Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

A Molecular Dynamics Study of the Influence of Low-Dosage Methanol on Hydrate Formation in Seawater and Pure Water Metastable Solutions of Methane

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

29 August 2024

Posted:

30 August 2024

You are already at the latest version

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Abstract
The behavior of low concentrations of methanol (0.5 and 1.0 wt%) as a promoter for hydrate formation in seawater or pure water metastable solutions of methane was investigated using the classical molecular dynamics method at moderate temperature and pressure. The influence of methanol on the dynamics of the re-arrangement of the hydrogen bond network in seawater and pure water solutions of methane was studied by calculating the order parameters of the tetrahedral environment and intermolecular torsion angles for water molecules, as well as by calculating the number of hydrogen bonds, hydrate and hydrate-like cavities. It was found that hydrate nucleation can be considered a collective process in which the rate of hydrate growth is faster in systems with low concentrations of methanol and confident hydrate growth begins earlier in a metastable solution without sea salt with a small amount of methanol than in systems without methanol.
Keywords: 
gas hydrates
;  
nucleation mechanism
;  
seawater
;  
intramolecular hydrogen bonds
;  
computer simulation
Subject: 
Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Materials Science and Technology

supplementary.bin (550.95KB )

1. Introduction

The development of offshore oil and gas fields located far from the coastline is currently intensifying, which makes the ocean an even more important source of vital resources for humanity [1,2]. Exploration and utilization of such fields require different approaches and technical solutions due to the more severe conditions at greater depths than those used in modern offshore development. High pressure and low water temperature on the seabed are conducive to the formation of clathrate hydrates [3] of simplest hydrocarbons, such as methane, etc., which in turn creates additional challenges for deep-sea drilling. Due to the formation of hydrates under these circumstances, almost any gas released during drilling or other operations can lead to rapid plugging of the well or blocking of free access. Hydrate decomposition can also result in the formation of large quantities of gas, disrupting the operation of the installations. Thus, there are significant risks in the development and operation of deep-water oil and gas wells associated with the formation of hydrates. This requires the ability to control the process [4,5].
Despite these problems, a distinctive feature of gas hydrates is the high content of gas in their structure, which can be used for gas storage (including natural gas, carbon dioxide and hydrogen) and transportation purposes, seawater desalination, and other applications. However, the slow kinetics of hydrate formation remains a major challenge for the large-scale use of hydrates; it highly depends on the temperature and pressure, the ratio of the components and the presence of promoters or inhibitors. Many mechanical, chemical and other types of promoters affecting the thermodynamics and kinetics of the hydrate formation process have been proposed [6] to solve this problem.
The most common chemical promoters are tetrahydrofuran (THF), cyclopentane, quaternary salts and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). At the same time, methanol is often considered as an inhibitor that increases pressure and reduces the temperature of hydrate formation [7]. However, previous work [8] has shown that thermodynamic inhibitors can act as catalysts for hydrate formation; methanol creates a film at the interface, which significantly accelerates gas absorption into the condensed phase by reducing the interfacial free energy barrier and breaking hydrogen bonds [9]. This decrease in energy reduces the nucleation barrier and induction time [10].
Thus, methanol can be considered as a surfactant for two-phase systems [11,12]. The most effective methanol concentration varies depending on the type of gas, the degree of subcooling of the system, and other conditions. For example, for methane, the optimal concentration of methanol is 5 wt%. For a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, it is 1 wt% [12]. It has been shown that even a small amount of methanol, 0.016 wt%, increases the rate of propane absorption and reduces the initial pressure required for producing hydrate from ice [13]. In this case, the effect is most pronounced in aerosol systems [14], where the ratio of surface area to volume is maximized and hydrate growth occurs at a sub-second timescale, as well as in systems where the layer of water suitable for dissolving methane is thin [8]. The experimental contribution to a study on the effect of methanol in volume [15] revealed that the addition 1 wt% of methanol to the reactor accelerates the formation of methane hydrate at very late stages (after several hours). The theoretical contribution to this study showed a slight increase in the rate of hydrate growth from a homogeneous water-methane solution with 1 wt% methanol from the beginning of the simulation.
Reducing the hydrate formation pressure is also important. An increase in the methane concentration [16] and a decrease in the formation pressure [17] down to atmospheric pressure [18] can be achieved using the nano-confinement effect or foam [19]. In the works [20,21], the possibility of formation of O2, Ar, N2 and CO hydrates from a solid solution at pressures below the hydrate formation pressure has been shown. A supersaturated methane solution at a certain gas concentration can transform into hydrate-like structures at moderate temperature and pressure [22]. The growth of hydrate structures is associated with a high gas content in the aqueous phase and the large entropy contribution of guest molecules located in the hydrate lattice is associated with the free energy of the hydrate phase. This contribution is enough to transform the hydrogen bond network of the liquid solution into that of the hydrate, leading to the formation of both fluctuating and stable hydrate cavities.
Because of its simplicity and availability, methanol can serve to break down natural gas hydrates in marine and permafrost environments, extract natural gas, and promote the formation of carbon dioxide hydrate for disposal at sea (so-called CH4-CO2 swapping). Under such conditions, the properties of methanol are comparable to those of other widely used surface-active chemicals, such as methionine and SDS [12,23]. Therefore, it is important to determine the kinetic properties of methanol in order to develop an effective inhibition method [24], including in seawater. A thermodynamic description of the influence of low-molecular-weight alcohols on gas dissolution [9] and hydrate formation acceleration [11,25] has been described, but the mechanism by which methanol influences the process of hydrate formation is still poorly understood.
The main aim of this work is to study the influence of methanol molecules on the kinetics of methane gas hydrate formation and the concomitant rearrangement of the network of hydrogen bonds of the water molecules that form the crystalline structure of the hydrate.

