How Can (or Why Should) Process Engineering Aid the Screening and Discovery of Solid Sorbents for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conspectus Adsorption using solid sorbents is emerging as a serious contender to amine-based liquid absorption for postcombustion CO 2 capture. In the last 20+ years, significant efforts have been invested in developing adsorption processes for CO 2 capture. In particular, significant efforts have been invested in developing new adsorbents for this application. These efforts have led to the generation of hundreds of thousands of (hypothetical and real) adsorbents, e.g., zeolites and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs). Identifying the right adsorbent for CO 2 capture remains a challenging task. Most studies are focused on identifying adsorbents based on certain adsorption metrics. Recent studies have demonstrated that the performance of an adsorbent is intimately linked to the process in which it is deployed. Any meaningful screening should thus consider the complexity of the process. However, simulation and optimization of adsorption processes are computationally intensive, as they constitute the simultaneous propagation of heat and mass transfer fronts; the process is cyclic, and there are no straightforward design tools, thereby making large-scale process-informed screening of sorbents prohibitive. This Account discusses four papers that develop computational methods to incorporate process-based evaluation for both bottom-up (chemistry to engineering) screening problems and top-down (engineering to chemistry) inverse problems. We discuss the development of the machine-assisted adsorption process learning and emulation (MAPLE) framework, a surrogate model based on deep artificial neural networks (ANNs) that can predict process-level performance by considering both process and material inputs. The framework, which has been experimentally validated, allows for reliable, process-informed screening of large adsorbent databases. We then discuss how process engineering tools can be used beyond adsorbent screening, i.e., to estimate the practically achievable performance and cost limits of pressure vacuum swing adsorption (PVSA) processes should the ideal bespoke adsorbent be made. These studies show what conditions stand-alone PVSA processes are attractive and when they should not be considered. Finally, recent developments in physics-informed neural networks (PINNS) enable the rapid solution of complex partial differential equations, providing tools to potentially identify optimal cycle configurations. Ultimately, we provide areas where further developments are required and emphasize the need for strong collaborations between chemists and chemical engineers to move rapidly from discovery to field trials, as we do not have much time to fulfill commitments to net-zero targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".