MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527609872 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22697

Modified and systematic synthesis of zinc oxide‐silica composite nanoparticles with optimum surface area as a proper H<sub>2</sub>S sorbent

2016· article· en· W2527609872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faeze Tari, Marzieh Shekarriz, Saeed Zarrinpashne, Ahmad Ruzbehani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Gas Emission Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran Nanotechnology Initiative Council
KeywordsCalcinationSorbentMaterials scienceResponse surface methodologyNanoparticleZincAdsorptionCentral composite designBET theoryComposite numberFourier transform infrared spectroscopyChemical engineeringSpecific surface areaNuclear chemistryChromatographyChemistryNanotechnologyMetallurgyComposite materialCatalysisOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this work is to synthesize high surface area zinc oxide/silica composite nanoparticles via a facile and systematic process. Regarding the importance of surface area in application of such nanoparticles, variation of this factor was studied by change of reaction parameters including concentration of zinc acetate solution, pH, and calcination temperature via Response Surface Method combined with Central Composite Design (RSM‐CCD). Optimum conditions were obtained as a concentration of 0.013 mol · L −1 , pH of ∼8.97, and calcination temperature of 541.6 °C. Optimum nanoparticles were characterized by various analyzes such as XRD, BET, AAS, FTIR, TGA/DTA, FESEM, EDS, and TEM. Comparison of two 0.1 g/g (10 wt %) ZnO/Silica samples with the optimum (337 m 2 · g −1 ) and non‐optimum (95 m 2 · g −1 ) surface areas indicated that nanoparticles prepared at the optimum conditions with average diameter of about 18 nm showed a H 2 S adsorption capacity of about 13 mg per gram of sorbent. This value was higher than that of the non‐optimized sample (6 mg per each gram of sorbent).

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicIndustrial Gas Emission ControlFrench-language works237,207