2. Computational Methods

The MD method (LAMMPS software package [26]) was used in this study. Using the PackMol package [27] a series of models of homogeneous aqueous solutions was created, consisting of 3600 water molecules, 250 methane molecules, 36 Na+Cl− ion pairs (the concentration of sea salt in seawater) and 0, 10 and 20 methanol molecules, which corresponds to 0, 0.5 and 1.0 wt% methanol in relation to water molecules only. The initial positions and rotational angles of the molecules in all model systems were randomly determined, which made it possible to achieve a uniform distribution throughout the volume. Generated structures and LAMMPS input scripts are presented in Supplementary Materials.
It is important to note that the initial system created in this way is supersaturated. Usually, supersaturation created for example by high pressure [6] is considered as a driving force for the hydrate formation. However, in our system, it exceeds the experimentally observed values. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of hydrate formation studied remain the same as in experimentally achievable cases.
To reduce stochasticity in hydrate formation, a series of three models with different initial particle distributions in space were created for each methanol concentration and sea salt concentration. The results presented are the averages of the results from each series.
Water molecules were described by the TIP4P/Ice potential [28], which has a melting line for ice that is very close to the experimental data. Depending on the calculation method the TIP4P/Ice model melting point could be varied from 268(2) to 272(6) K [29], however according to [29] it is reasonable to assume this point is 269.1 K. All other molecules were described using the OPLS-UA model [30].
In our previous work [22] we have observed methane hydrate formation at 270K and 1bar. In this work we have chosen the same conditions except for pressure due to the presence of sea salt, whereigher value of pressure should not inhibit the hydrate growth. Thus, all the simulations were performed at 270 K and 5 bar in the NPT ensemble with a 2 fs timestep. This temperature selection should prevent the Ih ice formation. Thermostat and barostat [31, 32] dumping parameters were chosen to be 300 and 3000 fs, respectively. The selected temperature corresponds to the liquid phase and is close to the melting point [33]. A more detailed description of the calculation procedure can be found in our previous work [22].
To analyze the structure of the solution, the number of hydrogen bonds was calculated using the geometric criterion (ROO ≤ 3.2 Å and ∠HOH ≤ 30° [34]), tetrahedrality order parameter F3 (F3_crystal ≈ 0 and F3_liquid ≈ 0.1 [35]) and torsion angle order parameter F4 (F4_ice ≈ –0.4, F4_liquid ≈ –0.04 and F4_hydrate ≈ 0.7 [36]). Hydrogen bonds that existed for more than 1 ns were considered long-lived. To study the early stages of hydrate formation, a search for methane hydrate cavities (512 and 51262) and topologically similar cavities (51263, 51264, 4151062, 4151063, 4151064) was carried out by searching for polygons formed by four, five, or six water molecules connected by hydrogen bonds. This could be divided into a few steps: (i) build a hydrogen bond network graph; (ii) search for closed polygons; (iii) search for common edges in order to build the polygon connectivity graph; (iv) search for closed polyhedral structures using the connectivity graph; (v) check for guest molecule occupation. This algorithm, implemented in our own software, allows us to find the cavities discussed above.

