4.7 Article

Catalogue of Plausible Molecular Models for the Molecular Dynamics of Asphaltenes and Resins Obtained from Quantitative Molecular Representation

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 9779-9795

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b02605

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/E016340, EP/J014958, EP/R013152, EP/P020194/1]
  2. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. [PT45895]
  3. Imperial College Research Computing Service
  4. EPSRC [EP/J014958/1, EP/R013152/1, EP/P020194/1, EP/E016340/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computer simulation studies aimed at elucidating the phase behavior of crude oils inevitably require atomistically detailed models of representative molecules. For the lighter fractions of crudes, such molecules are readily available, as the chemical composition can be resolved experimentally. Heavier fractions pose a challenge, on the one hand because of their polydispersity and on the other because of the poor description of the morphology of the molecules involved. The quantitative molecular representation approach is used here to generate a catalogue of 100 plausible asphaltene and resin structures based on elemental analysis and H-1-C-13 NMR spectroscopy experimental data. The computer-generated models are compared in the context of a review of previously proposed literature structures and categorized by employing their molecular weights, double-bond equivalents, and hydrogen to carbon ratios. Sample atomistic molecular dynamics simulations were carried out for two of the proposed asphaltene structures with contrasting morphologies, one island-type and one archipelago-type, at 7 wt % in either toluene or heptane. Both asphaltene models, which shared many characteristics in terms of average molecular weight, chemical composition, and solubility parameters, showed marked differences in their aggregation behavior. The example showcases the importance of including diversity and polydispersity when considering molecular models of heavy fractions.

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

4.7
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