Hydrogen Purification Performance Optimization of Vacuum Pressure Swing Adsorption on Different Activated Carbons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen purification is an important part of hydrogen energy utilization. This study aimed to perform hydrogen purification of multi-component gas (H2/CO2/CH4/CO/N2 = 0.79/0.17/0.021/0.012/0.007) by one-column vacuum pressure swing adsorption (VPSA) and pressure swing adsorption (PSA). AC5-KS was selected as the adsorbent for hydrogen purification due to its greater adsorption capacity compared to R2030. Furthermore, VPSA and PSA 10-step cycle models were established to simulate the hydrogen purification process using the Aspen Adsorption platform. The simulation results showed that the hydrogen purification performance of VPSA is better than that of PSA on AC5-KS adsorbent. The effects of feeding time and purging time on hydrogen purity and recovery were also discussed. Results showed that feeding time has a negative effect on hydrogen purity and a positive effect on hydrogen recovery, while purging time has a positive effect on hydrogen purity and a negative effect on hydrogen recovery. By using an artificial neural network (ANN), the relationship between the inputs (feeding time and purging time) and outputs (hydrogen purity and recovery) was established. Based on the ANN, the interior point method was applied to optimize hydrogen purification performance. Considering two optimization cases, the optimized feeding time and purging time were obtained. The optimization results showed that the maximum hydrogen recovery reached 88.65% when the feeding time was 223 s and the purging time was 96 s. The maximum hydrogen purity reached 99.33% when the feeding time was 100 s and the purging time was 45 s.
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".