4.6 Article

Phase equilibrium temperature and dissociation enthalpy in the tri-n-butylalkylphosphonium bromide semiclathrate hydrate systems

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2021.116514

关键词

Semiclathrate hydrate; Phase equilibrium; Quaternary phosphonium cation; Dissociation enthalpy

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [18K05032, 26410104, 17H06456, 17H03535]
  2. Kato Foundation for Promotion of Science
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18K05032, 26410104, 17H06456, 17H03535] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of cation size and shape on the thermodynamic properties of semiclathrate hydrates, finding that branched alkyl groups raised the equilibrium temperature while shorter alkyl groups lowered it. Among the orthorhombic systems studied, semiclathrate hydrates with higher equilibrium temperatures had larger dissociation enthalpies.
Semiclathrate hydrate (SCH) is one of the phase change materials suitable for cold storage. The thermodynamic properties of SCHs, such as an equilibrium temperature and a dissociation enthalpy, depend on the size and shape of guest substances. In this study, to reveal the effect of cation size and shape on the thermodynamic properties, tri-n-butylalkylphosphonium bromide (P444R-Br) SCHs, where the alkyl group was n-propyl (R = 3), n-butyl (R = 4), n-pentyl (R = 5), i-butyl (R = i-4), i-pentyl (R = i-5), or allyl (R = Al)), were investigated. The branched alkyl groups (R = i-4 or i-5) raised the equilibrium temperature, whereas the shorter alkyl groups (R = 3 or Al) lowered one. Except for P4445-Br and P444(Al)-Br SCHs, the other P444R-Br SCHs had the same orthorhombic structure. Among the orthorhombic systems in the present study, the semiclathrate hydrate with a higher equilibrium temperature had a larger dissociation enthalpy. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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