J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
J. Chem. Thermodynamics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jct
Experimental determination of hydrate dissociation conditions in
CO2 + hexane + dodecane system, + 1-propanol or + tetra-n-butyl
ammonium bromide
José M. Chima-Maceda, Alfredo Pimentel-Rodas, Luis A. Galicia-Luna ⇑, Angel M. Notario-López
Laboratorio de Termodinámica, S.E.P.I.-E.S.I.Q.I.E. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, UPALM, Edif. Z, Secc. 6, 1ER piso, Lindavista C.P. 07738, México, Cd. México, Mexico
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 October 2020
Received in revised form 21 October 2020
Accepted 9 February 2021
Available online 17 February 2021
Keywords:
Gas Hydrate
CO2
Hexane
Dodecane
1-propanol
TBAB
a b s t r a c t
Hydrate dissociation conditions for one four-component system and two five-component systems, the
CO2 + hexane + dodecane + water system, the CO2 + hexane + dodecane + 1-propanol + water system,
and the CO2 + hexane + dodecane + tetra-n-butyl ammonium bromide (TBAB) + water system, were measured in the pressure range of (1.5 to 4) MPa and temperature range of (283 to 290) K at (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3)
mass fraction of 1-propanol or TBAB. The experimental measurements were performed using the isochoric pressure-search method in a high pressure blind cell. The hydrate dissociation conditions (temperature and pressure) for the CO2 + hexane + dodecane + water system were compared with experimental
data available in international literature were good agreement between the data was founded which indicates the viability of the experimental technique reported in this study. The experimental uncertainties
were determined for temperature and pressure as combined standard uncertainties and are 0.16 K and
0.04 MPa, respectively. The relative standard uncertainty in composition was estimated to be 0.0014.
In order to verify the reliability of the experimental data containing 1-propanol, a thermodynamic consistency test was performed.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
Clathrate hydrates are crystalline inclusion compounds that
form through the combination of water and suitably sized ‘‘guest”
molecules, typically under low temperature and elevated pressure
conditions [1]. Mainly, there are three common crystalline
structure types, structure I (s-I), structure II (s-II), and structure
H (s-H) [1]. The differences of hydrate crystalline structures are
reflected in their characteristics of hydrates formation and dissociation. Pure carbon dioxide hydrate always appears as an
s-I hydrate with two kinds of polyhedral cavities, whereas the
structure of multiguest hydrates may differ from that of the
single-guest hydrate [2].
In the oil industry, the formation of gas hydrates is considered
as a potential to cause operational problems [3,4]. Carbon dioxide
is one of the most commonly non-hydrocarbon gases found in petroleum (it could reach up to 80% of the produced gas at high pressures), so the formation of CO2 hydrates in the oil industry is highly
likely [5]. However, the hydrates have properties that involve a
large capacity of gas storage, fractionation of gas mixtures, and a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lgalicial@ipn.mx (L.A. Galicia-Luna).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2021.106419
0021-9614/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd.
high heat of formation and decomposition. These properties allow
gas hydrates to be applied for several applications such as water
desalination, transportation, and storage of natural gases, airconditioning use, etc [6,7]. Therefore, the inhibition and/or promotion of the formation of CO2 hydrates is of fundamental importance
in the aforementioned fields.
In the presence of small help gas molecules such as carbon dioxide, water soluble 1-propanol can form stable sII clathrate
hydrates, perhaps the hydrophobic portion of the guest molecules
is larger than methanol [8]. On its own, 1-propanol is miscible in
water and disrupt the water-water hydrogen bonding network (reducing hydrate stability) which shifts the hydrate equilibrium conditions to lower temperature and higher pressure (prevent
formation of stable pure alcohol clathrate hydrates) [8-10]. On
the contrary, a more economical and efficient way to form hydrates
could be by adding thermodynamic promoters such as tetra-nbutylammonium bromide (TBAB), due form semiclathrate hydrates
with water which are stable sufficiently at low pressure conditions
as compared to gas hydrates, promoting the hydrate formation to
lower pressure and higher temperature [11-15].
As a continuation of the systematic study carried out in the
Thermodynamics Laboratory of the ESIQIE (Instituto Politécnico
Nacional, México) on the hydrates dissociation conditions of sys-
José M. Chima-Maceda, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna et al.
