See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301708559

Densities and derived thermophysical properties of the 0.9505 CO2 + 0.0495

H2S mixture from 273 K to 353 K and pressures up to 41 MPa

Article in Fluid Phase Equilibria · April 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2016.04.024

CITATIONS READS

27 706

5 authors, including:

Mahmoud Nazeri Antonin Chapoy

Imperial College London Heriot-Watt University
21 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS 199 PUBLICATIONS 4,885 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christophe Coquelet Bahman Tohidi

MINES ParisTech Heriot-Watt University
278 PUBLICATIONS 3,583 CITATIONS 362 PUBLICATIONS 9,881 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance of Flow Meters with Dense Phase CO2 and CCS Recovery Streams View project

Thermophysical properties of working fluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Nazeri on 24 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Densities and derived thermophysical properties of the 0.9505 CO2 + 0.0495
H2S mixture from 273 K to 353 K and pressures up to 41 MPa

Mahmoud Nazeria*, Antonin Chapoya,b*, Alain Valtzb, Christophe Coqueletb, Bahman Tohidia

a
Hydrates, Flow Assurance & Phase Equilibria Research Group, Institute of Petroleum
Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
b
MINES ParisTech PSL Research University, CTP-Centre of Thermodynamics of Processes,
35, Rue Saint Honoré, 77305 Fontainebleau, France
* Corresponding Authors: Antonin Chapoy (Antonin.chapoy@pet.hw.ac.uk)
Mahmoud Nazeri (m.nazeri@hw.ac.uk)

ABSTRACT
From the development of sour reserves and acid gas injection into oil reservoirs to the impact
of hydrogen sulfide in CCS scheme, knowledge of the phase behaviour and thermophysical
properties of the hydrogen sulfide + carbon dioxide is essential. Due to the toxicity of CO2 -
H2S system, there are few experimental data available in the literature. The aim of this work is
to investigate the densities and thermodynamic properties of acid gases and liquids. Densities
of the 95.05 mol% CO2 + 4.95 mol% H2S binary system were measured continuously using a
high temperature and pressure Vibrating Tube Densitometer (VTD), Anton Paar DMA 512 at
pressures up to 41 MPa at five different temperatures, 273, 283, 298, 323 and 353 K in gas,
liquid and supercritical regions. The specific heat capacity, compressibility factor, dew point
and bubble point of the system have also been derived from the measured density data. The
experimental data then were employed to evaluate the GERG-2008 equations of state and
classical cubic equations of state (PR, SRK and VPT) with a CO2 volume correction model as
well as volume translation.

Keywords: Density measurement at high pressure, Carbon capture transport and storage, CO2
and H2S, Thermophysical properties, Acid gas injection

1
1. Introduction

One of the most common impurities in natural gas is carbon dioxide. Most reservoirs around
the world contain carbon dioxide. For instance, one of the biggest sour gas resources in Prudhoe
Bay Alaska with more than 20 trillion cubic feet associated gas (with the oil) contains roughly
12 mol% carbon dioxide and over 10 ppmv hydrogen sulfide. Similar acid gas content can be
found in the Tangguh field in the South-East Asia, Indonesia. The In Salah gas field in Algeria
also contains around10 mol% CO2. In the Middle East, there are some sour gas fields typically
containing 3 mol% H2S and 5 mol% CO2. A comprehensive survey by Weeks et al. [1] shows
that acid gas content composition can span from a few ppm to 90 mol% for carbon dioxide and
from 0 to 60 mol% for hydrogen sulfide.

CO2 content in natural gas pipelines should not be more than a specific amount which is
typically 2 - 2.5 mol%. Any extra carbon dioxide from natural gas reservoirs, therefore, should
be first removed and then transported to either re-injection to oil fields for enhanced oil
recovery or should be stored in a depleted formations (e.g., Sleipner field [2] in the Norwegian
North Sea or aquifer in In Salah gas field [3] in Algeria).

Sour gas and oil fields contain CO2 and H2S which should be removed from the produced oil
or gas before sending to markets [4]. The desulphurisation process is costly and acid gas
injection is seen as an alternative environmentally friendly method to deal with the toxic acid
gases [5]. In the sweetening process of natural gas or oil produced, H2S and CO2 can be
removed by different processes, e.g., using amine. The gas off the amine regenerator can be
transported by pipelines to an injection well to be stored in geological basins[6]. The
knowledge of phase equilibria [7][8] and thermophysical properties [9] of acid gases and
liquids, particularly density [10], are essential to the design considerations of acid gas injection
schemes [11][12].

CCS technology can provide a potential to cut/reduce the large scale release of CO2 emissions.
The process comprises three main steps: capture, transport and storage. Three capturing
technologies are under development: pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-fuel
combustion. The aim of each capturing technology is to capture CO2, preventing it from release
to the atmosphere, following this to transport it to a suitable place of storage. However, the
CO2 coming from capture processes will contain a range of impurities as none of the
technologies are efficient enough to produce pure CO2 [13]. The concentration and type of the
impurities will depends on many factors like fuel type, capture technology and the design of

2
the plant [14]. The presence of impurities changes thermophysical properties of the stream such
as density, viscosity, specific heat capacity, compressibility and critical pressure, which can
have a significant effect on the hydraulic behaviour of the CO2 stream. [15]
To understand thermodynamic properties of different CO2-mixtures, study of Equations of
State (EoS) is extremely important. In literature several references are available on EoS
suitable/used for CO2 and CO2 mixtures [16] [17] [18] [19], nevertheless a suitable equation of
state for mixtures in appropriate conditions for pipeline transport, in particular with a high CO2
concentration, has not been clearly defined [20].
The pressure-volume-temperature behaviour, thermal properties and densities of sour
gas/liquid mixtures are essential to proper design of sour natural gas processing units, CO2
transport and injections as well as CCS scheme.

