Determination of Particle Size Distribution by Laser Diffraction of Doped‐CeO<sub>2</sub> Powder Suspensions: Effect of Suspension Stability and Sonication
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The particle size distributions (PSDs) of metal oxide powders are often determined by analyzing suspensions of powders using laser diffraction (e.g. Malvern MasterSizer 2000). Particle agglomeration can effectively bias the resulting distribution towards “unrealistic” particle sizes. Solutions to avoid this problem must be found if a particle distribution based on the elemental or primary particle sizes is desired. In this work, the particle size distribution of doped‐CeO 2 powders was studied. These powders show a crystalline single phase structure of controlled stoichiometry as determined by X‐ray diffraction and ICP analysis. The apparent size distribution was found to be a strong function of suspension stability. Dispersant agents (PBTCA and phosphonoacetic acid) and suspension pH affected stability as characterized by zeta potential measurements. Sonication of the suspensions further enhanced particle de‐agglomeration. Finally, only the combined effect of a dispersant agent, pH adjustment of the suspension and sonication provided a primary particle size distribution. The results presented in this work can be used in the analysis of similar ceramic powders in which strong particle agglomeration is present.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it