Preparation and Characterization of CuO/r-Al2O3 for Adsorption of SO2 in Flue Gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adsorbent CuO/r-Al2O3 was successfully prepared by the dry impregnation using Cu(NO3)2.3H2O solution oncommercial r-Al2O3. Impregnation and calcination process was be done repeatedly to get a desired CuO contenton the support. The impregnations were done at 50oC for 8 hours or 120°C for 5 hours. Calcinations were carriedout at a temperature of 400oC for 8 hours. Adsorbent obtained from this preparation contained Cu: 7.93% (named8Cu), 14.76% (15Cu) and 28.98% (30Cu). Pore characteristic indicated that the surface area decreased with theincrease in Cu content in the adsorbent (from 207 in original support to 124 m2/g in 8Cu). Similar tendency wasfound for the pore volume (from 0.47 to 0.28 mL/g).In batch adsorption test, the amount of adsorbed SO2 was calculated from the increase in mass of adsorbent.Adsorbent 8Cu had the best adsorption capacity in term of mol ratio, ie. 0.78 SO2/CuO (close to stoichiometry).Original support of r-Al2O3 was found to be inert to SO2. In semi-continue test, the adsorption was carried undera flow of gas containing 2.5% SO2. The amount of adsorbed SO2 was calculated from the different of SO2content between influent to effluent. It was found again that the best adsorbent was 8Cu with the adsorptioncapacity of 0.97 mol/mol CuO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".