Total Oxidation of Toluene and Propane over Co3O4 Catalysts: Influence of Precipitating pH and Washing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of Co3O4 catalysts were synthesized by an ammonia precipitation method at various precipitating pH values (8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5, and 10.0) and with different numbers of washings. Their performance in the total oxidation of two selected hydrocarbons, toluene and propane, was evaluated at a reactant/oxygen molar ratio of 1/210 and a Weight Hourly Space Velocity (WHSV) of 40,000 mL g−1 h−1. The physicochemical properties of the catalysts were characterized by thermogravimetric and differential thermal analysis (TG/DTA), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and N2 absorption–desorption. The results show that the catalysts are in the cubic spinel phase (Fd-3m (227), a = 8.0840 Å) with average crystalline sizes of 29−40 nm and specific surface areas of 12–20 m2 g−1. All catalysts allowed 100% conversion of both toluene and propane at temperatures below 350 °C. The precipitating pH and the number of washings were observed to significantly affect the catalytic performance. The optimal synthesis condition was established to be pH 8.5 with two washings. The best catalyst gave 100% conversion of toluene and propane at 306 °C and 268 °C, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".