MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935543404 · doi:10.1002/aic.16605

Analysis of equilibrium CO<sub>2</sub> solubility and thermodynamic models for aqueous 1‐(2‐hydoxyethyl)‐piperidine solution

2019· article· en· W2935543404 on OpenAlexaff
Min Xiao, Wenchao Zheng, Helei Liu, Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul, Zhiwu Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersHunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for PostgraduateOil and Natural GasChina Scholarship CouncilHunan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSolubilityPiperidineAmine gas treatingChemistryAqueous solutionThermodynamicsActivity coefficientPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1‐(2‐Hydoxyethyl)‐piperidine (1‐(2HE)‐PP) is a new tertiary amine with desirable properties and can be potentially used to formulate superior absorbents for CO 2 capture. The equilibrium CO 2 solubility of 1‐(2HE)‐PP solution is measured over temperatures from 298 to 333 K, CO 2 partial pressures from 8.1 to 101.3 kPa and initial amine concentrations from 1 to 5 M. Two thermodynamic models, namely semiempirical model and activity coefficient model are developed for the system. The activity coefficient model shows better estimation solubility with an absolute average relative deviation (AARD) of 7.6%. In the comparison between the two models, a comprehensive analysis is presented. Some suggestions are provided for the similar model development. In addition, the speciation plot of CO 2 loaded 1‐(2HE)‐PP solution is predicted based on the activity coefficient model. The predictive pH values agree well with experimental data with AARD of 1.0%. Finally, the potential of 1‐(2‐HE)PP to be an alternative amine in CO 2 capture is evaluated.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207