In this communication, new density data are presented for the 0.0495 H2S + 0.9508 CO2 binary
system. In total, five sets of isothermal density data have been measured at 273, 283, 298, 323
and 353 K and pressures up to 41 MPa. The new experimental data are compared to literature
data and predictions using the Peng-Robinson (PR-ES) [21], Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK-
EoS) [22], Valderrama modification of the [23] Patel-Teja (VPT-EoS) [24] equations of state.
The CO2 volume correction [25] and Peneloux volume translation [26] have been introduced
to these equations of state to improve the density prediction. Finally, apart from the cubic
equations of state, the GERG-2008 EoS[27] which a wide-range multi parameter equation of
state proposed, has also been evaluated using the new experimental data.

2. Literature review

Despite the importance of the volumetric behaviour of acid gases and liquids, due to the toxicity
of the system, limited experimental data are available in the literature on the density of CO2-
H2S binary systems. The first study on the pressure-volume-temperature behaviour of the CO2-
H2S systems has been conducted by Bierlein and Kay [28] for the saturated states of eight
mixtures of CO2-H2S from 273.15 K to the critical temperature of hydrogen sulfide. Mole
fractions of CO2 in this study are 0, 0.0630, 0.1614, 0.2608, 0.3759, 0.4728, 0.6659, 0.8292,
0.9009 and 1. Sobocinski and Kurata [29] experimentally studied the CO2-H2S systems at lower
temperatures, i.e., below 273.15 K, to extend the data obtained by Bierlein and Kay [28]. They
studied seven mixtures from the solid-liquid-vapour region to the critical region. A research
report from the Gas Processors Association about thermodynamic properties of CO2-H2S
mixtures [30] includes density measurements for four mixtures. The systems studied by

3
Kellerman et al. [30] were 93.93 mol% CO2 + 6.07 mol% H2S, 90.45 mol% CO2 + 9.55 mol%
H2S, 70.67 mol% CO2 + 29.33 mol% H2S and 50.01 mol% CO2 + 49.99 mol% H2S. They
performed Burnett and Burnett-isochoric measurements for each mixture at temperatures
ranging from 200 K to 450 K and at pressures from 0.1 to 23 MPa. All the results of these
research reports were also published by Stouffer et al. [31]. The data published by Kellerman
et al. [30] have been evaluated using different cubic equations of state by Boyle et al. [32] in
order to simulate natural gas treatment processes. They have compared the SRK, SRK-
Peneloux, PR, PR-Peneloux, PR-Mathias and Patel-Teja (PT) equations of state. The overall
reported Absolute Average Deviations (AAD) were 3.55, 2.64, 2.27, 2.68, 3.28 and 1.82%,
respectively. The original SRK EoS in the vapour region and PT in the liquid and supercritical
regions have the best predictions with the AAE of 0.51, 2.16 and 2.26%, respectively. The
phase behaviour of CO2-H2S has also been studied by Chapoy et al. [33] in order to improve
the design of acid gas injection in CCS scheme. The measurements included VLE tests at
258.41 K, 273.15 K, 293.47 K and 313.02 K at pressures from 1.0 to 5.5 MPa. They also have
mentioned that both PR and SRK equation of states with classical mixing rules and adjusted
binary interaction parameters can predict the phase behaviour of CO2-H2S systems.

3. Experimental part

3.1 Material

Table 1 lists the chemicals used to prepare the binary mixture. To prepare the binary mixture,
first, the component with the lower vapour pressure at laboratory condition was injected to the
pressure vessel. At about 20 °C (293 K), the vapour pressure of H2S and CO2 are 1.78 and 5.73
MPa, respectively. Therefore, for preparing the CO2+H2S mixture, first H2S was injected to the
high pressure vessel. The exact weight of the injected pure component was measured using a
four digit balance (Model: Sartorius) three times. The average of the readings was calculated
and accordingly the calculated amount for the second pure component was injected to the high
pressure vessel. After injecting both pure components, weight percent and mole percent of the
mixture were calculated. The mole percent for H2S was 4.95 mol% with U(z) = 0.008 mol%
and for CO2 was 95.05 mol% with U(z) = 0.286 mol%. The uncertainties are reported with
95% level of confidence, i.e., k=2.

4
 3.2 Equipment description

Densities of CO2-H2S system were measured using a high temperature and pressure Vibrating
Tube Densitometer (VTD), Anton Paar DMA 512 and using forced path mechanical calibration
(FPMC) model which is well described by Bouchot et al. [34], Khalil et al. [35] and Coquelet
et al. [36]. A schematic view of the apparatus is shown in Figure 1. A detailed description of a
typical vibrating-tube densitometer is given by Bouchot and Richon [37]. The main part of the
set-up is the Anton Paar DMA 512 densitometer. The U-shape vibrating tube made from
Hastelloy which can work up to 70 MPa pressure and temperature range of 263.15 K to 423.15
K (-10 °C to 150 °C). Temperature of the densitometer can be set by a liquid bath (model:
Lauda RE206) keeping the temperature stable to ±0.01 K. The setup is fully immersed in a
liquid bath (model: West P6100) to keep the temperature constant during the test. Temperature
in the vibrating tube part and liquid bath is measured using four-wire 100-Ω platinum resistance
probes (Pt100) which were calibrated against a 25-Ω reference thermometer of Tinsley
Precision Instrument. The period of the vibration, τ, is recorded with a HP53131A data
acquisition unit. Three pressure transducers (model: Druck PTX611) with different
complementary ranges of 0-10 MPa, 10-30 MPa and 30-70 MPa were used to record the
pressure data by connection to the HP34970A data acquisition unit. All the parts of the
apparatus are connected together by 1.6 mm (1/16 inch) tubes.

