Characterization and Comparison of the CO<sub>2</sub> Absorption Performance into Single and Blended Alkanolamines in a Packed Column
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) absorption into aqueous solutions of single and blended alkanolamines was evaluated experimentally in a bench-scale absorber packed with high-efficiency packings. The absorption experiments were conducted under atmospheric pressure, using a feed gas mixture containing 10% CO 2 and 90% nitrogen. Monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), diisopropanolamine (DIPA), methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), and their mixtures including MEA−MDEA, DEA−MDEA, MEA−AMP, and DEA−AMP were tested in this work. The absorption performance was presented in terms of the CO 2 removal efficiency, absorber height requirement, effective interfacial area for mass transfer, and overall mass-transfer coefficient ( K G a e ). Comparison of the absorption performance between the tested alkanolamines was made over ranges of operating conditions to establish the correlation between single- and blended-alkanolamine systems.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it