Amine regeneration tests on MEA, DEA, and MMEA with respect to cabamate stability analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The CO2 desorption analyses of several amines were performed to reveal the behaviour of the amine regeneration process. A typical primary amine (MEA) and two other secondary amines (MMEA and DEA) were selected, in preparation for amine solutions under different concentrations, from 1–7 mol/L. The regeneration curves were generated and plotted to describe the process. It was discovered that the specific CO2 loadings (mol/mol) that distinguish the amine regeneration curves into different regions were the same for the specific amine, despite different concentrations. These points were defined as “turning points” on regeneration curves. The turning points of MEA, MMEA, and DEA are located at CO2 loadings of 0.40 mol/mol, 0.38 mol/mol, and 0.28 mol/mol, respectively. The carbamate stabilities of the three amines were compared with each other based on the slope of regeneration curves at slow region. The amine regeneration tests compared the relative heat duty at the first 2 h: MMEA > MEA > > DEA, which is the same order as carbamate stability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".