Comparative Analysis of the Carbon Dioxide Absorption and Recuperation Capacities in Aqueous 2-(2-Aminoethylamino)ethanol (AEE) and Blends of Aqueous AEE and <i>N</i>-Methyldiethanolamine Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) absorption/desorption has been carried out in diverse aqueous amine solutions consisting of 2-(2-aminoethylamino)ethanol (AEE), monoethanolamine (MEA), and the blends of AEE and N -methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) at different concentrations to compare the CO 2 loading and recuperation properties of these amines. The CO 2 absorption loading has been estimated in 0.476, 0.951, 1.427, and 2.378 M AEE solutions, a 2.378 M MEA solution, and two blends of 1.427 M AEE + 0.418 M MDEA and 1.427 M AEE + 0.836 M MDEA with two CO 2 concentrations of 5.01 and 100 vol % at 23 °C and a flow rate of 3.067 L/min. The CO 2 desorption was performed by heating these solutions at 100−102 °C. The results revealed that the AEE diamine possesses a greater CO 2 absorption capacity than MEA while its CO 2 desorption capacity was inferior to that observed for MEA. Moreover, the CO 2 recuperation capacity obtained for AEE was greater than that of MEA at the same concentration. Interestingly, the CO 2 absorption in an aqueous AEE solution was also slightly increased in the presence of MDEA while its desorption was highly enhanced, resulting in an increase of about 15% of its CO 2 recuperation capacity. Taken together, these results suggest that the structural properties of AEE, including the presence of two amino groups, as compared to MEA could favor its CO 2 absorption and recuperation capacities. Therefore, AEE and the blends of AEE + MDEA could represent interesting absorbents for the development of new methods to eliminate the CO 2 emanation into the atmosphere by industrial combustion processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".