4.6 Article

Methane and Carbon Dioxide Hydrate Formation in the Presence of Metal-Based Fluid

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15238670

关键词

gas hydrates; kinetic hydrate promoters; solid particles; rate constant; hydrate kinetics; nanomaterial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrate-based technology has not been commercially applied due to issues such as formation conditions and slow reaction kinetics. This study investigated the impact of high thermal conductive metallic nanofluids, specifically silver (Ag) and copper (Cu), on the formation of CH4 and CO2 hydrates. The results showed that while Ag and Cu promoted CH4 hydrate formation, they either inhibited or had little influence on CO2 hydrates.
Hydrate-based technology has yet to find its way to commercial applications due to several issues, including formation conditions and slow kinetics. Several solid particles were introduced to speed up hydrate formation. However, these solid compounds have given contradictory results. This study investigated the effect of high thermal conductive metallic nanofluids of silver (Ag) and copper (Cu) on CH4 and CO2 hydrates. The solid particles were suspended in a 0.03 wt% SDS aqueous solution, and the results were compared with the 0.03 wt% SDS and deionized water samples. A stirred tank batch reactor was used to conduct the thermodynamic and kinetic experiments. The thermodynamic study revealed that 0.1 wt% of solid particles do not shift the equilibrium curve significantly. The kinetic evaluation, including induction time, the initial rate of gas consumption, half-completion time, t(50) and semi-completion time, t(95), gas uptake, and storage capacity, have been studied. The results show that the Ag and Cu promote CH4 hydrates while they inhibit or do not significantly influence the CO2 hydrates formation. A predictive correlation was introduced to get the apparent rate constant of hydrate formation in the presence of metal-based fluid at the concentrations range of 0.005-0.1 wt%.

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