Separation of Azeotropic Refrigerant Mixtures Using Ionic Liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refrigeration and air-conditioning systems are widespread throughout modern society, from the refrigerated cold chain that provides fresh foods and storage of medicines to the air conditioning of homes and buildings. Refrigeration is viewed as one of the most transformative engineering achievements of the 20th century and the demand for cooling will continue to increase as economic conditions improve and the climate continues to warm; however, refrigerants do come with an environmental cost. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol phased out chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants because of their high ozone depletion potential (ODP). The replacements, typically mixtures of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), are safe for the Earth's ozone layer, but most have high global warming potentials (GWPs). HFCs account for 7.8% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, with 63% of that from “indirect” emissions (i.e., energy for running the system). As a result, 197 countries signed the Kigali agreement in 2016 to phase out high-GWP HFCs, with the goal of reducing emissions by 80% in the next 20 years. Millions of metric tons (mts) of high-GWP refrigerants will need to be reclaimed, but there are no good methods for separating and recycling the individual components, given that many are azeotropic mixtures. Currently, there is no means of separating azeotropic HFC mixtures, and the refrigerants will ultimately have to be incinerated. The commercial HFC mixture R-410A containing 50 wt.% HFC-32 (GWP = 675) and 50 wt.% HFC-125 (GWP = 3500) is a prime example. The HFC-32 can be reused when separated in new low-GWP products such as R-454B (69 wt% HFC-32 and 31 wt% HFO-1234yf) with a 75% lower GWP than R-410A. Ionic liquids are being developed that can separate azeotropic HFC mixtures based on differences in solubility and used as entrainers in extractive distillation. This presentation will provide experimental data on the solubility of HFCs in ionic liquids that have been measured using gravimetric microbalances and modeling using the Peng-Robinson equation of state. ASPEN Plus simulations will show how a pilot process has been designed that can continuously separate azeotropic refrigerant mixtures such as R-410A.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".