3.3 Calibration procedure

First, three pressure transducers and three temperature sensors were calibrated. The model of
pressure transducers is Druck PTX611 with different ranges of 0-10 MPa, 10-30 MPa and 30-
70 MPa. The pressure transducers were calibrated using an electronic balance GE Sensing
PACE 5000 for pressures up to 20 MPa and a dead weight tester Desgranges & Huot 5202S
for pressures from 20 MPa to 40 MPa. The accuracies on pressure measurements after
calibration are ±0.002, ±0.005 and ±0.005 MPa for the pressure transducers ranging from 0-10
MPa, 10-30 MPa and 30-40 MPa, respectively. Also, two temperature probes in the vibrating
tube part and liquid bath were calibrated against a 25-Ω reference thermometer (model: Tinsley
Precision Instrument). The accuracies on temperature after calibration are estimated to be ±0.02
K.
The Calibration method for the vibrating tube densitometers using a forced path mechanical
calibration (FPMC) model for the Anton Parr DMA 512 densitometer were well described by
Bouchot and Richon [34]. The U-tube of the DMA 512 densimeter cell can be modelled by

5
means of a linear hollow vibrating system whose internal volume is Vi = Vi(T,P) and total
vibrating mass is (M0+ρVi). M0 is the proper mass of the tube under vacuum and ρ the density
of the inner fluid to be determined. This system has a natural transversal stiffness K = K (T, P)
and is vibrating with a period (𝜏) in an undamped harmonic way under the effect of a
mechanical excitation.
The relation between these quantities can be written in the following general form:
 M    K   2  
ρ   0      2   1
 Vi    K 0   o   (1)
where K0 and 𝜏0 are the transversal stiffness and the vibrating period of the evacuated tube,
respectively.
The term K/K0 is calculated as:
3
K I L 
  0
K0 I 0  L  (2)
The first term in the equation above is expressed as:
I r 4 re4  ri 4
 
I 0 r04 re40  ri 40 (3)
In Equation (3), the subscription i and e denotes the internal and external radius, respectively.
The second term of the equation is the relative inverse cubic length change expressed by:
3
 L0 
   exp  3 T P 
L (4)
γT is one of the two unknown parameters that remain in the FPMC model.
The term (M0/Vi) can be expressed as:
M0 M M  1 
 20  0  2 
Vi T , P   ri L L00   ri  L 
(5)
where (M0/L00) is the second unknown parameter of these equations.
The complete FPMC model can be formulated as:
M0  1  r (T , P) 
4
 2 (T , P)   
 (T , P)   2    exp  T  2
3 P   1
L00   ri (T , P) L(T , P)  
 r0 (T ) 
4
  o (T )    (6)
The two unknown parameters of γT and (M0/L00) were optimised using the density data of pure
CO2 from Span and Wagner equation of state [16] at across the full desired pressure ranges and
for each measured isotherms.

6
 3.4 Measurement procedure

All the experiments were conducted using the Anton Paar DMA 512 densitometer. The
maximum desired pressure to conduct experiments was 40 MPa. The vessel for the mixture
preparation has 150 ml volume and the design pressure is 70 MPa. It also includes a piston to
isolate the mixture from the gas injected to pressurise the system.
To conduct each test, after stabilising the desired temperature the entire system was vacuumed.
The vacuumed vibrating period, vacuum pressure and temperature then were recorded at the
desired temperatures (273, 283, 298, 323 and 353 K). The sample then was injected through
the pressurised vessel into the densitometer as a gas phase by opening a regulated valve at a
slow rate till reaching the dew point pressure. For measuring the density in the liquid phase,
the pressure was increased to the maximum desired pressure, i.e., about 40 MPa, then the
pressure reduced slowly by opening the outlet valve till reaching the bubble point. The toxic
outlet gas during the depressurisation was neutralised in a column containing a basic solution
(Sodium Hydroxide, NaOH). During the injection and depressurisation steps, pressure,
temperature and period were recorded to calculate the density. To promote the dew point of the
system during the injection of sample, as the first bubble should be produced inside the
densitometer, the temperature of bath controlling the densitometer temperature was set to be
slightly lower (0.2 - 0.3 K) than the temperature of liquid bath for the entire system. However,
to promote the bubble point, the densitometer temperature was set to be slightly higher than
the entire system temperature.
The combined standard uncertainties [38][39] of density measurements for each measured
quantity have been detailed in Appendix A.

