4.5 Article

Phase equilibria, solubility and modeling study of CO2/CH4 + tetra-n-butylammonium bromide aqueous semi-clathrate systems

期刊

FLUID PHASE EQUILIBRIA
卷 388, 期 -, 页码 160-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2014.12.045

关键词

Semi-clathrate hydrate; Phase equilibria; Solubility; TBAB; Modeling

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. McGill University
  3. McGill Engineering Doctoral Award (MEDA)
  4. les Fonds Quebecois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT)
  5. Canada Research Chair Program (CRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interest has grown in tetra-n-butylammonium bromide (TBAB) semi-clathrates due to their formation at lower pressures and higher temperatures than conventional gas hydrates. This study focuses on TBAB semi-clathrates formed with carbon dioxide and methane and is to our knowledge the first study to report and model semi-clathrate former solubility under hydrate-liquid-vapor equilibrium conditions. A thermodynamic model was developed using the Trebble-Bishnoi equation of state to calculate vapor and liquid phase fugacity. Liquid activity was determined using the electrolyte non-random two liquid model (eNRTL). The solid semi-clathrate phase was modeled using a modified van der Waals-Platteeuw model (vdW-P), with parameters re-optimized based on the data obtained in this study. Equilibrium conditions were successfully modeled over the temperature range of 281-294 K, pressure range of 377-11,000 kPa and TBAB composition range of 5-40 wt%. The model functioned well for carbon dioxide with an average absolute relative error (AARE) of 4.7% for pressure prediction and an AARE of 17.5% for solubility. Methane was more difficult to model and yielded AAREs of 21.6% for pressure and 32.5% for solubility. Further understanding of semi-clathrate crystal structure and interactions between methane and TBAB would aid in improving the model. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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