MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033255110 · doi:10.1021/ie040264k

Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors

2005· article· en· W2033255110 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPacked bedMicroporous materialAbsorption (acoustics)PolypropyleneMembraneChemical engineeringMass transferMaterials scienceCarbon dioxideChemistryChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This paper evaluates the performance of a GAM system and a packed column using the overall mass transfer coefficient ( K G a v ) as a basis for comparison. The GAM system tested microporous polypropylene (PP) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) hollow fiber membranes while the packed column contained Sulzer DX structured packing. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) were used in both absorbers. Experimental results showed that the GAM system performed better than the packed column. GAM systems deserve the attention they have been receiving from researchers as they have significant potential to replace packed columns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it