2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11753-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of gas chromatographic techniques for identification of aqueous amine degradation products in carbonated environments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 91 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Degradation is therefore expressed as the loss of CO 2 capacity over time; this is different than what is being done for liquid amine systems where the degradation is calculated from the accumulation of various degradation species in the solvent over time with gas chromatography, liquid chromatography or ion chromatography. [46][47][48] The current adsorbent degradation approach needs to correlate with a commercial fluidized bed process in which the material is continuously circulated between adsorber and desorber conditions, which results in various rates of degradation. We therefore assumed that the total degradation of a commercial sorbent consists of the sum of degradation rates in the multiple sections of the process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Degradation is therefore expressed as the loss of CO 2 capacity over time; this is different than what is being done for liquid amine systems where the degradation is calculated from the accumulation of various degradation species in the solvent over time with gas chromatography, liquid chromatography or ion chromatography. [46][47][48] The current adsorbent degradation approach needs to correlate with a commercial fluidized bed process in which the material is continuously circulated between adsorber and desorber conditions, which results in various rates of degradation. We therefore assumed that the total degradation of a commercial sorbent consists of the sum of degradation rates in the multiple sections of the process.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%