Evaluating Energy-Efficient Solutions of CO<sub>2</sub> Capture within Tri-solvent MEA+BEA+AMP within 0.1+2+2–0.5+2+2 mol/L Combining Heterogeneous Acid–Base Catalysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To reduce the extensive energy penalty of CO 2 desorption process of amine-based CO 2 capture technology, the combination of “coordinative effect” with “heterogeneous catalysis” was adopted into “MEA+BEA+AMP” tri-solvents at special concentrations (0.1–0.5+2+2 mol/L) with solid base catalysts “CaCO 3 ” and various solid acid catalysts “γ-Al 2 O 3, H-ZSM-5, and blended γ-Al 2 O 3 /H-ZSM-5”. Experiments were performed to evaluate if there were synergetic effects within the optimization of amine blend concentrations and catalyst selections. Reaction schemes were investigated within the tri-solvents to understand the absorption and desorption mechanisms of coordinative effect. CO 2 absorption was performed at 40 °C, and CO 2 desorption was performed at 90 °C. Five tri-solvent compositions with various catalysts were investigated in terms of initial absorption rate ( I abs ), initial desorption rate ( I des ), heat duty ( H ), and cyclic capacities, which were categorized into absorption–desorption parameters systematically. The results indicated that tri-solvents with catalysts were highly energy-efficient. The optimized tri-blend was 0.3+2+2 mol/L MEA+BEA+AMP, which performed better than the 2+2 mol/L BEA+AMP benchmark on both absorption and desorption. The optimized regeneration performance of tri-blends was 0.3+2+2 mol/L, and its relative heat duty was 32.9% of that of 5 M MEA and 66.5% of that of 2+2 M BEA+AMP. Results manifested that the combination of solid acid–base catalysts with tri-solvents containing “coordinative effects” was a promising solution to further optimize the energy efficiency of CO 2 absorption–desorption within industrial amine-based CO 2 capture processes.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".