## 3 Results and Discussions
### Heat of Regeneration of CO\({}_{2}\) Loaded Sodium Glycinate Solution  
The regeneration energy can be determined by the thermal data and energy balance, as shown in Equation (13), and the results are listed in Table 10 and Figure 9. It was found that the individual penalties were 0.181-0.453 GJ t\({}^{-1}\), 1.66-4.38 GJ t\({}^{-1}\), and 0.51-7.43 GJ t\({}^{-1}\) for \(Q_{abs}\), \(Q_{\text{sen}}\), and \(Q_{\text{sol}}\), respectively. Therefore, the total energy required here was in the range of 3.68-10.75 GJ t\({}^{-1}\), which is higher than 5.0 GJ/t, comparable to that reported by [PERSON] et al. [22]. From the energy duty distribution analysis, it can be found that the heat of absorption is below 5%, while the heat of evaporation and the sensitive heat are both close to 48%. Therefore, a reduction in \(Q_{\text{sen}}\) and \(Q_{\text{sol}}\) can effectively obtain a small \(Q\).  
Figure 8: A plot of the calculated value versus measured values for \(K_{G}a\) showing the regression confidence.  
However, the heat of regeneration can be correlated with the pH of the solution, regeneration temperature, and CO\({}_{2}\) loading. A total of eighteen data was adopted for regression as shown below:  
\[Q(\mathrm{GJ/t})=0.5110\exp(0.9343\mathrm{pH}-\frac{2158.9}{T_{R}(\mathrm{K})}) \alpha^{1.002} \tag{21}\]  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Condition**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \(\mathbf{T_{R}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q_{\mathrm{abs}}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q_{\mathrm{sen}}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q_{\mathrm{sol}}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q}\) \\ \cline{3-7}  & & (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (GJ t\({}^{-1}\)) & (GJ t\({}^{-1}\)) & (GJ t\({}^{-1}\)) & (GJ t\({}^{-1}\)) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 17} & R1 & 100 & 0.225 & 3.02 & 3.11 & 6.35 \\  & R2 & 110 & 0.216 & 2.95 & 4.40 & 7.56 \\  & R3 & 120 & 0.208 & 2.77 & 6.96 & 9.94 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 18} & R4 & 100 & 0.231 & 3.55 & 4.07 & 7.85 \\  & R5 & 110 & 0.222 & 2.70 & 2.76 & 5.68 \\  & R6 & 120 & 0.214 & 2.64 & 6.61 & 9.46 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 19} & R7 & 100 & 0.186 & 2.99 & 0.51 & 3.68 \\  & R8 & 110 & 0.188 & 2.76 & 2.12 & 5.07 \\  & R9 & 120 & 0.181 & 2.74 & 4.16 & 7.08 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 20} & R10 & 100 & 0.453 & 3.55 & 0.53 & 4.55 \\  & R11 & 110 & 0.435 & 2.23 & 3.07 & 5.74 \\  & R12 & 120 & 0.418 & 1.66 & 4.07 & 6.15 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 21} & R13 & 100 & 0.197 & 4.13 & 3.53 & 7.85 \\  & R14 & 110 & 0.188 & 3.48 & 1.15 & 4.81 \\  & R15 & 120 & 0.181 & 2.88 & 2.57 & 5.63 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{No. 22} & R16 & 100 & 0.446 & 3.17 & 2.32 & 5.93 \\  & R17 & 110 & 0.428 & 4.38 & 4.54 & 9.34 \\ \cline{1-1}  & R18 & 120 & 0.412 & 2.91 & 7.43 & 10.75 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Heat of regeneration for different conditions.  
Figure 9: Heat of regeneration as a function of loading and regeneration temperature.  
It can be found that most of the data in Figure 10 shows a \(\pm\)20% error. Equation (21) can be used to predict the heat of regeneration when the loading, temperature, and pH of the solution are given. In addition, the analysis showed that the sequence of the parameter is \(\alpha\) > pH > \(T_{R}\), indicating the importance of CO\({}_{2}\) loading. This implies that the loading control is important for reducing the heat of regeneration. In addition, in the real stripper, the efficiency could be higher, as the gas-liquid contact environment is better and the effect of pressure on the CO\({}_{2}\) stripping could be obviously.