**Predicting the Phase Equilibria of Carbon Dioxide Containing Mixtures Involved in CCS Processes Using the PPR78 Model**

Romain Privat and Jean-Noël Jaubert

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57058

## **1. Introduction**

Carbon dioxide is an extremely important product of the chemical, pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries. Its main applications are production of coal liquids, petroleum processes such as enhanced oil recovery and separation and supercritical fluid extraction. CO2 is however a greenhouse gas that affects the Earth's temperature and many efforts are devoted to the reduction of CO2 emissions. The design and operation of many processes dealing with the CO2 capture and storage (CCS) greatly depend on knowledge about pressurevolume-temperature-composition (PVTxy) and mixing properties (*hM*, *cP <sup>M</sup>*) of mixtures involved in these processes. A typical CO2 capture and storage (CCS) chain consists of four main steps: CO2 capture, conditioning (dehydration, non-condensable gas separation and/or liquefaction, and compression/pumping), transport and storage.

Carbon dioxide captured from an energy-conversion process always contains impurities that impact the design and operation of CCS systems. The type and amount of the impurities contained into the CO2 depend on the fuels used and the type of capture technology. A nonexhaustive list of these impurities is: CH4, H2S, N2, O2, CO, H2, COS, Ar, SOx, NOx, NH3, SO2, amines and H2O.

Because of the various natures of the impurities encountered in CCS processes and because these processes cover a large range of operating conditions (from atmospheric pressure to supercritical states), it is often necessary to fully guesstimate the phase equilibrium of mixtures CO2 + impurities in both the sub-critical and critical regions by using an appropriate thermo‐ dynamic model (this is detailed in section 2.1). In order to meet this objective, Jaubert and Privat developed a group-contribution method (GCM) allowing estimation of the tempera‐

© 2014 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ture-dependent binary interaction parameters *kij*(*T*) for the widely used Peng-Robinson equation of state (EoS). A key point in this approach is that the *kij* between two components *i* and *j* is a function of temperature (T) and of the pure component critical temperatures (*Tci* and *Tcj*), critical pressures (*Pci*, *Pcj*) and acentric factors (ω*<sup>i</sup>* , ω*<sup>j</sup>* ). This means that no additional properties besides those required by the EoS itself (*Tc*, *Pc*, ω) are needed. The proposed model, named PPR78 for Predictive-Peng-Robinson 1978, can predict any phase equilibrium of mixtures containing CO2 and light alkanes, N2, H2, H2S, H2O.

In this chapter, the ability of the PPR78 model for prediction of CO2 + impurity binary mixtures is discussed and analyzed in terms of phase-equilibrium properties and enthalpies of mixing. The PPR78 model is also applied to the prediction of multicomponent CO2-containing mixtures.

In the first part, the theoretical foundations of the PPR78 equation of state are carefully described. In the second part, the capabilities of the PPR78 model to predict both the global phase behavior (i.e., the phase behavior in both the sub and supercritical area) and the enthalpy data of various binary systems involved in CCS processes are graphically shown and quanti‐ tatively assessed.

It is often written in the literature that the greater the number of compounds in a mixture, the more a thermodynamic model may fail in representing its behavior. In that regard, the last part of the chapter deals with multicomponent systems (containing more than two pure species) encountered in CCS processes.

## **2. Presentation of the PPR78 thermodynamic model**

#### **2.1. On the need for an accurate thermodynamic model**

Today, the synthesis design and optimization of CCS processes is carried out with the help of process simulators such as PRO/II, ProSim, HYSIS, ASPEN, UniSim, etc. It is however well known that the accuracy of the simulated results mainly depends on the quality of the chosen thermodynamic model. In most cases, the phase behavior of multicomponent systems, for which nearly no data are available, has to be known. The phase behavior can obviously be measured, but measurements are very time consuming (the VLE measurement of a 10 component system at atmospheric pressure in 10 mole% steps - a total of 92, 378 data points would require 37 years!).

When dealing with fluids involved in CCS processes, many difficulties appear. Indeed, such mixtures contain a large number of various compounds, the proper representation of which involves accurately quantifying the interactions between each pair of molecules. This quanti‐ fication obviously becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as the number of molecules grows. To avoid such a time-consuming effort, an alternative solution lies in using a thermo‐ dynamic model able to estimate the interactions from mere knowledge of the structure of the molecules contained in the blend.

#### **2.2. The Equation of State (EoS)**

A few decades ago, Peng and Robinson [1] published their well-known equation of state, called in this chapter PR76. Some years later, the same authors published an improved version of this equation [2], which yields more accurate vapor pressure predictions for heavy hydrocarbons than those obtained by using PR76. This improved equation is called PR78 in this paper. For a pure component, the PR78 EoS is:

$$P(T, \mathbf{v}) = \frac{RT}{\mathbf{v} - b\_i} - \frac{a\_i(T)}{\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{v} + b\_i) + b\_i(\mathbf{v} - b\_i)}\tag{1}$$

with:

ture-dependent binary interaction parameters *kij*(*T*) for the widely used Peng-Robinson equation of state (EoS). A key point in this approach is that the *kij* between two components *i* and *j* is a function of temperature (T) and of the pure component critical temperatures (*Tci* and

properties besides those required by the EoS itself (*Tc*, *Pc*, ω) are needed. The proposed model, named PPR78 for Predictive-Peng-Robinson 1978, can predict any phase equilibrium of

In this chapter, the ability of the PPR78 model for prediction of CO2 + impurity binary mixtures is discussed and analyzed in terms of phase-equilibrium properties and enthalpies of mixing. The PPR78 model is also applied to the prediction of multicomponent CO2-containing

In the first part, the theoretical foundations of the PPR78 equation of state are carefully described. In the second part, the capabilities of the PPR78 model to predict both the global phase behavior (i.e., the phase behavior in both the sub and supercritical area) and the enthalpy data of various binary systems involved in CCS processes are graphically shown and quanti‐

It is often written in the literature that the greater the number of compounds in a mixture, the more a thermodynamic model may fail in representing its behavior. In that regard, the last part of the chapter deals with multicomponent systems (containing more than two pure

Today, the synthesis design and optimization of CCS processes is carried out with the help of process simulators such as PRO/II, ProSim, HYSIS, ASPEN, UniSim, etc. It is however well known that the accuracy of the simulated results mainly depends on the quality of the chosen thermodynamic model. In most cases, the phase behavior of multicomponent systems, for which nearly no data are available, has to be known. The phase behavior can obviously be measured, but measurements are very time consuming (the VLE measurement of a 10 component system at atmospheric pressure in 10 mole% steps - a total of 92, 378 data points -

When dealing with fluids involved in CCS processes, many difficulties appear. Indeed, such mixtures contain a large number of various compounds, the proper representation of which involves accurately quantifying the interactions between each pair of molecules. This quanti‐ fication obviously becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as the number of molecules grows. To avoid such a time-consuming effort, an alternative solution lies in using a thermo‐ dynamic model able to estimate the interactions from mere knowledge of the structure of the

, ω*<sup>j</sup>*

). This means that no additional

*Tcj*), critical pressures (*Pci*, *Pcj*) and acentric factors (ω*<sup>i</sup>*

mixtures.

tatively assessed.

444 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

would require 37 years!).

molecules contained in the blend.

species) encountered in CCS processes.

mixtures containing CO2 and light alkanes, N2, H2, H2S, H2O.

**2. Presentation of the PPR78 thermodynamic model**

**2.1. On the need for an accurate thermodynamic model**

$$\begin{cases} R = 8.314472 \ J \cdot mol^{-1} \cdot K^{-1} \\ X = \frac{-1 + \sqrt[3]{6\sqrt{2} + 8} - \sqrt[3]{6\sqrt{2} - 8}}{3} \approx 0.253076587 \\ b\_i = \Omega\_b \frac{RT\_{c,i}}{P\_{c,i}} \text{ with } \Omega\_b = \frac{X}{X + 3} \approx 0.07779660739 \\ a\_i(T) = \Omega\_a \frac{R^2 T\_{c,i}^2}{P\_{c,i}} \left[1 + m\_i \left(1 - \sqrt{\frac{T}{T\_{c,i}}}\right)\right]^2 \text{ with } \Omega\_a = \frac{8(5X + 1)}{49 - 37X} \approx 0.457235529 \\ \text{if } o\_i \le 0.491 \ m\_i = 0.37464 + 1.542226o\_i - 0.26992a\_i^2 \\ \text{if } o\_i > 0.491 \ m\_i = 0.379642 + 1.48503o\_i - 0.164423o\_i^2 + 0.0166666a\_i^3 \end{cases} (2)$$

where P is the pressure, R the gas constant, T the temperature, a and b are EoS parameters, v the molar volume, Tc the critical temperature, Pc the critical pressure and *ω* the acentric factor. In this chapter, the PR78 EoS is used. To apply such an EoS for mixtures, *mixing rules* are necessary to calculate the values of a and b of the mixtures.

A widely employed way to extend the cubic EoS to mixtures, the mole fractions of which are *xi* , is via the so-called Van der Waals one-fluid mixing rules [quadratic composition depend‐ ency for both parameters] and the classic combining rules, i.e., the geometric mean rule for the cross-energy and the arithmetic mean rule for the cross co-volume parameter:

$$\begin{cases} a = \sum\_{i=1}^{N} \sum\_{j=1}^{N} \mathbf{x}\_{i} \mathbf{x}\_{j} a\_{ij} \\ b = \sum\_{i=1}^{N} \sum\_{j=1}^{N} \mathbf{x}\_{i} \mathbf{x}\_{j} b\_{ij} \\ a\_{ij} = \sqrt{a\_{i} a\_{j}} (1 - k\_{ij}) \\ b\_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} (b\_{i} + b\_{j})(1 - l\_{ij}) \end{cases} \tag{3}$$

where *a*<sup>i</sup> and *b*<sup>i</sup> denote the EoS parameters for pure component *i*, *T* is the temperature, and *N* is the number of components in the mixture.

