MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555272531 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22742

Positive cooperativity of CaSiO<sub>3</sub> and platinum‐tin catalyst in reaction of acetic acid to ethanol

2016· article· en· W2555272531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianqiang Zhang, Jian Luo, Jun Gao, Dianhua Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCatalysis for Biomass Conversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalysisAcetic acidPlatinumChemistryInorganic chemistryChemisorptionTinNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Catalytic hydrogenation of acetic acid to ethanol was investigated in a fixed‐bed micro‐reactor with calcium silicate‐modified platinum‐tin catalyst at mild reaction condition. The modified catalyst exhibited excellent performance for the ethanol synthesis process at relatively low pressure. According to the results of H 2 ‐pulse chemisorption experiments, the introduction of calcium silicate promoted the dispersion of platinum particles. The NH 3 ‐TPD and H 2 ‐TPR results showed the decrease of acid content on catalyst surface and the enhancement of reducibility after the CaSiO 3 modification. Additionally, the results of XPS indicated that Sn (0) was emergent and Pt (2+) was sharply decreased after reduction. Both the H 2 ‐TPR and XPS results supported the formation of Pt‐Sn alloy during the reduction process at 623 K. The Pt‐Sn alloy changed the electron density and benefited the free hydrogen dissociation and hydrogenation. The enhancement of reaction temperature and pressure both promoted acetic acid conversion. The kinetic model of power‐function type was established to describe the process of hydrogenation. The results of residual analysis confirmed that the raised kinetic model for acetic acid to ethanol reaction was suitable.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalysis for Biomass ConversionFrench-language works237,207