MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386054449 · doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.3c00335

How Can (or Why Should) Process Engineering Aid the Screening and Discovery of Solid Sorbents for CO<sub>2</sub> Capture?

2023· article· en· W4386054449 on OpenAlexafffund
Arvind Rajendran, Sai Gokul Subraveti, Kasturi Nagesh Pai, Vinay Prasad, Zukui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounts of Chemical Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounts of Chemical ResearchSame topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207