Through this, two new parameters, the so-called *binary interaction parameters*(*kij* and *lij*), appear in the combining rules. One of them, namely *kij*, is by far the most important one. Indeed, a non-null *lij* is only necessary for complex polar systems and special cases. This is the reason why, when dealing with petroleum fluids, phase equilibrium calculations are generally performed with *l ij* =0 and the mixing rule for the co-volume parameter simplifies to:

$$b = \sum\_{i=1}^{p} x\_i b\_i \tag{4}$$

Note that the chosen mixing rules are used by most petroleum companies and above all are available in any computational package.

In our approach and in order to define a predictive model, the binary interaction parameters appearing in the mixing rules are calculated by the group-contribution method (GCM), which means that a *kij* calculation requires each molecule of a given mixture to be divided into elementary groups of atoms.

$$k\_{ij}(T) = \frac{-\frac{1}{2} \left[ \sum\_{k=1}^{N\_\varepsilon} \sum\_{l=1}^{N\_\varepsilon} (a\_{ik} - a\_{jk})(a\_{il} - a\_{jl})A\_{kl} \cdot \left(\frac{298.15}{T/K}\right)^{\left(\frac{B\_{il}}{A\_{il}} - 1\right)} \right] - \left(\frac{\sqrt{a\_i(T)}}{b\_i} - \frac{\sqrt{a\_j(T)}}{b\_j}\right)^2}{2\frac{\sqrt{a\_i(T) \cdot a\_j(T)}}{b\_i \cdot b\_j}}\tag{5}$$

In Equation (5), *Ng* is the number of different groups defined by the method. In the current state, the PPR78 model can cover a large spectrum of petroleum fluids, from natural gases to crude oils [3-18]. 20 groups exist and make it possible to accurately predict the phase behavior of mixtures containing alkanes, alkenes, aromatic compounds, cycloalkanes, permanent gases (CO2, H2, N2, H2S), water and mercaptans.

In this setup, *αik* is the fraction of molecule *i* occupied by group *k* (occurrence of group *k* in molecule *i* divided by the total number of groups present in molecule *i*); and *Akl* = *Alk* and *Bkl* = *Blk* (where *k* and *l* are two different groups) are constant parameters determined in our previous studies (*Akk* = *Bkk* =0).

In order to deal with mixtures containing CO2, light alkanes, N2, H2, H2S and H2O, a set of *Ng* = 7 groups is necessary:


where *a*<sup>i</sup>

performed with *l*

446 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

is the number of components in the mixture.

available in any computational package.

1 1

(CO2, H2, N2, H2S), water and mercaptans.

previous studies (*Akk* = *Bkk* =0).

**1.** the methane group (CH4)

**2.** the ethane group (C2H6)

= 7 groups is necessary:

= =

å å

a

( ) () () <sup>2</sup>

aaa

*ik jk il jl kl*

*g g kl*

elementary groups of atoms.

*ij*

*k T*

and *b*<sup>i</sup> denote the EoS parameters for pure component *i*, *T* is the temperature, and *N*

*ij* =0 and the mixing rule for the co-volume parameter simplifies to:

*b xb* (4)

<sup>2</sup> <sup>1</sup>

*a T a T*

(5)

Through this, two new parameters, the so-called *binary interaction parameters*(*kij* and *lij*), appear in the combining rules. One of them, namely *kij*, is by far the most important one. Indeed, a non-null *lij* is only necessary for complex polar systems and special cases. This is the reason why, when dealing with petroleum fluids, phase equilibrium calculations are generally

> =1 <sup>=</sup> å *p i i i*

Note that the chosen mixing rules are used by most petroleum companies and above all are

In our approach and in order to define a predictive model, the binary interaction parameters appearing in the mixing rules are calculated by the group-contribution method (GCM), which means that a *kij* calculation requires each molecule of a given mixture to be divided into

<sup>1</sup> 298.15 ( ) ( ) ( )( ) <sup>2</sup>

*k l i j*

*N N <sup>A</sup> <sup>j</sup> <sup>i</sup>*

×

In Equation (5), *Ng* is the number of different groups defined by the method. In the current state, the PPR78 model can cover a large spectrum of petroleum fluids, from natural gases to crude oils [3-18]. 20 groups exist and make it possible to accurately predict the phase behavior of mixtures containing alkanes, alkenes, aromatic compounds, cycloalkanes, permanent gases

In this setup, *αik* is the fraction of molecule *i* occupied by group *k* (occurrence of group *k* in molecule *i* divided by the total number of groups present in molecule *i*); and *Akl* = *Alk* and *Bkl* = *Blk* (where *k* and *l* are two different groups) are constant parameters determined in our

In order to deal with mixtures containing CO2, light alkanes, N2, H2, H2S and H2O, a set of *Ng*

*i j i j*

*aT a T b b*

é ù æ ö ê ú æ ö - - -× - - ç ÷ ç ÷ ë û è ø è ø <sup>=</sup> <sup>×</sup>

*A*

æ ö ç ÷ è ø

*T K b b*

*kl*

*B*


Since the carbon dioxide and the impurities are all individually considered as single groups, Equation (5) can be simplified as follows:

$$k\_{12}(T) = \frac{A\_{12} \cdot \left(\frac{298.15}{T/K}\right)^{\left(\frac{B\_{12}}{A\_{12}} - 1\right)} - \left(\frac{\sqrt{a\_1(T)}}{b\_1} - \frac{\sqrt{a\_2(T)}}{b\_2}\right)^2}{2\frac{\sqrt{a\_1(T) \cdot a\_2(T)}}{b\_1 \cdot b\_2}}\tag{6}$$

where *k*12 is the binary interaction parameter between molecules 1 and 2.

For these 7 groups, a total of 42 parameters (expressed in MPa) were determined. They are summarized in Table 1 [3, 6-9, 13, 15].


**Table 1.** Group interaction parameters of the PPR78 model: (*Akl* = *Alk* ) / MPa and (*Bkl* = *Blk* ) / MPa.

Note that this formulation is very useful for someone having commercial software working with the PR EoS. As shown in one of our previous studies [4], working with hydrocarbon binary mixtures, Equations 4 and 5 are able to predict the different *kij* trends commonly encountered. Indeed, *kij* may increase, decrease or pass through a minimum with respect to temperature and chain length.

#### **2.3. On the importance of enthalpy-of-mixing (***hM***) data**

Engineers use principles drawn from thermodynamics to analyze and design industrial processes. The application of the first principle (also named energy rate balance) to an open multi-component system at steady state is written as:

$$
\dot{\mathcal{W}} + \dot{\mathcal{Q}} = \sum \dot{n}\_{\text{out}} h\_{\text{out}} - \sum \dot{n}\_{\text{in}} h\_{\text{in}} \tag{7}
$$

where *W*˙ and *Q*˙ are the net rates of energy transfer by work and by heat, respectively; *n*˙ is the molar flowrate and *h* denotes the molar enthalpy of a stream. Subscripts *in* and *out* mean inlet and outlet streams, respectively. Note that kinetic-energy and potential-energy terms were not considered in Equation (7). According to classic thermodynamics, the molar enthalpy of a pcomponent homogeneous system at a given temperature *T*, pressure *P* and composition *z* (mole fraction vector) is:

$$\begin{aligned} \ln \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{T}\_{\prime\prime} \ P\_{\prime\prime} \mathbf{z} \end{pmatrix} &= \sum\_{i=1}^{p} z\_i \mathbf{h}\_{\prime\prime} \underline{\mathbf{z}} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{T}\_{\prime\prime} \ P\_{\prime} \end{pmatrix} + \mathbf{h}\_{\prime\prime} \mathbf{h}\_{\prime\prime}^{\prime\prime} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{T}\_{\prime\prime} \ P\_{\prime\prime} \mathbf{z} \end{pmatrix} \\ \text{on an inlet or} \\ \mathbf{h}\_{\prime\prime}^{\prime} \text{ an outlet stream} \end{aligned} \tag{8}$$

where *h pure <sup>i</sup>* (*T* , *P*) is the molar enthalpy of pure component *i* at the same temperature and pressure as the mixture, estimated from the PR78 EoS (i.e., the equation of state applied to pure components). *h <sup>M</sup>* (*T* , *P*, *z*) is the molar enthalpy change on isothermal and isobaric mixing that will be estimated from the PPR78 model (i.e., the equation of state for mixtures).

From Equations (7) and (8), it thus clearly appears that good estimations of *hM* data are essential to perform reliable energy balance for CCS processes.

## **3. Predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of systems containing CO2 + impurities**

The results obtained by using the PPR78 EoS to reproduce the phase behavior of such systems are graphically shown in this section. In order to numerically evaluate the performances of the model, absolute and relative deviations between experimental data points and their prediction are systematically provided. We now define the different quantities we will refer to hereafter:

**•** the absolute mean deviation on the liquid phase composition:

Predicting the Phase Equilibria of Carbon Dioxide Containing Mixtures Involved in... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57058 449

$$\overline{\Delta \mathbf{x}\_1} = \frac{\sum\_{i=1}^{n\_{\text{bubble}}} \left( \left| \mathbf{x}\_{1, \text{exp}} - \mathbf{x}\_{1, \text{cal}} \right| \right)\_i}{n\_{\text{bubble}}} \tag{9}$$

**•** the relative mean deviation on the liquid phase composition:

$$\overline{\Delta \mathbf{x}\_1 \%} = \frac{100}{n\_{bubble}} \sum\_{i=1}^{n\_{bubble}} \mathbf{0.5} \left( \frac{|\Delta \mathbf{x}|}{\mathbf{x}\_{1, \text{exp}}} + \frac{|\Delta \mathbf{x}|}{\mathbf{x}\_{2, \text{exp}}} \right)\_i \tag{10}$$

with

Note that this formulation is very useful for someone having commercial software working with the PR EoS. As shown in one of our previous studies [4], working with hydrocarbon binary mixtures, Equations 4 and 5 are able to predict the different *kij* trends commonly encountered. Indeed, *kij* may increase, decrease or pass through a minimum with respect to

Engineers use principles drawn from thermodynamics to analyze and design industrial processes. The application of the first principle (also named energy rate balance) to an open

where *W*˙ and *Q*˙ are the net rates of energy transfer by work and by heat, respectively; *n*˙ is the molar flowrate and *h* denotes the molar enthalpy of a stream. Subscripts *in* and *out* mean inlet and outlet streams, respectively. Note that kinetic-energy and potential-energy terms were not considered in Equation (7). According to classic thermodynamics, the molar enthalpy of a pcomponent homogeneous system at a given temperature *T*, pressure *P* and composition *z* (mole

(*T* , *P*) is the molar enthalpy of pure component *i* at the same temperature and

pressure as the mixture, estimated from the PR78 EoS (i.e., the equation of state applied to pure components). *h <sup>M</sup>* (*T* , *P*, *z*) is the molar enthalpy change on isothermal and isobaric mixing

From Equations (7) and (8), it thus clearly appears that good estimations of *hM* data are essential

**3. Predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of systems containing CO2 +**

The results obtained by using the PPR78 EoS to reproduce the phase behavior of such systems are graphically shown in this section. In order to numerically evaluate the performances of the model, absolute and relative deviations between experimental data points and their prediction are systematically provided. We now define the different quantities we will refer to hereafter:

that will be estimated from the PPR78 model (i.e., the equation of state for mixtures).

