MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392911882 · doi:10.1080/00032719.2024.2329698

Characterization of the Conversion of Benzene to Nitrosobenzene in a Helium Low-Temperature Plasma

2024· article· en· W4392911882 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyao Wang, Junliang Zhang, Chenlu Wang, Jiancheng Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsIONICS Mass Spectrometry (Canada)
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChemistryNitrosobenzeneBenzeneCharacterization (materials science)HeliumPlasmaAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental chemistryNanotechnologyOrganic chemistryCatalysisNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ionization of benzene (C6H6) through helium low-temperature plasma (He-LTP) offers a promising solution to the pervasive issue of its pollution in our daily lives. This study aimed to optimize the conditions for generating specific compounds, namely M+ and [M + 30]+, during the ionization of benzene in low-temperature plasma (LTP) with determination by mass spectrometry (MS). When the discharge voltage is 2.5 kV, a sample gas to discharge gas flow rate ratio of 2:3 is the best condition for generating M+ ions. When the discharge voltage is 3.5 kV, the gas flow rate ratio of 1:3 is the most suitable for generating [M + 30]+ ions. The LTP exhibits optimal ionization efficiency at a total gas flow rate of 40 mL/min. Additionally, we conducted a comparative analysis on the optical emission of benzene in the LTP which revealed the generation of free radicals associated with N, H, and O. The produced nitroso radical (ON•) combines with ionized benzene to yield the [M + 30]+ ion, identified to be nitrosobenzene. Notably, 95% conversion was achieved in the transformation from benzene to nitrosobenzene.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical LettersSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207