3. Results and Discussion

To understand the effect of methanol on the structure of the solution at moderate temperatures and pressures, the dynamics of the rearrangement of hydrogen bonding networks in methane solutions based on pure water and seawater was studied.
Figure 1a shows the series-averaged number of hydrogen bonds (NH-bond) normalized to the number of molecules (NMol) as a function of time at moderate temperature and pressure (non-averaged values are given in Supplementary Figure S1a,b). An increase in the NH-bond/NMol ratio indicates a crystal-like ordering of the hydrogen bond network, because crystalline phases of water and hydrates have NH-bond/NMol = 2. The addition of sea salt reduces this ratio by several percent, as the sodium and chlorine ions are able to orient neighboring water molecules towards themselves, reducing the total number of available hydrogen bonds for water molecule formation. In the systems based on pure water without methanol, growth occurs faster during the first 150 ns, after which systems containing 0.5 wt% show faster growth rates. In the systems with sea salt, the increase in the number of hydrogen bonds occurs most actively without methanol during the first 200 ns. After that the rate of increase in the number of hydrogen bonds becomes higher for the systems containing methanol.
The growth of solid structures at moderate temperature and pressure in solution is evidenced by the formation of long-lived hydrogen bonds. Figure 1b shows the time dependence of the series-averaged number of these bonds (NLLHb) normalized to NMol (non-averaged values are given in Supplementary Figure S1c,d). The main difference between Figure 1a and 1b is that, in the systems based on pure water, the rate of formation of solid structures in the presence of methanol is significantly higher than without it. However, in seawater, a small amount of methanol slows the rate of solidification of the solution during the first 100 ns, but further simulation shows an increase and that exceeds the growth rate of solid structures. Adding more methanol inhibits the formation of hydrates at temperatures above 0 °C [37,38].
Despite the faster initial increase in the number of hydrogen bonds in the methanol-free systems based on pure water and seawater, faster short-range tetrahedral ordering of the water molecules (F3) does not occur in the methanol-free systems based on pure water at moderate temperature and pressure (Figure 2a, non-averaged values are given in Supplementary Figure S2a,b). The tendency towards greater ordering sharpens after 50 ns in pure water and after 150 ns in the seawater systems with methanol. Tetrahedral ordering is more pronounced in systems with 0.5 wt% methanol, followed by 1.0 wt%.
The presence of sea salt initially disrupts the hydrogen bond network by ~0.06, but over time this difference decreases slightly. In this case, the pattern of the ordering is similar. Due to the presence in the solution of both gas (with an insufficient amount for the transition of the entire system to the hydrate phase) and methanol, these order parameter values do not reach the reference ones.
The series-averaged order parameter F4 (Figure 2b, non-averaged values are given in Supplementary Figure S2c,d) behaves similarly to F3. However, for all systems, the initial values correspond to the reference value for liquid water. The values of F4 do not reach the reference value of the hydrate because of the small amount of dissolved methane, as in the case of F3. Over time, the behavior of methanol as a promoter can be seen in all systems.
The presence of salt in systems without methanol leads to faster ordering of the system at moderate temperature and pressure. However, the effect of NaCl as a promoter has been shown at lower salt concentrations in other works [15,39,40,41]. Analysis of these works and comparison with the current work show that the amount of dissolved gas is important for the manifestation of the promoting effect. NaCl appears to have such a significant promoting effect in this study due to its much lower concentration of gas.
In general, an increase in the value of F4 and a decrease in F3 indicate the formation of hydrate-like structures. The most indicative parameter describing the hydrate-likeness of the resulting structure is the time dependence of the series-averaged number of hydrate cavities (NCav) filled with methane, which is shown in Figure 3a. (Non-averaged values are given in Supplementary Figure S3a,b.) The number of empty cages for all models and runs does exceed 2 cavities during this stage of hydrate formation, when an amorphous hydrate is formed [41]. Figure 3a shows that the presence of methanol in methane solution in non-marine water results in an increase in the number of cavities by 40-60%, while in seawater the increase is 0-15%, depending on the concentration of methanol. The addition of salt to the methanol-free systems results in an increase in the number of cavities by ~40%. This is further evidence that salt promotes hydrate formation. In the systems containing methanol, the addition of sea salts results in a reduction in cavity number by ~20% at 0.5 wt% of methanol and an increase by ~12% at 1 wt%. The systems with 0.5 wt% and 1 wt % of methanol form the largest number of cavities over the course of the simulation, suggesting the presence of promoting properties at moderate temperature and pressure. The induction times in our type of system are ~40, 20 and 23 ns for the pure water-based systems with methanol concentration growth and ~18, 24 and 113 ns for the seawater-based systems. The presence of methanol in the pure water-based systems shows a statistical reduction in the induction time.
Figure 3b shows an example of a hydrate-like structure formed in the system with 1 wt% methanol and sea salt. The formation of cavities that are unusual for a hydrate with a certain structure is quite typical of the process of hydrate formation during the amorphous hydrate stage (polycrystal [43]), which explains the presence of 51263 and 51264 cavities.
Despite its indicative nature, the NCav parameter is the least sensitive to changes occurring in the system. For example, the parameter F4 or the number of hydrogen bonds begins to change much earlier than the detection time of the first cavities, indicating a collective rearrangement of the hydrogen bond network prior to the onset of hydrate formation [22,43].
The presence of methanol, on average, reduces the induction time for pure water solutions and results in slightly higher hydrate growth rates for all types of water in long-term simulations. This increase in hydrate growth rate is consistent with the results of [15]. However, the presence of sea salt can make methanol ineffective in the initial stages at 0.5 wt%, while sea salt itself acts as a weak promoter in systems of this type.
The nature of the methanol promoting effect could be associated with higher methane diffusion caused by the presence of methanol [45,46]. A decrease in induction time may be due to earlier formation of hydrate nuclei caused by an increase in the local methane concentration due to accelerated diffusion of methane molecules.
Our results are in qualitative agreement with the results of other studies [47,48], which showed a decrease in hydrate nucleation stochasticity with the addition of methanol. However, in this case, we can discuss an average reduction in induction time in solutions containing methanol based on pure water under moderate temperatures and pressures.

