Experimental investigations and developing multilayer neural network models for prediction of CO<sub>2</sub> solubility in aqueous MDEA/PZ and MEA/MDEA/PZ blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this research, a new set of experimental data for CO2 solubility in aqueous blended amine solvents were investigated experimentally over the CO2 partial pressure range from 8 to 100 kPa at 40 °C and were compared with the benchmark aqueous 30 wt.% MEA solution. This work developed two multilayer neural network models named models A and B, for predicting the CO2 solubility in various aqueous blended amine solvents including 36 wt.% MDEA + 17 wt.% PZ, 24 wt.% MDEA + 26 wt.% PZ, and 6 wt.% MEA + 25 wt.% MDEA + 17 wt.% PZ. Models A and B were developed by using Levenberg–Marquardt back propagation algorithm with 427 and 301 of reliable experimental data sets gathered from the published data, respectively. The results indicate that the high accuracy prediction of the CO2 solubility in Methyldiethanolamine/Piperazine (MDEA/PZ) blends could be obtained by the network developed by Tan‐sigmoid transfer function with two hidden layers consist of eight and four neurons, while the network developed by Tan‐sigmoid transfer function with three hidden layers consist of 20, 10, and five neurons provided the highest accuracy for predicting the CO2 solubility in MEA/MDEA/PZ blends comparing to other model structures. The comparison results show that the neural network modeling provided more closer predictions to the experimental results than the simulator and other thermodynamic models when predicting the CO2 equilibrium solubility in blended amine solvents. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".