*<sup>W</sup>*˙ <sup>+</sup> *<sup>Q</sup>*˙ <sup>=</sup>∑ *<sup>n</sup>*˙ out*<sup>h</sup>* out <sup>−</sup> ∑ *<sup>n</sup>*˙in*h*in (7)

(*<sup>T</sup>* , *<sup>P</sup>*) <sup>+</sup> *<sup>h</sup> <sup>M</sup>* (*<sup>T</sup>* , *<sup>P</sup>*, *<sup>z</sup>*) (8)

temperature and chain length.

448 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

fraction vector) is:

where *h pure <sup>i</sup>*

**impurities**

**2.3. On the importance of enthalpy-of-mixing (***hM***) data**

multi-component system at steady state is written as:

*h* (*T* , *P*, *z*) molar enthalpy of an inlet or an outlet stream

to perform reliable energy balance for CCS processes.

**•** the absolute mean deviation on the liquid phase composition:

=∑ *i*=1 *p zi h pure <sup>i</sup>*

$$\left| \Delta \mathbf{x} \right| = \left| \mathbf{x}\_{1, \text{exp}} - \mathbf{x}\_{1, \text{cal}} \right| = \left| \mathbf{x}\_{2, \text{exp}} - \mathbf{x}\_{2, \text{cal}} \right| \tag{11}$$

**•** the absolute mean deviation on the gas phase composition:

$$\frac{\Delta \overline{\mathbf{y}\_1}}{\Delta \mathbf{y}\_1} = \frac{\sum\_{i=1}^{n\_{\rm dev}} \left( \left| \mathbf{y}\_{1, \rm exp} - \mathbf{y}\_{1, \rm cal} \right| \right)\_i}{n\_{\rm dev}} \tag{12}$$

**•** the relative mean deviation on the gas phase composition:

$$\overline{\Delta \mathbf{y}\_1 \mathbf{\hat{y}}\_0} = \frac{100}{n\_{\text{dev}}} \sum\_{i=1}^{n\_{\text{dev}}} \mathbf{0}.\mathbf{S} \left( \frac{\left| \Delta \mathbf{y} \right|}{\mathbf{y}\_{1,\text{exp}}} + \frac{\left| \Delta \mathbf{y} \right|}{\mathbf{y}\_{2,\text{exp}}} \right)\_{\text{i}} \tag{13}$$

with

$$\left| \Delta \mathbf{y} \right| = \left| \mathbf{y}\_{1, \text{exp}} - \mathbf{y}\_{1, \text{cal}} \right| = \left| \mathbf{y}\_{2, \text{exp}} - \mathbf{y}\_{2, \text{cal}} \right| \tag{14}$$

*nbubble* and *ndew* are the number of bubble points and dew points, while *x*<sup>1</sup> is the mole fraction in the liquid phase of the most volatile component and *x*2 is the mole fraction of the heaviest component. Similarly, *y*<sup>1</sup> is the mole fraction in the gas phase of the most volatile component and *y*2 is the mole fraction of the heaviest component.

### **3.1. Phase diagrams of CO2 + light alkane systems**

Mixtures of CO2 + methane have been measured extensively and a huge amount of reliable experimental phase equilibrium and critical data are available in the open literature. To our best knowledge, 424 bubble points, 418 dew points and 17 critical points have been published in the literature. An comprehensive list of references can be found in [6].

Figure 1a shows the isothermal phase diagrams for the system methane(1) + CO2(2) at six different temperatures. For this system, from low to high temperature the binary interaction parameter varies from 0.093 to 0.112.

Figure 1b is a projection of the **critical locus** (i.e., the locus of the vapor-liquid mixture's critical points) of this binary system on the (Pc, Tc) plane. Accurate results are obtained at any temperature although the critical pressure is slightly overestimated at intermediate temperatures.

binary system (methane + CO2) using the PPR78 model. +: experimental bubble points, : experimental dew points, ○: experimental critical points. Solid line: predicted curves with the PPR78 model. Dashed line: vaporization curves of pure compounds. 1a: system methane(1)/CO2(2) at 6 different temperatures: T1 = 191.20 K (*kij* = 0.0931), T2 = 210.15 K (*kij* = 0.0956), T3 = 240.00 K (*kij* = 0.100), T4 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.106), T5 = 288.50 K (*kij* = 0.109), T6 = 301.00 K (*kij* = 0.112). 1b: critical locus of the methane/CO2 system. **Figure 1.** Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves and prediction of the critical locus for the binary system (methane + CO2) using the PPR78 model. +: experimental bubble points, ∗: experimental dew points, ○: experimental critical points. Solid line: predicted curves with the PPR78 model. Dashed line: vaporization curves of pure compounds. 1a: system methane(1)/CO2(2) at 6 different temperatures: T1 = 191.20 K (*kij* = 0.0931), T2 = 210.15 K (*kij* = 0.0956), T3 = 240.00 K (*kij* = 0.100), T4 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.106), T5 = 288.50 K (*kij* = 0.109), T6 = 301.00 K (*kij* = 0.112). 1b: critical locus of the methane/CO2 system.

Figure 1. Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves and prediction of the critical locus for the

Mixtures of CO2 + ethane have also been measured extensively. The open literature even offers a few more data than for the CO2 + methane system: 483 bubble points, 438 dew points and 22 critical points. For more details about the references, see reference [7]. Figure 2a, 2b and 2c show the isothermal phase diagrams for the system CO2(1) + Mixtures of CO2 + ethane have also been measured extensively. The open literature even offers a few more data than for the CO2 + methane system: 483 bubble points, 438 dew points and 22 critical points. For more details about the references, see reference [6].

ethane(2) at twelve different temperatures. For this system, a homogeneous positive azeotrope always exists. The PPR78 model is able to perfectly predict the phase behavior of this system including the temperature minimum on the critical locus (see Figure 2d). The deviations observed in both these systems (i.e., CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane) are: nbubble ndew Figure 2a, 2b and 2c show the isothermal phase diagrams for the system CO2(1) + ethane(2) at twelve different temperatures. For this system, a homogeneous positive azeotrope always exists. The PPR78 model is able to perfectly predict the phase behavior of this system including the temperature minimum on the critical locus (see Figure 2d).

 <sup>1</sup>*x* (absolute) *x*1% (relative) <sup>1</sup>*y* (absolute) *y*1% (relative) The deviations observed in both these systems (i.e., CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane) are:

3.2 Phase diagrams of CO2 + N2 system

relatively good accuracy. A few examples are shown Figure 3.

CH4(1) + CO2(2) 0.012 4.87 0.008 3.13 424 418 C2H6(1) + CO2(2) 0.020 6.58 0.015 4.16 483 438 Table 2. Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane

As stated previously, mixtures of nitrogen + carbon dioxide have been measured extensively and there is a vast amount of reliable experimental phase equilibrium and critical data (no fewer than 635 VLE data points were found for this system, including the critical points). An accurate list of references can be found in references [9,10]. This system is so asymmetrical in terms of size and interactions that its critical locus is no longer continuous (see Figure 3e). Such behavior is called Type III according to the classification of Van Konynenburg and Scott [17]. It can be seen that the PPR78 model is able to predict the experimental data with

systems.

7


**Table 2.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane systems.

#### **3.2. Phase diagrams of CO2 + N2 system**

**3.1. Phase diagrams of CO2 + light alkane systems**

parameter varies from 0.093 to 0.112.

450 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

 <sup>1</sup>*x* (absolute)

the temperature minimum on the critical locus (see Figure 2d).

relatively good accuracy. A few examples are shown Figure 3.

3.2 Phase diagrams of CO2 + N2 system

temperatures.

 **0.0**

the methane/CO2 system.

 **50.0**

**100.0**

Mixtures of CO2 + methane have been measured extensively and a huge amount of reliable experimental phase equilibrium and critical data are available in the open literature. To our best knowledge, 424 bubble points, 418 dew points and 17 critical points have been published

Figure 1a shows the isothermal phase diagrams for the system methane(1) + CO2(2) at six different temperatures. For this system, from low to high temperature the binary interaction

Figure 1b is a projection of the **critical locus** (i.e., the locus of the vapor-liquid mixture's critical points) of this binary system on the (Pc, Tc) plane. Accurate results are obtained at any temperature although the critical pressure is slightly overestimated at intermediate

**P/bar**

**(a)**

**x1,y1**

**10.0**

Figure 1. Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves and prediction of the critical locus for the binary system (methane + CO2) using the PPR78 model. +: experimental bubble points, : experimental dew points, ○: experimental critical points. Solid line: predicted curves with the PPR78 model. Dashed line: vaporization curves of pure compounds. 1a: system methane(1)/CO2(2) at 6 different temperatures: T1 = 191.20 K (*kij* = 0.0931), T2 = 210.15 K (*kij* = 0.0956), T3 = 240.00 K (*kij* = 0.100), T4 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.106), T5 = 288.50 K (*kij* = 0.109), T6 = 301.00 K (*kij* = 0.112). 1b: critical locus of the methane/CO2 system.

