Efficient promotion of methane hydrate formation and elimination of foam generation using fluorinated surfactants
Quan CAO1(), Dongyan XU2, Huanfei XU3, Shengjun LUO1(), Rongbo GUO4()
1. Shandong Industrial Engineering Laboratory of Biogas Production and Utilization, Key Laboratory of Biofuels of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266101, China 2. Faculty of Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, China 3. Faculty of Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, China; College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, China 4. Shandong Industrial Engineering Laboratory of Biogas Production and Utilization, Key Laboratory of Biofuels of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266101, China; Dalian National Laboratory for Clean Energy, Dalian 116023, China; Faculty of Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, China
Methane hydrate preparation is an effective method to store and transport methane. In promoters to facilitate methane hydrate formation, homogeneous surfactant solutions, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) in particular, are more favorable than heterogeneous particles, thanks to their faster reaction rate, more storage capacity, and higher stability. Foaming, however, could not be avoided during hydrate dissociation with the presence of SDS. This paper investigated the ability of five fluorinated surfactants: potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate (PBS), potassium perfluorohexyl sulfonate (PHS), potassium perfluorooctane sulfonate (POS), ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate (AOS), and tetraethylammonium perfluorooctyl sulfonate (TOS) to promote methane hydrate formation. It was found that both PBS and PHS achieve a storage capacity of 150 (V/V, the volume of methane that can be stored by one volume of water) within 30 min, more than that of SDS. Cationic ions and the carbon chain length were then discussed on their effects during the formation. It was concluded that PBS, PHS, and POS produced no foam during hydrate dissociation, making them promising promoters in large-scale application.
M J Yang, J N Zheng, Y Gao, Z Ma, X Lv, Y Song. Dissociation characteristics of methane hydrates in South China Sea sediments by depressurization. Applied Energy, 2019, 243: 266–273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.160
2
J Zhang, C Yip, C Xia, Y Liang. Evaluation of methane release from coals from the San Juan basin and Powder River basin. Fuel, 2019, 244: 388–394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.020
3
R Rathi, M Lavania, N Singh, P M Sarma, P Kishore, P Hajra, B Lal. Evaluating indigenous diversity and its potential for microbial methane generation from thermogenic coal bed methane reservoir. Fuel, 2019, 250: 362–372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.125
4
A Wang, D Austin, H Song. Investigations of thermochemical upgrading of biomass and its model compounds: opportunities for methane utilization. Fuel, 2019, 246: 443–453 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.015
5
H Guo, Y Cheng, Z Huang, M A Urynowicz, W Liang, Z Han, J Liu. Factors affecting co-degradation of coal and straw to enhance biogenic coalbed methane. Fuel, 2019, 244: 240–246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.02.011
6
C Lay, T Vo, P Y Lin, P M Abdul, C M Liu, C Y Lin. Anaerobic hydrogen and methane production from low-strength beverage wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(28): 14351–14361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.165
7
E Andres-Garcia, A Dikhtiarenko, F Fauth, J Silvestre-Albero, E V Ramos-Fernández, J Gascon, A Corma, F Kapteijn. Methane hydrates: nucleation in microporous materials. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2019, 360: 569–576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.11.216
8
B C Gbaruko, J C Igwe, P N Gbaruko, R C Nwokeoma. Gas hydrates and clathrates: flow assurance, environmental and economic perspectives and the Nigerian liquified natural gas project. Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering, 2007, 56(1–3): 192–198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2005.12.011
9
R Ohmura, S Takeya, T Uchida, T Ebinuma. Clathrate hydrate formed with methane and 2-propanol: confirmation of structure II hydrate formation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2004, 43(16): 4964–4966 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0498089
10
Y Jin, M Kida, Y Konno, J Nagao. Clathrate hydrate equilibrium in methane-water systems with the addition of monosaccharide and sugar alcohol. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2017, 62(1): 440–444 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.6b00756
11
K Imasato, H Tokutomi, R Ohmura. Crystal growth behavior of methane hydrate in the presence of liquid hydrocarbon. Crystal Growth & Design, 2015, 15(1): 428–433 https://doi.org/10.1021/cg501500w
12
R Susilo, S Alavi, J Ripmeester, P Englezos. Tuning methane content in gas hydrates via thermodynamic modeling and molecular dynamics simulation. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2008, 263(1): 6–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2007.09.015
13
H Mimachi, M Takahashi, S Takeya, Y Gotoh, A Yoneyama, K Hyodo, T Takeda, T Murayama. Effect of long-term storage and thermal history on the gas content of natural gas hydrate pellets under ambient pressure. Energy & Fuels, 2015, 29(8): 4827–4834 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00832
14
S Takeya, A Yoneyama, K Ueda, K Hyodo, T Takeda, H Mimachi, M Takahashi, T Iwasaki, K Sano, H Yamawaki, Y Gotoh. Nondestructive imaging of anomalously preserved methane clathrate hydrate by phase contrast X-ray imaging. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2011, 115(32): 16193–16199 https://doi.org/10.1021/jp202569r
15
P Gupta, S Sakthivel, J S Sangwai. Effect of aromatic/aliphatic based ionic liquids on the phase behavior of methane hydrates: experiments and modeling. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 2018, 117: 9–20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2017.08.037
16
S Jadav, N Sakthipriya, M Doble, J S Sangwai. Effect of biosurfactants produced by Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa on the formation kinetics of methane hydrates. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2017, 43: 156–166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.032
17
