The development of kinetics model for CO<sub>2</sub> absorption into tertiary amines containing carbonic anhydrase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CO 2 absorption into aqueous solutions of two tertiary alkanolamines, namely, MDEA and DMEA with and without carbonic anhydrase (CA) was investigated with the use of the stopped‐flow technique at temperatures in the range of 293–313 K, CA concentration varying from 0 to 100 g/m 3 in aqueous MDEA solution with the amine concentration ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 kmol/m 3 , and CA concentration varying from 0 to 40 g/m 3 in aqueous DMEA solution with the amine concentration ranging from 0.05 to 0.25 kmol/m 3 . The results show that the pseudofirst‐order reaction rate (k 0, amine ; s −1 ) is significantly enhanced in the presence of CA as compared with that without CA. The enhanced values of the kinetic constant in the presence of CA has been calculated and a new kinetics model for reaction of CO 2 absorption into aqueous tertiary alkanolamine solutions catalyzed by CA has been established and used to make comparisons of experimental and calculated pseudo first‐order reaction rate constant (k 0, with CA ) in CO 2 ‐MDEA‐H 2 O and CO 2 ‐DMEA‐H 2 O solutions. The AADs were 15.21 and 15.17%, respectively. The effect of pKa on the CA activities has also been studied by comparison of CA activities in different tertiary amine solutions, namely, TEA, MDEA, DMEA, and DEEA. The pKa trend for amines were: DEEA > DMEA > MDEA > TEA. In contrast, the catalyst enhancement in amines was in the order: TEA> MDEA> DMEA> DEEA. Therefore, it can be seen that the catalyst enhancement in the amines decreased with their increasing pKa values. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 2017
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".