J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
analytical balance by Sartorius LC1201S brand, which has a standard uncertainty of 1 107 kg. For mass determination at least
ten weighings were carried out and the average is reported. The
stirring system is turned on and the system is further pressurized
to the required experimental pressure. Subsequently, the temperature was slowly decreased until the hydrate formation was
detected (sharply pressure drop is observed). The system was then
left for at least four hours, and then the temperature was increased
with steps of 0.1 K so as to dissociate the hydrate. At every temperature step, temperature was kept steady for at least 60 min in order
to determine the hydrate equilibrium point accurately. As a result,
a pressure–temperature diagram was obtained from which the
hydrate dissociation point was determined with the point of intersection where the heating curve meets with the cooling curve. A
detailed description of the experimental equipment and procedure
has been discussed and presented in our previous work [17,18].
tems containing CO2 + liquid hydrocarbons [16-18], and in order to
explore the possible application of the hydrate technique in the
separation of water from this kind of compounds, we report new
experimental hydrate dissociation data (temperature and pressure) for the CO2 + hexane + dodecane + water system, the
CO2 + hexane + dodecane + 1-propanol + water system, and the
CO2 + hexane + dodecane + TBAB + water system, which have been
measured using the isochoric pressure-search method.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Table 1 reports the purities, CAS number and the suppliers of
the materials used in this work. Liquids samples and TBAB were
degassed by agitation under vacuum before using and CO2 was
used as received. The water content for solid and liquid samples
was determining using a Karl Fischer coulometer (Metrohm, 831)
where: 1-propanol 5.83 10-4 mass fraction, hexane 7.42 10-4
mass fraction, dodecane 6.12 10-4 mass fraction and TBAB
4.51 10-4 mass fraction. Standard uncertainty of content of water
is 0.61 10-4 mass fraction.
3. Results and discussion
Before studying the systems containing liquid hydrocarbons,
the experimental procedure performed in the present study was
validated as follows: hydrate dissociation conditions of CO2 + H2O
system were measured and compared with literature data [20-23].
Figure 2 shows that the experimental hydrate phase equilibria
data, hydrate – liquid water – vapour ðH Lw VÞ, are in good
agreement with those reported in the literature, therefore the viability of the method was verified. The experimental data for pure
CO2 hydrate are listed in Table 2.
Once the experimental procedure was validated, the gas
hydrate dissociation points of systems containing H2O, CO2,
C6H14 and C12H26 were measured. The mixture under study is a
univariant system, however, three compositions (alkane mixture)
were studied and reported in order to know the behaviour of this
kind of systems in a wide range of compositions, pressures and
temperatures, and considering its possible application. For all measurements performed, the composition of the hydrocarbon mixture
was established based on the ratio between hexane and dodecane
present in Mexican Maya oil wwhexane ¼ 0:8 . The effect of the
2.2. Apparatus
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the apparatus used in
this work. It is based on the synthetic non-visual method which
was operated accordingly to the isochoric pressure-search technique [15,17-19]. Briefly, the main part of the apparatus is a stainless steel cylindrical vessel (equilibrium cell), which can withstand
pressures up to 30 MPa. The internal volume of the cell is 25 cm3
where a magnetic stirrer is located at the bottom to agitate the fluids and hydrate crystals inside it. The stirrer was driven by a magnetic stirring grate mounted outside the cell. One platinum probe
(previously calibrated against a 25 X reference platinum probe
connected with an Automatic System Laboratories F300) inserted
into the cell is used to measure temperature. The pressure inside
the vessel is measured with a DRUCK pressure transducer (previously calibrated against a dead-weight balance DH 5304). A thermostatic bath is used to set the temperature of the system
(circulating ethanol by a cooling jacket where the equilibrium cell
is situated). A syringe pump was used to feed CO2 and provided the
pressure into the cell. The temperature measurement combined
standard uncertainty is estimated to be 0.16 K and the pressure
measurement combined standard uncertainty is 0.04 MPa.
dodecane
hydrocarbon mixture on the pure CO2 hydrate is shown in Figure 3,
representing a four phase equilibrium line: Hydrate – liquid water
– liquid hydrocarbons – vapour ðH Lw Lh VÞ. As can be seen,
at the conditions studied here no effects are observed on the gas
hydrate dissociation points when the hydrocarbon mixture is
added, regardless of composition (all reported data are on the same
hydrate equilibrium curve), since hexane and dodecane are immiscible and lighter than water. Furthermore, it is known that linear
alkanes (such as hexane and dodecane) not to serve as guest species but mainly interferes with mass transport between gas phase
and liquid water pool [24]. Experimental hydrate dissociation data
for H2O + CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 are listed in Table 3.
