Process Safety Considerations in the Design and Scale-Up of Chemical Looping Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The technology readiness of chemical looping is rapidly being advanced by transforming batch-mode bench-scale systems into continuously or semicontinuously operating pilot units, and these changes in operating modes and scales introduce new levels of risk. To ensure pilot plants operate in a safe and successful manner and to sustain public support and a positive perception, it is important that a rigorous process safety approach is implemented in both the design and the operations stages of facilities, especially with limited operating history at larger scales. Beyond the application of technically sound engineering of individual unit operations, additional considerations are required for safer operations. The application of the inherently safer design (ISD) principles of minimization, substitution, moderation, and simplification are discussed within the context of chemical looping facilities, and example-based guidance is provided. Particular attention is paid to the selection of oxygen carriers and materials of construction to reduce or eliminate hazards. Passive and active control strategies are briefly discussed for their potential to mitigate accidents in pilot facilities, principally in managing loss of containment through secondary containment, and protecting workers through flame arresting and shielding. Management of change is introduced in a chemical looping pilot plant context, focused on examining alternative configurations and materials, recommissioning plants, and managing documentation and training with high turnover in academic settings. Finally, the need for incident reporting and knowledge sharing related to safety and accidents in the chemical looping community are discussed and recommendations on how this can be implemented are made.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".