MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Ion Speciation Plots for Three Promising Tertiary Amine–CO<sub>2</sub>–H<sub>2</sub>O Systems Using the pH Method and the <sup>13</sup>C NMR Method

2017· article· en· W2587916336 on OpenAlexaff
Moxia Li, Helei Liu, Xiao Luo, Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul, Zhiwu Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAmine gas treatingProtonationChemistryPiperidineCarbon-13 NMRGenetic algorithmTertiary amineIonMethylamineNuclear chemistryInorganic chemistryMedicinal chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, three promising tertiary amines—1-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperidine (1-(2-HE)PP), 3-(diethylamino)-1,2-propanediol (DEA-1,2-PD), and N -(2-hydroxyethyl)pyrolidine (1-(2-HE)PRLD)—were experimentally studied and the results presented in terms of p K a, the protonation calibration curves, and ion speciation plots. The p K a of these amines were determined in the temperature range of 294–320 K. The protonation calibration curves for the three amines were also developed based on 13 C NMR detection. In addition, ion (amine, amineH +, HCO 3 –, and CO 3 2– ) speciation plots for the three tertiary amines were developed at the temperature of 298 K, at the amine concentration of 1.0 M, over the CO 2 loading ranges of 0–0.897 mol CO 2 /mol amine for 1-(2-HE)PP, 0–0.915 mol CO 2 /mol amine for DEA-1,2-PD, and 0–0.927 mol CO 2 /mol amine for 1-(2-HE)PRLD by using the pH method, the 13 C NMR method, and the pH + 13 C NMR method. By comparing the ion (amine, amineH +, HCO 3 –, and CO 3 2– ) concentrations of the three tertiary amines obtained from these three methods, it can be concluded that each of these three methods could be used to develop the ion speciation plots of amine–CO 2 –H 2 O systems, but there are some significant differences between them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207