2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.04.076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adsorption characteristics of methane on Maxsorb III by gravimetric method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although a qualitative agreement is found in terms of the relative capacities for CH 4 and CO 2 , as well as the general trend of the isotherms, the quantitative accuracy is limited for both models' predictions which could be attributed to the differences in adsorption characteristics, such as pore size distribution (PSD) of the Norit and Maxsorb. Activated carbon Norit R1 Extra has a narrow PSD that peaks between 5 and 6 Å while Maxsorb exhibits wider PSD with two prominent pore diameters: 12 and 20 Å (Thu et al 2014). Scaling of isotherms using the ratios of BET specific surface area is probably not adequate to quantitatively predict the mixture adsorption isotherms over the pressure ranges considered here.…”
Section: Binary Gas Adsorptionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although a qualitative agreement is found in terms of the relative capacities for CH 4 and CO 2 , as well as the general trend of the isotherms, the quantitative accuracy is limited for both models' predictions which could be attributed to the differences in adsorption characteristics, such as pore size distribution (PSD) of the Norit and Maxsorb. Activated carbon Norit R1 Extra has a narrow PSD that peaks between 5 and 6 Å while Maxsorb exhibits wider PSD with two prominent pore diameters: 12 and 20 Å (Thu et al 2014). Scaling of isotherms using the ratios of BET specific surface area is probably not adequate to quantitatively predict the mixture adsorption isotherms over the pressure ranges considered here.…”
Section: Binary Gas Adsorptionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The temperature increase of each coal sample during methane adsorption was caused by the adsorption heat of the coal surface and the methane molecules, which is closely related to the amount of methane adsorption in coal, namely [1,2],…”
Section: 5mmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, compared with other adsorbents, such as Maxsorb III, ACF, and MOFs [3], the diversity of the macerals, variations in mineral species, and an uneven distribution of pores and fractures in coal create inhomogeneous methane adsorption characteristics [4][5][6], rendering an evaluation of the storage characteristics difficult, and hindering the industrial exploitation of CBM reserves. Past studies have shown that the micro pores (<10 nm) in coal are the main sites of methane storage owing to their large surface area, and that the intercrystalline pores and intragranular corrosion pores of clay minerals also have a fair methane adsorption capacity [1,2,7]. Based on methane adsorption capacity tests of different microlithotypes, Chalmers [8] hypothesized that methane is held as a solution gas in liptinite-rich coals, and in micropores in liptinite-poor coals through physical sorption.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If the volumetric method is employed for the surface characteristics analysis, then the gravimetric method is adopted for gas adsorption measurements. (Thu et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%