2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of mathematical model formulations for organic vapor transport in porous media

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Results obtained using the DGM (7) (Figure 4b) are slightly different than those obtained using the equimolar Stefan-Maxwell equations ( (11) and (12)) because the DGM includes a nonequimolar flux component as well as Knudsen diffusion. A more detailed comparison between the two formulations is beyond the scope of this paper; the reader is referred to other works [Massmann and Farrier, 1992;Sleep, 1998;Fen and Abriola, 2004]. It can be observed that the oxidation of methane leads to a decrease in pressure gradient in the reaction zone, which in turn results in a decrease in the advective velocity ( Figure 5a).…”
Section: à13mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Results obtained using the DGM (7) (Figure 4b) are slightly different than those obtained using the equimolar Stefan-Maxwell equations ( (11) and (12)) because the DGM includes a nonequimolar flux component as well as Knudsen diffusion. A more detailed comparison between the two formulations is beyond the scope of this paper; the reader is referred to other works [Massmann and Farrier, 1992;Sleep, 1998;Fen and Abriola, 2004]. It can be observed that the oxidation of methane leads to a decrease in pressure gradient in the reaction zone, which in turn results in a decrease in the advective velocity ( Figure 5a).…”
Section: à13mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results obtained with the DGM presented by Fen and Abriola [2004] (hereinafter referred to as FA) for the transport of N 2 and CH 4 in a 1-D horizontal domain under three different sets of conditions are compared to results obtained using the present DGM formulation (equation (7)). Simulation parameters are presented in Table 1.…”
Section: Nonreactive Binary Transport In the Molecular And Transitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The purpose of this study was to determine not only the dispersivities, but also the tortuosities from both the column experiments and the DG model simulations. Although Costanza-Robinson and Brusseau (2002) determined tortuosities using the Penman-Millington Quirk model (Moldrup et al, 1997), and Fen and Abriola (2004) determined tortuosities with the DG model for a binary gas system, tortuosities for multi-component gas systems have not yet been obtained directly from column experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Jaynes and Rogowski [12], Amali et al [2] and Webb and Pruess [29] mentioned a Fickian expression is valid only for a binary gas diffusion system with a trace gas and for a ternary gas diffusion system with a stagnant gas. Fen and Abriola [9] used the DGM equations to obtain the component diffusive flux in a Fickian form for a two-component gas transport system with gas components of equal molecular masses under isothermal and isobaric conditions. A correction factor, called the obstruction factor, is defined in the DGM, to account for the obstruction of soil particles to molecular diffusion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%