**Figure 1.** Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves and prediction of the critical locus for the binary system (methane + CO2) using the PPR78 model. +: experimental bubble points, ∗: experimental dew points, ○: experimental critical points. Solid line: predicted curves with the PPR78 model. Dashed line: vaporization curves of pure compounds. 1a: system methane(1)/CO2(2) at 6 different temperatures: T1 = 191.20 K (*kij* = 0.0931), T2 = 210.15 K (*kij* = 0.0956), T3 = 240.00 K (*kij* = 0.100), T4 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.106), T5 = 288.50 K (*kij* = 0.109), T6 = 301.00 K (*kij* = 0.112). 1b: critical locus of

Mixtures of CO2 + ethane have also been measured extensively. The open literature even offers a few more data than for the CO2 + methane system: 483 bubble points, 438 dew points and 22 critical points. For more details about the references, see reference [7]. Figure 2a, 2b and 2c show the isothermal phase diagrams for the system CO2(1) + ethane(2) at twelve different temperatures. For this system, a homogeneous positive azeotrope always exists. The PPR78 model is able to perfectly predict the phase behavior of

Mixtures of CO2 + ethane have also been measured extensively. The open literature even offers a few more data than for the CO2 + methane system: 483 bubble points, 438 dew points and 22

Figure 2a, 2b and 2c show the isothermal phase diagrams for the system CO2(1) + ethane(2) at twelve different temperatures. For this system, a homogeneous positive azeotrope always exists. The PPR78 model is able to perfectly predict the phase behavior of this system including

The deviations observed in both these systems (i.e., CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane) are:

CH4(1) + CO2(2) 0.012 4.87 0.008 3.13 424 418 C2H6(1) + CO2(2) 0.020 6.58 0.015 4.16 483 438 Table 2. Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane

The deviations observed in both these systems (i.e., CO2 + methane and CO2 + ethane) are:

As stated previously, mixtures of nitrogen + carbon dioxide have been measured extensively and there is a vast amount of reliable experimental phase equilibrium and critical data (no fewer than 635 VLE data points were found for this system, including the critical points). An accurate list of references can be found in references [9,10]. This system is so asymmetrical in terms of size and interactions that its critical locus is no longer continuous (see Figure 3e). Such behavior is called Type III according to the classification of Van Konynenburg and Scott [17]. It can be seen that the PPR78 model is able to predict the experimental data with

 <sup>1</sup>*y* (absolute)

systems.

this system including the temperature minimum on the critical locus (see Figure 2d).

*x*1% (relative)

critical points. For more details about the references, see reference [6].

**50.0**

**90.0**

**160.0 240.0 320.0**

*y*1% (relative)

CH4

**(b) Pc/bar**

*Critical locus* 

**Tc/K**

nbubble ndew

CO2

7

in the literature. An comprehensive list of references can be found in [6].

Mixtures of nitrogen + carbon dioxide have been measured extensively and there is a vast amount of reliable experimental phase equilibrium and critical data (no fewer than 635 VLE data points were found for this system, including the critical points). An accurate list of references can be found in references [7, 8]. This system is so asymmetrical in terms of size and interactions that its critical locus is no longer continuous (see Figure 3e). Such behavior is called Type III according to the classification of Van Konynenburg and Scott [16]. It can be seen that the PPR78 model is able to predict the experimental data with relatively good accuracy. A few examples are shown Figure 3.

at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 210.00 K (*kij* = 0.133), T2 = 220.00 K (*kij* = 0.131), T3 = 230.00 K (*kij* = 0.130), T4 = 241.45 K *kij* = 0.129). 2b: system CO2(1)/ethane(2) at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.128), T2 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.127), T3 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.127), T4 = 283.15 K (*kij* = 0.126). 2c: system CO2(1)/ethane(2) at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 288.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T2 = 291.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T3 = 293.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T4 = 298.15 K (*kij* = 0.126). 2d: critical locus of the CO2/ethane system. Note that in the vicinity of the critical temperature of pure carbon dioxide, the critical locus is **Figure 2.** See caption of Figure 1. Dotted line: locus of azeotropic points. 2a: system CO2(1)/ethane(2) at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 210.00 K (*kij* = 0.133), T2 = 220.00 K (*kij* = 0.131), T3 = 230.00 K (*kij* = 0.130), T4 = 241.45 K *kij* = 0.129). 2b: system CO2(1)/ethane(2) at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.128), T2 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.127), T3 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.127), T4 = 283.15 K (*kij* = 0.126). 2c: system CO2(1)/ethane(2) at 4 different temperatures: T1 = 288.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T2 = 291.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T3 = 293.15 K (*kij* = 0.126), T4 = 298.15 K (*kij* = 0.126). 2d: critical locus of the CO2/ ethane system.

perfectly predicted. Similarly to what was observed in the CO2 + methane system, the overestimation of the mixture's critical pressure by the PPR78 model increases when the temperature decreases. In the present case, the binary interaction parameter *kij* is a decreasing function of the temperature (see Figure 3f). *kij* is positive at temperatures lower

> <sup>1</sup>*y* (absolute)

*y*1% (relative) nbubble ndew

than 208 K, and negative at temperatures higher than 208 K.

*x*1% (relative)

Table 3. Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the N2 + CO2 system.

The deviations observed in the N2 + CO2 system are: <sup>1</sup>*x* (absolute)

Figure 2. See caption of Figure 1. Dotted line: locus of azeotropic points. 2a: system CO2(1)/ethane(2)

8

N2(1) + CO2(2) 0.008 6.03 0.008 2.32 320 301

Note that in the vicinity of the critical temperature of pure carbon dioxide, the critical locus is perfectly predicted. Similarly to what was observed in the CO2 + methane system, the overes‐ timation of the mixture's critical pressure by the PPR78 model increases when the temperature decreases. In the present case, the binary interaction parameter *kij* is a decreasing function of the temperature (see Figure 3f). *kij* is positive at temperatures lower than 208 K, and negative at temperatures higher than 208 K.

K (*kij* = -0.00856) and T2 = 253.15 K (*kij* = -0.0325). 8b: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 232.85 K (*kij* = -0.0194) and T2 = 273.20 K (*kij* = -0.0437). 8c: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 240.00 K (*kij* = -0.0242) and T2 = 288.20 K (*kij* = -0.0514). 8d: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 248.15 K (*kij* = -0.0294) and T2 = 298.80 K (*kij* = - 0.0564). 8e: critical locus. 8f: *kij* vs. temperature (the square indicates the temperature at which *kij* = 0). **Figure 3.** See caption of Figure 1. 8a: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 218.15 K (*kij* = -0.00856) and T2 = 253.15 K (*kij* = -0.0325). 8b: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 232.85 K (*kij* = -0.0194) and T2 = 273.20 K (*kij* = -0.0437). 8c: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 240.00 K (*kij* = -0.0242) and T2 = 288.20 K (*kij* = -0.0514). 8d: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 248.15 K (*kij* = -0.0294) and T2 = 298.80 K (*kij* = -0.0564). 8e: critical locus. 8f: *kij* vs. temperature (the square indicates the temperature at which *kij* = 0).

Figure 3. See caption of Figure 1. 8a: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 218.15

9


The deviations observed in the N2 + CO2 system are:

Note that in the vicinity of the critical temperature of pure carbon dioxide, the critical locus is perfectly predicted. Similarly to what was observed in the CO2 + methane system, the overes‐ timation of the mixture's critical pressure by the PPR78 model increases when the temperature decreases. In the present case, the binary interaction parameter *kij* is a decreasing function of the temperature (see Figure 3f). *kij* is positive at temperatures lower than 208 K, and negative

**P/bar**

**x1,y1**

**P/bar**

**x1,y1**

**Tc/K**

 **-0.20**

Figure 3. See caption of Figure 1. 8a: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 218.15 K (*kij* = -0.00856) and T2 = 253.15 K (*kij* = -0.0325). 8b: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 232.85 K (*kij* = -0.0194) and T2 = 273.20 K (*kij* = -0.0437). 8c: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 240.00 K (*kij* = -0.0242) and T2 = 288.20 K (*kij* = -0.0514). 8d: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 248.15 K (*kij* = -0.0294) and T2 = 298.80 K (*kij* = - 0.0564). 8e: critical locus. 8f: *kij* vs. temperature (the square indicates the temperature at which *kij* = 0).

**Figure 3.** See caption of Figure 1. 8a: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 218.15 K (*kij* = -0.00856) and T2 = 253.15 K (*kij* = -0.0325). 8b: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 232.85 K (*kij* = -0.0194) and T2 = 273.20 K (*kij* = -0.0437). 8c: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 240.00 K (*kij* = -0.0242) and T2 = 288.20 K (*kij* = -0.0514). 8d: System N2(1) + CO2(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 248.15 K (*kij* = -0.0294) and T2 = 298.80 K (*kij* = -0.0564). 8e: critical locus. 8f: *kij* vs. temperature (the square indicates the temperature

 **0.00**

 **0.20**

CO2

 **0.0**

 **0.40**

 **50.0**

**100.0**

**150.0**

**(d)**

 **0.0**

**100.0**

**200.0**

**(b)**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**(f) kij**

 **70.0 370.0 670.0**

**P/bar**

**x1,y1**

**P/bar**

**x1,y1**

**T/K**

9

at temperatures higher than 208 K.

**(a)** 

 **0.0**

**200.0**

**(c)** 

 **0.0**

**400.0**

 **0.0**

at which *kij* = 0).

N2

**200.0**

**100.0**

**100.0**

**200.0**

452 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**(e) Pc/bar**

*Critical locus* 

**100.0 200.0 300.0**

**Table 3.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the N2 + CO2 system.

#### **3.3. Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2S system**

deviations remain quite small (< 5 bar).

