ArticleACS omega2022
Technical, Economical, and Environmental Performance Assessment of an Improved Triethylene Glycol Dehydration Process for Shale Gas.
Article in ACS omega, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We proposed an optimized triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration approach in this work, with the aim of overcoming the drawbacks of traditional TEG dehydration method for shale gas processing and providing a more efficient, simplified, energy-saving, economical, and environmentally friendly technology dedicated for shale gas exploration. The proposed improved TEG dehydration method has less equipment and is convenient for modularization, which is of great significance and convenience to applications in the shale gas dehydration station. Additionally, it has some remarkable improvements on process optimization as well as the rational utilization of utilities. To evaluate the performance of this improved method, thermodynamics and economy were assessed in this study. The results proved that the new proposed method was an applicable and efficient technology. Moreover, in comparison to the conventional TEG dehydration method, the new method is more energy saving and economical. The energy-saving amount is especially high with a large feed capacity, and it reaches up to about 3000 MJ/h when the feed gas flowrate is 210 MMscfd. The capital cost (CapEx) and operation cost (OpEx) of the new proposed dehydration method are significantly lower, which represent only 56.9 and 47.8% those of the conventional method, respectively. Besides, sensitive analysis of the key parameters influencing system performance was performed to explore the energy-saving potential and to maximize the economic benefit. Additionally, an environmental assessment through a field-emission test was conducted, and the results showed that the new method exhibited superior environmental performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.