Best Practice Approach to Live CO2 Brine Preparation and Solubility Calculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study presents a standardized method for preparing and measuring CO2 solubility in brine under geological storage conditions. Accurate CO2 solubility measurements are crucial for laboratory research on CO2 storage and field-scale simulations. The solubility of CO2 in brine is influenced by pressure, temperature, and salinity, with higher pressure increasing solubility, while higher temperature and salinity reduce it. The experimental setup used a floating piston accumulator and a mechanical rocker to mix CO2 with brine at 124 bar and 77°C over durations of 1, 3, and 5 days. Two solubility measurement techniques—mass balance and volume displacement—were compared, with results validated using Duan’s thermodynamic model. Findings indicate that longer mixing durations improve solubility, reaching 0.868 mol/kg after 5 days. The volume displacement method provided more precise results than mass balance. The study highlights the importance of adequate mixing and pressure stabilization in CO2 solubility experiments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.014 |
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".