MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326371262 · doi:10.1515/1542-6580.2541

Kinetic Modelling of Phenol Oxidation in a Bioremediation Medium Using Fenton's Reagent

2011· article· en· W2326371262 on OpenAlexaff
Pardeep Kumar, Hossein Nikaktari, Mehdi Nemati, Gordon A. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroquinonePhenolCatecholChemistryMaleic acidHydrogen peroxideReagentFenton's reagentHydroxyl radicalBenzeneReaction rate constantPeroxideInorganic chemistryNuclear chemistryKineticsOrganic chemistryRadicalFenton reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is aimed at kinetic modeling of phenol oxidation using Fenton’s reagent in a medium suitable for bioremediation of organic pollutants. Batch experiments were conducted to study the effects of H2O2 concentration (29.26 to 146.31 mM), temperature (5 to 35°C), and to compare the oxidation of phenol in a bioremediation medium to that in pure water. The reaction mechanism used for kinetic modeling is based on the intermediate oxidation products identified in this study using LC-MS and ion chromatography. Progress of the chemical oxidation by Fenton’s reagent was monitored by determining the residual phenol concentration and concentrations of evolved intermediate compounds (catechol and hydroquinone) at regular time intervals. The rate of phenol oxidation and ultimate conversion of phenol were found to increase with increase in hydrogen peroxide concentration. The increase in temperatures has a positive effect on phenol oxidation and the rate of phenol oxidation was found to increase with temperature in the range of 5-35°C. Kinetic parameters, namely rate constants and activation energies for reactions involved, were determined by best-fitting the experimental data to the proposed reaction model. The values of the rate constants for oxidation of phenol and intermediate compounds, k1 (phenol to catechol), k2 (phenol to hydroquinone), k3 (catechol to maleic acid), k4 (hydroquinone to maleic acid) at 25°C were found to be 7.02x10-5±4.63x10-5, 7.22x10-4±6.09x10-4, 1.82x10-4±1.08x10-4, 1.68x10-3±1.29x10-3 L/mM min, respectively.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207