New AMP/polyamine blends for improved CO<sub>2</sub> capture: Study of kinetic and equilibrium features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 2‐Amino‐2‐methyl‐1‐propanol (AMP), which is the sterically hindered form of monoethanolamine (MEA), is a credible substitute to conventional CO 2 ‐capturing solvents. Its performance can be improved by blending with a highly reactive polyamine promoter. Two such aqueous blends of AMP/TETA and AMP/TEPA were chosen here (TETA = triethylenetetramine and TEPA = tetraethylenepentamine). The kinetics of CO 2 absorption in the proposed blends was investigated at 308, 313, and 318 K using the stirred cell technique. The concentrations of AMP and polyamine were varied between 2 to 3 kmol/m 3 and 0.1 to 0.5 kmol/m 3 , respectively. From the measured values of the fast pseudo‐first order constants, the second‐order rate constants for the reactions of CO 2 with TETA (14 695 m 3 /(kmol s)) and TEPA (19 250 m 3 /(kmol s)) were determined at T = 313 K. Both TETA and TEPA react faster with CO 2 than MEA. Further, the respective activation energy values were found (40 and 37 kJ/mol). Finally, the equilibrium solubility of CO 2 for both blends was measured at T = 303 K. The loading capacity was higher than that for the aqueous blends of AMP/MEA, AMP/DEA, and AMP/MDEA (here, DEA and MDEA denote diethanolamine and N‐methyldiethanolamine). The highest value of loading capacity (1.12 mol CO 2 /mol amine at 2.01 kPa equilibrium partial pressure of CO 2 ) was noted in AMP/TEPA mixtures. The new findings on our proposed blends will strengthen the AMP/polyamine application in CO 2 separation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".