4.5 Article

Monte Carlo Simulations of High-Pressure Phase Equilibria of CO2-H2O Mixtures

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
卷 115, 期 20, 页码 6629-6635

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp201520u

关键词

-

资金

  1. BP (Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University)
  2. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Science [DE-SC0002128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histogram-reweighting grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations were used to obtain the phase behavior of CO2-H2O mixtures over a broad temperature and pressure range (Si) (50 degrees C <= T <= 350 degrees C, 0 <= P <= 1000 bar). We performed a comprehensive test of several existing water (SPC, TIP4P, TIP4P2005, and exponential-6) and carbon dioxide (EPM2, TraPPE, and exponential-6) models using conventional Lorentz-Berthelot combining rules for the unlike-pair parameters. None of the models we studied reproduce adequately experimental data over the entire temperature and pressure range, bui critical assessments were made on the range of T and P where particular model pairs perform better. Away from the critical region (T <= 250 degrees C), the exponential-6 model combination yields the best predictions for the CO2-rich phase, whereas the TraPPE/TIP4P2005 model combination provides the most accurate coexistence composition and pressure for the H2O-rich phase. Near the critical region (250 degrees C < T <= 350 degrees C), the critical points are not accurately estimated by a:ay of the models studied, but the exponential-6 models are able to qualitatively capture the critical loci and the shape of the phase envelopes. Local improvements can be achieved at specific temperatures by introducing modification factors to the Lorentz-Berthelot combining rules, but the modified combining rule is still not able to achieve global improvements over the entire temperature and pressure range. Our work points to the challenge and importance of improving current atomistic models so as to accurately predict the phase behavior of this important binary mixture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据