Determination of Particle Size Distribution by Laser Diffraction of Doped‐CeO<sub>2</sub> Powder Suspensions: Effect of Suspension Stability and Sonication
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‐CeO2 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".