MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preparation and Performance of Catalytic Hollow Fibre Membranes for Hydrogenation Reduction of Nitrites in Water

2014· article· en· W2023260524 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G.T. Tong, Jian Song, Peng Wang, Hongyong Zhao, Xiaoyao Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Membrane and Separation Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicNanomaterials for catalytic reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembraneChemistryCatalysisReduction (mathematics)Catalytic hydrogenationChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porous Al2O3 hollow fiber membranes have been fabricated via a phase inversion – sintering technique. Pd-loaded carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are formed inside the hollow fibre wall by the catalytic decomposition of methane over Fe particles, followed by impregnation and reduction with hydrogen to form catalytic hollow fibre membranes. Hydrophobic modification of the hollow fibres is conducted by gas permeable polymeric coating. The resultant hollow fibre membranes exhibit highly catalytic activity to the hydrogenation reduction of nitrites in aqueous solution. Hollow fibre membrane reactors are assembled for nitrite hydrogenation by pumping nitrite solution into the tube side and introducing hydrogen countercurrently to the shell side of the reactor. The nitrite removal in the hollow fibre membrane reactors increases with the operation temperature and the hydrogen feed concentration at lower hydrogen partial pressures, but less influenced by the hydrogen feed concentration when it is higher than 50%. A higher nitrite concentration favors the nitrite hydrogenation reaction but lowers the nitrite removal efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Membrane and Separation TechnologySame topicNanomaterials for catalytic reactionsFrench-language works237,207