| Literature DB >> 35632036 |
Tunan Chen1,2, Kang Li1, Zhenghai Liao3, Xiongjie Xie3, Guoqiang Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Gas-oil separation by membrane stands for a promising technique in dissolved gas analysis (DGA). Since the accuracy of DGA relies on the results of gas-oil separation to a great extent, it is necessary to study the influence factor of membrane for better performance. Although plentiful studies have been conducted aiming at membrane modification to obtain better separation performance, it cannot be ignored that the conditions of oil also affect the performance of membrane much. In this work, a photoacoustic spectroscopy-based sensor for DGA, which employed membrane for gas-oil separation, was established first. By detecting the photoacoustic signal, the performance of membrane could be evaluated. Furthermore, the influences of feed velocity and pressure have on the performance of membrane were analyzed. Both simulation and experiment were employed in this work to evaluate the influences by collecting the equilibrium time of membrane under different conditions. As a result, the simulation and experiment agreed with each other well. Moreover, it was reasonable to draw the conclusion that the equilibrium time was evidently reduced with the raise of feed velocity but remained with a minimum change when pressure changed. The conclusion may serve as a reference for the application of membrane in optical sensor and DGA.Entities:
Keywords: gas–oil separation; membrane; photoacoustic spectroscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35632036 PMCID: PMC9147988 DOI: 10.3390/s22103629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Basic structure of simulation modeling.
Figure 2Topological structure of the detection system.
Figure 3Structure of integration photoacoustic cell.
Figure 4Concentration at domain point probe under different feed velocity. (a) Pressure 1.0 atm; (b) Pressure 1.5 atm; (c) Pressure 2.0 atm.
Equilibrium time under different conditions in simulation.
| Pressure | 1.0 atm | 1.5 atm | 2.0 atm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed Velocity | ||||
| 8 mL/s | 36.94 h | 36.07 h | 38.69 h | |
| 16 mL/s | 24.62 h | 24.64 h | 24.66 h | |
| 24 mL/s | 20.34 h | 20.45 h | 20.47 h | |
| 32 mL/s | 15.59 h | 14.81 h | 14.80 h | |
| 40 mL/s | 12.74 h | 9.85 h | 10.29 h | |
Figure 5Concentration at gas room under different feed velocity. (a) Pressure 1.0 atm; (b) Pressure 1.5 atm; (c) Pressure 2.0 atm.
Fitting parameters of each curve.
| Pressure | 1.0 atm | 1.5 atm | 2.0 atm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed Velocity | ||||
| 8 mL/s |
| 0.01776 | 0.02837 | 0.02903 |
|
| 0.99348 | 0.99183 | 0.99223 | |
| 16 mL/s |
| 0.04887 | 0.04942 | 0.04730 |
|
| 0.98667 | 0.99368 | 0.98613 | |
| 24 mL/s |
| 0.06685 | 0.06126 | 0.06691 |
|
| 0.99627 | 0.99497 | 0.95639 | |
| 32 mL/s |
| 0.07776 | 0.07990 | 0.08116 |
|
| 0.95587 | 0.99662 | 0.99218 | |
| 40 mL/s |
| 0.13081 | 0.11994 | 0.13926 |
|
| 0.96630 | 0.98908 | 0.96542 |
Equilibrium time under different conditions in experiment.
| Pressure | 1.0 atm | 1.5 atm | 2.0 atm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed Velocity | ||||
| 8 mL/s | 64.83 h | 40.58 h | 39.66 h | |
| 16 mL/s | 23.56 h | 22.74 h | 24.34 h | |
| 24 mL/s | 17.22 h | 17.94 h | 17.21 h | |
| 32 mL/s | 14.81 h | 14.41 h | 14.19 h | |
| 40 mL/s | 8.80 h | 9.60 h | 8.27 h | |