Kinetics of Silicate Exchange in Alkaline Aluminosilicate Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In strongly alkaline aqueous KOH solutions containing SiIV in large excess over AlIII, the kinetics of exchange of monomeric silicate with small acyclic aluminosilicate solute species is much more rapid than with either cyclic aluminosilicates or any all-silicate anions. Selective inversion recovery 29Si NMR studies of homogeneous solutions of stoichiometric composition 3.0 mol kg-1 of SiO2, 0.1 mol kg-1 of Al2O3, and 8.0 mol kg-1 of K2O in 60-75% D2O gave rate constants of 2.0 +/- 0.2 kg mol-1 s-1 and 17 +/- 4 s-1 for the forward and reverse reactions of monomeric silicate with (HO)3AlOSiOn(OH)(3-n)(n+1)- (n = 2 or 3) at 0 degree C. These rate constants are more than 10(4)-fold faster than those extrapolated from 60 to 90 degrees C for comparable reactions of silicate anions. The greater lability of acyclic aluminate centers relative to silicate is ascribed partly to the availability of HO- groups for condensation reactions on Al and mainly to the ease of expansion of the coordination number of AlIII beyond 4. The latter attribute is diminished when AlIII is constrained to be tetrahedral in cyclic structures. With respect to the mechanism of formation of zeolites from alkaline aqueous media, it is suggested that small, labile AlOSi units add rapidly to growing zeolitic structures "on demand", whereas the more kinetically inert cage or ring structures cannot. This would explain why a silicate or aluminosilicate structure that is dominant among solute species at equilibrium in the presence of a particular cation may bear little or no geometric relation to the zeolitic framework promoted kinetically by that same cation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".