Effects of SDS and SDBS on CO<sub>2</sub>Hydrate Formation, Induction Time, Storage Capacity and Stability at 274.15 K and 5.0 MPa

Jiang, Lele; Li, Airong; Xu, Jing-fan; Liu, Yanjun

doi:10.1002/slct.201601038

Cited by 26 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to this amphiphilicity, it is known to form micelles [30]. There have been few studies on CO2 hydrate formation in the presence of SDS [31][32][33][34]. SDS-based CO2 hydrate growth at the gas-water interface is capillary-driven and mass transfer-driven [32].…”

Section: Setup and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the kinetics of flue gas hydrate formation in bulk water in the presence of selected amino acids and surfactants are investigated. Four amino acids (3000 ppm) are selected based on different hydropathy index. Constant-ramping and isothermal experiments at 120 bar pressure and 1 °C temperature are carried out to compare their hydrate promotion capabilities with surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (500–3000 ppm) and water. Based on experimental results, we report the correlation between hydrate promotion capability of amino acids and their hydrophobicity. Hydrophobic amino acids show stronger flue gas hydrate promotion capability than water and hydrophilic amino acids. We discuss the controlling mechanisms to differentiate between promoters and inhibitors’ roles among the amino acids. Between 2000–3000 ppm concentrations, hydrophobic amino acids have near similar promotion capabilities as SDS. This research highlights the potential use of amino acids as promoters or inhibitors for various applications.

show abstract

Section: Setup and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also found that the induction time decreased with the addition of SDS, and the hydrate growth rate reached a maximum at the concentration of 500 ppm . Higher concentrations will not improve the hydrate growth further.…”

Section: Hydrate‐based Co2 Capture and Separation Technologymentioning

confidence: 67%

“…We also found that the induction time decreased with the addition of SDS, and the hydrate growth rate reached a maximum at the concentration of 500 ppm. 73 Higher concentrations will not improve the hydrate growth further. At a concentration of 1000 ppm, SDS showed no effect on the rate of hydrate film lateral growth along the gas-liquid interface or on the amount of CO 2 hydrates formed.…”

Section: Kinetic Promotersmentioning

confidence: 99%

High‐efficiency CO₂ capture and separation based on hydrate technology: A review

Wang

Bao

2019

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of growing concerns about global warming, hydrate‐based processing is becoming a promising technology for CO2 capture. This process captures CO2 by forming clathrate hydrates by exposing flue gas to water under suitable conditions. It results in high CO2 recovery due to its large gas‐storage capacity and the large concentration differences between the separation phases. However, the high cost of hydrate formation conditions is the main reason preventing this technology from wide industrial application. To address this issue, this paper explores the literature on the current status of developments in hydrate‐based CO2 capture and separation, focusing on methods to mitigate hydrate formation conditions and to improve phase‐contacting performance. In this review, various relevant aspects of CO2 capture and separation selectivity are summarized, including promoter selection, thermodynamic and kinetic model development, reactor configuration, and process design. Advantages and disadvantages of alternative processes are also discussed. Current studies are limited to laboratory experiments but low energy penalties and high CO2 selectivity features of hydrate processes will make future plant implementation feasible. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…The hydrate growth rate increased by at least 42.97 wt.%, while the induction time was reduced by 22.63 wt.%. Jiang et al [23] found that 0.5 g/L SDS and 0.3 g/L SDBS solutions induced CO 2 hydrate formation in approximately 35 min at 274.15 K and 5.0 MPa initial pressure; SDS and SDBS can greatly enhance the stability of CO 2 hydrate. Molokitina et al [24] found that the conversion rate of CO 2 hydrate was 90 wt.% when 0.1% SDS was added under static conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved Formation Kinetics of Carbon Dioxide Hydrate in Brine Induced by Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to high efficiency and low cost, hydrate-based desalination is investigated as a pretreatment method for seawater desalination. To improve the formation rate of hydrates, the effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) on CO2 hydrate formation from a 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution was measured at 275 K and 3 MPa. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and cryo-scanning electron microscopy (cryo-SEM) were used to measure the crystal structure and micromorphology of the formed hydrates. The results showed that the induction time of CO2 hydrate formation reduced from 32 to 2 min when SDS concentration increased from 0.01 to 0.05%, the hydrate conversion rate increased from 12.06 to 23.32%, and the remaining NaCl concentration increased from 3.997 to 4.515 wt.%. However, as the SDS concentration surpassed 0.05 wt.%, the induction time increased accompanied by a decrease in the hydrate conversion rate. XRD showed that the CO2 hydrate was a structure I hydrate, and SDS had no influence on the hydrate structure. However, cryo-SEM images revealed that SDS promoted the formation of hydrates by increasing the specific surface area of the formed hydrates and folds; rods and clusters could be found on the surface of the CO2 hydrate. Thus, the best SDS concentration for promoting CO2 hydrate formation was approximately 0.05 wt.%; desalination was most efficient at this concentration.

show abstract

Effects of SDS and SDBS on CO₂Hydrate Formation, Induction Time, Storage Capacity and Stability at 274.15 K and 5.0 MPa

Cited by 26 publications

References 16 publications

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

High‐efficiency CO₂ capture and separation based on hydrate technology: A review

Improved Formation Kinetics of Carbon Dioxide Hydrate in Brine Induced by Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of SDS and SDBS on CO2Hydrate Formation, Induction Time, Storage Capacity and Stability at 274.15 K and 5.0 MPa

Cited by 26 publications

References 16 publications

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

Screening of Amino Acids and Surfactant as Hydrate Promoter for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas

High‐efficiency CO2 capture and separation based on hydrate technology: A review

Improved Formation Kinetics of Carbon Dioxide Hydrate in Brine Induced by Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of SDS and SDBS on CO₂Hydrate Formation, Induction Time, Storage Capacity and Stability at 274.15 K and 5.0 MPa

High‐efficiency CO₂ capture and separation based on hydrate technology: A review