Comparative Effectiveness of Ethylene Glycol and Silica Nanoparticles in Hydrate Formation for Storage/Transportation of Methane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methane hydrate in nanofluid systems has garnered significant attention due to its potential applications in energy storage, natural gas transportation, and CO 2 sequestration. This study explores the behavior of methane hydrate in the presence of nanofluids─colloidal suspensions of nanoparticles in liquids. The primary focus is on understanding how the addition of various nanoparticles influences the formation and dissociation of methane hydrate. Nanoparticles have been observed to alter the nucleation process, accelerate the growth of hydrate crystals, and potentially enhance the stability of methane hydrates under subzero conditions. Nanofluids (20–90 nm) were first prepared by the sol–gel method. Ethylene glycol was used for hydrate formation and its kinetics was compared with that of pure water hydrate formation. This work examined a range of nanofluid solutions with 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 wt % SiO 2 nanoparticles. The results indicate that 1.0 wt % nanofluid-based methane hydrate system exhibited improved heat-transfer characteristics, potentially making them more efficient for practical applications like methane storage and transport. Additionally, the interaction between the nanofluid and the hydrate structure can modify the thermodynamic properties of the system, which may offer pathways for optimizing methane storage. With 1 wt % of nanofluids, the storage capacity and quantity of methane uptake increased by 275% compared to water. Investigation of the hydrate growth rate at the start of the hydrate formation process showed that nanoparticles and their mixture increased the induction time, consumption rate, and storage capacity considerably. This research contributes to the understanding of complex interactions between methane hydrates and nanofluids, paving the way for future innovations in energy and environmental technologies. Thus, nanofluids of 1.0 wt % (optimal) concentration from a single-step method increased the CH 4 hydrate formation kinetics, thermodynamics, and storage potential.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".