Experimental and Computational Evaluation of 1,2,4-Triazolium-Based Ionic Liquids for Carbon Dioxide Capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilization of ionic liquids (ILs) for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture is continuously growing, and further understanding of the factors that influence its solubility (notably for new ILs) is crucial. Herein, CO2 absorption of two 1,2,4-triazolium-based ILs was compared with imidazolium-based Ils of different anions, namely bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, tetrafluoroborate, and glycinate. The CO2 absorption capacity was determined using an isochoric saturation method and compared with predicted solubility employing COnductor-like Screening Model for Real Solvents (COSMO-RS). To gain an understanding of the effects of cations and anions of the ILs on the CO2 solubility, the molecular orbitals energy levels were calculated using TURBOMOLE. Triazolium-based ILs exhibit higher absorption capacity when compared to imidazolium-based ILs for the same anions. The results also showed that the anions’ energy levels are more determinant towards solubility than the cations’ energy levels, which can be explained by the higher tendency of CO2 to accept electrons than to donate them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".