Mechanisms of CO and COS Formation in the Claus Furnace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the major pathways leading to COS and CO formation and consumption during the processing of H 2 S and CO 2 in the partially oxidizing conditions of the Claus furnace. Both species were found to be produced by a multitude of pathways, which include the direct reaction of H 2 S with CO 2 to form COS and H 2 O and the reaction of CO 2 with S 2, one of the major primary products in a Claus furnace. This last reaction produced SO 2 and CO as the major products, with COS being formed in lesser quantities. The dissociation of H 2 S to H 2 and S 2 at high temperatures (>1000 °C) was shown to promote a further cascade of reactions stemming from the reduction of COS and CO 2, both of which lead to CO. Because of the known formation of CS 2 from hydrocarbon carry-over into the furnace, the reactions of CS 2 with CO 2, H 2 O, and SO 2 were also studied as potential CO- and COS-forming reactions. Reaction with CO 2 was slow at <1200 °C, but reaction with either H 2 O or SO 2 was fast above 900 °C. Conversion of CS 2 by H 2 O led to CO, H 2, H 2 S, S 2, and CO 2, whereas reaction with SO 2 resulted in CO 2 and S 2 as the major products. Similar observations were made for the reactions of COS with H 2 O and SO 2 . The summary of pathways presented in Scheme 5 shows a complex interlinkage among many reactions involving H 2 S, CO 2, CO, COS, SO 2, and S 2, leading to the conclusion that previous explanations of the production of COS from CO + S 2 and CO from incomplete combustion dramatically oversimplifies the formation/consumption for these compounds. It also shows that modeling of individual kinetic rate expressions is somewhat impractical.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".