 <sup>1</sup>*x* (absolute)

CO2(1) + H2S(2)

Forthis system, 177 bubble points, 176 dew points and 10 critical points were found in the open literature. These references are reported in [9]. Eight predicted isobaric dew and bubble curves are shown in Figure 4a and 4b. As can be seen, the PPR78 model is able to predict the behav‐ ior of this system with relatively good accuracy. However, as shown by the critical curve displayed in Figure 4c and in accordance with what we previously observed, the PPR78 model tends to overestimate the critical pressures although the absolute deviations remain quite small (< 5 bar). 3.3 Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2S system For this system, 177 bubble points, 176 dew points and 10 critical points were found in the open literature. These references are reported in [11]. Eight predicted isobaric dew and bubble curves are shown in Figure 4a and 4b. As can be seen, the PPR78 model is able to predict the behavior of this system with relatively good accuracy. However, as shown by the critical curve displayed in Figure 4c and in accordance with what we previously observed, the PPR78 model tends to overestimate the critical pressures although the absolute

P2 = 13.79 bar, P3 = 20.68 bar, P4 = 30.40 bar. Experimental dew and bubble points at P1 = 6.90 bar (+), P2 = 13.79 bar (), P3 = 20.68 bar (), P4 = 30.40 bar (). 4b: System CO2(1) + H2S(2) at four different pressures: P1 = 40.53 bar, P2 = 55.16 bar, P3 = 70.93 bar, P4 = 82.74 bar. Experimental dew and bubble points at P1 = 40.53 bar (+), P2 = 55.16 bar (), P3 = 70.93 bar (), P4 = 82.74 bar (). 4c: critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2S(2) system. The deviations observed in this system are: **Figure 4.** See caption of Figure 1. 4a: System CO2(1) + H2S(2) at four different pressures: P1 = 6.90 bar, P2 = 13.79 bar, P3 = 20.68 bar, P4 = 30.40 bar. Experimental dew and bubble points at P1 = 6.90 bar (+), P2 = 13.79 bar (X), P3 = 20.68 bar (∗), P4 = 30.40 bar (◊). 4b: System CO2(1) + H2S(2) at four different pressures: P1 = 40.53 bar, P2 = 55.16 bar, P3 = 70.93 bar, P4 = 82.74 bar. Experimental dew and bubble points at P1 = 40.53 bar (+), P2 = 55.16 bar (X), P3 = 70.93 bar (∗), P4 = 82.74 bar (◊). 4c: critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2S(2) system.

 <sup>1</sup>*y* (absolute)

0.009 5.13 0.008 3.06 177 176

*y*1% (relative) nbubble ndew

*x*1% (relative)

Figure 4. See caption of Figure 1. 4a: System CO2(1) + H2S(2) at four different pressures: P1 = 6.90 bar,

10

Table 4. Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + H2S system.



**Table 4.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + H2S system.

#### **3.4. Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2 system**

Mixtures of H2(1) + CO2(2) present many reliable experimental data (302 bubble points, 300 dew points and 11 critical points). For further details, see reference [13]. As shown in Figure 5a, a type III phase behavior is observed for this system. In the vicinity of the critical point of the least volatile component (CO2), the critical locus is perfectly predicted (for T > 250 K), as well as the corresponding isothermal P–xy phase diagrams (see Figures 5b and 5c). Once again, critical pressures are systematically overestimated, as highlighted by the isotherms in Figure 5c. Generally, liquid-liquid equilibrium (LLE) and vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data associated with these two binary systems are fairly well predicted over wide ranges of temperature and pressure. 3.4 Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2 system Mixtures of H2(1) + CO2(2) present many reliable experimental data (302 bubble points, 300 dew points and 11 critical points). For further details, see reference [14]. As shown in Figure 5a, a type III phase behavior is observed for this system. In the vicinity of the critical point of the least volatile component (CO2), the critical locus is perfectly predicted (for T > 250 K), as well as the corresponding isothermal P–xy phase diagrams (see Figures 5b and 5c). Once again, critical pressures are systematically overestimated, as highlighted by the isotherms in Figure 5c. Generally, liquid-liquid equilibrium (LLE) and vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data associated with these two binary systems are fairly well predicted over wide ranges of temperature and pressure.

dioxide(2) system. 5b: prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at five different temperatures: T1 = 219.90 K (*kij* = –0.0211), T2 = 244.90 K (*kij* = 0.0286), T3 = 259.90 K (*kij* = 0.0577), T4 = 274.90 K (*kij* = 0.0865), T5 = 290.15 K (*kij* = 0.1153). 5c: Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at seven different temperatures: T1 = 237.00 K (*kij* = 0.0130), T2 = 245.00 K (*kij* = 0.0288), T3 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.0386), T4 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.0579), T5 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.0771), T6 = 280.00 K (*kij* = 0.0962), T7 = 290.00 K (*kij* = 0.1150). **Figure 5.** See caption of Figure 1. 5a: prediction of the critical locus of the hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) system. 5b: prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at five different tem‐ peratures: T1 = 219.90 K (*kij* = –0.0211), T2 = 244.90 K (*kij* = 0.0286), T3 = 259.90 K (*kij* = 0.0577), T4 = 274.90 K (*kij* = 0.0865), T5 = 290.15 K (*kij* = 0.1153). 5c: Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at seven different temperatures: T1 = 237.00 K (*kij* = 0.0130), T2 = 245.00 K (*kij* = 0.0288), T3 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.0386), T4 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.0579), T5 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.0771), T6 = 280.00 K (*kij* = 0.0962), T7 = 290.00 K (*kij* = 0.1150).

Figure 5. See caption of Figure 1. 5a: prediction of the critical locus of the hydrogen(1) + carbon

11

*y*1% (relative) nbubble ndew


The deviations observed in this system are:

The deviations observed in this system are:

454 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

**3.4. Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2 system**

temperature and pressure.

**2000.0**

 **00.0**

0.1150).

**1000.0**

<sup>Δ</sup>*x*<sup>1</sup> ¯ (absolute) <sup>Δ</sup>*x*¯

3.4 Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2 system

ranges of temperature and pressure.

**P/bar (a)** 

*Critical locus* 

 **50.0 250.0 450.0**

**CO2**

**2000.**

**00.0**

**1000.**

**Table 4.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + H2S system.

<sup>1</sup>*%* (relative) <sup>Δ</sup>*y*<sup>1</sup> ¯ (absolute) <sup>Δ</sup>*y*¯

CO2(1) + H2S(2) 0.009 5.13 0.008 3.06 177 176

Mixtures of H2(1) + CO2(2) present many reliable experimental data (302 bubble points, 300 dew points and 11 critical points). For further details, see reference [13]. As shown in Figure 5a, a type III phase behavior is observed for this system. In the vicinity of the critical point of the least volatile component (CO2), the critical locus is perfectly predicted (for T > 250 K), as well as the corresponding isothermal P–xy phase diagrams (see Figures 5b and 5c). Once again, critical pressures are systematically overestimated, as highlighted by the isotherms in Figure 5c. Generally, liquid-liquid equilibrium (LLE) and vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data associated with these two binary systems are fairly well predicted over wide ranges of

**T/K**

 **0.0**

**P/bar (c)** 

 **200.0**

 **400.0**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**x1,y1**

**P/bar (b)** 

**x1,y1**

Mixtures of H2(1) + CO2(2) present many reliable experimental data (302 bubble points, 300 dew points and 11 critical points). For further details, see reference [14]. As shown in Figure 5a, a type III phase behavior is observed for this system. In the vicinity of the critical point of the least volatile component (CO2), the critical locus is perfectly predicted (for T > 250 K), as well as the corresponding isothermal P–xy phase diagrams (see Figures 5b and 5c). Once again, critical pressures are systematically overestimated, as highlighted by the isotherms in Figure 5c. Generally, liquid-liquid equilibrium (LLE) and vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data associated with these two binary systems are fairly well predicted over wide

11

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

Figure 5. See caption of Figure 1. 5a: prediction of the critical locus of the hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) system. 5b: prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at five different temperatures: T1 = 219.90 K (*kij* = –0.0211), T2 = 244.90 K (*kij* = 0.0286), T3 = 259.90 K (*kij* = 0.0577), T4 = 274.90 K (*kij* = 0.0865), T5 = 290.15 K (*kij* = 0.1153). 5c: Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at seven different temperatures: T1 = 237.00 K (*kij* = 0.0130), T2 = 245.00 K (*kij* = 0.0288), T3 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.0386), T4 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.0579), T5 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.0771), T6 = 280.00 K (*kij* = 0.0962), T7 = 290.00 K (*kij* = 0.1150).

**Figure 5.** See caption of Figure 1. 5a: prediction of the critical locus of the hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) system. 5b: prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at five different tem‐ peratures: T1 = 219.90 K (*kij* = –0.0211), T2 = 244.90 K (*kij* = 0.0286), T3 = 259.90 K (*kij* = 0.0577), T4 = 274.90 K (*kij* = 0.0865), T5 = 290.15 K (*kij* = 0.1153). 5c: Prediction of isothermal dew and bubble curves for the system hydrogen(1) + carbon dioxide(2) at seven different temperatures: T1 = 237.00 K (*kij* = 0.0130), T2 = 245.00 K (*kij* = 0.0288), T3 = 250.00 K (*kij* = 0.0386), T4 = 260.00 K (*kij* = 0.0579), T5 = 270.00 K (*kij* = 0.0771), T6 = 280.00 K (*kij* = 0.0962), T7 = 290.00 K (*kij* =

<sup>1</sup>*%* (relative) nbubble ndew

**Table 5.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the H2 + CO2 system.

*x*1%

#### **3.5. Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2O system** The deviations observed in this system are:

#### *3.5.1. On the difficulty to model aqueous systems* (absolute) (relative)

<sup>1</sup>*x*

Binary aqueous systems containing hydrocarbons or permanent gases all exhibit vapor–liquid, liquid–liquid and liquid–liquid–vapor equilibria. Here we want to graphically illustrate the well–known dilemma that at a given temperature, the *kij* suitable to describe the solubility of CO2 in water is different from the one required to correlate the solubility of water in CO2. By way of example, the phase diagram of the CO2 (1) + H2O (2) system is plotted at T = 298.15 K in Figure 6. Table 5. Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the H2 + CO2 system. 3.5 Phase diagrams of CO2 + H2O system *3.5.1 On the difficulty to model aqueous systems*  Binary aqueous systems containing hydrocarbons or permanent gases all exhibit vapor– liquid, liquid–liquid and liquid–liquid–vapor equilibria. Here we want to graphically illustrate the well–known dilemma that at a given temperature, the *kij* suitable to describe the solubility of CO2 in water is different from the one required to correlate the solubility of water in CO2.

