Experimental and Kinetics Studies of Aromatic Hydrogenation in a Two-Stage Hydrotreating Process using NiMo/Al2O3 and NiW/Al2O3 Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, hydrogenation of aromatic compounds in light gas oil derived from Athabasca bitumen was carried out using a single- and two-stage hydrotreating processes. Experiments were performed in a trickle-bed reactor using two catalysts namely NiMo/Al2O3 and NiW/Al2O3. NiMo/Al2O3 was used in the first stage for nitrogen and sulphur containing heteroatoms removal whereas NiW/Al2O3 was used in the second stage for saturation of the aromatic rings in the hydrocarbon species. Temperature and liquid hourly space velocity (LHSV) were varied from 350-390°C and 1.0-1.5 h−1, respectively, while pressure was maintained constant at 11.0 MPa for all experiments. Results from single-stage were compared with those from two-stage process on the basis of reaction time. Kinetic analysis of the single-stage hydrotreating process showed that HDA and HDS activities were retarded by the presence of hydrogen sulphide that is produced as a by-product of the HDS process. However, with inter-stage removal of hydrogen sulphide in the two-stage process, significant improvement of the HDA and HDS activities were observed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".