MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003711178 · doi:10.1021/jp510802p

Unraveling the Redox Behavior of a CoMoS Hydrodesulfurization Catalyst: A Scanning Transmission X-ray Microscopy Study in the Tender X-ray Range

2015· article· en· W2003711178 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mustafa Al Samarai, Florian Meirer, Chithra Karunakaran, Jian Wang, Eelco T. C. Vogt, H.W. Zandbergen, Thomas Weber, Bert M. Weckhuysen, Frank M. F. de Groot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCatalysis and Hydrodesulfurization Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversiteit UtrechtShellBASFDow Chemical Company
KeywordsCobaltCatalysisMolybdenumSulfideOxideHydrodesulfurizationRedoxInorganic chemistryChemistryCobalt oxideMaterials scienceMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We visualize the elemental zoning in an alumina-supported cobalt molybdenum sulfide (CoMoS) catalyst with scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM). We use the Canadian Light Source beamline 10-ID’s (SM) unique combination of soft X-ray and tender X-ray STXM to determine the spatial variation of Co, Al, Mo, and S species. The results clearly show the correlation between cobalt and molybdenum and the anticorrelation between cobalt and alumina, confirming that Co is closely associated with the MoS 2 phase. The tender X-ray STXM images show that the fresh catalyst particle contains a 50 nm ring of molybdenum oxide encapsulating the supported MoS 2 phase. After the reduction at 200 °C with H 2, this oxide rim disappears and a uniform MoS 2 distribution is found. Upon oxidation at 400 °C, the sulfur disappears from the catalyst sample and molybdenum is oxidized from a Mo IV sulfide to a mainly tetrahedral Mo VI oxide, while cobalt keeps its divalent nature and changes from a Co II sulfide to a Co II oxide.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicCatalysis and Hydrodesulfurization StudiesFrench-language works237,207