Simulation and Optimization of a Dual-Adsorbent, Two-Bed Vacuum Swing Adsorption Process for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture from Wet Flue Gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various options for the capture and concentration of CO 2 from a wet flue gas at 25 °C containing 15% CO 2 in 82% N 2 and 3% moisture have been analyzed through detailed simulation and optimization. First, a proven cycle for dry flue gas, consisting of four steps including light product pressurization in a column packed with zeolite 13X established in an earlier communication ( Haghpanah et al. AIChE J. 2013, 59, 4735) and demonstrated at the pilot scale ( Krishnamurthy et al. AIChE J. 2014, 60, 1830), was applied to the wet flue gas. Detailed optimization studies using a nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) in MATLAB were carried out first to maximize purity and recovery. Further optimization was carried out to obtain the operating conditions corresponding to minimum energy consumption subject to 95% purity and 90% recovery constraints. The minimum energy consumption in this process required to achieve 95% purity (dry basis) and 90% recovery was 230 kWh (t of CO 2 captured) −1 with a productivity of 1.03 t of CO 2 (m 3 of 13X) −1 day –1 . This energy consumption was considerably higher and the productivity was considerably lower than those reported for dry flue gas ( Haghpanah et al. AIChE J. 2013, 59, 4735). Next, to improve the performance, a new dual-adsorbent, four-step vacuum swing adsorption (VSA) process with silica gel and zeolite 13X packed separately in two beds was proposed. By separating the two adsorbents in two beds, instead of layering them in the same column, it was possible to avoid rewetting of the concentrated CO 2 . The process optimization of the new cycle revealed that the 95% purity and 90% recovery target could be achieved at a lower energy penalty [177 kWh (t of CO 2 captured) −1 ] while also improving the productivity [1.82 t of CO 2 (m 3 of 13X) −1 day –1, 1.29 t of CO 2 (m 3 of total adsorbent) −1 day –1 ].
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".