Chemical‐looping gasification of coal with CuFe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub> oxygen carriers: The reaction characteristics and structural evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, coal gasification to produce synthesis gas by chemical looping was investigated with CuFe2O4 oxygen carriers (OCs), including the reaction characteristics and structural evolution process. It was found that the presence of a CuFe2O4 OC increases the gasification reaction rate of coal in comparison to the use of inert bed material (silica sand). The CuFe2O4 OC enhanced the performance of hematite and improved the ability to produce syngas of CuO OCs. During the chemical looping process, CuFe2O4 was reduced to Fe3O4 and Cu. Furthermore, N2 adsorption/desorption and scanning electron microscopy images verified that the released O2 and the generated CO2 by the CuFe2O4 OCs improved the carbon conversion and facilitated the pore opening and expansion shown by the increase in specific surface area. This can be used as a theoretical reference that can be used to gain a better understanding of the microscopic mechanism for how CuFe2O4 OCs can accelerate the chemical looping gasification of coal.
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".