1-Propanol was added to the investigated system in order to
know the effect of a thermodynamic inhibitor (TI) in the mixture.
The dissociation conditions of CO2 hydrates containing hexane
and dodecane in aqueous solutions was founded in (268.6 –
2.3. Method
The hydrate dissociation conditions were measured with an isochoric pressure-search technique. The equilibrium cell (previously
degassed and cleansed) containing aqueous solution (water + liquid
hidrocarbons, + 1-propanol, + TBAB) was immersed into the thermostatic bath. The cell is then pressurized with CO2 through a syringe pump. Mass measurements were conducted using an
Table 1
Chemical Information.a
a
compound
supplier
CAS RN
mass fraction puritya
purification method
CO2
water
dodecane
hexane
1-Propanol
TBAB
Infra Air Products
Sigma-Aldrich
Sigma-Aldrich
Sigma-Aldrich
Sigma-Aldrich
Sigma-Aldrich
124-38-9
7732-18-5
112-40-3
110-54-3
71-23-8
1643-19-2
0.99995
0.9995
0.9950
0.9670
0.9970
0.9980
None
None
None
None
None
None
The purities were provided by the supplier. Analysis method: Gas chromatography.
2
J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
José M. Chima-Maceda, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna et al.
Figure 1. Experimental apparatus used in this study. Equilibrium cell (EC), Thermostatic Bath (TB), Stirrer System (SS), Syringe Pump (SP), Vacuum Pump (VP), Temperature
Indicator (TI), Pressure Indicator (PI), Pressure Transducer (PT), Acquisition Data Unit (ADU), Gas Supply (GS), Valves (V1, V2, V3).
Figure 3. Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for CO2 +
C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O systems. (▲) w = 0.1 (hydrocarbon mixture), (j) w = 0.2
(hydrocarbon mixture), (r) w = 0.3 (hydrocarbon mixture). Pure CO2 hydrate: (d)
This work.
Figure 2. Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data ðH Lw VÞ for pure CO2
hydrate. (d) This work; (▲) Adisasmito et al. [20], (j) Lirio and Pessoa [21], (r)
Ferrari et al. [22], (.) Mohammadi et al. [23].
Table 2
Experimental Hydrate Phase Equilibria Data
ðH Lw VÞ for H2O + CO2 System.a
P/MPa
T/K
1.75
2.38
2.75
3.40
3.89
276.3
278.6
279.8
281.4
282.3
Table 3
Experimental Hydrate Phase Equilibria Data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for H2O (1) + CO2 + C6H14 (2) + C12H26 (3) System.a,b
a
Combined standard uncertainties u are uc
(P) = 0.04 MPa and uc (T) = 0.16 K. The relative
standard uncertainty ur (wi ) = 0.0014.
277.9) K temperature range and pressures up to 3.16 MPa. As previously shown, the hydrate dissociation points for the studied systems, regardless of the composition of the alkane mixture, are on
the same equilibrium curve, therefore only one composition
(wmixture = 0.2) was measured and plotted. Figure 4 shows the
hydrate dissociation data ðH Lw Lh VÞ obtained in this work
at wmixture ¼ 0:2 and w1propanol ¼ 0:1; 0:2 and 0:3. As expected,
1-propanol shifts the hydrate phase equilibria towards a lower
temperature compared pure CO2 hydrate (plotted in the same
Figure), since 1-propanol disrupts the water water hydrogen bonding network making it difficult to convert all water to hydrate [25].
Experimental data for all measurements performed (H2O + CO2 +
C6H14 + C12H26 + 1-propanol systems) are listed in Table 4.
w2
w3
P/MPa
T/K
0.044
0.056
0.090
0.110
0.132
0.168
1.53
2.12
2.52
2.94
3.41
1.6
1.97
2.39
2.91
3.44
1.50
1.99
2.35
2.73
3.25
274.8
277.6
279.1
280.4
281.5
275.1
276.9
278.7
280.3
281.5
274.8
277.2
278.7
279.9
281.2
a
Combined standard uncertainties u are uc (P) = 0.04 MPa and uc (T) = 0.16 K. The
relative standard uncertainty ur (wi ) = 0.0014.
b
The mass fractions correspond to the liquid mixture.
