Adsorption‐hydration hybrid process for <scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> capture in a fixed bed of activated carbons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work reports an investigation of using a fixed bed of activated carbons (ACs) to capture CO2 at hydrate formation conditions. The experiments were conducted at 277.15 K and 3.5 MPa. The water saturation (WS) of the fixed bed of ACs varies from 0% to 100%. The results indicate that an adsorption‐hydration hybrid process occurred in the fixed bed of wet ACs while a single adsorption process occurred in the fixed bed of dry ACs. The adsorption‐hydration hybrid process performs better than the single adsorption process for CO2 capture. Gas consumption at 100% WS is 3.18 times greater than that obtained using dry ACs (single adsorption process). It is found that 40% WS is an optimal value, and the gas consumption obtained at this WS is larger than that obtained at 0%, 70%, and 100% WS. This gas consumption is also greater than that obtained using stirred reactors at the same temperature and pressure conditions, so the adsorption‐hydration hybrid process achieved in the fixed bed of wet ACs has a greater potential to capture CO2 in comparison with the single adsorption or hydrate formation process.
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".