MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064461133 · doi:10.2202/1542-6580.1584

Optimization of Mixed Ag Catalysts for Catalytic Conversions of NO and C <sub>3</sub> H <sub>6</sub>

2007· article· en· W2064461133 on OpenAlexaff
Runduo Zhang, Houshang Alamdari, M. Bassir, Serge Kaliaguine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisStoichiometryOxygenMixing (physics)RedoxChemistryPerovskite (structure)Materials scienceChemical engineeringNOxInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryCombustion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to adjust the redox properties of perovskite-based silver catalysts to satisfy the requirements for their application under overstoichiometric oxygen conditions (lean burn), three mixtures were prepared [Mixture (I): 10% La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 + 90% Al2O3; Mixture (II): 3% Ag/(10% La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 + 90% Al2O3); Mixture (III): 10% La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 + 90% (3%Ag/Al2O3)]. Mixture (I) with only a 10% La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 blend exhibited a NO reduction behavior similar to that of La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 alone at stoichiometric oxygen (1% O2). NO conversion of La0.88Ag0.12FeO3 under an excess of oxygen (10% O2) was however significantly improved by mixing with Al2O3 resulting in a value of ~ 30% at &gt;400 °C in the case of Mixture (I). Ag impregnation facilitated the NO catalytic reduction, leading to a better deNOx performance for Mixture (II) and Mixture (III) than that of Mixture (I). It was also found that those silver atoms associated with Al2O3 are more effective for NO transformation. Therefore, the optimal mixed catalyst was Mixture (III), which shows satisfactory NO reduction and C3H6 oxidation at 500 °C under the whole range of O2 content from 1% to 10%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207