CO<sub>2</sub> removal by single and mixed amines in a hollow‐fiber membrane module—investigation of contactor performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates CO 2 removal by single and blended amines in a hollow‐fiber membrane contactor (HFMC) under gas‐filled and partially liquid‐filled membrane pores conditions via a two‐scale, nonisothermal, steady‐state model accounting for CO 2 diffusion in gas‐filled pores, CO 2 and amines diffusion/reaction within liquid‐filled pores and CO 2 and amines diffusion/reaction in liquid boundary layer. Model predictions were compared with CO 2 absorption data under various experimental conditions. The model was used to analyze the effects of liquid and gas velocity, CO 2 partial pressure, single (primary, secondary, tertiary, and sterically hindered alkanolamines) and mixed amines solution type, membrane wetting, and cocurrent/countercurrent flow orientation on the HFMC performance. An insignificant difference between the absorption in cocurrent and countercurrent flow was observed in this study. The membrane wetting decreases significantly the performance of hollow‐fiber membrane module . The nonisothermal simulations reveal that the hollow‐fiber membrane module operation can be considered as nearly isothermal. © 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 955–971, 2015
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".