“…Methane molecules were easy to destroy the unstable hydrate cage structure formed by high-concentration alcohols. Therefore, both increasing the temperature and decreasing the pressure were favorable for the decomposition of methane hydrate . According to the morphology of the two hydrates, it was found that they did not coalesce and did not adsorb to the wall.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted here that the uniform distribution of hydrate particles helps the lateral and vertical growth of the hydrate peak due to the influence of the ion charge generated by the electrolysis of NaCl. The high concentration of EG restricted the diffusion of methane molecules, resulting in the aggregation of methane molecules near the hydrate, making it difficult for the methane in the hydrate to diffuse to the bottom of the liquid phase . Therefore, EG only increased the lateral growth rate of the hydrate peak near the gas–liquid interface and the width of the hydrate peak increased.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high concentration of EG restricted the diffusion of methane molecules, resulting in the aggregation of methane molecules near the hydrate, making it difficult for the methane in the hydrate to diffuse to the bottom of the liquid phase. 48 Therefore, EG only increased the lateral growth rate of the hydrate peak near the gas−liquid interface and the width of the hydrate peak increased. The results showed that NaCl and EG enhanced gas mass transfer in the liquid phase, and hydrates could be generated in the liquid phase.…”
Section: Kinetic Comparison Of Nacl and Eg In Sds Systemmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Therefore, both increasing the temperature and decreasing the pressure were favorable for the decomposition of methane hydrate. 48 According to the morphology of the two hydrates, it was found that they did not coalesce and did not adsorb to the wall. It was proved that the promoting effect of SDS on hydrate formation was inhibited by this concentration of NaCl and EG.…”
Section: Kinetic Comparison Of Nacl and Eg In Sds Systemmentioning
The research on gas hydrates can be divided into two subfields: risk prevention and control of pipeline blockage by hydrates and industrial applications of solidified natural gas (SNG) in gas storage and transportation, seawater desalination, and gas recovery. The two opposing properties of hydrates have stimulated research into promoting and inhibiting methods. A considerable number of studies have reported that the same type of additive can play a promoting or inhibiting effect at different concentrations. This study evaluated the kinetic effects of low concentrations of ethylene glycol (EG) and sodium chloride (NaCl) on methane hydrate production in sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) solution. The results showed that both NaCl and EG had kinetic inhibitory effects on the hydrate reaction in SDS solution, and the inhibitory effects gradually increased with the increase of the concentration. Among them, the inhibitory effect of NaCl was stronger than that of EG at the same content. 5 wt % NaCl can reduce the reaction rate of hydrate in SDS solution by 81%, but 0.1 wt % NaCl helped SDS to act on hydrate growth, and the rate of hydrate growth stage was increased by 100%. When 0.1 wt % NaCl or 5 wt % EG existed in the SDS solution, the hydrate mainly grew in the bulk solution and on the inner wall surface of the container, forming a peak-like structure below the interface, and 5 wt % EG also formed a ridge-like structure above the interface. Exploring the macroscopic formation characteristics of hydrate is helpful to industrial process optimization and predicting the additive concentration in the pipeline. This work emphasizes that the selection of substances can be broadened and the rational use of resources can be achieved as much as possible when selecting promoters that are conducive to hydrate formation kinetics or inhibitors that control hydrate growth.
