Process-performance of solid sorbents for Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2 in optimized temperature-vacuum swing adsorption (TVSA) cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process performance of five solid sorbents was evaluated for direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 in temperature-vacuum swing adsorption (TVSA) and steam-assisted temperature vacuum swing adsorption (s-TVSA) cycles via detailed process modelling. The unary CO2, H2O and binary CO2-H2O isotherm data, wherever available, were fit to suitable isotherm models and then integrated with the detailed process model. The trade-off between specific energy and CO2 productivity has been studied through rigorous process optimizations. The study shows that thermal energy demand is substantial in comparison to the electrical energy. The role of steam was primarily found to improve the productivity. The range of minimum specific energy values is between 6.25-30.4 MJth/kg CO2, although, for some of the sorbents, the lack of H2O adsorption data impedes reliable calculations. The range of maximum CO2 productivities observed is between 0.01-0.15 TPD of CO2/m3 of sorbent
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".