Model for Self-Reactivation of Highly Sintered CaO Particles during CO<sub>2</sub> Capture Looping Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calcium looping is an emerging high-temperature, energy-efficient, CO 2 capture technology using CaO as a regenerable sorbent of CO 2 through the reversible carbonation/calcination reaction. The stability of the sorbent plays a key role in the design of these systems. This paper revisits the self-reactivation phenomenon that has been reported for some highly deactivated CaO materials when submitted to repeated carbonation/calcination cycles under certain conditions. Self-reactivation is modeled in this paper as the result of a dynamic balance between the loss of activity in one cycle and the accumulated gain of activity by extended carbonation times, because of a product layer of CaCO 3 that keeps building up on all surfaces, controlled by the slow diffusion of CO 2 . The model describes reasonably well the trends observed for some limestones and conditions. For other limestones and conditions, the carbonation mechanism is more complex and the model does not fit the evolution of the maximum Ca conversion with the number of cycles as well, although the general patterns of self-reactivation are still well-reproduced.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".