By way of example, the phase diagram of the CO2 (1) + H2O (2) system is plotted at T =

H2(1) + CO2(2) 0.018 12.8 0.018 7.11 302 300

 <sup>1</sup>*y* (absolute)

values: *kij*(1) = –0.119 and *kij*(2) = 0.180. At this temperature, both pure components are subcritical and a three–phase line (locus of liquid-liquid-vapor equilibrium) is found since the temperature of the three–phase critical **Figure 6.** See caption of Figure 1. System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K with two different *kij* values: *kij*(1) = –0.119 and *kij*(2) = 0.180.

Figure 6. See caption of Figure 1. System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K with two different *kij*

endpoint, noted CEP (which is the terminating point of the three-phase line) is about 308 K. A negative *kij* value of –0.12 perfectly correlates the bubble curve, the dew curve and the solubility of CO2 in water in the liquid–liquid region. On the other hand, such a *kij* value fails to correlate the solubility of water in liquid CO2, which can only be captured with a positive *kij* value of +0.18. In order for the PPR78 model to find the best compromise between these two situations, we tried our best to maintain a similar number of data points to describe the solubility of water in the CO2 and the solubility of CO2 in H2O respectively. As shown in Figure 7a, for such a system, the PPR78 model predicts *k*12 = –0.098. *3.5.2 What the PPR78 model can do for such complex systems* The behavior of the CO2 + H2O system has been studied experimentally by different authors (as reported by Qian et al. [16]) in the high–temperature/high–pressure region with value of 539 K for the minimum temperature of the critical locus beginning at the water critical point. As shown in Figure 7 f, reliable predictions of the critical coordinates by the At this temperature, both pure components are subcritical and a three–phase line (locus of liquid-liquid-vapor equilibrium) is found since the temperature of the three–phase critical endpoint, noted CEP (which is the terminating point of the three-phase line) is about 308 K. A negative *kij* value of –0.12 perfectly correlates the bubble curve, the dew curve and the solubility of CO2 in water in the liquid–liquid region. On the other hand, such a *kij* value fails to correlate the solubility of water in liquid CO2, which can only be captured with a positive *kij* value of +0.18. In order for the PPR78 model to find the best compromise between these two situations, we tried our best to maintain a similar number of data points to describe the solubility of water in the CO2 and the solubility of CO2 in H2O respectively. As shown in Figure 7a, for such a system, the PPR78 model predicts *k*12 = –0.098.

12

PPR78 EoS are obtained until 4000 bar. As previously discussed, at T = 298.15 K (see

#### *3.5.2. What the PPR78 model can do for such complex systems*

The behavior of the CO2 + H2O system has been studied experimentally by different authors (as reported by Qian et al. [15]) in the high–temperature/high–pressure region with value of 539 K for the minimum temperature of the critical locus beginning at the water critical point. As shown in Figure 7 f, reliable predictions of the critical coordinates by the PPR78 EoS are obtained until 4000 bar. As previously discussed, at T = 298.15 K (see Figure 7a), a *kij* value of –0.098 has difficulties in capturing the solubility of water in CO2. Taking into account the scatter of the experimental data, Figure 7b-d highlights that our model predicts the phase behavior of this system with reasonable accuracy.

System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at four different temperatures: T1 = 373.15 K (*kij* = –0.059), T2 = 413.15 K (*kij* = –0.036), T3 = 433.15 K (*kij* = –0.023), T4 = 453.15 K (*kij* = –0.010). 7c: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at six different temperatures: T1 = 383.15 K (*kij* = –0.054), T2 = 423.15 K (*kij* = –0.030), T3 = 473.15 K (*kij* = 0.004), T4 = 538.15 K (*kij* = 0.054), T5 = 541.15 K (*kij* = 0.056), T6 = 543.15 K (*kij* = 0.058). 7d: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 548.15 K (*kij* = 0.062), T2 = 573.15 K (*kij* = 0.084). 7e: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at three different temperatures: T1 = 598.15 K (*kij* = 0.108), T2 = 623.15 K (*kij* = 0.133), T3 = 633.15 K (*kij* = 0.144). 7f: Critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2O(2) system. **Figure 7.** See caption of Figure 1. 7a: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K (*kij* = –0.098). 7b: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at four different temperatures: T1 = 373.15 K (*kij* = –0.059), T2 = 413.15 K (*kij* = –0.036), T3 = 433.15 K (*kij* = –0.023), T4 = 453.15 K (*kij* = –0.010). 7c: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at six different temperatures: T1 = 383.15 K (*kij* = –0.054), T2 = 423.15 K (*kij* = –0.030), T3 = 473.15 K (*kij* = 0.004), T4 = 538.15 K (*kij* = 0.054), T5 = 541.15 K (*kij* = 0.056), T6 = 543.15 K (*kij* = 0.058). 7d: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 548.15 K (*kij* = 0.062), T2 = 573.15 K (*kij* = 0.084). 7e: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at three different temperatures: T1 = 598.15 K (*kij* = 0.108), T2 = 623.15 K (*kij* = 0.133), T3 = 633.15 K (*kij* = 0.144). 7f: Critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2O(2) system.

Figure 7. See caption of Figure 1. 7a: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K (*kij* = –0.098). 7b:

14

The deviations observed in this system are:

*3.5.2. What the PPR78 model can do for such complex systems*

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**P/bar (c)** 

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**P/bar (e)** 

**0.0 0.5**

633.15 K (*kij* = 0.144). 7f: Critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2O(2) system.

**P/bar (a)** 

of this system with reasonable accuracy.

 **0.0**

**4000.0**

 **0.0**

**500.0**

**100.0**

**300.0**

**2000.0**

**300.0**

**600.0**

456 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

The behavior of the CO2 + H2O system has been studied experimentally by different authors (as reported by Qian et al. [15]) in the high–temperature/high–pressure region with value of 539 K for the minimum temperature of the critical locus beginning at the water critical point. As shown in Figure 7 f, reliable predictions of the critical coordinates by the PPR78 EoS are obtained until 4000 bar. As previously discussed, at T = 298.15 K (see Figure 7a), a *kij* value of –0.098 has difficulties in capturing the solubility of water in CO2. Taking into account the scatter of the experimental data, Figure 7b-d highlights that our model predicts the phase behavior

**x1,y1**

**x1,y1**

**x1,y1**

 **0.0**

Figure 7. See caption of Figure 1. 7a: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K (*kij* = –0.098). 7b: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at four different temperatures: T1 = 373.15 K (*kij* = –0.059), T2 = 413.15 K (*kij* = –0.036), T3 = 433.15 K (*kij* = –0.023), T4 = 453.15 K (*kij* = –0.010). 7c: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at six different temperatures: T1 = 383.15 K (*kij* = –0.054), T2 = 423.15 K (*kij* = –0.030), T3 = 473.15 K (*kij* = 0.004), T4 = 538.15 K (*kij* = 0.054), T5 = 541.15 K (*kij* = 0.056), T6 = 543.15 K (*kij* = 0.058). 7d: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 548.15 K (*kij* = 0.062), T2 = 573.15 K (*kij* = 0.084). 7e: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at three different temperatures: T1 = 598.15 K (*kij* = 0.108), T2 = 623.15 K (*kij* = 0.133), T3 = 633.15 K (*kij* = 0.144). 7f: Critical locus of the CO2(1) + H2O(2) system.

**Figure 7.** See caption of Figure 1. 7a: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at T = 298.15 K (*kij* = –0.098). 7b: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at four different temperatures: T1 = 373.15 K (*kij* = –0.059), T2 = 413.15 K (*kij* = –0.036), T3 = 433.15 K (*kij* = –0.023), T4 = 453.15 K (*kij* = –0.010). 7c: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at six different temperatures: T1 = 383.15 K (*kij* = –0.054), T2 = 423.15 K (*kij* = –0.030), T3 = 473.15 K (*kij* = 0.004), T4 = 538.15 K (*kij* = 0.054), T5 = 541.15 K (*kij* = 0.056), T6 = 543.15 K (*kij* = 0.058). 7d: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at two different temperatures: T1 = 548.15 K (*kij* = 0.062), T2 = 573.15 K (*kij* = 0.084). 7e: System CO2(1) + H2O(2) at three different temperatures: T1 = 598.15 K (*kij* = 0.108), T2 = 623.15 K (*kij* = 0.133), T3 =

 **800.0**

**70.0** 

**1600.0**

**2400.0**

**3200.0**

**4000.0**

**(f)** 

**80.0** 

 **0.0**

 **800.0**

 **0.0**

**1600.0**

 **100.0**

 **200.0**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**P/bar (d)** 

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

*Critical locus* 

**100.0 300.0 500.0**

**300.0 310.0**

*3-phase line* 

**CO2**

**ZOOM CEP** *Critical locus*

**CO2 H2O CEP** 

**T/K**

**P/bar**

**P/bar (b)** 

**x1,y1**

**x1,y1**

**P/bar**

**T/K**

14


**Table 6.** Absolute and relative mean deviations observed in the CO2 + H2O system.

## **4. Predicting enthalpies of mixing of CO2 + impurities systems with the PPR78 model**

When molecules are few-polar and few-associating (e.g., in mixtures of alkanes), purecomponent terms provide an excellent estimation of the molar enthalpy of the mixture. Therefore, the enthalpy-of-mixing terms can be seen as a correction, just aimed at improving the first estimation given by the pure-component ground terms. In other words, with fewpolar and few-associating mixtures, *hM* terms are generally nearly negligible with respect to pure-component terms in the energy rate balance. Typically, *hM* terms are very small in alkane mixtures (several J/mol or several tens of J/mol) but are not negligible in petroleum mixtures containing CO2, H2O, alcohols, etc. (likely to reach up to several tens of kJ/mol).

