High efficient separation of olefin from fluid catalytic cracking naphtha: Separation mechanism and universal simulation method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) naphtha critical component‐oriented separation process is an efficient method to produce ultra‐low‐sulfur (<10 μg/g) gasoline with minimal loss of octane number (<1 RON). However, the product quality is highly dependent on the structure of the components of FCC naphtha. Aromatics and thiophene sulfides without a methyl side chain favor the separation of olefin. The major impulse of olefin separation is the solvent‐induced dipole of aromatics or thiophene sulfides, leading to a “Plane‐to‐Plane” combination between the solvent and aromatics or thiophene sulfides, accompanied by a steric hindrance due to their side chains. This condition resulted in 2–3 times greater θ of benzene and thiophene compared with that of toluene and 3‐methylthiophene. In addition, an improved non‐random two‐liquid model was proposed based on the above results, and a simulation method for FCC naphtha solvent extraction process was established. The calculation results accorded well with industry data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".