Process energy efficiency in pervaporative and vacuum membrane distillation separation of 2,3‐butanediol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work focused on the energy aspects of the pervaporative separation of 1‐butanol/2,3‐butanediol. A numeric model was developed to simulate the mass and energy balance of the pervaporation process. It was found that the distribution of evaporation heat requirement over the membrane area is asymmetric, and more than 85% of the heat was consumed in the 60% of the membrane area. It was also revealed that recycling the permeate having higher than 5% w/w 2,3‐butanediol can improve the recovery of 2,3‐butanediol, and thus enhance the process energy efficiency. Two recycling strategies (the single or multiple point admission of permeate to the retentate flow) were explored. The specific energy requirement (the heat required by generating 1 kg 99.5% w/w 2,3‐butanediol as product) was proposed to evaluate the process energy efficiency of both the pervaporation and vacuum membrane distillation, and it was shown that pervaporation can bring about nearly four times energy savings over the vacuum membrane distillation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".