Synthesis and Characterization of NiMo Catalysts Supported on Fine Carbon Particles for Hydrotreating: Effects of Metal Loadings in Catalyst Formulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The by-products collected during the synthesis of carbon nanohorns via the arc discharge synthesis method is comprised of other carbon particles (OCP). At a hydrotreating operating temperature of 370°C, preliminary investigations using a bimetallic catalyst with support originating from the fine fractions of other carbon particles (OCP f ) and containing 13 wt% Mo and 2.5 wt% Ni resulted in an HDS and HDN conversion of 78 and 25%, respectively. Variation of metal compositions in catalyst formulation and its impact on hydrotreating activity was therefore considered in this study to enhance the hydrotreating activity of OCP f –supported catalyst, and to determine if the best NiMo/OCP f catalyst achieved from this study could be a viable catalyst for hydrotreating applications. The co-incipient wetness impregnation was used in preparing series of hydrotreating catalysts with Ni and Mo loadings within the range of (2.5–5.0 wt%) and (13–26 wt%) respectively. Overall, the catalyst samples with maximum Ni loading of 5.0 wt% and Mo loadings of either 13 or 19 wt% showed higher dispersion and the ability to form a Type II Ni-Mo-S phase with enhanced activity. The effects of metal compositions on both HDS and HDN activities were correlated with their physicochemical properties.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it