MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211093593 · doi:10.3390/en15031221

Atmospheric Dispersion of Gaseous Amine Emitted from Absorption-Based Carbon Capture Plants in Saskatchewan, Canada

2022· article· en· W4211093593 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pet Pakchotanon, Amornvadee Veawab, Adisorn Aroonwilas, Teerawat Sema

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChulalongkorn UniversityUniversity of Regina
KeywordsAmine gas treatingEnvironmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)Dispersion (optics)Atmospheric dispersion modelingCarbon dioxideAir pollutionCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Environmental engineeringPower stationEnvironmental chemistryChemistryMeteorologyClimate changeGeologyEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key strategy to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial point sources. Gas absorption into aqueous amine solutions is an immediate technology for carbon capture that has been tested in many demonstration plants. One concern of using the amine-based carbon capture process is the environmental impacts and health risk caused by emissions of gaseous amines from the process to the atmosphere. This work applied the knowledge of air dispersion modelling to map out the atmospheric dispersion and resulting ground surface level concentration of gaseous amine, namely Monoethanolamine (MEA), from a coal-fired power plant (with a carbon capture unit) and in surrounding areas, in case of an accidental leaking of amine from the CCS system to the atmosphere. The chosen study area was centered on a coal-fired power plant in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The Environmental Protection (EPA) approved air pollution model (CALPUFF), together with meteorological and geophysical data were used for gaseous amine dispersion simulation. The results were presented, and the ground amine concentrations were found to vary with wind patterns (wind direction and wind speed). The maximum ground surface amine concentrations standard is 15.2 µg/m3. However, the results showed that when using the water wash unit, the MEA concentrations were well below the standard level, compared to those without the water wash unit. It is essential for CO2 capture plants located in highly populated areas to be equipped with water wash units.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207