Comparison of Overall Gas‐Phase Mass Transfer Coefficient for CO<sub>2</sub> Absorption between Tertiary Amines in a Randomly Packed Column
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mass transfer performance of CO2 absorption into an innovative tertiary amine solvent, 1‐dimethylamino‐2‐propanol (1DMA2P), was investigated and compared with that of methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) in a packed column with random Dixon‐ring packing. All experiments were conducted under atmospheric pressure. The effects of inert gas flow rate, amine concentration, liquid flow rate, CO2 loading, and liquid temperature on mass transfer performance were analyzed and the results presented in terms of the volumetric overall mass transfer coefficient (KGav). The experimental findings clearly indicate that 1DMA2P provided better mass transfer performance than MDEA. For both 1DMA2P and MDEA solutions, the KGav increased with rising amine concentration and liquid flow rate, but decreased with higher CO2 loading. The inert gas flow rate only slightly affected the KGav. A satisfactory correlation of KGav was developed for the 1DMA2P‐CO2 system.
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 | 0.001 | 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".