4.7 Article

Molecular-weight distributions of coal and petroleum asphaltenes from laser desorption/ionization experiments

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 2863-2868

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ef700225s

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Molecular-weight distributions (MWDs) of asphaltenes extracted from coal and petroleum have been measured in laser desorption/ionization (LDI) mass spectrometric experiments. The dried-droplet and solvent-free sample preparation methods are compared. The coal asphaltenes have a relatively narrow MWD (full width 150 amu) with an average molecular weight of approximate to 340 amu. The petroleum asphaltenes display a broader MWD (full width 300 amu) and are heavier on average (approximate to 680 amu). The LDI spectra also provide evidence for the formation of noncovalent clusters of the two types of asphaltenes.during the desorption process. Petroleum and coal asphaltenes exhibit aggregation as do large model polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) with five or more fused rings also included in the study. Smaller PAHs (pyrene) exhibit less aggregation, especially when alkane-chain substituents are incorporated to the molecular structure. This indicates that asphaltenes possess large PAHs and, according to the relatively small molecular weights observed, that there is a preponderance of asphaltene molecules with only a single fused ring system. The coal asphaltenes present a significantly smaller propensity toward aggregation than their crude oil counterparts. This finding, Coupled with the fact that (1) alkanes inhibit aggregation in LDI and (2) petroleum asphaltenes possess much more alkane carbon, indicates that coal asphaltenes have smaller PAHs on average than petroleum asphaltenes. This is further corroborated by the stronger ultraviolet absorbance of the coal asphaltenes at wavelengths shorter than 400 nm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available