Oxidation‐separation kinetics of nitric oxide from flue gas using ferrate (VI) reagent in a spraying reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidation‐separation kinetics of nitric oxide (NO) from flue gas using ferrate (VI) reagent in a spraying reactor was studied. Effects of several key parameters on NO absorption rate were studied, and the results show that increasing ferrate (VI) concentration, solution pH, and NO concentration increases the NO absorption rate. Increasing reaction temperature and SO2 concentration decrease NO absorption rate. The results of kinetic studies show that when < = 0.16 mol/L, the oxidation‐absorption process of NO can be seen as a pseudo‐2.28 order reaction (the reaction order is higher and the effect of reactant concentrations on reaction rate will become more obvious) and a pseudo‐1.0 order reaction when > 0.16 mol/L. The oxidation‐absorption process of NO is a fast reaction, which shows that the mass transfer process is the key rate control step of the whole NO absorption process. When > 0.16 mol/L, the mass transfer coefficient of gas phase and interfacial area play an important role for the oxidation‐absorption process of NO.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".