5. Conclusions

We carried out a study on the influence of low concentrations of methanol on the process of formation of methane hydrates from a metastable supersaturated solution based on seawater and pure water under moderate temperature and pressure conditions. This process was characterized by calculating the number of normal and long-lived hydrogen bonds, and order parameters. The number of different hydrate and hydrate-like cavities characteristic of the early stages of hydrate formation was also studied. It was shown that the hydrate growth process in this case is collective, and the presence of methanol and sea salt could increase the number of cavities formed over the certain time during this process in agreement with previous studies [49,50]. In the presence of methanol without sea salt, a decrease in induction time is also observed. The observed here hydrate formation promoting properties of NaCl are associated with a low concentration of dissolved methane, in contrast to other studies. The promoting properties of methanol do not appear immediately, but only at a later stage, when the residual methane concentration in the liquid phase becomes low, requiring more time for the transport of methane to the hydrate surface. This process is limited by diffusion, which can be affected by methanol disrupting the network of hydrogen bonds.
The obtained results are fundamental for understanding the effect of methanol on the properties of the hydrogen bond network in seawater and the hydrate formation process. These results can be taken into account when developing technologies based on gas hydrates and seawater, e.g. the methane extraction and the carbon dioxide utilization. This work is essential for studying the mechanism of hydrate formation under moderate conditions discovered in experiments, where a homogeneous supersaturated gas phase is created.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Figure S1: Time dependence of the the normalized numbers of (a,b) hydrogen bonds NH-bond/NMol and (c,d) long-lived hydrogen bonds NLLHb/NMol in (a,c) pure and (b,d) seawater-based solutions.; Figure S2: Time dependence of the order parameters (a,b) F3 and (c,d) F4 in methane solutions based on (a,c) pure and (b,d) sea water.; Figure S3: Time dependence of the number of cavities NCav in solutions based on (a) pure and (b) sea water.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.R.B. and R.V.B.; methodology, V.R.B.; software, K.V.G. and R.K.Z.; validation, K.V.G., R.K.Z. and Y.Y.B.; formal analysis, Y.Y.B and R.V.B; writing—original draft preparation, V.R.B; writing—review and editing, K.V.G., R.K.Z R.V.B., V.R.B., Y.Y.B; visualization, K.V.G. and R.K.Z.; supervision, V.R.B.; project administration, V.R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 22-19-00428, https://rscf.ru/project/22-19-00428/.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author by request.

