CO<sub>2</sub>–CH<sub>4</sub> phase equilibria on modified multi‐walled carbon nanotubes using Gibbs excess energy models based on vacancy solution theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract CO2 and CH4 equilibrium adsorption are predicted by Excess Gibbs energy models based on vacancy solution theory, for single and binary mixture on Multi‐Walled Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNTs) functioned by –NH2 group. The experimental data of single gas adsorption isotherms were obtained at moderate pressures and temperatures using the volumetric method in a static gaseous set up. Firstly, the equilibrium pressures related to the adsorbed amounts, for single gases, were correlated on Wilson and Flory–Huggins activity coefficient equations based on vacancy solution theory and the model parameters were determined by fitting the model on the experimental data. Secondly, the pure component parameters were implemented in extended Wilson and Flory–Huggins equations for CO2 and CH4 mixture to predict the gas–solid phase equilibria. The results showed fairly good agreement between the experiments and both Gibbs models. Finally, the studied models were compared with the popular model of Extended Langmuir. The results revealed more accurately and precisely prediction of Wilson and Flory–Huggins against Langmuir model for mixed gas of CO2 and CH4 on MWCNT–NH2. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".