Experimental study on <scp> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> capture using 2‐(2‐aminoethylamino)ethanol/ <i>N,N</i> ‐diethyl‐ethanolamine/sulfolane phase‐change absorbents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chemical absorption is currently the most mature carbon capture technology, but it has high energy consumption. Phase change absorbents have great potential for reducing energy consumption. In this paper, an attempt is made to combine the commonly used organic phase splitter and physical phase splitter to explore the comprehensive performance of the absorber under the joint action of the two. Hydroxyethyl ethylenediamine (AEEA) was used as the active amine, N , N ‐diethylethanolamine (DEEA) as the organic phase splitter, and sulfolane as the physical phase splitter. Different molar ratios of the three reagents were carried out to screen out the combinations with superior split‐phase effects, and the absorption and desorption characteristics of the combination of AEEA/DEEA/sulfolane were investigated in terms of absorption performance, desorption performance, cycling performance, and physical parameters. The results showed that the combination of 2 M AEEA/1 M DEEA/4 M sulfolane was the most advantageous, with an absorption load up to 2.17 mol/L, a volume of the rich phase accounting for about 64%, an initial absorption rate up to 0.1756 mol · L −1 · min −1 , a desorption rate of 75.5% at the desorption temperature of 393.15 K, and the rich‐phase viscosity had a great advantage over the other molar ratio combinations. The changes of the components before and after phase separation were analyzed by 13 C NMR to investigate the phase separation mechanism, and the five repeated cycle tests showed that the absorption load was stable, the desorption capacity was strong, and the phase separation performance was good.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".