Investigation of Attempts to Improve Cyclic CO<sub>2</sub> Capture by Sorbent Hydration and Modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-part experimental program was carried out to investigate possible methods to improve sorbent reversibility during cyclic calcination/carbonation using one limestone and one dolomite. In the first part, the different roles of steam and water are discussed and investigated. Steam addition during carbonation and calcination did not help to significantly achieve good reversibility. Hydration, especially with low-temperature steam and liquid water, is promising to help improve sorbent reversibility by regenerating favorable pore size distributions; however, a carbonate layer inhibited hydration. Preliminary tests were also conducted on possible agents that might improve CO 2 capture efficiency and sorbent cyclic performance. An ∼1:1 molar ratio of CaO to Al 2 O 3 showed promising results on a free-lime basis. A series of other tests did not give promising results, but provided information relevant to developing synthetic CO 2 sorbents. It was also found that CO can regenerate CaO from CaSO 4 formed during co-capture of SO 2 and CO 2, but the rate of reduction is too slow to be of practical interest.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".