Conversion of Methane into Methanol Using the [6,6′-(2,2′-Bipyridine-6,6′-Diyl)bis(1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-Diamine)](Nitrato-O)Copper(II) Complex in a Solid Electrolyte Reactor Fuel Cell Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The application of solid electrolyte reactors for methane oxidation to co-generation of power and chemicals could be interesting, mainly with the use of materials that could come from renewable sources and abundant metals, such as the [6,6′- (2, 2′-bipyridine-6, 6′-diyl)bis (1,3,5-triazine-2, 4-diamine)](nitrate-O)copper (II) complex. In this study, we investigated the optimal ratio between this complex and carbon to obtain a stable, conductive, and functional reagent diffusion electrode. The most active Cu-complex compositions were 2.5 and 5% carbon, which were measured with higher values of open circuit and electric current, in addition to the higher methanol production with reaction rates of 1.85 mol L –1 h –1 close to the short circuit potential and 1.65 mol L –1 h –1 close to the open circuit potential, respectively. This activity was attributed to the ability of these compositions to activate water due to better distribution of the Cu complex in the carbon matrix as observed in the rotating ring disk electrode experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 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".