4.4 Article

Analytical model and experimental investigation of the adsorption thermodynamics of coalbed methane

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10450-019-00028-2

关键词

Adsorption; Isosteric heat; Coalbed methane; Coal

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Programof China [2018YFC0808100]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2015XKZD03]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT_17R103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study on adsorption thermodynamics is conducive to a deep understanding of the heat and mass transfer mechanism of coalbed methane in a coal seam. In this work, the analytical expressions of the isosteric heat for six adsorption models taking into account the temperature variations are directly derived according to Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Meanwhile, the adsorption content and adsorption heat at different pressures and temperatures are measured by the volumetric method of adsorption with a microcalorimetry system. It is found that the the adsorption heats obtained by different adsorption models exhibit different trends. The fitting quality of the experimental isotherms for different adsorption models affects the adsorption heat result. However, even if the models well fit the experimental isotherms, the theoretical adsorption heat values may be inconsistent. Furthermore, the calorimetric heats for all coal samples decreases with the increase in adsorption content in relation to the micropore distribution of coal. For all coal samples, the modified Dubinin-Astakhov (D-A) model can well fit the experimental isotherms and agree well with the results of calorimetric heats. By comparing the theoretical heat for different k values and the measured heat, the pseudo-saturation vapor pressure of the modified D-A model can be determined. Finally, by virtue of the isosteric heat of adsorption in a small temperature range, the adsorption isotherms at other adjacent temperatures are predicted successfully.

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

4.4
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