Acknowledgments

R.B.V is grateful to the E-IMR Center at the Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku University. The authors are also thankful to Prof. T.M. Briere for carefully reading this manuscript. V.R.B., K.V.G., Z.R.K. and Y.Y.B. are grateful to the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 22-19-00428.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Seyyedattar, M.; Zendehboudi, S.; Butt, S. Technical and Non-Technical Challenges of Development of Offshore Petroleum Reservoirs: Characterization and Production. Nat. Resour. Res. 2020, 29, 2147–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fraser, G.S. Impacts of Offshore Oil and Gas Development on Marine Wildlife Resources. In Peak Oil, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation; Gates, J.E., Trauger, D.L., Czech, B., Eds.; Springer New York: New York, NY, 2014; pp. 191–217. ISBN 978-1-4939-1953-6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sloan, E.D.; Koh, C.A. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases; Chemical industries; 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4200-0849-4. [Google Scholar]
  4. Millett, J.M.; Wilkins, A.D.; Campbell, E.; Hole, M.J.; Taylor, R.A.; Healy, D.; Jerram, D.A.; Jolley, D.W.; Planke, S.; Archer, S.G.; et al. The Geology of Offshore Drilling through Basalt Sequences: Understanding Operational Complications to Improve Efficiency. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2016, 77, 1177–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhiyuan, W.; Jianbo, Z.; Wenbo, M.; Baojiang, S.; Jinsheng, S.; Jintang, W.; Dahui, L.; Jinbo, W. Formation, Deposition Characteristics and Prevention Methods of Gas Hydrates in Deepwater Gas Wells. Acta Petrolei Sinca 2021, 42, 776–790. [Google Scholar]
  6. Xia, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, Z.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, C.; Yan, K. Review of Methods and Applications for Promoting Gas Hydrate Formation Process. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2022, 101, 104528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carroll, J. Inhibiting Hydrate Formation with Chemicals. In Natural Gas Hydrates; Elsevier, 2020; pp. 163–208 ISBN 978-0-12-821771-9.
  8. McLaurin, G.; Shin, K.; Alavi, S.; Ripmeester, J.A. Antifreezes Act as Catalysts for Methane Hydrate Formation from Ice. Angew. Chem. Int. ed 2014, 126, 10597–10601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kvamme, B.; Selvåg, J.; Saeidi, N.; Kuznetsova, T. Methanol as a Hydrate Inhibitor and Hydrate Activator. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2018, 20, 21968–21987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nguyen, N.N.; Nguyen, A.V.; Dang, L.X. The Inhibition of Methane Hydrate Formation by Water Alignment underneath Surface Adsorption of Surfactants. Fuel 2017, 197, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kvamme, B. Small Alcohols as Surfactants and Hydrate Promotors. Fluids 2021, 6, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pandey, J.; Khan, S.; von Solms, N. Screening of Low-Dosage Methanol as a Hydrate Promoter. Energies 2022, 15, 6814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Amtawong, J.; Guo, J.; Hale, J.S.; Sengupta, S.; Fleischer, E.B.; Martin, R.W.; Janda, K.C. Propane Clathrate Hydrate Formation Accelerated by Methanol. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 2346–2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Devlin, J.P. Catalytic Activity of Methanol in All-Vapor Subsecond Clathrate-Hydrate Formation. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 140, 164505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Choudhary, N.; Kushwaha, O.S.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Chakrabarty, S.; Kumar, R. Molecular Dynamics Simulation and Experimental Study on the Growth of Methane Hydrate in Presence of Methanol and Sodium Chloride. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 5026–5033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Both, A.K.; Gao, Y.; Zeng, X.C.; Cheung, C.L. Gas Hydrates in Confined Space of Nanoporous Materials: New Frontier in Gas Storage Technology. Nanoscale 2021, 13, 7447–7470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Casco, M.E.; Silvestre-Albero, J.; Ramírez-Cuesta, A.J.; Rey, F.; Jordá, J.L.; Bansode, A.; Urakawa, A.; Peral, I.; Martínez-Escandell, M.; Kaneko, K.; et al. Methane Hydrate Formation in Confined Nanospace Can Surpass Nature. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yu, K.B.; Yazaydin, A.O. Does Confinement Enable Methane Hydrate Growth at Low Pressures? Insights from Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Phys. Chem. C 2020, 124, 11015–11022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhu, J.; Peng, Y.; Li, Z.; Xie, N.