MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756172454 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23022

Effect of nitrogen doping on reactivity of coal char in reducing NO

2017· article· en· W2756172454 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xin Wang, Jianmin Gao, Zhihao Sun, Jian Cheng, Li Xu, Qian Du, Yukun Qin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCharNitridingNitrogenAmmonium bicarbonateCoalPorosityChemical engineeringCombustionChemistryReactivity (psychology)Bituminous coalMaterials scienceInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mixing coal char into coal powder and enhancing its reactivity with NO in the combustion process of a layer burning furnace is an effective method to realize low‐cost resource reduction of NO x . To enhance NO reducibility of char at high temperatures, this study used Shuozhou bituminous coal to prepare different nitriding chars (char modified by nitrogen doping) by changing the nitrogen agent, the dosage of nitrogen agent, and the treatment method. The effects of different nitriding conditions on the NO reducibility of char were evaluated using a programmed temperature rising method. The results show that NO reducibility of char is improved in different degrees after nitriding treatment, which is related to the improvement of pore structure and the formation of nitrogen‐containing functional groups. The NO reducibility of char is enhanced in the high‐temperature region when increasing the dosage of urea, but excessive urea amounts can hinder the porosity development of char, resulting in the decline of NO reduction efficiency. Ammonium bicarbonate as a nitrogen agent shows better effects on NO reduction below 725 °C compared with urea, but weaker effects above 725 °C. Furthermore, heat treatment can weaken the effect of nitrogen doping, but the overall trend of NO reduction curve is almost unchanged.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207