4. Modelling

Density prediction using classical cubic equations of state are normally lower than the real
density of fluid particularly in the liquid phase [40]. This is due to the unrealistic critical
compressibility assumption for all compounds in the cubic equations of state [41][42]. To
improve this underestimation in the density, Peneloux et al. [26] introduced a volume
translation parameter to the overestimated molar volume predicted by equations of state. In this
work, to improve the overestimation of molar volume by equations of state, a volume
correction parameter, called CO2 volume correction parameter [25], was subtracted from the
molar volume of carbon dioxide and mixtures containing high CO2 concentrations calculated
by the cubic equations of state.

7
Vnew  VEoS  Vc (7)
EoS
where V is the molar volume calculated by the desired equation of state. The volume
c
correction parameter in the Equation (7), V , is given below:
NComp
V 
c
 xV i i
c

i (8)
zi in the above equation is the composition of component i and Vc is the molar volume predicted
by Equation of state for each composition in the same phase. As this volume correction
c
parameter is applicable for the CO2-rich mixtures, the molar volume of CO2,
Vi is defined by:
c
VCO  VPure
Eos
CO2  VPure CO2
mBWR
2 (9)
The molar volume for pure CO2 by mBWR equation of state can be calculated from the
equation proposed by McCarty [43][44] below.
9 15
P   a n (T)   a n (T)2n 17 e 
2
n

n 1 n 10 (10)
In this work, the Peng-Robinson [21], Soave-Redlich-Kwong [22] ,Valderrama [23] modified
version of Patel-Teja [24] and the GERG-2008 equations of state were employed to predict the
densities as implemented in-house thermodynamic package, HWPVT [25][33][45][46]. The
modified binary interaction parameters, BIP or kij, of CO2-H2S have been employed to improve
the phase equilibrium predictions. The values for PR, SRK and VPT equations of state are
0.095, 0.098 and 0.090483, respectively [47]. Figure 2 shows the Pressure – composition
diagram of the CO2 (1) + H2S (2) system [33].

5. Specific heat capacity calculations

The isobaric heat capacity is the temperature derivative of enthalpy at constant pressure. The
residual specific heat capacity (𝐶𝑝 − 𝐶𝑝0 ) can be obtained from the measured densities. The
thermodynamic relationship between isobaric heat capacity and pressure-temperature-volume
data is as following [48]:
 Cp    2 
    T  2
 P T  T P (11)
We have considered the molar volume as a polynomial function of temperature at each constant
pressure:

  aT2  bT  c (12)

8
   2
 2aT  b   2a
T T 2 (13)
By replacing Equation (13) in Equation (11) and integrating, the specific heat capacity can be
calculated from the following equation:

 Cp 
C
  2  p P
  dC  2aT dP
 
 P T
  T  2
 T P
 2aT   p
Cpi

P 0 (14)
Cp  C0p  2aTP  C

The constant C can be calculated from the reference fluid experiments, i.e. pure CO2, by the
following equations:
 Cp CO2    2 
Cp
  dC
P

    T  2  2a T    2a T  dP
 P 
CO2 pCO2 CO2
T  T P Cpi P 0 (15)
CpCO 2  C0pCO 2  2a CO2 TP  C  C  CpCO  (C0pCO  (2a CO2 TP))
2 2

Where CpCO2 is the heat capacity of pure CO2 obtained from Span and Wagner equation of state
[16]. Also, C0pi is the ideal gas specific heat capacity and can be calculated from the equation

presented by Aly and Lee (1981) [49]:

2 2
 D   F 
C pi0 T   B  C  T  E T  (16)
 sinh D
  
T


 cos h F
 T   

The constants B through F in this equation can be found from Table 2 for the pure components
CO2 and H2S.The calculated heat capacity from the equation above would be in J.K-1.kmol-1. The
ideal gas heat capacity for the mixtures can be calculated using the following mixing rule:
N
C 0
pmix  T    yi C0pi
(17)
i 1

6. Results and discussions

The densities of CO2-H2S system were measured continuously using a high temperature and
pressure Vibrating Tube Densitometer (VTD), Anton Paar DMA 512. First, pure CO2 were
used to calibrate the densitometer with a forced path mechanical calibration (FPMC) technique
[34]. Then, the densities of a binary system (95.05 mol% CO2 + 4.95 mol% H2S) were measured
at pressures up to 41.4 MPa at five different temperatures, 273.15, 283.15, 298.15, 323.15 and
353.15 K (0, 10, 25, 50 and 80 °C) in gas, liquid and supercritical regions. The uncertainty of
measurements [38][39] also has been calculated and reported for all measured data. The

9
thermodynamic properties, i.e., compressibility factor, specific heat capacity, dew and bubble
points have been derived from the measured density data. In the modelling part, the
experimental density data were used to evaluate the CO2 volume correction model by
comparing to the cubic equations of state (PR [21], SRK [22] and VPT [23]) and Peneloux shift
parameter [26]. Also, the measured density data and derived thermodynamic properties have
been employed to evaluate the GERG-2008 [27] equation of state.

The measured density data as well as their uncertainty and compressibility factor at
corresponding pressure, temperature and phase are declared in Table 3 to Table 7. Each table
shows the measured data at one isotherm. Also, Figure 3 illustrates the experimental densities
measured in this work and predicted densities using GERG-2008 [27] at all measured
temperatures at total pressure ranges. Those at low pressures up to 10 MPa and densities below
200 kg/m3 are shown on Figure 4. In Figure 3, there are few gaps in the densities measured at
322.4 K. As explained in the measurement procedure above, the densities were measured by
reducing the pressure through opening the outlet valve. The gap of the data are due to the
sudden release of pressure from the outlet valve.