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, Y. Study on Hydrate Formation and Absorption Effect in LNG-High Expansion Foam System. Fuel 2023, 336, 126754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hallbrucker, A.; Mayer, E. Unexpectedly stable nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide and argon clathrate hydrates from vapour-deposited amorphous solid water: an X-ray and two-step differential scanning calorimetry study. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1990, 86, 3785–3792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hallbrucker, A.; Mayer, E. Unexpectedly stable clathrate hydrates formed from microporous vapor-deposited amorphous solid water at low “external” guest pressures and their astrophysical implications. Icarus 1991, 90, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Belosludov, R.V.; Gets, K.V.; Zhdanov, R.K.; Bozhko, Y.Y.; Belosludov, V.R.; Chen, L.-J.; Kawazoe, Y. Molecular Dynamics Study of Clathrate-like Ordering of Water in Supersaturated Methane Solution at Low Pressure. Molecules 2023, 28, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pandey, J.S.; Karantonidis, C.; Karcz, A.P.; von Solms, N. Enhanced CH4-CO2 Hydrate Swapping in the Presence of Low Dosage Methanol. Energies 2020, 13, 5238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, L.; Yan, Y.; Xu, J.; Zhong, J. New Insights into the Kinetic Effects of CH3OH on Methane Hydrate Nucleation. Energy 2023, 263, 125824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kvamme, B. Small Alcohols as Hydrate Promoters. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 17663–17684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Plimpton, S. Fast Parallel Algorithms for Short-Range Molecular Dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 1995, 117, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Martínez, L.; Andrade, R.; Birgin, E.G.; Martínez, J.M. P ACKMOL : A Package for Building Initial Configurations for Molecular Dynamics Simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 2157–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Abascal, J.L.F.; Sanz, E.; García Fernández, R.; Vega, C. A Potential Model for the Study of Ices and Amorphous Water: TIP4P/Ice. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 122, 234511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bore, S. L.; Piaggi, P. M.; Car, R.; Paesani, F. Phase diagram of the TIP4P/Ice water model by enhanced sampling simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 157, 054504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jorgensen, W.L.; Maxwell, D.S.; Tirado-Rives, J. Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational Energetics and Properties of Organic Liquids. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 11225–11236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nosé, S. A Molecular Dynamics Method for Simulations in the Canonical Ensemble. Mol. Phys. 1984, 52, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hoover, W.G. Canonical Dynamics: Equilibrium Phase-Space Distributions. Phys. Rev. A 1985, 31, 1695–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. García Fernández, R.; Abascal, J. L.; Vega, C. The melting point of ice Ih for common water models calculated from direct coexistence of the solid-liquid interface. J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 124, 144506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Belosludov, V.; Gets, K.; Zhdanov, R.; Malinovsky, V.; Bozhko, Y.; Belosludov, R.; Surovtsev, N.; Subbotin, O.; Kawazoe, Y. The Nano-Structural Inhomogeneity of Dynamic Hydrogen Bond Network of TIP4P/2005 Water. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Báez, L.A.; Clancy, P. Computer Simulation of the Crystal Growth and Dissolution of Natural Gas Hydrates a. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1994, 715, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gao, F.; Gupta, K.M.; Yuan, S.; Jiang, J. Decomposition of CH 4 Hydrate: Effects of Temperature and Salt from Molecular Simulations. Mol. Simul. 2018, 44, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Su, Z.; Alavi, S.; Ripmeester, J.A.; Wolosh, G.; Dias, C.L. Methane Clathrate Formation Is Catalyzed and Kinetically Inhibited by the Same Molecule: Two Facets of Methanol. J. Phys. Chem. B 2021, 125, 4162–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Qi, Y.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Su, X.; Guo, Y. Study of the Formation of Hydrates with NaCl, Methanol Additive, and Quartz Sand Particles. JMSE 2024, 12, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jia, H.; Fan, F.; Wang, Q.; Shen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Sun, H.; Pei, P.; Li, C.; Lv, K.; Huang, P. Molecular Insights into the Dual Promotion–Inhibition Effects of NaCl at Various Concentrations on the CO2 Hydrate Growth: A Molecular Simulation Study. Langmuir 2024, 40, 9012–9019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nguyen, N.N.; Nguyen, A.V. Recent Insights into the Anomalous Dual Nature (Both Promotion and Inhibition) of Chemical Additives on Gas Hydrate Formation. