splitting Agents in a Cyclic Redox Scheme. *Sci. Adv.* **2017**, *3*, e1701184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

64. Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Liu, Y.; Wei, J.; Zhang, J. Effect of Composition on the Redox Performance of Strontium Ferrite Nanocomposite. *Energy Fuels* **2020**, *34*, 8644–8652. [CrossRef]
65. Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Ji, X.; Gao, Y.; Li, F.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J. Reduction Kinetics of SrFeO₃-δ/CaO·MnO Nanocomposite as Effective Oxygen Carrier for Chemical Looping Partial Oxidation of Methane. *Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.* **2022**, *16*, 1726-1734. [CrossRef]

66. Wang, X.; Abanades, S.; Chuayboon, S.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J. Solar-Driven Chemical Looping Reforming of Methane over SrFeO₃-δ-Ca0.5Mn0.5O Nanocomposite Foam. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2022**, *47*, 33664-33676. [CrossRef]

67. Jia, T.; Popczun, E.J.; Lekse, J.W.; Duan, Y. The Optimal Co-Doping of SrFe<sub>1-x</sub>Co<sub>x</sub>O<sub>3-δ</sub> Oxygen Carriers in Redox Applications. *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.* **2020**, *22*, 16721-16726. [CrossRef]

68. Zhang, R.; Cao, Y.; Li, H.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, K.; Jiang, L. The Role of CuO Modified La<sub>0.7</sub>Sr<sub>0.3</sub>FeO<sub>3</sub> Perovskite on Intermediate-Temperature Partial Oxidation of Methane via Chemical Looping Scheme. *Int. J. Hydrogen Energy* **2020**, *45*, 4073-4083. [CrossRef]

69. Zhu, A.; Li, D.; Zhu, T.; Zhu, X. Tailored SrFeO₃-δ for Chemical Looping Dry Reforming of Methane. *Green Chem. Eng.* **2025**, *6*, 102-115. [CrossRef]

70. Sastre, D.; Galván, C.Á.; Pizarro, P.; Coronado, J.M. Enhanced Performance of CH₄ Dry Reforming over La0.9Sr0.1FeO3/YSZ under Chemical Looping Conditions. *Fuel* **2022**, *309*, 122122. [CrossRef]

71. Yang, L.; Zhao, Z.; Cui, C.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J. Effect of Nickel and Cobalt Doping on the Redox Performance of SrFeO₃-δ toward Chemical Looping Dry Reforming of Methane. *Energy Fuels* **2023**, *37*, 12045-12057. [CrossRef]

72. Oliveira, F.A.C.; Barreiros, M.A.; Haeussler, A.; Caetano, A.P.F.; Mouquinho, A.I.; Oliveira e Silva, P.M.; Novais, R.M.; Pullar, R.C.; Abanades, S. High Performance Cork-Templated Ceria for Solar Thermochemical Hydrogen Production via Two-Step Water-Splitting Cycles. *Sustain. Energy Fuels* **2020**, *4*, 3077-3089. [CrossRef]

73. Levêque, G.; Abanades, S. Design and Operation of a Solar-Driven Thermogravimeter for High Temperature Kinetic Analysis of Solid-Gas Thermochemical Reactions in Controlled Atmosphere. *Sol. Energy* **2014**, *105*, 225-235. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.