MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406333748 · doi:10.3390/pr13010194

Coal Tar Naphtha Refining: Phenol Alkylation with 1-Hexene and the Impact of Pyridine

2025· article· en· W4406333748 on OpenAlexaff
Arno de Klerk

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaphthaChemistryPyridineOrganic chemistryAlkylationOlefin fiberCatalysisPhenolCoal liquefactionHydrodesulfurizationCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coal tar naphtha is produced from coal carbonization, moving bed coal gasification, and thermal liquefaction of coal. The naphtha can contain up to 60% aromatics and 15% olefins, as well as nitrogen-, oxygen-, and sulfur-containing compounds. Usually only hydrotreating is considered, but when producing motor gasoline, olefin–aromatic alkylation could reduce the associated octane number loss due to olefin hydrogenation by converting olefins to alkylated phenols and aromatics. The plausibility of using acid-catalyzed alkylation with coal tar naphtha, which contains nitrogen bases, was investigated by studying a model system comprising phenol and 1-hexene in the absence and presence of pyridine. It was found that pyridine only inhibited conversion over a range of amorphous silica–alumina catalysts. The most effective catalyst was Siral 30 (30% silica, 70% alumina) and at 315 °C, 0.05 wt% pyridine caused a 35% inhibition of phenol conversion compared to conversion in the absence of pyridine. Catalyst activity could be restored by rejuvenating the catalyst with clean feed at a higher temperature. The results supported a description of phenol alkylation with olefins that took place by at least two pathways, one involving protonation of the olefin (typical for Friedel–Crafts alkylation) and one where the olefin is the nucleophile.

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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207