4.5 Article

A molecular dynamics investigation on CO2-H2O-CH4 surface tension and CO2-CH4-H2O-graphite sheet contact angles

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2023.1271359

关键词

surface tension; contact angle; surface roughness; molecular dynamics; CO2/H2O/CH4 mixture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we used MD simulations to investigate the behavior of liquid droplets on a graphite substrate mimicking a carbon-rich pore surface in the presence of CH4/CO2 mixtures. Our results showed that the interfacial tension between water and methane, as well as between water and CH4/CO2 mixtures, agreed well with experimental and computational literature. We also found that the modified Young's equation successfully linked the macroscopic and microscopic contact angles, and that surface roughness enhanced the hydrophobicity of the solid surface.
Introduction: We perform molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of nanoscopic liquid water drops on a graphite substrate mimicking the carbon-rich pore surface in the presence of CH4/CO2 mixtures at temperatures in the range 300 K-473 K.Methods: The surface tension in MD simulation is calculated via virial expression, and the water droplet contact angle is obtained through a cylindric binning procedure.Results: Our results for the interfacial tension between water and methane as a function of pressure and for the interfacial tension between water and CH4/CO2 mixtures as a function of their composition agree well with the experimental and computational literature.Discussion: The modified Young's equation has been proven to bridge the macroscopic contact angle and microscopic contact with the experimental literature. The water droplet on both the artificially textured surface and randomly generated surface exhibits a transition between the Wenzel and Cassie-Baxter states with increased roughness height, indicating that surface roughness enhances the hydrophobicity of the solid surface.

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