Micropore size distributions and specific interactions in coals

Amarasekera, G.; Scarlett, M.J.; Mainwaring, David E.

doi:10.1016/0016-2361(94)p4341-x

Cited by 77 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is contrary to some previous work that has indicated that, for CO 2 at least, there are no specific adsorption sites (e.g. Amarasekera et al, 1995). In a recent study, Goodman et al (2005) directly examined the interaction of CO 2 with coal using a reflectance FTIR technique and they too, found no evidence of specific interactions between CO 2 and oxygenated sites on the coal surface.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Supercritical gas sorption on moist coals

Day¹,

Sakurovs²,

Weir³

2008

International Journal of Coal Geology

286

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Supercritical gas sorption on moist coals

Day¹,

Sakurovs²,

Weir³

2008

International Journal of Coal Geology

286

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are different techniques to characterize the coal, such as gas adsorption and mercury porosimetry [25]. However, traditional BET surface measurements with nitrogen at 77 K significantly underestimate the coal surface area because at this temperature nitrogen cannot access all the pores [26]. The commonly accepted way to estimate the micropore volume in coal is low-pressure adsorption measurements of CO 2 on coal at 273.15 K. Such measurements on Sulcis coal were performed using an ASAP 2010 by Micromeritics (Brussels, Belgium) in a relative pressure P/P 0 range of 0.002-0.032, where P and P 0 represent the gas pressure and the saturation pressure (P 0 ¼ 26.142 mmHg at 273.15 K).…”

Section: Adsorption Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adsorption of pure carbon dioxide and methane on dry coal from the sulcis coal province (SW Sardinia, Italy)

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhanced coalbed methane recovery (ECBM) increases the recovery of the methane present in a coal seam by injecting CO 2 at high pressure. It is attractive from two perspectives, the valuable methane recovered and the storage of the greenhouse gas CO 2 for geological times. In the framework of a feasibility study for the Sulcis Coal Province in Italy, the adsorption of pure CO 2 and CH 4 on dry coal has been measured at 45 and 608C, using a magnetic suspension balance with in situ density measurement. The results show that the CO 2 adsorption isotherms on coal are similar to those for other standard adsorbents such as silica gel and activated carbon. From the excess adsorption isotherms, the absolute adsorption is calculated using the assumption of constant volume of the adsorbed phase. As expected, CO 2 get adsorbed more than CH 4 in all cases. The Sulcis coal can uptake CO 2 at the reservoir conditions in an amount of about 10% of its mass.

show abstract

“…The heterogeneous porous structure of hard coal introduces a number of complicated factors into the various mechanisms involved in the retention of gas, its release and subsequent flow through the coal seam. In spite of extensive work comprising empirical and theoretical studies of sorption processes as well as coal structure analysis (Hall et al, 1992;Ceglarska-Stefańska and Czapliński, 1993;Gamson et al, 1993;Milewska-Duda and Duda, 1993;Ceglarska-Stefańska, 1994;Amarasekera et al, 1995), the understanding of coal-gas system is still insufficient. Recent research indicates that acoustic emission techniques (AE) are promising for such investigations (Majewska et al, 1994(Majewska et al, , 1996(Majewska et al, , 1997Majewska and Ziętek, 1999;Majewska and Mortimer, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%