(3) confined spaces (CS). This process is shown schematically in figure . In evaluating the process performance, we considered two distinct fitting schemes, DSL and DSL Henry respectively. In the first, all data points were given the same weight. Whereas, in the second, we put more weight on the low-pressure region, such that we force the DSL equation to describe the Henry coefficient correctly. In figure we show the materials ranking for a coal-fired power plant (CF-PP), natural gas-fired power plant (NG-PP), and confined spaces (CS). In these figures, we compare the purity (%) of CO 2 rich product stream and we use the IAST results as the reference. For a fair comparison between IAST and extended DSL, 100 out of the initial 500 structures, for which the fitting procedure failed or the obtained parameters were physically inexplicable, were labeled as "problematic" and were discarded. : Materials ranking in terms of purity of the output stream for a coal-fired power plant (CF-PP), natural gas-fired power plant (NG-PP), and confined spaces (CS). In these figures, each circle corresponds to a material, where the middle gives the ranking as predicted by IAST, the left and right from DSL, in which the right side more emphasis is put on fitting the Henry coefficient correctly. Points that correspond to the same material are connected by lines, where a gray line is used if the change between IAST and DSL or DSL Henry is less than 10%, a blue line if the DSL gives 10% or higher purity, and red if it is 10% or lower.