Reaction of Pentenes, Hexenes, and Heptenes with Phosphoric Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A temperature swing absorption process using phosphoric acid was proposed for the removal of olefins from cracked naphtha. Evaluation of this required information on the reaction of naphtha range olefins with phosphoric acid. Reactive absorption of olefins at 50 °C in 85% phosphoric acid (H3PO4) was studied. The olefins evaluated were 1-pentene, 2-methyl-1-butene, 2-methyl-2-butene, cyclopentene, 1-hexene, 2-methyl-1-pentene, cyclohexene, 1-heptene, 2-methyl-1-hexene, and 4-methylcyclohexene. All of the olefins formed alkyl phosphoric acid esters, with Cn olefins forming Cn-, C2n-, and sometimes C3n-alkyl phosphoric acid esters. Branching in the olefin affected alkyl phosphoric acid ester stability; ester bonds to the α-carbon were more stable. The acyclic C5-alkyl phosphoric acid esters were more water soluble than oil soluble, and as the chain length of the alkyl group increased, oil solubility increased. Cyclohexyl and methyl cyclohexyl phosphoric acid esters formed stable water–oil emulsions. Reaction rates were low, but double bond isomerization took place and proceeded stepwise, with alkyl phosphoric acid esters being intermediate products rather than reaction intermediates. Although it was found that temperature swing absorption using phosphoric acid would not result in a viable process, the study provided several insights about the intermediate products and phase behavior of phosphoric acid catalyzed olefin conversion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".