Contributions of CH4-amine interactions by primary, secondary, and tertiary amines on CO2/CH4 separation efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In designing amine-incorporated adsorbents for CO2/CH4 separation, it is essential to understand the individual effects amine moieties have on the separation of CO2/CH4 mixtures. In this work, primary, secondary, and tertiary amines are moderately grafted on SBA-15 to examine factors affecting adsorption of CO2 and CH4. Materials were characterised by thermogravimetric and elemental analysis, and their performance was measured by volumetric and gravimetric gas adsorption. An amine density of 1.6–1.7 mmol/g in secondary and tertiary amines showed an equivalent CH4 uptake of <0.04 mmol/g at 25 °C, while primary amines adsorbed 0.05 mmol/g, indicating stronger interaction forces with CH4. In terms of selectivity, primary and secondary amines grafted at 1.3–1.4 mmol/g had similar values, unaffected by amine type. Adsorption results cross analysed with DFT simulations indicate similar binding energies for CH4 by both amine moieties, concluding the facilitated access of gas molecules to primary amine moieties is the primary factor dictating degree of adsorption. At an amine density of ∼ 1.7 mmol/g for both primary and secondary amines, an increase in temperature from 25 to 40 °C at a CO2 partial pressure of 40 kPa showed a decrease in CO2/CH4 selectivity of only primary amines. Secondary amines are thus more selective amine moieties at these conditions. Furthermore, in isothermal adsorption–desorption conditions, moderately grafted secondary amines have an equal working capacity to primary amines. Both these qualities support secondary amines at moderate densities as candidates for adsorbent development in CO2/CH4 separations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".