In the same Figure, CO2 hydrate containing 1-propanol and hexane reference data is shown [18]; as can be observed, a slight discrepancy is obtained between those data, especially at high
composition of 1-propanol. This effect can be attributed by two
3
José M. Chima-Maceda, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna et al.
J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
where P is the pressure in MPa, T is the temperature in K, and A and
Hd
and interB are constants corresponding to the slope A ¼ DzR
cept, respectively.
The second assessment represent the consistency of the heat of
hydrate dissociation (focuses on the hydrate structure and guest
species for the solid hydrate phase), to quantify this proof is necessary to get the values of ATHI and Aw , where those are the slope of
the regression curves for inhibited systems and pure water, respectively [26].
The third assessment is to check the consistency of the activity
of water (is an independent verification of the consistency of the
water activity for the liquid water phase) through RSD, defined like
standard deviation between the average value of TT00T
, where T and
T
T 0 are the hydrate phase equilibrium temperature for system and
pure water, respectively. The function of the assessment is calculate the activity of water considering the heat of hydrate dissociation [26]. For details about the theory and experimental
methodology the reader is referred to the original literature source.
From these three assessments, the thermodynamic consistency
of hydrate phase equilibrium data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for H2O + CO2 +C6H14 + C12H26 + 1-propanol system can then be presented (Table 5).
As can be observed, in the first and third assessments experimental
data pass. However, the result of the second assessment is acceptable, this perhaps due to two situations [26]: a) the polynomial
regression of experimental data was necessary due it is necessary
to evaluate the same conditional slopes (ATHI and Aw ) with all the
necessary implications and care, and/or b) the carbon dioxide
causes significant slope changes. Based on these results, the hydrate
dissociation conditions for H2O + CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + 1-propanol
system might require caution when using them.
One more effect that must be considered in the dissociation of
hydrates for its possible application is the promoter effect. In this
work, TBAB was used and investigated as a thermodynamic promoter at three compositions (wTBAB ¼ 0:1; 0:2;and0:3) while the
composition of the alkane mixture was fixed at wmixture ¼ 0:2.
Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for
CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + TBAB, as well as CO2 hydrates containing hexane + decane in aqueous solutions [16], and pure CO2
hydrate are shown in Figure 5. The effect of TBAB with respect to
pure CO2 hydrate is remarkable, while the concentration of TBAB
increases, the hydrate dissociation temperature increases, phenomenon that can be attributed to the fact that the dodecahedron
cavities of TBAB can entrap small gas molecules (such as CO2)
under satisfactory temperature and pressure conditions [27].
Experimental hydrate dissociation conditions for CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + TBAB systems are presented in Table 6.
In addition, as in the 1-propanol-containing system, the TBABcontaining system was compared against a system published in
the literature (CO2 + C6H14 + C10H24 + H2O + TBAB) [16], and are
presented in the same figure. As in the system containing 1propanol, slight discrepancies are observed between the data
obtained in this work and the literature [16], the difference being
greater at high concentrations of TBAB. In all cases, the mixture
containing hexane and decane shows greater promoter power, perhaps due the pressure and temperature affect the solubility of carbon dioxide and water in the liquid hydrocarbon phase [28]. With
the increase of pressure, the solubility of carbon dioxide in linear
alkanes (such as hexane and dodecane) increases significantly,
while the temperature increases, the solubility of water in linear
alkanes slightly increases [29,30]. The other possible explanation
is that linear alkanes influences the activity of water [31]. These
effects are interesting and allow a wide discussion for analysis
and can be considered as a basis for further works.
Figure 4. Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for CO2 +
C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + 1-propanol systems at wmixture ¼ 0:2: (▲) w1propanol ¼ 0:1,
(r) w1propanol ¼ 0:2, (D) w1propanol ¼ 0:3. Without dodecane: (d) Chima-Maceda
et al. at whexane ¼ 0:1 and w1propanol ¼ 0:1 [18], (j) Chima-Maceda et al. at
whexane ¼ 0:1 and w1propanol ¼ 0:3 [18]. Pure CO2 hydrate: (.) This work.
aspects: the experimental uncertainty of some data allows us to
establish that they may be on the same hydrate equilibrium curve;
or 1-propanol is being slightly soluble in the liquid hydrocarbon
phase, thus a relative lower concentration of 1-propanol will be
present in the aqueous phase, which will be reflected as a slight
lower effect in depressing the hydrate equilibrium curve. These
results are interesting and allow discussion on the effects of alkane
mixtures and TÍs (such as 1-propanol) on the determination of
hydrate dissociation data containing thermodynamic inhibitors,
and can be considered as a basis for further works.
