MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309685650 · doi:10.3233/mgc-220064

The comparative modeling of solubility of carbon dioxide in amine solutions using SAFT-HR and PC-SAFT equation of state

2022· article· en· W4309685650 on OpenAlexaff
Arzhang Yazdi, Azam Najafloo, Hossein Sakhaeinia, Amirhossein Saali, Vahid Pirouzfar

Bibliographic record

VenueMain Group Chemistry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiethanolamineSolubilityChemistryAlkanolamineEquation of stateCarbon dioxideAqueous solutionThermodynamicsAmine gas treatingTernary operationOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we applied PC-SAFT and SAFT-HR equations of state so as to reproduce the solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous diethanolamine solution. By using these equations, we have been able to model the solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous amine solution in more than 350 experimental data points with wide range of amine molar concentration (0.01–0.12), temperature (300 K –478 K), carbon dioxide partial pressure (0.0001 KPa –5473 KPa), and carbon dioxide loading (0.04 –1.1). Ternary systems including water, carbon dioxide and diethanolamine have also been modeled by PC-SAFT and SAFT-HR equations of state based on bubble pressure algorithm. Binary interaction parameters are set to zero to show the genuine capability of equations of state in reproducing such experimental data. Provided modeling results have been obtained from MATLAB R2019b software for PC-SAFT equation of state are less deviated with experimental data. Overall average relative deviation of SAFT-HR and PC-SAFT are 45.452% and 4.374% respectively which show that PC-SAFT is a robust equation of state in predicting the solubility data of carbon dioxide in aqueous alkanolamine solutions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMain Group ChemistrySame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207