4.7 Article

Thermodynamic and 13C NMR spectroscopic verification of methane-carbon dioxide replacement in natural gas hydrates

Journal

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
Volume 225, Issue -, Pages 636-640

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.03.117

Keywords

Gas hydrate; Replacement; Carbon dioxide; Sequestration; Methane

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012-002494]
  3. Future Creativity and Innovation Project of the UNIST [1.120022.01]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1B6002494] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The conversion of CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate with net recovery of CH4 is regarded as an attractive method of both CO2 sequestration and CH4 production. In this study, the CH4-CO2 swapping phenomenon occurring in gas hydrates and its potential application to CO2 sequestration was examined through thermodynamic equilibrium studies and a C-13 NMR spectroscopic analysis. It was found that the CO2 composition in the hydrate phase and the expected recovery level for CH4 after swapping can be easily estimated from thermodynamic equilibrium studies linked to C-13 NMR spectroscopic results. The experimental results showed that approximately 67% of CH4 is recoverable after replacement by CO2, which was also confirmed by direct dissociation. The corresponding chemical formula for the mixed gas hydrate after CO2 replacement is 5.03CO(2)center dot 2.51CH(4)center dot 46H(2)O. The results presented in this study further build the thermodynamic and physicochemical background required for understanding the simultaneously occurring dual mechanism of CO2 sequestration and CH4 recovery. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available