ArticleACS omega2024
Growth Kinetics and Porous Structure of Surfactant-Promoted Gas Hydrate.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. 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
Surfactants present in tiny amounts in the aqueous phase are known to be efficient gas hydrate promoters; yet, the promotion mechanisms are still not fully understood. Understanding and directing those mechanisms is key to the implementation of gas-hydrate-based applications such as gas storage and separation, secondary refrigeration or water treatment, and desalination. In this work, the growth at the water/gas interface and the porous structure of surfactant-promoted methane hydrate are observed by optical microscopy and Raman imaging in glass capillaries used as optical cells. Hollow crystals are continuously generated and expelled from the methane/water meniscus into the water or surfactant solution, where they ultimately form the skeleton of a porous medium filled with the solution. Unprecedented information is gathered over a range of scales from the molecular scale (crystal structure and cage filling) to the mesoscale (crystal morphologies, growth habits and pore sizes) and macroscale (rates and amounts of water and gas converted into hydrate and hydrate porosity). Following an early steady-state growth regime, a sudden order-of-magnitude increase of the conversion rate occurs, which is related to gaseous methane microbubbles being directly incorporated across the meniscus in the aqueous solution and later converted to methane hydrate. An assessment and comparison are made of the mechanisms and performance of two common anionic surfactants known to be efficient gas hydrate promoters, SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) and AOT (dioctylsulfosuccinate sodium or AerosolOcTyl). AOT provides a quicker but more limited conversion into hydrate than SDS, suggesting that it is more appropriate for continuous flow processes while SDS is better suited for gas storage applications. Raman spectra reveal that cage filling by methane of structure I methane hydrate is not affected by surfactants.
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.