Glycerol carbonate formation from glycerol and dimethyl carbonate using lithium‐based catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Excess glycerol from biodiesel production can be sustainably converted into value‐added products like glycerol carbonate, for its use in polymers, solvents, and as ecofriendly alternative as green chemical in various chemical industries. This study aims to synthesize a catalyst optimized for the glycerol and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) conversion to enhance the yield of glycerol carbonate. This reaction not only avoids the use of hazardous chemicals but also proceeds under relatively mild conditions. The metal oxides of MgO, CaO, NiO, Li 2 O, and LiNO 3 were compared for catalytic activity, and lithium oxide achieved the highest performance, with a glycerol conversion of 83.5 ± 1.0% and a glycerol carbonate yield of 77.5 ± 2.0%. Subsequently, lithium oxide was employed in conjunction with an activated carbon support derived from flax shive, synthesized through a microwave‐assisted method. Phosphoric acid concentration (55–75 wt.%) and heating time (4–16 min) were systematically varied to maximize the average pore diameter of the support. Activated carbon characterized by a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface area of 1373 m 2 /g and an average pore diameter of 3.29 nm was obtained under optimal conditions: 75 wt.% phosphoric acid concentration and a 4‐minute heating time. The results showcase the exceptional performance of lithium oxide when used in combination with activated carbon with providing 87.9 ± 2.4% glycerol carbonate yield. Characterization techniques such as thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), BET surface area analysis, X‐ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and Fourier transform infrared (FT‐IR) were employed, alongside gas chromatography (GC) and proximate and elemental analyses to comprehensively characterize the physicochemical properties of the catalysts and elucidate their correlation with catalytic performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".