Catalytic Solvent Regeneration Using Hot Water During Amine Based CO2 Capture Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments for CO 2 stripping/amine regeneration were performed using single and blended amines (namely, MEA, MEA– MDEA, MEA–DEAB (4-(diethylamine)-2-butanol)) with and without solid acid catalysts (γ-Al 2 O 3 or HZSM-5) at 90–95 ∘ C. The heat duty to regenerate 5 M MEA without catalyst was taken as 100% and as the base line. The results showed that the amine regeneration performance in terms of lowest heat duty followed the order: MEA–DEAB with HZSM-5 (38%) > MEA–DEAB with γ-Al 2 O 3 (40%) > MEA–DEAB with no catalyst (51%) > MEA with HZSM-5 (65%) > MEA with γ-Al 2 O 3 (73%) > MEA– MDEA with γ-Al 2 O 3 /no catalyst (74%), all relative to MEA with no catalyst (100%). The results further showed that the addition of MDEA or DEAB (as tertiary amines) in a blended solvent provided R3N and HCO −, which split and thus decreased the free energy gaps in the solvent regeneration pathway. The implication is that the use of blended amines in conjunction with solid acid catalysts could result in stripper size and heat duty reductions during solvent regeneration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".