CO2 Permeation Behavior through Carbon Membranes: A Short Review of the Progress during the Last Decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although carbon dioxide is not classified as a toxic or harmful gas the necessity for its capture is enforced not only by scientists but also by governments worldwide. In this attempt the technologies which are proposed to attend this role are various. Contrary to the traditional thermal methods (distillation, adsorption, cryogenic), which require high energy sources, the membrane technology seems to be the prevalent solution mainly thanks to its low operation cost. To this aim, both polymeric and inorganic membranes are reported as good candidates for CO2 separation–capture. The main advantages of the inorganic membranes, in terms of the polymeric, are their higher selectivity factors and the better stability at both high temperatures and chemical environments. The preparation of the carbon membranes takes place mainly by the controlled pyrolysis of different thermosetting polymeric materials and the final configuration can be divided into the following configurations: i) flat sheet membranes, ii) supported on tube membranes, iii) capillary membranes and iv) hollow fiber membranes. During the last fifty years, more attention has been devoted, not only for the simultaneous increase of both permeability and selectivity factors but also for the large–scale production of crack free carbon membranes. The reproductivity is also one critical point which has to be achieved if we really aim for the industrial application of the carbon gas selective membranes. Therefore, carbon membranes have the potential to be the materials of the future for many gas separation processes including the one of carbon dioxide separation–capture. This paper is reviewing the development and the achievements of the carbon membranes in the direction of the CO2 separation giving emphasis on the last 10 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".