CO<sub>2</sub> Capture in Alkanolamine-RTIL Blends via Carbamate Crystallization: Route to Efficient Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major drawbacks of aqueous alkanolamine based CO(2) capture processes is the requirement of significantly higher energy of regeneration. This weakness can be overcome by separating the CO(2)-captured product to regenerate the corresponding amine, thus avoiding the consumption of redundant energy. Replacing aqueous phase with more stable and practically nonvolatile imidazolium based room-temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) provided a viable approach for carbamate to crystallize out as supernatant solid. In the present study, regeneration capabilities of solid carbamates have been investigated. Diethanolamine (DEA) carbamate as well as 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) carbamate were obtained in crystalline form by bubbling CO(2) in alkanolamine-RTIL mixtures. Hydrophobic RTIL, 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ([hmim][Tf(2)N]), was used as aqueous phase substituent. Thermal behavior of the carbamates was observed by differential scanning calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis, while the possible regeneration mechanism has been proposed through (13)C NMR and FTIR analyses. The results showed that decomposition of DEA-carbamate commenced at lower temperature (∼55 °C), compared to that of AMP-carbamate (∼75 °C); thus promising easy regeneration. The separation of carbamate as solid phase can offer two-way advantage by letting less volume to regenerate as well as by narrowing the gap between CO(2) capture and amine regeneration temperatures.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".