When the parameters involved in the *kij* correlations are not directly fitted on enthalpy-ofmixing data (this is, for instance, the case for the PPR78 model), the relative deviations between the calculated and experimental *hM* data (*Δ<sup>h</sup>* ¯ *<sup>M</sup> %*) can be very important and reach values sometimes greater than 100%.

However, since *hM* quantities are only used to evaluate the molar enthalpies, *hin* and *hout*, involved in the energy rate balance (see Equation (7)), the relative *hM* deviations do not necessarily matter: only their impact on the accuracy of the energy balance should be actually addressed.

In order to assess how errors in *hM* may affect the energy balance, we decided to adopt a criterion converting the difference *Δ<sup>h</sup> <sup>M</sup>* <sup>=</sup> <sup>|</sup>*hcalc <sup>M</sup>* <sup>−</sup>*h*exp *<sup>M</sup>* | in terms of temperature effect *ΔTh* through:

$$\begin{cases} \text{For one dataset:} & \Delta T\_h = \frac{\Delta h^M}{c\_P} \\\\ \text{For a series of data:} & \overline{\Delta T\_h} = \frac{\sum\_{i=1}^{n\_h} (\Delta T\_h)\_i}{n\_h} \end{cases} \tag{15}$$

where *cP* is the molar isobaric heat capacity of the mixture, and *zi* , the mole fraction of com‐ ponent *i*.


For all the data, it was possible to find for the considered systems (references are reported in reference [17]), that the deviations are:

**Table 7.** Prediction of *hM* data with the PPR78 model for CO2-containing mixtures

Satisfactory results are thus obtained for the first three systems. This leads us to claim that accurate energy balances can be performed with the PPR78 model in processes involving mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and light alkanes as well.

The CO2 + H2O system shows a much more important deviation of around 7 K, which may certainly introduce inaccuracy in an energy balance. However, in mixtures mainly containing CO2 and small proportions of water, errors in the estimation of *hM* are much more reasonable. The performances of the PPR78 model in terms of *hM* prediction are illustrated in Figure 8.

Continuous curves: calculated with the PPR78 model. () experimental data. (a) *h<sup>M</sup>*-curve of a liquid binary system. (b) and (c) *h<sup>M</sup>*-curves of two gaseous binary systems. **5. Predicting the phase behavior of CO2–containing multicomponent systems Figure 8.** Prediction by the PPR78 EoS of mixing enthalpies of three CO2-containing binary systems. Continuous curves: calculated with the PPR78 model. (□) experimental data. (a) *hM*-curve of a liquid binary system. (b) and (c) *hM*curves of two gaseous binary systems.

Many phase-equilibrium data have been published on multicomponent CO2-containing mixtures. These mixtures are generally synthetic natural gases containing not only the few molecules studied in this chapter but also light alkanes (generally from methane to hexane). The capability of the PPR78 model is now illustrated in such mixtures. All the references of

In 1970, working with 45 different natural gases containing between 2 and 7 components (N2, CO2, methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, n-pentane), Yarborough et al. measured 52 bubble and dew-point pressures (the compositions of Yarborough et al.'s fluids are given in [13]). The PPR78 model is able to predict these 52 pressures with an absolute average deviation of 2.0 bar (i.e., 3.2%) which is certainly close to the experimental uncertainty.

In 2004, Jarne et al. measured 110 upper and lower dew-point pressures for two natural gases containing nitrogen, carbon dioxide and alkanes up to n-C6. The composition of the fluids and the accuracy of the PPR78 model can be seen in Figure 9. The average deviation of these 110 pressures is only 2.0 bar. This is an extremely good result because many data

the experimental datapoints can be found in [13].

*a) Yarborough et al.'s fluids.* 

*b) Jarne et al.'s fluids.* 

Figure 8. Prediction by the PPR78 EoS of mixing enthalpies of three CO2-containing binary systems.

16

## **5. Predicting the phase behavior of CO2–containing multicomponent systems**

Many phase-equilibrium data have been published on multicomponent CO2-containing mixtures. These mixtures are generally synthetic natural gases containing not only the few molecules studied in this chapter but also light alkanes (generally from methane to hexane). The capability of the PPR78 model is now illustrated in such mixtures. All the references of the experimental datapoints can be found in [12].

**a.** Yarborough et al.'s fluids.

For all the data, it was possible to find for the considered systems (references are reported in

CO2 + methane 0.63 636 CO2 + ethane 1.35 408 CO2 + N2 1.01 693 CO2 + H2O 6.88 539

Satisfactory results are thus obtained for the first three systems. This leads us to claim that accurate energy balances can be performed with the PPR78 model in processes involving

The CO2 + H2O system shows a much more important deviation of around 7 K, which may certainly introduce inaccuracy in an energy balance. However, in mixtures mainly containing CO2 and small proportions of water, errors in the estimation of *hM* are much more reasonable. The performances of the PPR78 model in terms of *hM* prediction are illustrated in Figure 8.

**x1**

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**5. Predicting the phase behavior of CO2–containing multicomponent systems**  Many phase-equilibrium data have been published on multicomponent CO2-containing mixtures. These mixtures are generally synthetic natural gases containing not only the few molecules studied in this chapter but also light alkanes (generally from methane to hexane). The capability of the PPR78 model is now illustrated in such mixtures. All the references of

Figure 8. Prediction by the PPR78 EoS of mixing enthalpies of three CO2-containing binary systems. Continuous curves: calculated with the PPR78 model. () experimental data. (a) *h<sup>M</sup>*-curve of a liquid binary system. (b) and (c) *h<sup>M</sup>*-curves of two gaseous binary systems.

**Figure 8.** Prediction by the PPR78 EoS of mixing enthalpies of three CO2-containing binary systems. Continuous curves: calculated with the PPR78 model. (□) experimental data. (a) *hM*-curve of a liquid binary system. (b) and (c) *hM*-

In 1970, working with 45 different natural gases containing between 2 and 7 components (N2, CO2, methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, n-pentane), Yarborough et al. measured 52 bubble and dew-point pressures (the compositions of Yarborough et al.'s fluids are given in [13]). The PPR78 model is able to predict these 52 pressures with an absolute average deviation of 2.0 bar (i.e., 3.2%) which is certainly close to the experimental uncertainty.

In 2004, Jarne et al. measured 110 upper and lower dew-point pressures for two natural gases containing nitrogen, carbon dioxide and alkanes up to n-C6. The composition of the fluids and the accuracy of the PPR78 model can be seen in Figure 9. The average deviation of these 110 pressures is only 2.0 bar. This is an extremely good result because many data

**0.0**

**N2(1) + CO2(2) T = 293.15 K** 

**y1**

**200.0**

**400.0**

**hM/(J/mol)**

**(b)** 

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**hM/(J/mol)**

**P1 = 50.66 bar P2 = 40.53 bar P3 = 30.40 bar P4 = 20.26 bar P5 = 10.13 bar** 

16

**Table 7.** Prediction of *hM* data with the PPR78 model for CO2-containing mixtures

mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and light alkanes as well.

**0.0 0.5 1.0**

**(c)**

**0.0**

the experimental datapoints can be found in [13].

*a) Yarborough et al.'s fluids.* 

curves of two gaseous binary systems.

*b) Jarne et al.'s fluids.* 

**200.0**

**400.0**

**600.0**

**CO2(1) + ethane (2) T = 272.10 K P1 = 45. 00 bar P2 = 110.00 bar** 

**0.0**

**800.0**

**1600.0**

**(a)** 

Δ*T*¯

*<sup>h</sup>* (K) Number of data

nhM data

**P1 = 10.13 ba P2 = 20.27 ba P3 = 30.40 ba P4 = 40.53 ba P5 = 50.66 ba**

**<sup>h</sup>M/(J/mol) Methane(1) + CO2(2) T = 293.15 K** 

**y1**

reference [17]), that the deviations are:

458 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

In 1970, working with 45 different natural gases containing between 2 and 7 components (N2, CO2, methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, n-pentane), Yarborough et al. measured 52 bubble and dew-point pressures (the compositions of Yarborough et al.'s fluids are given in [12]). The PPR78 model is able to predict these 52 pressures with an absolute average deviation of 2.0 bar (i.e., 3.2%) which is certainly close to the experimental uncertainty.

**b.** Jarne et al.'s fluids.

very steep.

In 2004, Jarne et al. measured 110 upper and lower dew-point pressures for two natural gases containing nitrogen, carbon dioxide and alkanes up to n-C6. The composition of the fluids and the accuracy of the PPR78 model can be seen in Figure 9. The average deviation of these 110 pressures is only 2.0 bar. This is an extremely good result because many data points are located in the vicinity of the cricondentherm, where the slope of the dew curve is very steep. points are located in the vicinity of the cricondentherm, where the slope of the dew curve is

Figure 9. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Jarne et al.'s natural gases predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point. *c) Zhou et al.'s fluid.*  **Figure 9.** Solid line: (P, T) phase envelopes of Jarne et al.'s natural gases predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experi‐ mental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

In 2006, Zhou et al. measured 6 dew point-pressures for a natural gas containing N2, CO2 and 7 alkanes. Figure 10 shows that with an average deviation lower than 1.2 bar (i.e., **c.** Zhou et al.'s fluid.

**6. Conclusion** 

 **80.0 P/bar N2 = 2.031 mol % CO2 = 0.403 mol % methane = 90.991 mol % ethane = 2.949 mol % propane = 1.513 mol %**  In 2006, Zhou et al. measured 6 dew point-pressures for a natural gas containing N2, CO2 and 7 alkanes. Figure 10 shows that with an average deviation lower than 1.2 bar (i.e., 1.5%), the PPR78 model is able to accurately predict these data.

