MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576535011 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22779

Glycerol hydrogenolysis using a Ni/Ce‐Mg catalyst for improved ethanol and 1,2‐propanediol selectivities

2017· article· en· W2576535011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Russel Menchavez, Matthew J. Morra, Brian He

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCatalysis for Biomass Conversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogenolysisCatalysisGlycerolEthanolSelectivityChemistryPropanediolNuclear chemistryRaw materialEthanol fuelOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Glycerol, a byproduct from biodiesel production, is an inexpensive and renewable alternative feedstock for producing valuable chemicals. Hydrogenolysis of glycerol produces ethanol and 1,2‐propanediol (1,2‐PDO) with the help of appropriate catalysts. Commercially available non‐specific Ni‐based catalysts have been reported for use in producing ethanol along with 1,2‐PDO. In this work, a new Ni catalyst on various support materials was developed for the selective production of ethanol and 1,2‐PDO using glycerol hydrogenolysis. The Ni catalyst on CeO 2 showed the highest potential for producing both ethanol and 1,2‐PDO. The catalyst with 0.15–0.50 g/g (15–50 wt%) Ni on CeO 2 improved glycerol conversion at reaction temperatures of 215–245 °C, however 1,2‐PDO selectivity was unsatisfactory. An improvement in 1,2‐PDO selectivity was attained when Al, Si, Zn, and/or Mg were added as promoters to the Ni catalyst on CeO 2, while improvement in the selectivity for ethanol occurred only with the addition of Si or Mg. A variation in Mg content showed that 1,2‐PDO selectivity was favoured at higher Mg content, while ethanol selectivity peaked at 10 % Mg. Systematic investigations found that the catalyst with 0.25 g/g (25 wt%) Ni on a Ce:Mg (4:1 mol:mol) support provided good selectivities for 1,2‐PDO at 68.10 % and ethanol at 9.0 %, 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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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