Continuous Catalytic Hydrogenation of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds in Hydrogen−Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A continuous hydrogenation device was evaluated for the detoxification of selected tri-, tetra-, or pentacyclic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds {anthracene, phenanthrene, chrysene, and benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P)} by hydrogenation. A substrate stream in hexane, 0.05-1.0% (w/v), was mixed with hydrogen-carbon dioxide (H2-CO2, 5-30% v/v) and delivered to a heated reactor column (25 cm x 1 cm) containing palladium supported on gamma alumina (Pd0/gamma-Al2O3) that was terminated with a capillary restrictor. The flow rate from the reactor, approximately 800 mL min(-1) decompressed gas, corresponded to 4 mL min(-1) fluid under the operating conditions of the trials. Reaction products were recovered by passing the reactor effluent through hexane. At 90 degrees C, the anthracene or phenanthrene substrate was hydrogenated only partially to octahydro and dodecahydro species and contained only a minor quantity of totally hydrogenated products. For substrates with increasing numbers of fused aromatic rings, the hydrogenation efficiency was decreased further. However, at an increasing temperature (90-150 degrees C) and increasing mobile phase flow rate (20.68 MPa corresponding to 2100 mL min(-1) decompressed gas), B[a]P and chrysene were hydrogenated, virtuallytotally, to their corresponding perhydro analogues (eicosahydrobenzo[a]pyrenes and octadecahydrochrysenes), respectively. That this approach might be useful for decontaminating soil extracts was supported by companion in vitro trials in which the substrate and products were assayed for mutagenic activity with five bacterial strains that are auxotrophic for histidine (Salmonella typhimurium TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537) or tryptophan (Escherichia coliWP2 uvrA), using the bacterial reverse mutation assay (modified Ames test). Generally, substantial increases in revertant colony counts were not observed with any of the strains following exposure to the hydrogenation products in the absence or presence of the 10 or 30% S9 mix, which is consistent with the loss of mutagenic activity from these hydrogenation products.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".