MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901874112 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23388

Hydrodynamics of bubbling fluidized bed for adsorption of CO<sub>2</sub> with KOH/K<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub>

2018· article· en· W2901874112 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pedram Samani, Rahmat Sotudeh‐Gharebagh, Reza Zarghami

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle sizeAdsorptionFluidizationFluidized bedParticle-size distributionPotassium carbonateMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Potassium hydroxideMixing (physics)ChemistryChemical engineeringChromatographyOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this study is to assess the performance of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture in a bubbling fluidized bed using a proper adsorbent. A mixture of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and potassium carbonate (K2CO3) adsorbents was used as bed materials, which provide proper kinetic and fluidization behaviours. The adsorbents consisted of two different mean particle sizes: size 1 is composed of K2CO3 with mean particle size of 335 μm and KOH with mean particle size of 197 μm; whereas, size 2 contained the K2CO3 with mean particle size of 605 μm and KOH with mean particle size of 197 μm. The weight fraction of KOH in both sizes was 0.3 g/g (30 mass%). The pressure fluctuations of the bed were measured and characterized in a time domain. The effects of several hydrodynamic parameters (i.e., superficial gas velocity, aspect ratio of bed, and particle size distribution of the adsorbent mixture) on CO2 adsorption were investigated. The results showed that the larger bubbles caused an improvement in solid mixing in the bed and consequently enhanced the CO2 capture capacity. Fluidization of the adsorbents mixture with narrower distribution (size 1) led to the formation of larger bubbles and an improvement of mixing in the bed. Therefore, size 1 adsorbent exhibited a higher CO2 capture capacity compared to a wider distribution of (size 2) adsorbent. Furthermore, the bubble size is increased with an increase in the aspect ratio of the bed leading to a better mixing in the bed.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207