In order to verify the reliability of the experimental data containing 1-propanol, a thermodynamic consistency test of hydrate
phase equilibria data for inhibited system was performed according to Sa et al. [26]. The thermodynamic consistency test involves
three criteria: linear regression of data, consistency of the heat of
hydrate dissociation, and water activity. The first criteria is to
check how close the hydrate phase equilibrium data are to the linear fitting regression equation given by
ln P ¼
1
AþB
T
ð1Þ
Table 4
Experimental Hydrate Phase Equilibria Data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for H2O (1) + CO2 + C6H14 (w ¼ 0:090) + C12H26 (w ¼ 0:110) + 1-propanol (4) System.a,b
1-propanol mass fraction
P/MPa
T/K
0.10
1.42
1.86
2.31
2.73
3.16
1.43
1.74
2.18
2.58
3.11
1.34
1.76
2.15
2.57
3.05
271.3
273.6
275.5
276.9
277.9
269.7
271.5
273.6
275.0
276.3
268.6
271.1
273.0
274.6
275.8
0.20
0.30
a
Combined standard uncertainties u are uc (P) = 0.04 MPa and uc (T) = 0.16 K. The
relative standard uncertainty ur (wi ) = 0.0014.
b
The mass fractions correspond to the liquid mixture.
4
J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
José M. Chima-Maceda, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna et al.
Table 5
Hydrate Phase equilibrium data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for H2O + CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + 1-propanol system in where their classification into pass (green), and acceptable (orange)
regions based on the assessment of their thermodynamic consistency.
The experimental results allow establishing that the mixture of
alkanes has no effect on the hydrate phase equilibria data of pure
CO2 hydrates.
As expected, 1-propanol had an inhibitory effect on the systems
studied due to their hydrogen bonging interaction with water
molecules, which shifts the hydrate equilibrium conditions to
lower temperature and higher pressure.
Based on these results of the thermodynamic consistency test,
the hydrate dissociation conditions for H2O + CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + 1propanol system can be used (thermodynamic models) with
caution.
Conversely, TBAB demonstrated a promoter effect on the
hydrate phase equilibria, due the dodecahedron cavities of TBAB
can entrap small gas molecules (such as CO2) promoting the
hydrate formation to lower pressure and higher temperature.
From the results obtained here and for the conditions and systems studied, the effects of 1-propanol and TBAB that may of great
interest for potential applications of gas hydrates.
Figure 5. Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for CO2 +
C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + TBAB systems at wmixture ¼ 0:2: (d) wTBAB ¼ 0:1, (j)
wTBAB ¼ 0:2, (▲) wTBAB ¼ 0:3. Experimental hydrate phase equilibria data for CO2 +
C6H14 + C10H24 + H2O + TBAB systems at wmixture ¼ 0:1: (h) Galicia-Luna et al. at
wTBAB ¼ 0:1 [16], (s) Galicia-Luna et al. at wTBAB ¼ 0:2 [16], (D) Galicia-Luna et al. at
wTBAB ¼ 0:3 [16]. Pure CO2 hydrate: (.) This work.
Funding
The authors would like to thank the Instituto Politécnico Nacional and CONACyT for the financial support of this research.
Table 6
Experimental Hydrate Phase Equilibria Data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for H2O (1) + CO2 + C6H14 (w ¼ 0:090) + C12H26 (w ¼ 0:110) + TBAB (4) System.a,b
TBAB mass fraction
P/MPa
T/K
0.10
1.96
2.23
2.58
3.17
3.63
2.01
2.53
2.96
3.35
3.77
1.96
2.45
2.89
3.40
3.82
287.7
288.1
288.6
289.3
289.7
289.4
290.0
290.5
290.9
291.3
289.5
290.1
290.6
291.1
291.5
0.20
0.30
CRediT authorship contribution statement
José M. Chima-Maceda: Investigation, Validation. Alfredo
Pimentel-Rodas: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing review & editing. Luis A. Galicia-Luna: Funding acquisition, Project
administration, Supervision, Visualization. Angel M. NotarioLópez: Methodology, Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
a
[1] E.D. Sloan, C.A. Koh, Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, 3rd ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, 2008.
