Dissociation Pressures of CO2 Hydrate in Sulfate Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been a popular strategy to mitigate climate change and has attracted significant attention from both industry and academia. CO2 can be stored in the form of CO2 hydrate in deeper locations in an ocean, which makes it a potential option for CO2 sequestration. Dissolved salts in the ocean brine can significantly affect the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate. Although various experimental studies have been conducted to investigate the phase behavior of CO2 hydrate in brine, there are few studies focusing on the effect of sulfate salts on the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate. In this study, we built an in-house experimental setup to investigate the effect of monovalent sulfate salts and divalent sulfate salts on the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate. The dissociation pressures of CO2 hydrate in Na2SO4, MgSO4, and CuSO4 aqueous solutions were measured using the isochoric pressure search method at two different concentrations (6.24 wt% and 12.48 wt%) over the temperature range of 274.44–282.15 K and the pressure range of 1.63–4.03 MPa. The experimental results show that the dissociation pressures of CO2 hydrate in Na2SO4 and MgSO4 solutions increase compared to that in pure water, and the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate in sulfate solutions increases with an increasing salt concentration. But CuSO4 barely affects the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate. These findings help clarify how the sulfate salts affect the dissociation pressure of CO2 hydrate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".