MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415641725 · doi:10.48048/tis.2026.11148

Optimized CO2 Capture Using Water-Based Absorbent under Circulated Water Conditions for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Applications

2025· article· W4415641725 on OpenAlex
Rafiif Nur Tahta Bagaskara, Indah Lestari, Ester Agustina Tampubolon, Faiz Muamar, Nuryoto Nuryoto

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolumetric flow rateCarbon dioxideSolubilityFlow (mathematics)Absorption (acoustics)PhenolphthaleinCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Water flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capturing CO2 emissions using a recirculating water-based system offers a simple and eco-friendly alternative to conventional Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) methods for reducing emissions and mitigating climate change. To optimize CO2 solubility in water, it is essential to integrate and evaluate the key variables that influence the capture process, enabling the identification of ideal operating conditions. This study aims to analyze the phenomena and examine the effects of variables such as CO2 gas flow rate, water flow rate, water temperature, circulation time, and differential pressure on the effectiveness of the CO2 capture process, as indicated by the mass of CO2 dissolved in water within the system. The experiment was carried out using a transparent absorber column filled with packing material. CO2 gas with 99.9% purity was introduced at flow rates of 2 and 4 dm3/min, while water was recirculated at flow rates of 0.25 and 0.5 dm3/min. The system operated at water temperatures between 24 and 30 °C, with circulation durations of 5, 10, and 15 min, and differential pressures of 30 and 50 mmHg. Samples were collected at the end of each circulation period and CO2 absorption was determined through titration using 0.1 M NaOH and phenolphthalein as the indicator. The results demonstrated that higher water flow rates and increased pressure differentials enhanced the capture performance, as evidenced by greater CO2 absorption. Conversely, elevated water temperatures and higher CO2 gas flow rates led to decreased absorption efficiency. The most favorable conditions were achieved at 24 °C, a water flow rate of 0.5 dm3/min, a circulation time of 15 min, and a differential pressure of 50 mmHg, resulting in 1.672 g of CO2 absorbed. The results of this study indicate that water has the potential to serve as an environmentally friendly alternative technology for CCS applications. However, further research is needed to develop a process that is effective, efficient, and more cost-effective. HIGHLIGHTS Higher water flow rates and pressure differentials significantly improved CO2 capture efficiency. Increased water temperature and CO2 gas flow rate reduced absorption performance. Optimal conditions yielded 1.672 g CO2 absorbed at 24 °C, 0.5 dm3/min water flow, circulation time of 15 min, and differential pressure (Dp) of 50 mmHg. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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