To validate the measured densities of the investigated system, the densities measured at 322.4
K and 353 K have been compared to the data published by Stouffer et al. [30][31] at two
different isotherms at 325 K and 350 K. The mole fraction of H2S in this work is 0.0495 and
those at work by Stouffer et al. are 0.0607 and 0.0955. Figure 5 and Figure 6 demonstrate the
comparisons at total pressure range and low pressures, respectively. The lines in these figures
are the predicted densities using the GERG-2008 [27] and PR-CO2 in this work. As can be
seen in these figures, the measured densities in this work are in the same range reported by
Stouffer et al. [30][31]. Both measured data also are in good agreement with the predicted
densities using the GERG-2008 and PR-CO2 in this work. Figure 7 presents the deviations of
the GERG-2008 EoS [27] from experimental densities of CO2 - H2S at 322.4 K measured in
this work and at 325 K measured by Stouffer at al. [30][31]. As can be seen in this figure, the
densities in the range from 200 – 700 kg/m3 is in the area close to the critical condition and the
deviation is higher in this area.

In Table 3 to Table 7, type B uncertainties [38][39] for each measured density are reported with
95% level of confidence, coverage factor k = 2. The highest uncertainties are in the gas phase
at lower temperature and low pressures as expected. Also the uncertainties of measurements in
the liquid phase near two-phase region and critical point are high. The average uncertainties in

10
the gas phase is 0.4% with the maximum value of 1.8% at the lowest temperature of 273 K.
While, those in the liquid phase are 0.03% and 0.3%, respectively. The maximum uncertainty
in the liquid phase occurred at 298 K which is close to the critical point of the mixture. The
average and maximum uncertainties in the supercritical region are 0.1% and 0.4%,
respectively.

The Average Absolute Deviations (AAD) shows the deviations of the predicted values from
the experimental results which has been calculated using Equation (18) and summarised in
Table 9 for the measured system.

𝑁
−1
𝐴𝐴𝐷 (%) = 𝑁 ∑(|𝜌𝐸𝑥𝑝. − 𝜌𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 |⁄𝜌𝐸𝑥𝑝. ) × 100 (18)
𝑖=1

The prediction accuracy of classical cubic equations of state (PR, SRK and VPT) has been
investigated in this work by comparing to the experimentally measured densities of CO2-H2S
system. The modified binary interaction parameters for CO2-H2S in each equation of state have
been employed (kij = 0.095, 0.098 and 0.090483 for PR, SRK and VPT, respectively) [47]. As
Table 9 illustrated, the SRK EoS with the AAD of 1.3% is the most accurate EoS to predict the
densities of CO2-H2S in the gas region while both PR and VPT predicts quite well the densities
in the gas region with the AADs of 1.5% and 1.4%, respectively. In the liquid and supercritical
regions, the VPT EoS predicts the densities of the investigated system with the AAD of 3.0%
in the liquid and 1.8% in the supercritical regions. Those for the PR and SRK are higher than
VPT EoS (4.2% and 8.0% in the liquid region, 2.1% and 8.0% in the supercritical region for
PR and SRK, respectively). Overall, the VPT EoS with AAD of 2.3% predicts the densities
better than PR (AAD = 3.0%) and SRK (AAD = 6.3%) for this binary mixture.

The effect of applying CO2 volume correction to cubic equations of state in this work could be
analysed by comparing each equation of state and those with CO2 volume correction. This
modification in the volume prediction improved the density prediction significantly. As can be
seen from Table 9, the overall AAD for PR and PR-CO2 are 3.0% and 1.5%, respectively. The
Maximum Absolute Deviation (MAD) for the PR is 10.6% while that of PR-CO2 is 4.9% which
indicates the improvements in density predictions. The improvement in density prediction in
the liquid phase is more sensible as the AAD reduced from 4.2% to 1.3% by applying the CO2
volume correction parameter. Also, the AAD for PR with Peneloux shift model [26] is 2.1%
which indicates that PR-CO2 predicts more accurate than PR-Peneloux. The improvements in

11
density prediction using SRK EoS by applying CO2 volume correction term is even higher than
PR EoS, particularly in the dense liquid / supercritical regions. Applying the CO2 volume
correction to SRK EoS reduces the AAD from 8.0% to 1.6% and 1.3% in the liquid and
supercritical regions, respectively. Moreover, the SRK-CO2 (overall AAD = 1.4%) predicts
more accurate than SRK-Peneloux with the overall AAD of 2.6%. The MAD for SRK and
SRK-CO2 are 19.4% and 4.7%, respectively. Also, the overall AAD of density predictions by
VPT EoS is reduces from 2.3% to 1.4% by applying the CO2 volume correction term. The most
improvements can be seen in the liquid region where the AAD reduces from 23% to 1.2% by
applying CO2 correction term to VPT EoS. The MAD for VPT and VPT-CO2 are 11.6% and
5.4%, respectively. All equations of state with CO2 volume correction term predicts with the
same accuracy in the gas region (AAD = 1.0%) while VPT-CO2 in the liquid region (AAD =
1.2%) and SRK-CO2 in the supercritical region (AAD = 1.3%) predict better than other
equations of state. The overall AAD for PR-CO2, SRK-CO2 and VPT-CO2 are 1.5%, 1.4% and
1.4% where indicates that almost all of the equations of state investigated in the work predicts
with the same accuracy for the investigated system. Figure 8 shows the deviations of the
predictions using PR-CO2 equation of state from the measured densities in this work.

