MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393306178 · doi:10.1016/j.mcat.2024.114091

Monoethanolamine assisted CO2 hydrogenation to methanol – A computational study

2024· article· en· W4393306178 on OpenAlexaff
Rachid Hadjadj, Imre G. Csizmadia, Hadeer Q. Waleed, Dalal K. Thbayh, Béla Viskolcz, Béla Fiser

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Catalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicCatalysts for Methane Reforming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Regional Development Fund
KeywordsMethanolCatalysisChemistryEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistryWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere has to be reduced which can be done by utilizing CO2 in the synthesis of added value products. At the same time this will lead to a process which can help to store renewable energy. The use of hydrogen produced from the electrolysis of water in carbon dioxide reduction to methanol could be an efficient way to store energy and to convert CO2 into an added value product. The synthesis of methanol from CO2 is usually performed catalytically in gas phase. Many scientists nowadays expressed interest in testing the feasibility of the reaction also in aqueous phase. In this direction, monoethanolamine (MEA) can be used as a solvent for capturing and trapping carbon dioxide in an aqueous phase. In this work, the hydrogenation of (2-hydroxyethyl) carbamic acid (HO-(CH2)2-NH-COOH) which is one of the produced species during the capture process has been investigated by using computational tools. The uncatalyzed and catalyzed-like hydrogenation mechanisms leading to methanol (and MEA+water) as a product has been studied by using high level ab initio calculations in aqueous phase. The mechanisms have been described at the molecular level to provide a deeper understanding of the processes. The calculations indicate that the highest barrier height in the catalyzed-like process is only 114.67 kJ/mol, which is 227.71 kJ/mol lower than the corresponding step in the uncatalyzed mechanism. Furthermore, the energy storage efficiency of the catalyzed-like process is 96.68 %, which is 7.5 times more efficient than the uncatalyzed mechanism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular CatalysisSame topicCatalysts for Methane ReformingFrench-language works237,207