Enhancement of the performance of kinetic inhibitors in the presence of polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide for binary mixtures during gas hydrate formation in a flow mini‐loop apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this work is to demonstrate the impact of the polyethylene oxide (PEO) and polypropylene oxide (PPO) on the performance of gas hydrate kinetic inhibitors for binary mixtures during gas hydrate formation in a flow mini‐loop apparatus. PEO and PPO are commercially available polymers that they have been considered to be unable to exhibit kinetic hydrate inhibition (KHI) by their self. Prevention of gas hydrate formation experiments in the presence of the KHIs solutions were conducted in a flow mini‐loop apparatus manner under suitable pressures and temperature conditions for binary gaseous mixtures including 70% CH4/30% C3H8, 30% CH4/70% C3H8, 70% CH4/30% i‐C4H10, and 30% CH4/70% i‐C4H10. In the experiments, induction time for crystallisation of gas hydrate formation and gas consumption rate are investigated in systems without KHI, containing KHI only (such as polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and L‐tyrosine) and PEO or PPO together with KHI. Pressure is maintained at a constant value during experimental runs by means of required gas make‐up. The addition of a KHI into system delayed the onset of hydrate crystal nucleation. Furthermore, addition of the PEO or PPO to a KHI solution was found to enhance the performance of KHI. In addition, under the same pressure temperature hydrate formation conditions the induction time is longer when the PPO is present. Thus, inclusion of PPO into a KHI solution shows a higher enhancement in its inhibiting performance compare to PEO. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".