Steady-state method for studying diffusion of gases in liquids

Measurements of diffusion coefficient of methane in water/brine under high pressure

“…It is obvious that the diffusion coefficient of methane in water rises along with an increase in temperature. It should be noted that some experiments of these previous studies have been performed at atmospheric pressure (Witherspoon and Saraf 1965;Gubbins et al 1966;Tham et al 1967;Maharajh and Walkley 1973;Pratt et al 1973;Jähne et al 1987) and the others at high pressures (Sachs 1998;Lu et al 2006;Guo et al 2013). Figure 5 reveals that the diffusion coefficient is not sensitive to pressure and our experimental results are consistent with that of previous studies within the experimental error.…”

“…A series of experiments of Raman spectroscopy on methane in water loaded in the capillary tube at 10.3 MPa, temperature ranging from 283.15 to 308.15 K were performed, and the results of the diffusion coefficient are listed in Table 1. Figure 5 shows the results of the diffusion coefficient of methane in water in this study in comparison with that of literature data (Witherspoon and Saraf 1965;Gubbins et al 1966;Tham et al 1967;Maharajh and Walkley 1973;Pratt et al 1973;Jähne et al 1987;Sachs 1998;Lu et al 2006;Guo et al 2013). It is obvious that the diffusion coefficient of methane in water rises along with an increase in temperature.…”

“…It should be pointed out that the diffusion coefficients of methane in brine at atmospheric pressure measured by Tham and Gubbins (1972), which had a higher concentration of NaCl than that in this study, are higher than the result in this study. However, the diffusion coefficient of methane in pure water measured by the diaphragm method (Gubbins et al 1966;Tham et al 1967) is also higher than that measured by Raman spectroscopy in this study and Guo et al (2013), as mentioned above. Thus, the difference between the results of this study and the results of Tham and Gubbins (1972) might attribute to the systematic deviation between different methods.…”

“…29, No. 5, 577-587, October 2018 for gases in water and in brine (Gubbins et al 1966;Tham et al 1967;Tham and Gubbins 1972). The diffusion coefficients for gases in liquids have been measured by some other methods, such as the inverted tube method (Maharajh and Walkley 1973), the flow method with pulse injection and detect the dispersion peak by differential refractometer (Pratt et al 1973), the modified Barrer method (Jähne et al 1987), and the time-resolved pressure detection method (Sachs 1998).…”

Diffusion coefficients for helium, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide in water at 25°C

“…26, No. 1) Davidson and Cullen ( 1957 ) Clark ( 1964) Tham et al ( 1967) Ferrell and Himmelblau (1967); Tang Emmert and Pigford (1954); Woods Thomas and Adams (1965) Duda and Vrentas (1968); Perez and Vivian and King ( 1964 ) This work Ipatieff and Teodorovich ( 1937) Tamman and Jessen (1929) Gertz and Loescheke ( 1954) Ferrel and Himmelblau ( 1967) Vivian and King (1964) Houghton et al ( 1962) Baitd and Davidson (1962) Wise and Houghton ( 1966) Davidson and Cullen ( 1957) This work Gertz and Loescheke (1954) Houghton et al (1962) Ferrell and Himmelblau (1967) Vivian and King (1964) Wise and Houghton (1966) Baird and Davidson ( 1962) This work and Himmelblau ( comparison of diffusivity techniques and results performed by St-Denis and Fell ( 1971). They concluded that data obtained from Vivian and King's diaphragm cell technique were the most reliable for the following reasons: no interface was present, no gas solubilities were required, and the hydrodynamics were well defined.…”