H Ganji, M Manteghian, K Sadaghiani Zadeh, M R Omidkhah, H Rahimi Mofrad. Effect of different surfactants on methane hydrate formation rate, stability and storage capacity. Fuel, 2007, 86(3): 434–441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.07.032
18
A Erfani, E Fallahjokandan, F Varaminian. Effects of non-ionic surfactants on formation kinetics of structure H hydrate regarding transportation and storage of natural gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2017, 37: 397–408 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.11.058
19
J Verrett, P Servio. Evaluating surfactants and their effect on methane mole fraction during hydrate growth. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2012, 51(40): 13144–13149 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie301931m
20
M Aliabadi, A Rasoolzadeh, F Esmaeilzadeh, A M Alamdari. Experimental study of using CuO nanoparticles as a methane hydrate promoter. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2015, 27: 1518–1522 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.017
21
N Choudhary, V R Hande, S Roy, S Chakrabarty, R Kumar. Effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate surfactant on methane hydrate formation: a molecular dynamics study. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2018, 122(25): 6536–6542 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b02285
22
A Siangsai, K Inkong, S Kulprathipanja, B Kitiyanan, P Rangsunvigit. Roles of sodium dodecyl sulfate on tetrahydrofuran-assisted methane hydrate formation. Journal of Oleo Science, 2018, 67(6): 707–717 https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.ess17275
23
K Watanabe, S Niwa, Y H Mori. Surface tensions of aqueous solutions of sodium alkyl sulfates in contact with methane under hydrate-forming conditions. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2005, 50(5): 1672–1676 https://doi.org/10.1021/je050139v
24
G Bhattacharjee, V Barmecha, O S Kushwaha, R Kumar. Kinetic promotion of methane hydrate formation by combining anionic and silicone surfactants: scalability promise of methane storage due to prevention of foam formation. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 2018, 117: 248–255 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2017.09.029
25
G Pandey, G Bhattacharjee, H P Veluswamy, R Kumar, J S Sangwai, P Linga. Alleviation of foam formation in a surfactant driven gas hydrate system: insights via a detailed morphological study. ACS Applied Energy Materials, 2018, 1: 6899–6911 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.8b01307
26
Y Song, F Wang, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Amphiphilic-polymer-coated carbon nanotubes as promoters for methane hydrate formation. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2017, 5(10): 9271–9278 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b02239
27
F Wang, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Grafting of nano-Ag particles on −SO3−-coated nanopolymers for promoting methane hydrate formation. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2017, 5(35): 18486–18493 https://doi.org/10.1039/C7TA02830J
28
F Wang, G Liu, H L Meng, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Improved methane hydrate formation and dissociation with nanosphere-based fixed surfactants as promoters. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2016, 4(4): 2107–2113 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01557
29
F Wang, H Meng, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Methane hydrate formation promoted by −SO3−-coated graphene oxide nanosheets. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2017, 5(8): 6597–6604 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00846
30
F Wang, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Preparation of −SO3−-coated nanopromoters for methane hydrate formation: effects of the existence pattern of −SO3− groups on the promotion efficiency. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2017, 5(6): 2640–2648 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6TA08839B
31
Y Song, F Wang, G Liu, S Luo, R Guo. Promotion effect of carbon nanotubes-doped SDS on methane hydrate formation. Energy & Fuels, 2017, 31(2): 1850–1857 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02418
32
F Wang, Y Song, G Q Liu, G Guo, S J Luo, R B Guo. Rapid methane hydrate formation promoted by Ag & SDS-coated nanospheres for energy storage. Applied Energy, 2018, 213: 227–234 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.021
33
F Wang, Z Jia, S J Luo, S F Fu, L Wang, X S Shi, C S Wang, R B Guo. Effects of different anionic surfactants on methane hydrate formation. Chemical Engineering Science, 2015, 137: 896–903 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2015.07.021
34
R R Prajapati, S S Bhagwat. Effect of foam boosters on the micellization and adsorption of sodium dodecyl sulfate. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2012, 57(12): 3644–3650 https://doi.org/10.1021/je3008155
35
Z Hu, W Verheijen, J Hofkens, A M Jonas, J F Gohy. Formation of vesicles in block copolymer-fluorinated surfactant complexes. Langmuir, 2007, 23(1): 116–122 https://doi.org/10.1021/la061532h
36
A Jackson, P Li, C C Dong, R K Thomas, J Penfold. Structure of partially fluorinated surfactant monolayers at the air-water interface. Langmuir, 2009, 25(7): 3957–3965 https://doi.org/10.1021/la802928f
37
F Wang, G Guo, G Q Liu, S J Luo, R B Guo. Effects of surfactant micelles and surfactant-coated nanospheres on methane hydrate growth pattern. Chemical Engineering Science, 2016, 144(144): 108–115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2016.01.022
38
A Shiloach, D Blankschtein. Prediction of critical micelle concentrations of nonideal ternary surfactant mixtures. Langmuir, 1998, 14(15): 4105–4114 https://doi.org/10.1021/la980153o
39
J B Evans, D F Evans. A comparison of surfactant counterion effects in water and formamide. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1987, 91(14): 3828–3829 https://doi.org/10.1021/j100298a020
40
H Tabuteau, L Ramos, K Nakaya-Yaegashi, M Imai, C Ligoure. Nonlinear rheology of surfactant wormlike micelles bridged by telechelic polymers. Langmuir, 2009, 25(4): 2467–2472 https://doi.org/10.1021/la803304z
41
R Petkova, S Tcholakova, N D Denkov. Foaming and foam stability for mixed polymer-surfactant solutions: effects of surfactant type and polymer charge. Langmuir, 2012, 28(11): 4996–5009 https://doi.org/10.1021/la3003096
