MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767849296 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.7b02771

Effect of Water Vapor on CO<sub>2</sub> Sorption–Desorption Behaviors of Supported Amino Acid Ionic Liquid Sorbents on Porous Microspheres

2017· article· en· W2767849296 on OpenAlexafffund
Yusuke Uehara, Davood Karami, Nader Mahinpey

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSorptionIonic liquidSorbentChemistryDesorptionWater vaporAdsorptionChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryChromatographyOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immobilizing amino acid ionic liquids (AAILs) into a porous support is a promising way to fabricate robust solid sorbents with high capacities for CO 2 capture. One of important factors to be evaluated toward the practical use is the impact of water vapor in inlet gases on the CO 2 capture performance as real flue gases contain some fraction of water vapor. In this study, CO 2 sorption–desorption experiments of supported 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium amino acid ([EMIM][AA]) IL sorbents on porous microspheres were conducted under dry and humidified CO 2 inlet conditions using a TGA-MS analysis system, and their outcomes were compared with those of supported amino acids (AA) sorbents. The presence of water vapor changed the CO 2 sorption behaviors depending on the sorbent types. In humidified CO 2 inlet, the CO 2 capture capacities of supported [EMIM][glycine] and [EMIM][lysine] decreased as the adsorbed water hindered their reaction with CO 2, whereas the CO 2 capture of those with supported lysine and arginine increased, since water content exerted a positive impact on the CO 2 capture behavior.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry ResearchSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207