[2] Z.J. He, P. Linga, J.W. Jiang, What are the key factors governing the nucleation of
CO2 hydrate?, Phys. Chem. 19 (2017) 15657–15661.
[3] E.G. Hammerschmidt, Formation of Gas Hydrates in Natural Gas Transmission
Lines, Ind. Eng. Chem. 26 (1934) 851–855.
[4] A.H. Mohammadi, D. Richon, Clathrate Hydrates of Isopentane + Carbon
Dioxide and Isopentane + Methane: Experimental Measurements of
Dissociation Conditions, Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 65 (2010) 879–882.
[5] da Silva, R. A.; Pereira, P. J.; Medina, K. J. M.; Espíndola, d. A. G.; Vescia, L. R.
Synthesis of new CO2 hydrate inhibitors. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2020, 75, 103166
[6] H. Akiba, H. Ueno, R. Ohmura, Crystal Growth of Ionic Semiclathrate Hydrate
Formed at the Interface between CO2 Gas and Tetra-n-butylammonium
Bromide Aqueous Solution, Cryst. Growth Des. 15 (2015) 3963–3968.
Combined standard uncertainties u are uc (P) = 0.04 MPa and uc (T) = 0.16 K. The
relative standard uncertainty ur (wi ) = 0.0014.
b
The mass fractions correspond to the liquid mixture.
4. Conclusions
New hydrate equilibrium data ðH Lw Lh VÞ for CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O, CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + 1-propanol
and CO2 + C6H14 + C12H26 + H2O + TBAB systems were measured
using a blind equilibrium cell (isochoric-pressure search method).
5
José M. Chima-Maceda, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna et al.
J. Chem. Thermodynamics 158 (2021) 106419
[20] S. Adisasmito, R.J. Frank, E.D. Sloan, Hydrates of Carbon Dioxide and Methane
Mixtures, J. Chem. Eng. Data 36 (1991) 68–71.
[21] C.F.S. Lirio, F.L.P. Pessoa, Enthalpy of Dissociation of Simple and Mixed Carbon
Dioxide Clathrate Hydrate, Chem. Eng. Trans. 32 (2013) 577–582.
[22] P.F. Ferrari, A.Z. Guembaroski, M.A.M. Neto, R.E.M. Morales, A.K. Sum,
Experimental measurements and modelling of carbon dioxide hydrate phase
equilibrium with and without ethanol, Fluid Phase Equilib. 413 (2016) 176–
183.
[23] A.H. Mohammadi, R. Anderson, B. Tohidi, Carbon Monoxide Clathrate
Hydrates: Equilibrium Data and Thermodynamic Modeling, AIChE J. 51
(2005) 2825–2833.
[24] J.D. Lee, M. Song, R. Susilo, P. Englezos, Dynamics of Methane-Propane
Clathrate Hydrate Crystal Growth from Liquid Water with or without the
Presence of n-Heptane, Cryst. Growth Des. 6 (2006) 1428–1439.
[25] Y. Lee, S. Lee, Y.K. Jin, Y. Seo, 1-Propanol as a co-guest of gas hydrates and its
potential role in gas storage and CO2 sequestration, Chem. Eng. J. 258 (2014)
427–432.
[26] J.H. Sa, Y. Hu, A.K. Sum, Assessing thermodynamic consistency of gas hydrates
phase equilibrium data for inhibited systems, Fluid Phase Equilib. 473 (2018)
294–299.
[27] M. Mesbah, E. Soroush, M. Rezakazemi, Modeling Dissociation Pressure of
Semi-Clathrate Hydrate Systems Containing CO2, CH4, N2, and H2S in the
Presence of Tetra-n-butyl Ammonium Bromide, J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn. 44
(2019) 15–28.
[28] M.-L. Dai, Z.-G. Sun, J. Li, C.-M. Li, H.-F. Huang, Effect of n-dodecane on
equilibrium dissociation conditions of carbon dioxide hydrate, The Journal of
Chemical Thermodynamics 148 (2020) 106144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jct.2020.106144.
[29] F.F. Czubinski, C.J. Noriega Sanchez, A.K. da Silva, Moisés.A. Marcelino Neto, J.R.
