4.7 Article

Adsorption rate characteristics of methane and CO2 in coal samples from Raniganj and Jharia coalfields of India

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 50-59

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2013.02.005

关键词

Coalbed methane; Adsorption rate characteristics; Diffusion; Pressure-dependency; Pore diffusion model; Linear approximation of unipore model

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A set of six sub-bituminous to high-volatile bituminous coal samples was chosen to analyze the adsorption rate during the isotherm tests. The isotherm tests were conducted at 30 degrees C on dry, powdered coal samples up to a maximum experimental pressure of similar to 8 MPa and similar to 6.5 MPa for methane and CO2, respectively. It was observed that the rate of adsorption for CO2 is higher than that for methane for the same experimental pressure-temperature condition and, for a particular pressure step, the equilibrium was reached earlier for CO2 compared to methane. It was also observed that at an increased pressure range, the rates of adsorption and the diffusion were generally decreased. The experimental data were fitted to unipore diffusion model but this model failed to predict the experimental adsorption kinetics data for the entire time range. However, the modification of unipore model, as suggested by Mianowski and Marecka (2009), was able to satisfactorily predict the experimental kinetics data at various pressure stages for the entire time range with the introduction of a kinetic parameter, C, accounting for the effect of gas diffusivity. The adsorption kinetics data was unusable at the initial time range due to variation in temperature-pressure in the sample cell after gas was injected. It was also observed that this unusable data is small at lower pressure range (similar to 15 s), but could be significant (similar to 30-50 s) at higher-pressure range. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据