Density functional theory study on catalytic cracking of <i>n</i>‐hexane on heteropoly acid: A comparison with acidic zeolite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have performed a direct comparison of n‐hexane cracking catalysed by a zeolite (H‐ZSM‐5) and a heteropoly acid (phosphotungstic acid, HPW). This comparison was examined by employing density functional theory, including dispersion energy, M06‐L, for the purpose of understanding these two catalysts for this industrially important reaction. The predicted adsorption energies of hexane are −21.4 and −6.8 kcal/mol for H‐ZSM‐5 and HPW, respectively. The protolytic cracking mechanism is proposed to proceed via the first step of the C–C activation and is found to be the rate‐determining step with activation energies of 42.8 and 41.4 kcal/mol for H‐ZSM‐5 and HPW, respectively. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both catalysts for hydrocarbon cracking and give a perspective of utilising cutting‐edge molecular design for a tailor‐made hybrid catalyst. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".