MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006513564 · doi:10.1139/v01-032

Kinetic modeling of homogeneous methanol synthesis catalyzed by base-promoted nickel complexes

2001· article· en· W2006513564 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Devinder Mahajan, Viwat Krisdhasima, Robert D. Sproull

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersElectric Power Research InstituteU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsChemistrySyngasCatalysisMethanolArrhenius equationNickelAlkoxideActivation energyBase (topology)Induction periodHomogeneous catalysisSolventInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nickel complexes promoted by alkoxide bases can affect facile conversion of synthesis gas into methanol under thermodynamically favorable temperatures. At 100°C, syngas conversion of 99% with turnover frequency of 66 h -1 is reported. The reaction is truly catalytic in Ni as well as in base. A kinetic study of the Ni(CO) 4 -KOMe catalyst system in 1,2-bis(2-methoxy ethoxy)ethane (triglyme)-MeOH solvent mixture is presented. The kinetic expression includes terms of zero-order in H 2 and first-order in CO with syngas of H 2 -CO stoichiometry of ~2:1 and less than first-order in Ni (0.03-0.10 M), ~third-order in base (2.0-4.75 M), and an exponential dependence on methanol concentration (13.0-23.7 M at 2.0 M base; 15.8-22.6 M at 3.0 M base). The activation energy of 42.2 kJ mol -1 was estimated from the Arrhenius plot of the data between 374 and 393 K. Gas phase IR spectrum at the end of each run showed an intense signature peak at 2060 cm -1 for Ni(CO) 4 . Process uncertainties to commercialization of this versatile homogenous catalyst system for CO hydrogenation to methanol are discussed.Key words: homogeneous catalysis, syngas conversion, methanol synthesis, alkoxides, carbonyls of nickel.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207