MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014210785 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22160

Experimental and modelling study of propane aromatization over H‐ZSM‐5 catalysts prepared by different silica sources

2015· article· en· W2014210785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soroush Baradaran, Morteza Sohrabi, Parisa Moghimpour Bijani, Sayed Javid Royaee, Saeed Sahebdelfar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAromatizationPropaneCatalysisTetraethyl orthosilicateChemistrySelectivityReaction rate constantZSM-5KineticsNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryZeolite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The catalytic performance of H‐ZSM‐5 samples prepared from different silica sources, namely, Ludox (sample A), waterglass (sample B) and tetraethyl orthosilicate (sample C) in aromatization of propane was studied. The catalysts were characterized by BET, SEM, XRD and NH 3 ‐TPD techniques to analyze the structure and acidity of the active sites. The performance tests were carried out in fixed‐bed reactor at 550 °C. For a quantitative assessment, the long‐term propane conversion data were fitted with a second order kinetics for the main reaction and a second order independent kinetics for deactivation using integral method of analysis. Fair fits were observed. According to silica source, the order for activity and stability were A>B>C and B>C>A, respectively. The incorporation of Zn (0.4 wt. %) as a promoter showed beneficial effect on aromatic selectivity at the expense of propane conversion and catalyst stability. The introduction of Zn decreased the rate constant of aromatization from 9.4 to 8.7 m 6 ·kg −1 ·mol −1 ·h −1 at 550 °C, while the rate constant of deactivation increased by a factor of five, that is, from 0.0056 to 0.025 h −1 .

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicZeolite Catalysis and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207