Experimental study on the solvent regeneration of a CO<sub>2</sub>‐loaded MEA solution using single and hybrid solid acid catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a hybrid solid acid catalyst consisting of a physical mixture of γ‐Al 2 O 3 and H‐ZSM‐5 in terms of the rate and heat duty for solvent regeneration (i.e., CO 2 stripping) of a CO 2 ‐rich MEA solution was compared with the individual performance of γ‐Al 2 O 3 , H‐ZSM‐5, and H‐Y solid acid catalysts using MEA (2–7 mol/L), with initial CO 2 loading of 0.5 mol CO 2 /mol MEA at 378 K. It was observed that any catalyst significantly decreased the energy required for CO 2 regeneration. The performance of the catalysts investigated ranked as follows: γ‐Al 2 O 3 /H‐ZSM‐5 = 2/1 > γ‐Al 2 O 3 > H‐ZSM‐5 > H‐Y if the process is in the lean CO 2 loading region whereas it was H‐ZSM‐5 > γ‐Al 2 O 3 /H‐ZSM‐5 = 2/1 > γ‐Al 2 O 3 > H‐Y if the process is in the rich CO 2 loading region. These results highlight the joint dependence on Brønsted/Lewis acidity and mesopore surface area of heat duty for solvent regeneration. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 62: 753–765, 2016
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".