2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.098
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revisiting methane absolute adsorption in organic nanopores from molecular simulation and Ono-Kondo lattice model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
62
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
2
62
0
Order By: Relevance
“…52 The capability of the model highlighted in this study is the incorporation of pore size distributions, making it suitable for understanding adsorption on clay minerals characterized by both micro-and mesoporosity. The LDFT model has also compared well with the grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations, 50,57,58 showing its reliability and efficiency with less computation time.…”
Section: Modeling Ldft Model For Supercritical Adsorptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…52 The capability of the model highlighted in this study is the incorporation of pore size distributions, making it suitable for understanding adsorption on clay minerals characterized by both micro-and mesoporosity. The LDFT model has also compared well with the grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations, 50,57,58 showing its reliability and efficiency with less computation time.…”
Section: Modeling Ldft Model For Supercritical Adsorptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, adsorption of supercritical fluids has attracted the interest of many research groups. This interest stems from the various behaviors observed for supercritical fluids that are not manifested for subcritical fluids as well as from the adsorbed gas in shale, which plays a key role in the accurate estimation of gas in place (GIP) and the prediction of well productivity. Shale gas exists in three different phases within the shale formation: (i) as free compressed gas, (ii) as adsorbed fluid on the surface, and (iii) as a dissolved component in liquid hydrocarbon and brine. , The most widely used approach for estimating shale GIP is to sum these three components . As a result, the adsorbed gas in shale reservoir, which behaves differently from free gas, may contribute 20–85% of the total shale gas content. Therefore, accurate estimation of the adsorption gas content in shale gas resources is of great significance for the calculation of GIP and the resource composition. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been numerous experimental works to study the gas adsorption behavior in shale media. ,, Among them, gravimetric and volumetric methods have been widely used to measure the Gibbs adsorption of various hydrocarbon species. , However, neither the gravimetric method nor the volumetric method can measure the adsorbed phase volume; therefore, the measured amount of adsorption is the surface excess adsorption. The surface excess adsorption represents the amount of gas exceeding bulk gas phase density in the system. The absolute adsorption represents the total amount of gas molecules in the sorbed state. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Steele model represents a significant improvement over the (9-3) potentials for the molecular modelling of adsorption of gases on carbons [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. The expression has been typically used in molecular simulation or in theoretical studies to model adsorption of gases on graphitic surfaces however, the expression is applicable to other crystalline solids with a hexagonal structure oriented on the basal plane or to face-centred cubic (fcc) crystals oriented on the (111) plane.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Forte [20] presented the equivalent (10-4) and (9-3) expressions for Mie force fields; the second one has been employed by Theodorakis et al [26,27] to simulate coarse-grained (CG) systems with non-bonded interactions modelled via Mie potentials with parameters obtained through the statistical associating fluid theory in its gamma version (SAFT-γ) [28,29]. Despite these isolated examples, the simple LJ-based (10-4), (9-3), and (10-4-3) expressions are ubiquitous [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. The preference for these potentials can be attributed to the lack of detail required by many simulation studies, where the onus is on the effects of a generic external potential or wall (in which case the actual nature of the surface is irrelevant), the ready-to-use incorporation in simulation software, or simply because those are a well-known option ('better the devil you know from the devil you don't').…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%