Barbosa Jr., Phase Equilibrium and Liquid Viscosity of CO 2 + n -Dodecane
Mixtures between 283 and 353 K, J. Chem. Eng. Data 64 (8) (2019) 3375–3384,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.9b00187.
[30] C. Tsonopoulos, Thermodynamic analysis of the mutual solubilities of normal
alkanes and water, Fluid Phase Equilib. 156 (1999) 21–33.
[31] L. Wang, T. Guo, Correlation of liquid-liquid phase equilibrium for
hydrocarbon-water systems based on MPHC activity coefficient model,
Chem. Eng. 6 (1996) 59–68.
[7] M. Nakajima, R. Ohmura, Y.H. Mori, Clathrate Hydrate Formation from
Cyclopentane-in-Water Emulsions, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 8933–8939.
[8] S. Alavi, S. Takeya, R. Ohmura, T.K. Woo, J.A. Ripmeester, Hydrogen-bonding
alcohol-water interactions in binary ethanol, 1-propanol, and 2-propanol
+methane structure II clathrate hydrates, J. Chem. Phys. 133 (2010) 074505.
[9] T. Maekawa, Equilibrium conditions for clathrate hydrates formed from
methane and aqueous propanol solutions, Fluid Phase Equilib. 267 (2008) 1–5.
[10] A.H. Mohammadi, D. Richon, Experimental Gas Hydrate Dissociation Data for
Methane, Ethane, and Propane + 2-Propanol Aqueous Solutions and Methane +
1–Propanol Aqueous Solution Systems, J. Chem. Eng. Data 52 (2007) 2509–
2510.
[11] K.K. Godishala, J.S. Sangwai, N.A. Sami, K. Das, Phase Stability of Semiclathrate
Hydrates of Carbon Dioxide in Synthetic Sea Water, J. Chem. Eng. Data 58
(2013) 1062–1067.
[12] I.B.A. Sfaxi, V. Belandria, A.H. Mohammadi, R. Lugo, D. Richon, Phase equilibria
of CO2 + N2 and CO2 + CH4 clathrate hydrates: Experimental measurements
and thermodynamic modelling, Chem. Eng. Sci. 84 (2012) 602–611.
[13] M. Arjmandi, A. Chapoy, B. Tohidi, Equilibrium Data of Hydrogen, Methane,
Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, and Natural Gas in Semi-Clathrate Hydrates of
Tetrabutyl Ammonium Bromide, J. Chem. Eng. Data 52 (2007) 2153–2158.
[14] V.R. Avula, P. Gupta, R.L. Gardas, J.S. Sangwai, Thermodynamic modeling of
phase equilibrium of carbon dioxide clathrate hydrate in aqueous solutions of
promoters and inhibitors suitable for gas separation, Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 12
(2017) 709–722.
[15] A.H. Mohammadi, A. Eslamimanesh, D. Richon, Semi-clathrate hydrate phase
equilibrium measurements for the CO2 + H2/CH4 + tetra-n-butylammonium
bromide aqueous solution system, Chem. Eng. Sci. 94 (2013) 284–290.
[16] L.A. Galicia-Luna, A. Pimentel-Rodas, J.J. Castro-Arellano, A.M. Notario-López,
C. Sánchez-García, P. Esquivel-Mora, Twenty Years of Experimental
Determinations of Thermophysical Properties with High Accuracy:
Thermodynamics Laboratory, ESIQIE-IPN, México. J. Chem. Eng. Data 64
(2019) 2075–2083.
[17] M.F. Sanchez-Mora, L.A. Galicia-Luna, A. Pimentel-Rodas, A.H. Mohammadi,
Experimental Determination of Gas Hydrates Dissociation Conditions in CO2/
N2 + Ethanol/1-Propanol/TBAB/TBAF + Water Systems, J. Chem. Eng. Data 64
(2019) 763–770.
[18] J.M. Chima-Maceda, P. Esquivel-Mora, A. Pimentel-Rodas, L.A. Galicia-Luna, J.J.
Castro-Arellano, Effect of 1-Propanol and TBAB on Gas Hydrates Dissociation
Conditions for CO2 + Hexane + Water Systems, J. Chem. Eng. Data 64 (2019)
4775–4780.
[19] B. Tohidi, R.W. Burgass, A. Danesh, K.K. Østergaard, A.C. Todd, Improving the
accuracy of gas hydrate dissociation point measurements, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.
912 (2000) 924–931.
JCT-D-20-00210
6