MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326856554 · doi:10.1021/ie102417q

Surfactant-Template/Ultrasound-Assisted Method for the Preparation of Porous Nanoparticle Lithium Zirconate

2011· article· en· W2326856554 on OpenAlex
Hamid R. Radfarnia, Maria C. Iliuta

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChemical Looping and Thermochemical Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonicationSorptionChemical engineeringMaterials scienceSorbentAdsorptionPulmonary surfactantPorosityNanoparticleLithium (medication)Particle sizeNanotechnologyChemistryOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porous nanoparticle lithium zirconate (Li 2 ZrO 3 ) was prepared using an ultrasound-assisted surfactant-template method in the liquid-state reaction. The CO 2 adsorption performance of the prepared materials was tested under various conditions and compared with that of Li 2 ZrO 3 prepared by the simple surfactant-template method (porous, without sonication) and the conventional soft-chemistry route. The results indicated a better adsorption rate and capacity of porous nanopowders, whether assisted with ultrasound or not, in comparison with the traditional sample. This behavior is mainly due to a less aggregated powder structure and porous framework, facilitating gas and ion diffusion to and from the particle layers. However, the porous adsorbent prepared without sonication exhibited instability during cyclic operation, limiting its application for long-time use. Sonication time and surfactant concentration were found to be key parameters for controlling the crystallite size and the BET surface area. The porous Li 2 ZrO 3 sample prepared with less surfactant and a shorter irradiation time (sample A) had the most favorable sorption kinetics and capacity among all studied samples. The maximum uptake capacity of 22 wt % for sample A compared to 15.2 wt % for the conventional sample (sample J, fabricated by the soft-chemistry method), obtained under a 100% CO 2 stream, suggested a noticeable improvement in sorption behavior of the proposed adsorbents compared with traditional Li 2 ZrO 3 . Moreover, the adequate cyclic stability of porous powders prepared by sonication identify these materials as promising CO 2 acceptors, particularly for integrated sorbent/catalyst systems such as that used for sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming (SESMR). CO 2 adsorption experimental data for sample A were successfully modeled at various CO 2 partial pressures using a double-exponential equation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.215 · 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