ArticleScientific reports2024
Estimation of hydrogen solubility in aqueous solutions using machine learning techniques for hydrogen storage in deep saline aquifers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction and SHAP sensitivity analysis of sound speed in hydrogen-rich gas mixtures.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning models for the prediction of hydrogen solubility in aqueous systems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The porous underground structures have recently attracted researchers' attention for hydrogen gas storage due to their high storage capacity. One of the challenges in storing hydrogen gas in aqueous solutions is estimating its solubility in water. In this study, after collecting experimental data from previous research and eliminating four outliers, nine machine learning methods were developed to estimate the solubility of hydrogen in water. To optimize the parameters used in model construction, a Bayesian optimization algorithm was employed. By examining error functions and plots, the LSBoost method with R² = 0.9997 and RMSE = 4.18E-03 was identified as the most accurate method. Additionally, artificial neural network, CatBoost, Extra trees, Gaussian process regression, bagged trees, regression trees, support vector machines, and linear regression methods had R² values of 0.9925, 0.9907, 0.9906, 0.9867, 0.9866, 0.9808, 0.9464, and 0.7682 and RMSE values of 2.13E-02, 2.43E-02, 2.44E-02, 2.83E-02, 2.85E-02, 3.40E-02, 5.68E-02, and 1.18E-01, respectively. Subsequently, residual error plots were generated, indicating the accurate performance of the LSBoost model across all ranges. The maximum residual error was - 0.0252, and only 4 data points were estimated with an error greater than ± 0.01. A kernel density estimation (KDE) plot for residual errors showed no specific bias in the models except for the linear regression model. To investigate the impact of temperature, pressure, and salinity parameters on the model outputs, the Pearson correlation coefficients for the LSBoost model were calculated, showing that pressure, temperature, and salinity had values of 0.8188, 0.1008, and - 0.5506, respectively, indicating that pressure had the strongest direct relationship, while salinity had an inverse relationship with hydrogen solubility. Considering the results of this research, the LSBoost method, alongside approaches like state equations, can be applied in real-world scenarios for underground hydrogen storage. The findings of this study can help in a better understanding of hydrogen solubility in aqueous solutions, aiding in the optimization of underground hydrogen storage systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.