Deoxygenation of stearic acid with a novel N<scp>i</scp>(CO)‐M<scp>o</scp>S<sub>2</sub>/F<scp>e</scp><sub>3</sub>S<sub>4</sub> catalyst
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Magnetically recyclable Ni(Co)‐promoted MoS2 catalysts with greigite (G) core were synthesized and their activity and selectivity in hydrodeoxygenation of stearic acid were investigated. The activity of the catalysts tested at 320 °C and H2 initial pressure of 3.5 MPa could be ranked as NiMo/G > CoMo/G > Mo/G. Two main products were detected, C18 (through HDO pathway) and C17 hydrocarbons (through DCO pathway). HDO was the dominant pathway for all of the catalysts. As for the C18/C17 ratio, the catalysts were found to be in the order: Mo/G > CoMo/G ≈ NiMo/G. The Paraffin/Olefin ratio was over 1 for all of the catalysts with NiMo/G showing the highest ratio. Stearic acid was found to have an inhibiting effect on the adsorption of intermediates over the active sites. Moreover, the concentrations of intermediates decreased at high conversions of stearic acid. The formation of the intermediate aldehyde is through C–O hydrogenolysis of the fatty acid following the protonation, dehydrogenation, and hydride addition steps. The same steps were suggested to be involved in the transformation of the aldehyde to the alcohol. Formation of Cn‐1 hydrocarbons was found to be via decarbonylation route. The enhancement of the DCO pathway over the promoted catalysts was related to the electron transfer from the promoting atom to an adjacent sulphur atom and reduction in sulphur‐metal bond strength.
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) | 0.001 | 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".