“…Methane molecules were easy to destroy the unstable hydrate cage structure formed by high-concentration alcohols. Therefore, both increasing the temperature and decreasing the pressure were favorable for the decomposition of methane hydrate . According to the morphology of the two hydrates, it was found that they did not coalesce and did not adsorb to the wall.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted here that the uniform distribution of hydrate particles helps the lateral and vertical growth of the hydrate peak due to the influence of the ion charge generated by the electrolysis of NaCl. The high concentration of EG restricted the diffusion of methane molecules, resulting in the aggregation of methane molecules near the hydrate, making it difficult for the methane in the hydrate to diffuse to the bottom of the liquid phase . Therefore, EG only increased the lateral growth rate of the hydrate peak near the gas–liquid interface and the width of the hydrate peak increased.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The high concentration of EG restricted the diffusion of methane molecules, resulting in the aggregation of methane molecules near the hydrate, making it difficult for the methane in the hydrate to diffuse to the bottom of the liquid phase. 48 Therefore, EG only increased the lateral growth rate of the hydrate peak near the gas−liquid interface and the width of the hydrate peak increased. The results showed that NaCl and EG enhanced gas mass transfer in the liquid phase, and hydrates could be generated in the liquid phase.…”
Section: Kinetic Comparison Of Nacl and Eg In Sds Systemmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Therefore, both increasing the temperature and decreasing the pressure were favorable for the decomposition of methane hydrate. 48 According to the morphology of the two hydrates, it was found that they did not coalesce and did not adsorb to the wall. It was proved that the promoting effect of SDS on hydrate formation was inhibited by this concentration of NaCl and EG.…”
Section: Kinetic Comparison Of Nacl and Eg In Sds Systemmentioning
The research on gas hydrates can be divided into two subfields: risk prevention and control of pipeline blockage by hydrates and industrial applications of solidified natural gas (SNG) in gas storage and transportation, seawater desalination, and gas recovery. The two opposing properties of hydrates have stimulated research into promoting and inhibiting methods. A considerable number of studies have reported that the same type of additive can play a promoting or inhibiting effect at different concentrations. This study evaluated the kinetic effects of low concentrations of ethylene glycol (EG) and sodium chloride (NaCl) on methane hydrate production in sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) solution. The results showed that both NaCl and EG had kinetic inhibitory effects on the hydrate reaction in SDS solution, and the inhibitory effects gradually increased with the increase of the concentration. Among them, the inhibitory effect of NaCl was stronger than that of EG at the same content. 5 wt % NaCl can reduce the reaction rate of hydrate in SDS solution by 81%, but 0.1 wt % NaCl helped SDS to act on hydrate growth, and the rate of hydrate growth stage was increased by 100%. When 0.1 wt % NaCl or 5 wt % EG existed in the SDS solution, the hydrate mainly grew in the bulk solution and on the inner wall surface of the container, forming a peak-like structure below the interface, and 5 wt % EG also formed a ridge-like structure above the interface. Exploring the macroscopic formation characteristics of hydrate is helpful to industrial process optimization and predicting the additive concentration in the pipeline. This work emphasizes that the selection of substances can be broadened and the rational use of resources can be achieved as much as possible when selecting promoters that are conducive to hydrate formation kinetics or inhibitors that control hydrate growth.
“…The results showed that the larger the charge and radius of the cation, the greater the rate of hydrate decomposition. Sun et al [5] investigated the effect of ethanol concentration on the decomposition rate of methane hydrate and found that 40% ethanol concentration was most favorable for the decomposition of the hydrate. Myshakin et al [6] simulated the relationship between cage-specific occupancy and the decomposition rate of hydrate and found that the existence of empty cages weakened the stability of hydrate and made it easier to decompose.…”
Gas hydrate is mainly distributed in deep sea-floor sediments and permafrost regions. The water content of these sediments varies with the type of reservoir and affects the rate of hydrate decomposition. In this work, the decomposition process of methane hydrate under four different initial water contents was investigated by molecular dynamics simulation. The results were analyzed by the system conformation, radial distribution function (RDF), and mean square displacement (MSD), which revealed the microscopic mechanism of the effect of the initial water content on the decomposition rate of hydrate. The results demonstrate that the hydrate decomposition starts from the boundary to the middle, and the cage structure is destroyed layer by layer. Methane molecules continue to escape from the hydrate cages as the hydrate decomposes, and subsequent decomposition of the hydrate is inhibited when its solubility in water reaches saturation. The higher the initial water content is, the faster the decomposition rate of hydrate is. The movement distance of methane gas is affected by the initial water content. The higher the initial water content, the smaller the MSD of methane molecules.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.