24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 878  |  回复: 3
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者慕童小丸子将赠送您 100 个金币
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖,点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

慕童小丸子

铜虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 润色 已有1人参与

Because, for the hydrogenation of light fraction oil, 3~8 nm of aperture was profitable, while for heavy oil hydrogenation, 7~13 nm was the best pore diameter range. The aperture of catalyst which was too small might hinder the diffusion of reactants and products, and that too large was not good for the dispersion of active phases.
哪位前辈能帮我润色一下这段话,想投稿,但老师说这句话太口语化。谢谢
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

dingq0703371

木虫 (正式写手)

ElectricalMachinery
3楼2017-02-09 22:38:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 4 个回答

慕童小丸子

铜虫 (小有名气)

请大神帮我下,谢谢。
2楼2017-02-09 20:01:13
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

胡大嘴先生

木虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
Noted that too small aperture of catalyst might hinder the diffusion of reactants/products and (that) too large leveled the difficulty of well dispersion of active phases, 3~8 nm of aperture was appropriate for hydrogenation of light fraction oil, while 7~13 nm favored heavy oil.
梦想还是要有的。
4楼2017-02-10 09:53:09
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见