4.6 Article

Validity of the Kelvin equation and the equation-of-state-with-capillary-pressure model for the phase behavior of a pure component under nanoconfinement

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Volume 226, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2020.115839

Keywords

Kelvin equations; Density functional theory; Equation of state with capillary pressure; Vapor-liquid equilibrium; Slit graphite nanopores; Adsorption

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC RGPIN-2016-05502, NSERC RGPIN-2017-05080, NSERC RGPIN 05394]
  2. Alberta Innovates
  3. Alberta Advanced Education
  4. Government of Alberta
  5. University of Alberta
  6. Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  7. Westgrid
  8. Compute Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To predict phase behavior of a pure component in nanopores, various versions of Kelvin equations and equation-of-state-with-capillary-pressure (EOS-P-cap) models have been used. There has been debate on the validity of Kelvin equation, especially in sub-10-nm pores. For EOS-P-cap models, numerical iterations have been used to obtain vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE). In slit pores with widths larger than 8 nm, the Kelvin equation agrees with (within 10%) the equilibrium vapor-phase pressures of confined propane from engineering density functional theory between 310 K and 360 K. We introduce a graphical method using pressure-volume, chemical-potential-density, and chemical-potential-pressure relations to obtain VLE using EOS-P-cap model. While the Kelvin equation takes only surface tension as an input and returns a solution for VLE up until the bulk critical point (CP), the EOS-P-cap model predicts a limiting temperature different from the bulk CP. The predictions from Kelvin equations and EOS-P-cap models can be improved by considering adsorption layer thickness. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available