A Robust Framework for Generating Adsorption Isotherms to Screen Materials for Carbon Capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To rank the performance of materials for a given carbon capture process, we rely on pure component isotherms from which we predict the mixture isotherms. For screening a large number of materials we also increasingly rely on isotherms predicted from molecular simulations. In particular, for such screening studies, it is important that the procedures to generate the data are accurate, reliable, and robust. In this work, we develop an efficient and automated workflow for a meticulous sampling of pure component isotherms. The workflow was tested on a set of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and proved to be reliable given different guest molecules. We show that the coupling of our workflow with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation saves CPU time, yet enables us to accurately predict pure component isotherms at the temperatures of interest, starting from a reference isotherm at a given temperature. We also show that one can accurately predict the CO2 and N2 mixture isotherms using Ideal Adsorbed Solution Theory (IAST). In particular, we show that IAST is a more reliable numerical tool to predict binary adsorption uptakes for a range of pressures, temperatures, and compositions, as it does not rely on the fitting of experimental data, which typically needs to be done with analytical models such as dual-site Langmuir (DSL). This makes IAST a more suitable and general technique to bridge the gap between adsorption (raw) data and process modelling. To demonstrate this point, we show that the ranking of materials, for a standard 3-step Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) process, can be significantly different depending on the thermodynamic method used to predict binary adsorption data. We show that for the design of processes that capture CO2 from low concentration (0.4%) streams, the commonly used methodology to predict mixture isotherms incorrectly assigns up to 33% of the materials as top-performing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".