Physico-chemical investigation of catalytic oxidation sites in 4%Rh/CeO2 catalysts prepared by impregnation and deposition–precipitation methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4 wt% Rh/CeO 2 catalysts were prepared by two different methods: deposition–precipitation (DP) and impregnation (Imp). X-ray diffraction (XRD), differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetry (DSC-TG), temperature-programmed reduction (TPR), and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) were used for physicochemical characterization. The solids were tested in propylene and carbon black oxidation reactions. The 4%Rh/CeO 2 (DP) showed better catalytic performance in both reactions compared to the catalyst prepared by the impregnation method. The XRD technique evidenced the formation of Rh 2 O 3 phase in the DP-solid after calcination of this latter at 400 °C for 4 h. EPR evidenced, only in the DP-solid, the presence of O 2 − species in interaction with the CeO 2 surface whereas Rh 4+ ions in the form of clusters were identified in both solids. The TPR technique showed that the DP-solid was reduced by hydrogen at lower temperature compared to the impregnated one. The higher catalytic performance of the DP-solid was attributed to the presence of O 2 − species along with the presence of Rh 2 O 3 phase in ceria and to the better reducibility and lower particle size of the rhodium species.
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".