A review of the studies on the utilization of petroleum pitch and its blends with coal tar pitch for carbon anode production in aluminum industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• This article reviews the research results on petroleum pitch (PP) utilization in anodes • The most important gain is the reduction of PAH emissions when PP is used • To improve the anode quality, PP is modified or blended with coal tar pitch (CTP). • Later, it is shown that the quality can be improved by adjusting the conditions. • There is a need for identifying the adjustments needed for a given PP or blend. Aluminum, one of the most abundant chemical elements in the Earth's crust, is primarily present in oxidized form as alumina (Al 2 O 3 ). Aluminum production is carried out through the Hall-Héroult process, involving the reduction of alumina to aluminum in the presence of a carbon source (anode) and electrical energy. During this process, different parameters, including the quality of carbon anodes, can significantly influence the process and emissions. Carbon anodes are composed of dry aggregate (calcined petroleum coke (CPC), butts, rejected anodes (baked and green)) and coal tar pitch (CTP) which binds the dry aggregate particles together. Anode properties are affected by the raw materials and the parameters of the different production steps such as anode recipe preparation, mixing, compacting, and baking. However, due to the rising demand for CTP in the aluminum industry, its decreasing quality and availability, and its toxic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content, potential alternatives have been explored. Several researchers investigated petroleum pitch (PP) in order to evaluate its potential as an alternative to CTP. Some studies found that CTP has superior properties compared to those of PP. Other studies demonstrated that certain additives could improve the interaction of petroleum pitch with coke while enhancing its viscosity. Others used CTP and PP together. The proposed solutions involve the utilization of unmodified and modified PP and blends of PP and CTP. This article presents an overview of a literature review of the various research efforts conducted on the utilization of PP in anode production.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".