MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980854656 · doi:10.1007/s11746-005-1118-x

Kinetic modeling of the glycerolysis reaction for soybean oils in supercritical carbon dioxide media

2005· article· en· W1980854656 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Moquin, Feral Temelli, Jerry W. King, Monica M. Palcic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryGlycerolSupercritical fluidSupercritical carbon dioxideSoybean oilReaction rate constantCarbon dioxideCatalysisHydrolysisKineticsOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Production of MAG by glycerolysis is important for food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic industries. Conducting glycerolysis in supercritical carbon dioxide (SC‐CO 2 ) media has advantages over conventional alkali‐catalyzed glycerolysis. However, kinetic data are lacking for such conversions in the presence of SC‐CO 2 . The objectives of this study were to estimate the rate constants and elucidate the mechanism for the glycerolysis of soybean oil in SC‐CO 2 using previously reported data. The data were taken from experiments using soybean oil, glycerol (glycerol/oil molar ratios of 15–25) and water (3–8% w/w) in SC‐CO 2 at 20.7–62.1 MPa and 250°C for a 4 h period. Rate constants for the parallel glycerolysis and hydrolysis reactions were estimated for each processing parameter (glycerol/oil, water content, pressure) by minimizing the summed squared error between the values calculated from the experimental data and those obtained from the kinetic model. The results suggested that water and pressure had an effect on rate constants but the glycerol/oil ratio did not. Findings provide the kinetic modeling data necessary for the optimization of supercritical processes involving glycerolysis reactions for the production of MAG from vegetable oils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicBiodiesel Production and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207