Apart from the classical cubic equations of state which are very common in the industries due
to the simplicity and availability of them, the GERG-2008 [27] also has been evaluated in this
work by comparing to the measured densities of CO2-H2S binary mixture. As seen in Table 9
the GERG-2008 is as accurate as the cubic equations of state with CO2 volume correction in
the gaseous region with the AAD of 1.0% while it has the best predictions in comparison to the
cubic equations of state in the liquid and supercritical regions with the AAD of 1.0% and 1.3%,
respectively. Overall, the GERG-2008 with an AAD of 1.1% predicts the best among the
equations of state studied during the course of this study.

The compressibility factor, or Z-Factor, defined as a ratio of the gas at high pressure and
temperature conditions to the ideal gas volume [42] which shows the deviation of gas behaviour
from the ideal gas. Z-factor is an imperative property in the design of processing units,
compression stations, pipeline design [50][51] and flow metering [52]. In engineering purposes
and design considerations, compressibility factor as a thermodynamic property can be
determined from either equations of states, predictive corresponding state equations [52] or
experimentally derived correlations [50][53]. However, the accuracy of these methods should
be evaluated by comparing to the experimentally measured data. In this work, the

12
compressibility factors of the system have been obtained from the measured density data for
each isotherms and are reported on Table 3 to Table 7. Figure 9 and 10 show the measured
compressibility factors as well as predicted values using GERG-2008 EoS [27] over the full
pressure range and at low pressures, respectively. As can be seen in these figures, the predicted
values using the GERG-2008 EoS are in good agreement with the experimentally obtained data
with an overall AAD of 1.1%.

The specific heat capacities were calculated using Equations (11) through Equation (17) at
different pressures of 40, 35, 30, 25, 20 and 15 MPa at five measured temperatures. Table 10
and Figure 11 show the calculated specific heat capacity for this system. The AAD between
the predicted values using GERG-2008 and the experimentally calculated isobaric heat
capacity is 4.8% with a MAD of 9.0%. The model predicts the specific heat capacity higher
than experimental data. It is also worth to note that the isobaric specific heat capacities were
calculated from the measured density data and is not a direct measurement. Therefore, it is
suggested to compare these result with the directly measured data using calorimeters.

Numerous data points were measured on both sides of the dew and bubble points at each
temperature. Analysis of the measured data points can be used in determination of the break
points, which corresponds to dew point or bubble point of the mixture at the measured
temperatures. The importance of the large number of recorded data points is that it allows fitting
the representative correlation to the experimental data in order to find the precise location of
dew and bubble points. Table 11 as well as Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the measured dew
and bubble points for CO2 - H2S binary system. The measured dew / bubble points also have
been compared to the prediction values using the PR-CO2 equation of state. Table 11 also
shows the prediction values in addition of the AAD from the experimental data. As can be seen,
the AAD for the dew/bubble point pressures and those densities are 3.8% and 2.7%,
respectively.

13
7. Conclusions

The densities of the 0.9505 CO2 – 0.0495 H2S binary system have been measured at different
isotherms 273, 283, 298, 323 and 353 K at pressures up to 41 MPa in the gas, liquid and
supercritical regions. The measured densities have been validated by comparing to the
measured densities by Stouffer et al. [30][31] at two different isotherms. The uncertainty of
measurements also reported and concluded that it can be high at low pressures in the gas region
and in vicinity of the phase boundary of two phase region. The overall average uncertainty of
measurements with 95% level of confidence is 0.2% with the highest quantity of 1.8% in the
gas region. Moreover, by applying thermodynamic equations, the compressibility factor and
specific heat capacities of the investigated system were obtained from the measured densities
at different pressures and temperatures. Numerous measurements of the density on both sides
of dew and bubble point resulted in obtaining the dew and bubble points for investigated
system. In the modelling part, the predictions using classical cubic equations of states has been
compared and concluded that VPT equation of state with the AAD of 2.3% predicts more
accurate than PR and SRK equations of state. To improve the density predictions by these
equations, the CO2 volume correction term then has been applied to them. It has been concluded
that introducing CO2 volume correction to equations of state can improve the prediction
accuracy for the acid gas and liquid system particularly in the liquid phase. The accuracy of
equations of state with CO2 correction term are approximately as same as each other with the
AAD of 1.4% for SRK-CO2 and VPT-CO2 and 1.5% for PR-CO2. Apart from the cubic
equations of states, the prediction by GERG-2008 has been evaluated by comparing to the
experimental data. The conclusion from this evaluation is that GERG-2008 equation of state
has the best prediction with the AAD of 1.1% among the equations of states investigated during
the course of this work. The derived thermodynamic properties, i.e., compressibility factor and
isobaric heat capacity, as well as dew / bubble points have been compared to the predictions
by models. From the comparisons, it has been concluded that there are a good agreement
between the derived properties and predicted values. The AAD of predictions by GERG-2008
are 1.1% and 4.8% for compressibility factor and isobaric heat capacities, respectively. For the
dew/bubble point pressure and those densities, the AAD of predictions by PR-CO2 are 3.8%
and 2.7%, respectively.

