MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985484938 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810208

Selective Production of C<sub>4</sub> Hydrocarbons from Syngas Using Fe‐Co/ZrO<sub>2</sub> and SO<sub>4</sub><sup>2—</sup>/ZrO<sub>2</sub> Catalysts

2003· article· en· W1985484938 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yonghong Bi, Ajay K. Dalai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisIsobutaneSyngasSpace velocityFischer–Tropsch processHydrocarbonChemistryOxideNuclear chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistrySelectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modified Fischer‐Tropsch (MFT) syntheses were carried out to convert synthesis gas to C4 hydrocarbons over Fe‐Co/ZrO2 (FT) and SO42—/ZrO2 (SZ) catalysts in a dual reactor system, keeping the FT to SZ catalysts ratio at 1:1.5. Five Fe‐Co/ZrO2 catalysts with different Fe and Co loading, and SZ with 15 wt% SO42— were prepared and extensively characterized using various physico‐chemical methods. The FT synthesis process was initially performed using a Fe‐Co/ZrO2 catalyst in a single reactor and the effects of Fe and Co mass ratio, reaction temperature, space velocity on the production of C4 hydrocarbons and C2‐C4 olefins were investigated. Results indicated that a 3.71% Fe—8.76% Co/ZrO2 mixed oxide catalyst alone at 260°C and 5 h—1 gave high selectivities of C2‐C4 olefins (∼26.1 wt%) and total C4 hydrocarbon product (∼16.2 wt%). The MFT process 150°C gave higher C4 (∼31.6 wt%), isobutane (∼22.9 wt%) and C2‐C4 (31.1 wt%) selectivities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207