Oxidation of cyclohexane using a novel RuO<sub>2</sub>zeolite nanocomposite catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the synthesis, using an organic-template-free hydrothermal crystallization method, and catalysis of a new type of nanocomposite material, 1.3 nm-sized RuO2 particles confined in faujasite zeolite. The zeolite-confined RuO2 composites were fully characterized with X-ray powder diffraction, Ru K-edge X-ray absorption, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. XRD and X-ray fluorescence analysis indicate that the framework is faujasite zeolite with a Si:Al ratio of 1.25. Ru K-edge X-ray absorption near-edge structures indicate that the ruthenium species in the zeolite is Ru(IV) with nearest-neighbor octahedral environments similar to hydrous RuO2, i.e., distorted "RuO6". The k2-weighted extended X-ray absorption fine structure indicates that the Ru(IV) species anchored in the zeolite likely form amorphous RuO2 with a 2D-chain structure, in which RuO6 units are connected together by two shared oxygen atoms. TEM shows that the particle size of RuO2 encapsulated inside the supercages of FAU is about 1.3 nm. The RuO2FAU composites display significant catalytic activity in the oxidation of cyclohexane with tBHP under mild (room temperature and 1 atm (1 atm [Formula: see text] 101.325 kPa)) conditions. The ketone and alcohol concentration can be as high as 0.26 mol L1 in 5 h with 48% peroxide efficiency. The catalyst is stable and reusable. Possible oxidation mechanisms are also discussed.Key words: nanocomposite, ruthenium oxide, catalysis, oxidation, zeolite.
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 | 0.000 | 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".