Evaluation of Copper–Aluminum Oxides as Sorbents for High-Temperature Air Separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxygen production in an economic way is critical to oxy-firing combustion, a carbon capture technology. Oxygen-deficient oxides have been used for absorption of oxygen from air and desorption of oxygen in recycled flue gas for oxy-firing combustion. Cuprous/cupric oxide equilibrium with alumina can be used as an alternative for oxygen production and absorption. In this work, the effect of the spinel phase (CuAl 2 O 4 ) content on oxygen sorptive/desorptive properties of CuO–CuAl 2 O 4 sorbents has been investigated using thermogravimetric analysis. The desorption rate and oxygen sorption capacity were shown to be dependent upon the amount of alumina addition. The effect of SO 2 and H 2 O in flue gas was investigated using FACTSage over a range of conditions. It was found that, at temperatures above 750 °C, CuO is inert to these species, making it a proper choice for oxygen carrier. Cyclic stability was also investigated using the same instrument. The molar CuAl 2 O 4 content of 20% was observed to have the most positive cyclic stability effect. A stable morphology was observed in the scanning electron microscopy microstructure of the sorbent with this CuAl 2 O 4 content. Sintering at a lower CuAl 2 O 4 content and attrition because of second-phase agglomeration can destabilize the sorbents.
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) | 0.001 | 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".