MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270265501 · doi:10.1039/c6cp00001k

The effect of the nanosize on surface properties of NiO nanoparticles for the adsorption of Quinolin-65

2016· article· en· W2270265501 on OpenAlexafffund
Nedal N. Marei, Nashaat N. Nassar, Gerardo Vitale

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdsorptionNon-blocking I/ONanoparticlePolarChemical engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyChemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryCatalysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Quinolin-65 (Q-65) as a model-adsorbing compound for polar heavy hydrocarbons, the nanosize effect of NiO nanoparticles on the adsorption of Q-65 was investigated. Different-sized NiO nanoparticles with sizes between 5 and 80 nm were prepared by the controlled thermal dehydroxylation of Ni(OH)2. The properties of the nanoparticles were characterized using XRD, BET, FTIR, HRTEM and TGA. The effects of the nanosize on the textural properties, the shape and the morphology were studied. The adsorption of Q-65 molecules onto different-sized nanoparticles was tested in toluene-based solutions. On a normalized surface area basis, the number of Q-65 molecules adsorbed per nm(2) of the NiO surface was the highest for NiO nanoparticles of size 80 nm, while that for 5 nm sized NiO nanoparticles was the lowest. Excitingly, the adsorption capacity of other NiO sizes varied from loading suggesting different adsorption behavior, which exhibits the significance of textural properties during the adsorption of Q-65. Computational modeling of the interaction between the Q-65 molecule and the NiO nanoparticle surface was carried out to get more understanding of its adsorption behavior. A number of factors contributing to the enhanced adsorption capacity of nanoscale NiO were determined. These include surface reactivity, topology, morphology and textural properties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207