Modelling and Multi-Objective Optimization of the Sulphur Dioxide Oxidation Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is one of the most produced chemicals in the world. The critical step of the sulphuric acid production is the oxidation of sulphur dioxide (SO2) to sulphur trioxide (SO3) which takes place in a multi catalytic bed reactor. In this study, a representative kinetic rate equation was rigorously selected to develop a mathematical model to perform the multi-objective optimization (MOO) of the reactor. The objectives of the MOO were the SO2 conversion, SO3 productivity, and catalyst weight, whereas the decisions variables were the inlet temperature and the length of each catalytic bed. MOO studies were performed for various design scenarios involving a variable number of catalytic beds and different reactor configurations. The MOO process was mainly comprised of two steps: (1) the determination of Pareto domain via the determination a large number of non-dominated solutions, and (2) the ranking of the Pareto-optimal solutions based on preferences of a decision maker. Results show that a reactor comprised of four catalytic beds with an intermediate absorption column provides higher SO2 conversion, marginally superior to four catalytic beds without an intermediate SO3 absorption column. Both scenarios are close to the ideal optimum, where the reactor temperature would be adjusted to always be at the maximum reaction rate. Results clearly highlight the compromise existing between conversion, productivity and catalyst weight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".