MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315465467 · doi:10.1021/ef5012963

In Situ Preparation of Alumina Nanoparticles in Heavy Oil and Their Thermal Cracking Performance

2014· article· en· W2315465467 on OpenAlexafffund
Maen M. Husein, Salman Jarallah Alkhaldi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNanoparticleMaterials scienceCrackingChemical engineeringDispersion (optics)HydrocarbonViscosityHeptaneIn situAdsorptionAPI gravityComposite materialNanotechnologyOrganic chemistryChemistryPetroleum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work details a technique for the in situ preparation of alumina nanoparticles in heavy oil and explores their activity with respect to mild thermal cracking. In principle, in situ-prepared nanoparticles display a high level of dispersion, which should improve their catalytic activity. Dispersed alumina nanoparticles 17 ± 5 nm in mean diameter were successfully prepared at 300 °C and characterized using X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The thermal cracking experiments were conducted in a batch reactor setup under two stages of heating at 300 and 350 °C. The pressure buildup in the reactor and the viscosity and °API gravity of the resultant oil were taken as measures of the extent of thermal cracking. Although there was a general shift toward higher °API gravity, it still fell within the level of uncertainty probably due to agglomeration at 350 °C that limited nanoparticle activity. A higher viscosity was obtained for the liquid fraction because of cross-linking. Furthermore, the uptake of hydrocarbon by the in situ-prepared nanoparticles was compared with that of commercial alumina nanoparticles. Uptake values with and without n -heptane or dichloromethane washing suggest different adsorbed species on the two types of particles.

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207