Evaluating the thermal stability of chemicals and systems: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the realm of chemical processing, particularly at the industrial scale, safety is of utmost importance. A predominant factor causing accidents within the chemical industry is runaway phenomena, primarily initiated by uncontrolled exothermic reactions. This review critically examines the often‐overlooked decomposition mechanisms as a significant contributor to thermal energy release, necessitating a comprehensive revision and understanding of both experimental and theoretical strategies for assessing thermal degradation. Key to this discourse is the explication of calorimetry as the principal experimental technique, alongside ab initio quantum chemistry simulations as a robust theoretical framework for quantifying the most relevant properties. However, more than mere cognisance of these methodologies is required for a meticulous thermal stability assessment. The review emphasizes identifying and quantifying fundamental parameters through experimental and theoretical investigations. Only upon acquiring these parameters, including kinetic, thermodynamic, onset, and peak characteristics of the exothermic decomposition reactions, can one effectively mitigate risks and hazards in designing and optimizing chemical processes and apparatus. Furthermore, this review delineates qualitative and quantitative methodologies for hazard assessment, proffering strategies for estimating safe operational conditions and sizing relief devices. The paper culminates in exploring future trajectories in thermal stability assessments, focusing on emerging applications in lithium‐ion batteries, electrolyzers, electrified reactors, ionic liquids, artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches. Thus, the paper underlines the evolving landscape of thermal risk management in contemporary and future chemical industries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".