> **isobutane = 0.755 mol % n-butane = 0.755 mol % methyl-2 butane = 0.299 mol % n-pentane = 0.304 mol %**

**100.0 200.0 300.0**

Figure 10. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Zhou et al.'s natural gas predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

This chapter has demonstrated that the PPR78 model is capable of predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of mixtures containing carbon dioxide, light alkanes, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen and water with good accuracy. This model can also be used to perform energy balance calculations and can be successfully extended to multicomponent mixtures.

P 1.2 bar 1.5 %

**T/K**

1.5%), the PPR78 model is able to accurately predict these data.

 **0.0**

 **40.0**

17

 **0.0**

 **40.0**

 **80.0**

**120.0 160.0 200.0 240.0**

**P/bar N2 = 1.559 mol %** 

P 1.5bar

1.5%), the PPR78 model is able to accurately predict these data.

**CO2 = 25.908 mol % methane = 69.114 mol % ethane = 2.620 mol % propane = 0.423 mol % isobutane = 0.105 mol % n-butane = 0.104 mol % methy-2 butane = 0.034 mol % n-pentane = 0.023 mol % n-hexane = 0.110 mol %** 

very steep.

points are located in the vicinity of the cricondentherm, where the slope of the dew curve is

**N2 = 0.772 mol % CO2 = 1.700 mol % methane = 84.446 mol % ethane = 8.683 mol % propane = 3.297 mol % isobutane = 0.293 mol % n-butane = 0.589 mol % methyl-2 butane = 0.084 mol % n-pentane = 0.086 mol % n-hexane = 0.050 mol %** 

**120.0 160.0 200.0 240.0 280.0**

P 2.5bar

**T/K**

**P/bar**

**T/K**

 **0.0**

Figure 9. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Jarne et al.'s natural gases predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

and 7 alkanes. Figure 10 shows that with an average deviation lower than 1.2 bar (i.e.,

**40.0**

**80.0**

Figure 10. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Zhou et al.'s natural gas predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point. **Figure 10.** Solid line: (P, T) phase envelopes of Zhou et al.'s natural gas predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimen‐ tal upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

This chapter has demonstrated that the PPR78 model is capable of predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of mixtures containing carbon dioxide, light alkanes, nitrogen, hydrogen

#### sulfide, hydrogen and water with good accuracy. This model can also be used to perform energy balance calculations and can be successfully extended to multicomponent mixtures. **6. Conclusion**

**6. Conclusion** 

This chapter has demonstrated that the PPR78 model is capable of predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of mixtures containing carbon dioxide, light alkanes, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen and water with good accuracy. This model can also be used to perform energy balance calculations and can be successfully extended to multicomponent mixtures.

17 Although this chapter shows phase-equilibrium predictions obtained with the PPR78 EoS over the whole composition range (i.e., from CO2-rich to CO2-poor mixtures), CCS processes essentially involve mixtures containing high proportion of CO2 and small fractions of impur‐ ities.

Because PPR78's authors did not want to limit the range of applicability of their model, the A and B parameters involved in the *k*ij-estimation formula (see Equation (5)) were fitted on all the data we could find in the open literature. Nevertheless, as shown in this chapter, good to excellent predictions can still be obtained for mixtures containing large amounts of CO2.

We believe that the PPR78 model can be safely used to model CCS processes. Whereas interactions between CO2 and impurities were thoroughly described in this chapter, interac‐ tions between impurities themselves were not (and are still present in multicomponent mixtures). A proof that a similar quality of predictions can actually be obtained is given in some of the papers mentioned in the bibliographic section [3, 6, 7-9, 13, 15, 17].

Finally, as a limitation on the use of the PPR78 model, some molecules such as NH3, SO2 or NOx cannot be presently described by the model. The PPR78 model is currently still under development by its authors and the missing groups should be added in the near future.

## **Author details**

Romain Privat and Jean-Noël Jaubert

Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Industries Chimiques, Université de Lorraine, LRGP (Labo‐ ratoire Réactions et Génie des Procédés), Nancy, France

## **References**

17

Although this chapter shows phase-equilibrium predictions obtained with the PPR78 EoS over the whole composition range (i.e., from CO2-rich to CO2-poor mixtures), CCS processes essentially involve mixtures containing high proportion of CO2 and small fractions of impur‐

Because PPR78's authors did not want to limit the range of applicability of their model, the A and B parameters involved in the *k*ij-estimation formula (see Equation (5)) were fitted on all the data we could find in the open literature. Nevertheless, as shown in this chapter, good to excellent predictions can still be obtained for mixtures containing large amounts of CO2.

We believe that the PPR78 model can be safely used to model CCS processes. Whereas interactions between CO2 and impurities were thoroughly described in this chapter, interac‐ tions between impurities themselves were not (and are still present in multicomponent mixtures). A proof that a similar quality of predictions can actually be obtained is given in

Finally, as a limitation on the use of the PPR78 model, some molecules such as NH3, SO2 or NOx cannot be presently described by the model. The PPR78 model is currently still under development by its authors and the missing groups should be added in the near future.

some of the papers mentioned in the bibliographic section [3, 6, 7-9, 13, 15, 17].

This chapter has demonstrated that the PPR78 model is capable of predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of mixtures containing carbon dioxide, light alkanes, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen and water with good accuracy. This model can also be used to perform energy balance calculations and can be successfully extended to multicomponent mixtures.

**100.0 200.0 300.0**

Figure 10. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Zhou et al.'s natural gas predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

**Figure 10.** Solid line: (P, T) phase envelopes of Zhou et al.'s natural gas predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimen‐

This chapter has demonstrated that the PPR78 model is capable of predicting the phase equilibrium behavior of mixtures containing carbon dioxide, light alkanes, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen and water with good accuracy. This model can also be used to perform energy balance calculations and can be successfully extended to multicomponent mixtures.

P 1.2 bar 1.5 %

points are located in the vicinity of the cricondentherm, where the slope of the dew curve is

**N2 = 0.772 mol % CO2 = 1.700 mol % methane = 84.446 mol % ethane = 8.683 mol % propane = 3.297 mol % isobutane = 0.293 mol % n-butane = 0.589 mol % methyl-2 butane = 0.084 mol % n-pentane = 0.086 mol % n-hexane = 0.050 mol %** 

**120.0 160.0 200.0 240.0 280.0**

**T/K**

P 2.5bar

**T/K**

**P/bar**

**T/K**

 **0.0**

Figure 9. Solid line: (P,T) phase envelopes of Jarne et al.'s natural gases predicted with the PPR78 model. +: experimental upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

In 2006, Zhou et al. measured 6 dew point-pressures for a natural gas containing N2, CO2 and 7 alkanes. Figure 10 shows that with an average deviation lower than 1.2 bar (i.e.,

**P/bar N2 = 2.031 mol %** 

**40.0**

**80.0**

very steep.

 **0.0**

*c) Zhou et al.'s fluid.* 

460 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

**6. Conclusion** 

**6. Conclusion**

ities.

 **40.0**

 **80.0**

**120.0 160.0 200.0 240.0**

**P/bar N2 = 1.559 mol %** 

P 1.5bar

1.5%), the PPR78 model is able to accurately predict these data.

**CO2 = 0.403 mol % methane = 90.991 mol % ethane = 2.949 mol % propane = 1.513 mol % isobutane = 0.755 mol % n-butane = 0.755 mol % methyl-2 butane = 0.299 mol % n-pentane = 0.304 mol %** 

 **0.0**

tal upper and lower dew-point pressures. ○: predicted critical point.

 **40.0**

 **80.0**

**CO2 = 25.908 mol % methane = 69.114 mol % ethane = 2.620 mol % propane = 0.423 mol % isobutane = 0.105 mol % n-butane = 0.104 mol % methy-2 butane = 0.034 mol % n-pentane = 0.023 mol % n-hexane = 0.110 mol %** 


calculated through a group contribution method). J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2008;40(9) 1331-1341


calculated through a group contribution method). J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2008;40(9)

[11] Privat, R. & Jaubert, J.N. Addition of the sulfhydryl group (-SH) to the PPR78 model : Estimation of missing group-interaction parameters for systems containing mercap‐ tans and carbon dioxide or nitrogen or methane, from newly published data. Fluid

[12] Jaubert, J.N.; Privat, R. & Mutelet, F. Predicting the phase equilibria of synthetic pe‐

[13] Qian, J.-W., Jaubert, J.-N., Privat, R. Phase equilibria in hydrogen-containing binary systems modeled with the Peng–Robinson equation of state and temperature-de‐ pendent binary interaction parameters calculated through a group-contribution

[14] Qian, J.-W., Jaubert, J.-N., Privat, R. Prediction of the phase behavior of alkene-con‐ taining binary systems with the PPR78 model. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2013;54 12–235

[15] Qian, J.-W., Privat, R., Jaubert, J.-N. Predicting the phase equilibria, critical phenom‐ ena and mixing enthalpies of binary aqueous systems containing alkanes, cycloal‐ kanes, aromatics, alkenes and gases (N2, CO2, H2S, H2) with the PPR78 equation of

[16] Privat, R. & Jaubert, J.N. Classification of global fluid-phase equilibrium behaviors in binary systems. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2013; 91 1807-1839 [17] Qian, J.-W., Privat, R., Jaubert, J.-N, Duchet-Suchaux, P. Prediction of enthalpy and heat capacity changes on mixing by means of the PPR78 (Predictive Peng-Robinson,

[18] Jaubert, J.-N. & Privat, R. Relationship between the binary interaction parameters (kij) of the Peng-Robinson and those of the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equations of state : Application to the definition of the PR2SRK model. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2010;

1978) cubic equation of state. Energy and Fuels 2013; 27 7150−7178.

troleum fluids with the PPR78 approach. AIChE J. 2010;56(12) 3225-3235

1331-1341

462 CO2 Sequestration and Valorization

295(1) 26–37.

Phase Equilibria. 2012;334 197-203

method. J. of Supercritical Fluids 2013;75 58–71

state. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013; 52 16457−16490.
