Method to Calculate the Solubilities of Light Gases in Petroleum and Coal Liquid Fractions on the Basis of Their P/N/A Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a paraffinic/naphthenic/aromatic (P/N/A) compositional model is proposed for calculation of the solubilities of light gases such as methane, ethane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen in various petroleum and coal liquid fractions under different conditions of temperature and pressure. The proposed model uses Scatchard−Hildebrand theory with a corrected value for the solubility parameter of the dissolving gas and characterizes the liquid phase by its P/N/A composition. The results show that, for the fractions studied, the P/N/A composition has an effect on gas solubility. The model correlated the solubilities of gases with an average error of 4.5% when evaluated with 11 fractions and more than 180 data points for a pressure range of 5−250 bar. Corrected solubility parameters for hydrocarbon gases are recommended for their use with petroleum fractions and coal liquids of different P/N/A compositions. The main advantage of the proposed approach is that no experimental data are required to adjust any binary parameter. The approach is of direct use with the values of the solubility parameters reported in this work and characterization parameters of the fraction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".