Kinetic Size Effect During Dissolution of a Synthetic <i>γ</i>-Alumina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dissolution process of a technical, nanodispersed γ-alumina in water was studied at 25 °C in the pH range 3.0 ≤ pH ≤ 11.5. Thereby, especial attention was paid to the influence of supersaturation on the dissolution behaviour observed. In conclusion, we were able to verify a size effect during the dissolution process, in the whole pH range investigated. In addition, we observed that changing supersaturation under identical conditions, leads to a shift of the maximum in the concentration profiles both, in absolute value and in time, when the maximum occurs. X-ray powder diffraction analysis and nitrogen adsorption measurements were used to identify the solid material collected during selected dissolution experiments. As a result, the formation of the aluminium phase -bayerite/gibbsite- could be excluded as a possible reason for the observed dissolution behaviour. The rate constants of the dissolution process were evaluated using the model of Gibbs free energy of cluster formation, which considers size effect among other factors. As a result, we were able to prove that the observed maxima in the concentration profiles were due to a kinetic size effect, caused by the size of the primary particles of the starting material, surface tension, and supersaturation in the system.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".