14
8. Acknowledgements

This work is a part of the joint industrial project titled “Impact of Common Impurities on
Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage” [54] where conducted jointly at Hydrates,
Flow Assurance & Phase Equilibria Research Group, Institute of Petroleum Engineering,
Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, UK and CTP - Centre Thermodynamique des Procédés,
MINES ParisTech in Fontainebleau, France. The physical properties to be investigated during
the project are phase equilibira, hydrates, solid formation, density, viscosity, interfacial tension,
solubility in brine and pH. The first phase of project was conducted from October 2011 to
October 2014. The JIPs was supported by Chevron, GALP Energia, Linde AG Engineering
Division, OMV, Petroleum Expert, Statoil, TOTAL and National Grid Carbon Ltd, which is
gratefully acknowledged. The participation of National Grid Carbon in the JIP was funded by
the European Commission’s European Energy Programme for Recovery. The authors would
also like to thank the members of the steering committee for their fruitful comments and
discussions.

15
REFERENCES

[1] D. Weeks and J. Driscoll, “Processing Considerations for Carbon Capture & Storage,”
KBR, Kellogg Pap. No. 2059.
[2] R. A. Chadwick and O. Eiken, 10 – Offshore CO2 storage: Sleipner natural gas field
beneath the North Sea. Elsevier, 2013.
[3] P. S. Ringrose, A. S. Mathieson, I. W. Wright, F. Selama, O. Hansen, R. Bissell, N.
Saoula, and J. Midgley, “The In Salah CO2 Storage Project: Lessons Learned and
Knowledge Transfer,” Energy Procedia, vol. 37, pp. 6226–6236, 2013.
[4] S. Bachu and T. L. Watson, “Review of failures for wells used for CO 2 and acid gas
injection in Alberta, Canada,” Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3531–3537, Feb. 2009.
[5] S. Bachu and W. D. Gunter, “Overview of acid-gas injection operations in western
Canada,” Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Greenh. Gas Control Technol. vol. 1. Peer-Reviewed Pap.
Plenary Present. IEA Greenh. Gas R&D Program. Cheltenham, UK, 2005.
[6] G. Benge, “Improving wellbore seal integrity in CO2 injection wells,” Energy Procedia,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3523–3529, Feb. 2009.
[7] J. J. Carroll, “Phase Equilibria Relevant to Acid Gas Injection, Part 1-Non-Aqueous
Phase Behaviour,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., vol. 41, no. 06, Apr. 2013.
[8] J. J. Carroll, “Phase Equilibria Relevant to Acid Gas Injection: Part 2-Aqueous Phase
Behaviour,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., vol. 41, no. 07, Apr. 2013.
[9] H.-J. Ng, J. J. Carroll, and James Maddocks, “Impact of thermophysical properties
research on acid gas injection process design,” Proc. 78th Gas Process. Assoc. Annu.
Conv. Nashville, TN, March 1-3, 1999, Tulsa, OK, USA, pp. 114–120.
[10] J. J. Carroll and D. W. Lui, “Density, phase behavior keys to acid gas injection,” Oil
Gas J., vol. 95, no. 25, pp. 63–72, 1997.
[11] K. J. Macintyre, “Design Considerations For Carbon Dioxide Injection Facilities,” J.
Can. Pet. Technol., vol. 25, no. 02, Apr. 2013.
[12] J. J. Carroll, “Design considerations for acid gas injection,” Proc. Laurance Reid gas
Cond. Conf. Norman Oklahoma, USA, 1999.
[13] R. T. J. Porter, M. Fairweather, M. Pourkashanian, and R. M. Woolley, “The range and
level of impurities in CO2 streams from different carbon capture sources,” Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 36, pp. 161–174, May 2015.
[14] Y. Sanchez-Vicente, T. C. Drage, M. Poliakoff, J. Ke, and M. W. George, “Densities of
the carbon dioxide+hydrogen, a system of relevance to carbon capture and storage,” Int.
J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 13, no. null, pp. 78–86, Mar. 2013.
[15] C. A. Millat, J., Dymond, J.H., Nieto de Castro, Transport Properties of Fluids, Their
Correlation, Prediction and Estimation. Cambridge University Press, IUPAC, 2005.
[16] R. Span and W. Wagner, “A New Equation of State for Carbon Dioxide Covering the
Fluid Region from the Triple-Point Temperature to 1100 K at Pressures up to 800 MPa,”
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 1509, Nov. 1996.
[17] M. J. O. Kunz, R. Klimeck, W. Wagner, “The GERG-2004 Wide-Range Equation of
State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures.”
[18] H. Li and J. Yan, “Evaluating cubic equations of state for calculation of vapor–liquid
equilibrium of CO2 and CO2-mixtures for CO2 capture and storage processes,” Appl.
16
 Energy, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 826–836, Jun. 2009.
[19] H. Li and J. Yan, “Impacts of equations of state (EOS) and impurities on the volume
calculation of CO2 mixtures in the applications of CO2 capture and storage (CCS)
processes,” Appl. Energy, vol. 86, no. 12, pp. 2760–2770, Dec. 2009.
[20] H. Li, J. P. Jakobsen, Ø. Wilhelmsen, and J. Yan, “PVTxy properties of CO2 mixtures
relevant for CO2 capture, transport and storage: Review of available experimental data
and theoretical models,” Appl. Energy, vol. 88, no. 11, pp. 3567–3579, Nov. 2011.
[21] D.-Y. Peng and D. B. Robinson, “A New Two-Constant Equation of State,” Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundam., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–64, Feb. 1976.
[22] G. Soave, “Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong equation of state,”
Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1197–1203, Jun. 1972.
[23] J. O. Valderrama, “A generalized Patel-Teja equation of state for polar and nonpolar
fluids and their mixtures.,” J. Chem. Eng. JAPAN, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 87–91, Mar. 1990.
[24] N. C. Patel and A. S. Teja, “A new cubic equation of state for fluids and fluid mixtures,”
Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 463–473, 1982.
[25] A. Chapoy, M. Nazeri, M. Kapateh, R. Burgass, C. Coquelet, and B. Tohidi, “Effect of
impurities on thermophysical properties and phase behaviour of a CO2-rich system in
CCS,” Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, vol. 19, pp. 92–100, Nov. 2013.
[26] A. Péneloux, E. Rauzy, and R. Fréze, “A consistent correction for Redlich-Kwong-
Soave volumes,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7–23, Jan. 1982.
[27] O. Kunz and W. Wagner, “The GERG-2008 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural
Gases and Other Mixtures: An Expansion of GERG-2004,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, vol. 57,
no. 11, pp. 3032–3091, Nov. 2012.
[28] J. A. Bierlein and W. B. Kay, “Phase-Equilibrium Properties of System Carbon Dioxide-
Hydrogen Sulfide,” Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 618–624, Mar. 1953.
[29] D. P. Sobocinski and F. Kurata, “Heterogeneous phase equilibria of the hydrogen
sulfide–carbon dioxide system,” AIChE J., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 545–551, Dec. 1959.
[30] S. J. Kellerman, C. E. Stouffer, P. T. Eubank, J. C. Holste, and K. R. Hall,
“Thermodynamic Properties of CO2 + H2S Mixtures, GPA Research Report No. 143,
prepared as part of GPA Project 842,” Ga Process. Assoc., 1995.
[31] C. E. Stouffer, S. J. Kellerman, K. R. Hall, J. C. Holste, B. E. Gammon, and K. N. Marsh,
“Densities of Carbon Dioxide + Hydrogen Sulfide Mixtures from 220 K to 450 K at
Pressures up to 25 MPa,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1309–1318, Sep. 2001.
[32] T. B. Boyle and J. J. Carroll, “Study determines best methods for calculating acid-gas
density - Oil & Gas Journal,” Oil Gas J., vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 45–53, 2002.
[33] A. Chapoy, C. Coquelet, H. Liu, A. Valtz, and B. Tohidi, “Vapour–liquid equilibrium
data for the hydrogen sulphide (H2S)+carbon dioxide (CO2) system at temperatures from
258 to 313K,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 356, pp. 223–228, Oct. 2013.
[34] C. Bouchot and D. Richon, “An enhanced method to calibrate vibrating tube
densimeters,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 191, no. 1–2, pp. 189–208, Nov. 2001.
[35] W. Khalil, C. Coquelet, and D. Richon, “High-Pressure Vapor−Liquid Equilibria,
Liquid Densities, and Excess Molar Volumes for the Carbon Dioxide + 2-Propanol
System from (308.10 to 348.00) K,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 2032–2040,
Sep. 2007.

