Toward accurate density and interfacial tension modeling for carbon dioxide/water mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phase behavior of carbon dioxide/water binary mixtures plays an important role in various CO2-based industry processes. This work aims to screen a thermodynamic model out of a number of promising candidate models to capture the vapor–liquid equilibria, liquid–liquid equilibria, and phase densities of CO2/H2O mixtures. A comprehensive analysis reveals that Peng–Robinson equation of state (PR EOS) (Peng and Robinson 1976), Twu α function (Twu et al. 1991), Huron–Vidal mixing rule (Huron and Vidal 1979), and Abudour et al. (2013) volume translation model (Abudour et al. 2013) is the best model among the ones examined; it yields average absolute percentage errors of 5.49% and 2.90% in reproducing the experimental phase composition data and density data collected in the literature. After achieving the reliable modeling of phase compositions and densities, a new IFT correlation based on the aforementioned PR EOS model is proposed through a nonlinear regression of the measured IFT data collected from the literature over 278.15–477.59 K and 1.00–1200.96 bar. Although the newly proposed IFT correlation only slightly improves the prediction accuracy yielded by the refitted Chen and Yang (2019)’s correlation (Chen and Yang 2019), the proposed correlation avoids the inconsistent predictions present in Chen and Yang (2019)’s correlation and yields smooth IFT predictions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".