Hydrogen Storage in Mesoporous Titanium Oxide−Alkali Fulleride Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mesoporous titanium oxide-alkali fulleride composites were synthesized and characterized by X-ray diffraction, nitrogen adsorption, Raman spectroscopy, and elemental analysis. The hydrogen sorption properties of these composites were investigated at 77 K, room temperature, and 200 degrees C. A maximum overall volumetric uptake of 27.35 kg/m(3) was obtained for the lithium fulleride composite at 77 K and 100 atm, compared with 25.48 kg/m(3) for the pristine unreduced material under the same conditions. This value was less than those previously reported for bis(toluene)titanium- and bis(benzene)vanadium-reduced materials (40.46 and 33.42 kg/m(3), respectively) and also less than those found for the fulleride-free Li- and Na-reduced materials in this study (28.10 and 28.19 kg/m(3), respectively). At room temperature and 100 atm, the maximum gravimetric storage and adsorption values of fulleride-impregnated composites were 0.99 and 0.11 wt %, respectively, while the corresponding amounts for unreduced material were 0.94 and 0.10 wt %. At 200 degrees C and 100 atm, the maximum gravimetric storage and adsorption capacities of fulleride composites were less than those of the unreduced material, which were 0.62 and 0.06 wt %, respectively. Thus, inclusion of fulleride units in the pores lowered the overall gravimetric and volumetric storage relative to the fulleride-free Na- and Li-reduced counterparts. Like other reduced composites studied in our group, the enthalpies of the reduced composites showed an unusual increasing trend with surface coverage, with the greatest value (6.55 kJ/mol) measured for the Na-reduced fulleride composite. This suggests that the reduced titanium oxide surface provides the majority of the binding sites in these materials.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".