Innovative cycling reaction mechanisms of CO2 absorption in amino acid salt solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amino acid salt (AAS) solvents with equimolar base (used to obtain the salt) to amino acid (AA) have been well studied for CO 2 absorption, however, very little is known about the reactions when more base is applied. This study determined the reaction mechanisms of AAS solvents with base to AA ratio over equimolar and the potential benefits of such solvents for CO 2 absorption. The CO 2 loading capacity was found to be dictated by the molar concentration of the base and was approximately half of the base applied. The reaction mechanisms were investigated based on the compositions of carbamate, carbonate/bicarbonate, and AA using 13 C-quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance ( 13 C qNMR). An innovative cycling reaction mechanism of CO 2 absorption was proposed and experimentally confirmed for AAS solvents with base/AA > 1. Besides all steps of the current widely accepted Zwitterion mechanism, this reaction pathway also contains two cycles: 1) The extra base (i.e., OH − ) may react with the protonated AA generated during CO 2 absorption to form deprotonated AA which further absorbs CO 2 to form more carbamate. 2) The carbamate, as a product of reaction cycle 1, undergoes hydrolysis to yield bicarbonate and deprotonated AA, which further absorbs CO 2 . As a result, high CO 2 loadings were achieved. Compared to the use of alkaline solutions like KOH alone for CO 2 absorption, AAS solvents with base to AA ratio over equimolar resulted in lower pH and temperature while maintaining high CO 2 loading. These innovative cyclic mechanisms will enable advanced CO 2 management approaches using AAS solvents with base/AA > 1.
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 | 0.000 |
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".