<scp>PET</scp> pyrolysis and hydrolysis mechanism in the fixed pyrolyzer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the conventional polyethylene terephthalate (PET) pyrolysis process, the formation of char by excessive pyrolysis is mainly due to the dehydration mechanism, so water is considered an auxiliary agent that can effectively inhibit excessive pyrolysis. The preparation of terephthalic acid (TPA) by steam‐assisted pyrolysis of PET is an effective method to achieve closed‐loop recycling of waste PET. To ensure that the reaction is mild enough to reduce excessive cracking products such as char and benzoic acid and thus increase the yield of TPA, it is critical to reduce the reaction rate while maintaining a sufficient excess steam coefficient. Under the optimal operating conditions, when the temperature rise rate was 0.5 °C min −1 and the excess steam coefficient was 150, the yield of TPA was 72.5 wt.%, and the purity was 85.5%. Noticeably, the steam‐assisted pyrolysis system is a heterogeneous reaction system whose reaction mechanism is different from the conventional hydrolysis and pyrolysis reactions and has a unique reaction path. The mechanistic study indicates that, in addition to the thermal cracking of PET molecules occurring in conventional pyrolysis, hydroxyl attack and transfer, and supplementation of benzene ring hydrogen also occur between water and intermediate molecules. Meanwhile, it has also been proven that the intermolecular hydrogen transfer between intermediate molecules and water molecules is the key to reduce the intensity of the reaction and inhibit the formation of char. This discovery illustrates the mechanism of the reaction between water and PET in the steam‐assisted pyrolysis process in the fixed pyrolyzer and justifies the distinction between it and the pyrolysis and hydrolysis processes of PET. It provides a theoretical basis for optimizing the pyrolysis process of PET, which is essential for the industrialization of TPA preparation from PET steam‐assisted pyrolysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".