Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The formation of clathrate hydrates is considered to be a major flow assurance problem in offshore oil and gas lines. Kinetic hydrate inhibitors (KHIs) are used for hydrate prevention, with their efficiency assessed by techniques that are a bottleneck for new materials development in this area. Efficient design of high-performance advanced materials requires a thorough understanding of the structure–property relationships that is currently hindered by conventional evaluation protocols. A cost-effective method for the rapid, parallel screening of potential KHIs is desirable, which preferably does not involve handling of highly pressurized and potentially flammable/explosive fuel gases. We have developed a novel high-throughput KHI ranking method based on its inhibition performance of Structure II (sII)-forming cyclopentane (c-C 5 ) hydrate under atmospheric pressure. Ice seeding was used to induce the nucleation of c-C 5 hydrate to save time, so the method focuses on the growth inhibition performance (as opposed to the nucleation inhibition performance) of a KHI. Comparison of some commercial KHIs [Luvicap 21W ( N -vinylpyrrolidone: N -vinylcaprolactam 2:1 copolymer), Luvicap 55W ( N -vinylpyrrolidone: N -vinylcaprolactam 1:1 copolymer), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), poly( N -isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM), and polyacrylamide (PAM)] was made using this new screen, which has been validated against conventional rocking cell measurements. The observed efficacy performance ranking of these KHIs was Luvicap 21W ≥ Luvicap 55W > PNIPAM ≥ PVP > PAM. This ranking was in reasonable agreement with the rocking cell data that gives the ranking Luvicap 55W > Luvicap 21W > PNIPAM > PVP > PAM. This method enabled parallel screening of multiple KHIs with major advantages in time, instrument complexity, safety, and material. We propose that this method could serve as a useful first screening method for identifying promising candidates for more rigorous testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maeda et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: