CO<sub>2</sub> desorption tests of blended monoethanolamine–diethanolamine solutions to discover novel energy efficient solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The CO2 desorption tests were conducted at 363–378 K for 5.0 mol/L blended monoethanolamine (MEA)‐diethanolamine (DEA) solutions to develop the energy efficient solvents with high CO2 production and low energy consumptions. These desorption tests were performed with a recirculation process for various preloaded, 5 mol/L (4.5 + 0.5 to 0.5 + 4.5) MEA‐DEA solutions to find out the optimized solvents with minimum heat duty. Therefore, 1–4 mol/L and 0.5–0.45 mol/L MEA‐DEA solvents have larger CO2 production (nCO2) and lower heat duties ( ) than 5 mol/L DEA under similar operation conditions. They have lower heat duty (510 and 538 kJ/mol) than DEA (572 kJ/mol) due to increased CO2 desorption rates, despite 10% higher heat input (QTotal) than DEA. Moreover, the critical points were studied as research focus of amine regeneration curves, along with reaction energy calculation. Finally, secondary amines blending minor MEA (<20%) as promotor turned out to be an alternative approach of solvents improvement with low energy requirement.
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) | 0.000 | 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".