MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410567179 · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2025.133666

Advancements in adsorption and membrane technologies for hydrogen isotope separation: Exploring new materials and emerging techniques

2025· article· en· W4410567179 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehrasa Yassari, Arash Bagherzadeh, Aristides Docoslis, Mark R. Daymond, Mohtada Sadrzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueSeparation and Purification Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHydrogen isotopeAdsorptionIsotope separationSeparation (statistics)HydrogenMembraneMembrane technologyNanotechnologyChemistryChemical engineeringProcess engineeringMaterials scienceIsotopeEngineeringComputer scienceOrganic chemistryPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Separating hydrogen isotopes, such as deuterium (D) and tritium (T), is one of the most demanding challenges in modern separation technology. These isotopes are critical for industrial applications, and achieving high-purity separation is of significant economic value. However, due to their similar properties, traditional methods such as cryogenic distillation (CD) and girdler sulfide (GS) are energy-intensive, costly, and offer limited efficiency. Emerging techniques using porous materials have shown some improvement through kinetic quantum sieving (KQS) and chemical affinity quantum sieving (CAQS). However, these methods still face challenges such as limited selectivity, scalability issues, and the need for precise control over material properties. This review critically examines the development and application of adsorbents and membranes for hydrogen isotope separation, focusing on quantum sieving (QS) effects in materials such as metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) and zeolites. It also compares these approaches with conventional methods. Special emphasis is placed on membranes, which provide a continuous, cost-effective, and scalable solution. The review covers metallic and non-metallic membranes, including advanced 2D materials like graphene oxide (GO). Future research opportunities and practical applications are discussed to support the ongoing development of this promising technology

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeparation and Purification TechnologySame topicHydrogen Storage and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207