MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410734068 · doi:10.1002/cjce.25763

Selective separation of aromatics from alkanes with a green mixture <scp>MA</scp> / <scp>TeEG</scp>

2025· article· en· W4410734068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuying Wang, Xiaojia Wu, Yuming Tu, Qunsheng Li, Chencan Du, Zhongqi Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicZeolite Catalysis and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChemistrySeparation (statistics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Liquid–liquid extraction separation of aromatics from alkanes facilitates their conversion into high‐value chemicals. Utilizing solvents composed only of C, H, and O elements can mitigate toxicity and environmental contamination from conventional solvents in liquid–liquid extraction separation of aromatics from alkanes. This study evaluated several C‐, H‐, and O‐based solvents mixed with maleic anhydride (MA), which tetraethylene glycol (TeEG) had the best effect. Through assessment of thermal stability and separation performance, the optimal extractant MA:TeEG (4:1) was identified. The selectivity for tetralin over n ‐dodecane using MA:TeEG (4:1) could reach 97.92 with a distribution coefficient of 0.1877, while the selectivity for toluene over n ‐heptane was 38.60 with a distribution coefficient of 0.2323, demonstrating its high selective separation efficiency. Multistage extraction experiments and reusability texts were further conducted. Quantum chemical calculations revealed that the selective extraction mechanism was due to variations in van der Waals forces between the solvent and target components.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicZeolite Catalysis and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207