Thermogravimetric kinetic analysis of the <scp>Ce‐Zr</scp> composite oxygen carrier prepared by ball milling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A series of zirconium‐doped cerium‐based composite oxygen carriers were prepared using the ball milling method. The results from X‐ray powder diffraction (XRD), H 2 ‐temperature programmed reduction experiments (H 2 ‐TPR), and Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) show that a solid solution, formed from CeO 2 and ZrO 2 , possesses a mesoporous structure and exhibits excellent reaction performance. In addition, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) with an addition amount of 5 wt.% greatly increased the specific surface area of oxygen carriers, thereby improving the activity of solid solutions. In order to further understand the performance of oxygen carriers, the kinetics of H 2 reduction of oxygen carriers was studied by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The three‐dimensional diffusion model showed the best fitting effect among four typical models (viz., the diffusion‐controlled model, the unreacted shrinking core model, the uniform model, and the nucleation‐nuclei growth model). Finally, the activation energies of CeO 2 , Ce 9 Zr 1 O δ , and 5 wt.% CNTs Ce 9 Zr 1 O δ were 223.92, 170.96, and 128.60 kJ/mol, respectively, which also correspond with the reactivity sequence of the oxygen carriers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".