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 475, 146362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xu, J.; Du, S.; Hao, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, J. Molecular Simulation Study of Methane Hydrate Formation Mechanism in NaCl Solutions with Different Concentrations. Chem. Phys. 2021, 551, 111323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lauricella, M.; Meloni, S.; English, N.J.; Peters, B.; Ciccotti, G. Methane Clathrate Hydrate Nucleation Mechanism by Advanced Molecular Simulations. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 22847–22857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jacobson, L.C.; Hujo, W.; Molinero, V. Amorphous Precursors in the Nucleation of Clathrate Hydrates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 11806–11811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Belosludov, V.R.; Gets, K.V.; Zhdanov, R.K.; Bozhko, Yu.Yu.; Belosludov, R.V.; Chen, L.-J. Collective Effect of Transformation of a Hydrogen Bond Network at the Initial State of Growth of Methane Hydrate. Jetp Lett. 2022, 115, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Choudhary, N.; Kushwaha, O. S.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Chakrabarty, S.; Kumar, R. Macro and molecular level insights on gas hydrate growth in the presence of Hofmeister salts. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 20591–20600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, Z.; Shi, D.; Hei, Y.; Sun, X.; Chen, J.; Lv, Q.; Li, X.; Hou, X.; Xiao, Y. Effects of different concentrations of methanol on the decomposition of methane hydrate: insights from molecular dynamics simulations. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 7283–7290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Semenov, A.P.; Tulegenov, T.B.; Mendgaziev, R.I.; Stoporev, A.S.; Istomin, V.A.; Vinokurov, V.A. Effect of Methanol on the Kinetics of Nucleation and Growth of Methane Hydrate. Chem Technol Fuels Oils 2023, 59, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Semenov, A.P.; Tulegenov, T.B.; Mendgaziev, R.I.; Stoporev, A.S.; Istomin, V.A.; Sergeeva, D.V.; Lednev, D.A.; Vinokurov, V.A. Dual Nature of Methanol as a Thermodynamic Inhibitor and Kinetic Promoter of Methane Hydrate Formation in a Wide Concentration Range. J. Mol. Liq. 2024, 403, 124780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sowa, B.; Zhang, X. H.; Hartley, P. G.; Dunstan, D. E.; Kozielski, K. A.; Maeda, N. Formation of ice, tetrahydrofuran hydrate, and methane/propane mixed gas hydrates in strong monovalent salt solutions. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 6877–6888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sowa, B.; Zhang, X. H.; Kozielski, K. A.; Hartley, P. G.; Dunstan, D. E.; Maeda, N. Nucleation Probability Distributions of Methane−Propane Mixed Gas Hydrates in Salt Solutions and Urea. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 6259–6270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 116643 g001
Figure 1. Time dependence of the averaged values of the normalized numbers of (a) hydrogen bonds NH-bond/NMol and (b) long-lived hydrogen bonds NLLHb/NMol in pure water and seawater-based solutions.
Figure 1. Time dependence of the averaged values of the normalized numbers of (a) hydrogen bonds NH-bond/NMol and (b) long-lived hydrogen bonds NLLHb/NMol in pure water and seawater-based solutions.
Preprints 116643 g001
Preprints 116643 g002
Figure 2. Time dependence of the averaged values of the order parameters (a) F3 and (b) F4 in methane solutions based on pure water and seawater.
Figure 2. Time dependence of the averaged values of the order parameters (a) F3 and (b) F4 in methane solutions based on pure water and seawater.
Preprints 116643 g002
Preprints 116643 g003
Figure 3. (a) Time dependence of the average number of cavities NCav in solutions based on pure and seawater. (b) Spatial distribution of cavities: 512 (orange), 51262 (red), 51263 and 51264 (blue), as well as topologically similar cavities (light blue), Na+ ions (cyan), Cl− ions (pink), and methanol (gray).
Figure 3. (a) Time dependence of the average number of cavities NCav in solutions based on pure and seawater. (b) Spatial distribution of cavities: 512 (orange), 51262 (red), 51263 and 51264 (blue), as well as topologically similar cavities (light blue), Na+ ions (cyan), Cl− ions (pink), and methanol (gray).
Preprints 116643 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Downloads

93

Views

49

Comments

0

Subscription

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

Email

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated