MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402222080 · doi:10.1002/cphc.202400357

Can Metal Promotion of SAPO‐34 Genuinely Improve Its Catalytic Performance in Methanol Conversion to Light Olefins Reaction?

2024· article· en· W4402222080 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Ghavipour, Ralph Al Hussami, Galal A. Nasser, Jan Kopyscinski

Bibliographic record

VenueChemPhysChem · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre in Green Chemistry and Catalysis
KeywordsCatalysisMethanolMetalChemistryPromotion (chess)Chemical engineeringMaterials sciencePhotochemistryOrganic chemistryPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To genuinely assess the effect of secondary metal promotion on improving the SAPO‐34 catalytic performance in MTO reaction, a broad spectrum of metals from different groups of the periodic table (alkali and alkaline earth metals, transition metals, rare earth metals, and basic metals) were investigated. Metals were added through a direct incorporation route with Me/Al 2 O 3 molar ratio of 0.05. Some metals seamlessly incorporated into the SAPO‐34 framework and replaced the Si and Al atoms, while others partially merged or even failed to be combined with SAPO and emerged as amorphous phases. Although, in some cases, the surface area of the metal‐promoted samples increased due to enhanced nucleation rate and smaller particle formation, the majority of the promoted samples suffered from a severe loss in crystallinity that resulted in inferior catalytic performance. It was also illustrated that hydrogen co‐feeding with methanol (H 2 /MeOH molar ratio of 1.5) at ambient pressure could extend the catalyst lifetime by 27 % due to hydrogenation and cracking of the coke species and improve the light olefins selectivity.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemPhysChemSame topicZeolite Catalysis and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207