Comparative Study of Tetra-N-Butyl Ammonium Bromide and Cyclopentane on the Methane Hydrate Formation and Dissociation

Two widely investigated methane hydrate promoters, tetra-n-butyl ammonium bromide (TBAB) and cyclopentane (CP), for methane hydrate formation and dissociation were comparatively investigated in the quiescent reactor at 2.5 °C and 8 MPa. The results indicated that the increase in the mass fraction TB...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Energies
Main Authors: Warintip Chanakro, Chutikan Jaikwang, Katipot Inkong, Santi Kulprathipanja, Pramoch Rangsunvigit
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020
Subjects:
methane
hydrate
formation
promoter
TBAB
cyclopentane
Technology
T
Methane hydrate
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246518
https://doaj.org/article/922fcf31f9e74b1d825cf7442f66d9eb
Description
Summary:Two widely investigated methane hydrate promoters, tetra-n-butyl ammonium bromide (TBAB) and cyclopentane (CP), for methane hydrate formation and dissociation were comparatively investigated in the quiescent reactor at 2.5 °C and 8 MPa. The results indicated that the increase in the mass fraction TBAB decreased the induction time. However, it did not significantly affect the methane uptake. In the presence of CP, the increase in the CP concentration resulted in an increase in the induction time due to the increasing thicknesses of the CP layer in the unstirred reactor. Moreover, the methane uptake was varied proportionally with the CP concentration. The addition of TBAB resulted in a higher methane uptake than that of CP, since the presence of TBAB provided the cavities in the hydrate structure to accommodate the methane gas during the hydrate formation better than that of CP. On the contrary, the presence of CP significantly increased the induction time. Although the methane recovery remained relatively the same regardless of TBAB and CP concentrations, the recovery was higher in the presence of TBAB.

Similar Items