Carbonation of CaO-Based Sorbents Enhanced by Steam Addition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The carbonation reaction has recently been intensively investigated as a means of CO 2 capture from gas mixtures such as flue gas produced during fossil fuel combustion. Unfortunately, this gas−solid reaction is limited due to formation of the solid product (CaCO 3 ) at the reacting surface and sintering, all of which reduce the carrying capacity of the sorbent. In this work the enhancement of carbonation conversion by means of steam addition to the carbonating gas was studied. Seven limestones of different origin and composition as well as one synthetic sorbent (calcium aluminate pellets) were tested. A thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) was employed for the carbonation tests at different temperatures (350−800 °C) in a gas mixture containing typically 20% CO 2 and 10 or 20% H 2 O (g) . The samples tested were calcined under an N 2 (800 °C) or CO 2 (950 °C) atmosphere to explore the influence of different levels of sample sintering, and the results obtained were compared with those seen for carbonation in dry (no steam) gas mixtures. The morphology of samples after carbonation under different conditions was examined by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). It was found that carbonation is enhanced by steam, but this is more pronounced at lower temperatures and for more sintered samples. With increasing temperature and carbonation time, the enhancement of carbonation becomes negligible because the conversion reaches a “maximum” value (∼75−80% for samples calcined in N 2 ) even without steam. Carbonation of samples calcined in CO 2 is enhanced at different levels depending on the sorbent tested. The shape of carbonation profiles and morphology of carbonated samples show that steam enhances solid state diffusion and, consequently, conversion during carbonation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".