Ru‐Pt catalysts supported on Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> and SiO<sub>2</sub>─Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> for the selective ring opening of naphthenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alumina and silica‐alumina supported Ru‐Pt catalysts were evaluated for the ring opening of naphthenes. Pt, Ru, and Ru‐Pt catalysts were prepared by the impregnation of inorganic precursors over γ‐alumina and silica‐alumina supports. The catalysts were evaluated by temperature programmed reduction (TPR), pyridine temperature programmed desorption (TPD), CO‐FTIR, and by test reactions of 33DM1B isomerization, cyclohexane dehydrogenation, cyclopentane hydrogenolysis, and the ring opening of decalin. The strong interaction between the metals (Pt‐Ru) was attributed to their reductions occurring simultaneously. The acidity and strength of the acid sites of the monometallic Ru catalyst were higher than those of the monometallic Pt catalyst. The total acidity (Lewis and Brønsted) and the strength of the acid sites were higher for the silica‐alumina supported catalysts. The silica‐alumina catalysts had 10 times more Brønsted acidity than the γ‐alumina ones and an increased activity and selectivity to decalin ring opening products. Supported monometallic Ru had the best performance for the ring opening reaction.
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".