17
[36] C. Coquelet, D. Ramjugernath, H. Madani, A. Valtz, P. Naidoo, and A. H. Meniai,
“Experimental Measurement of Vapor Pressures and Densities of Pure
Hexafluoropropylene,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2093–2099, Jun. 2010.
[37] C. Bouchot and D. Richon, “Direct Pressure−Volume−Temperature and Vapor−Liquid
Equilibrium Measurements with a Single Equipment Using a Vibrating Tube
Densimeter up to 393 K and 40 MPa: Description of the Original Apparatus and New
Data,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 3295–3304, Aug. 1998.
[38] S. Bell, Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 11 (Issue 2), A Beginner’s Guide to
Uncertainty of Measurement. National Physical Laboratory, 2001.
[39] B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the
Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results. NIST, 1994.
[40] J. O. Valderrama and M. Alfaro, “Liquid Volumes from Generalized Cubic Equations
of State: Take It with Care,” Oil Gas Sci. Technol., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 523–531, Sep.
2000.
[41] L. A. Forero G. and J. A. Velásquez J., “A modified Patel–Teja cubic equation of state:
Part I – Generalized model for gases and hydrocarbons,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 342,
pp. 8–22, Mar. 2013.
[42] T. Ahmed, Equations of State and PVT Analysis. Gulf Publishing Company, Elsevier,
2007.
[43] R. D. McCarty, “A modified Benedict-Webb-Rubin equation of state for methane using
recent experimental data,” Cryogenics, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 276–280, May 1974.
[44] B. a. Younglove and J. F. Ely, “Thermophysical Properties of Fluids. II. Methane,
Ethane, Propane, Isobutane, and Normal Butane,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 16. pp.
577–798, 1987.
[45] A. Chapoy, H. Haghighi, R. Burgass, and B. Tohidi, “On the phase behaviour of the
(carbon dioxide+water) systems at low temperatures: Experimental and modelling,” J.
Chem. Thermodyn., vol. 47, pp. 6–12, Apr. 2012.
[46] H. Haghighi, A. Chapoy, R. Burgess, and B. Tohidi, “Experimental and thermodynamic
modelling of systems containing water and ethylene glycol: Application to flow
assurance and gas processing,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 276, no. 1, pp. 24–30, Feb.
2009.
[47] A. Chapoy, M. Nazeri, M. Kapateh, R. Burgass, B. Tohidi, and C. Coquelet, “Impact of
Common Impurities on CO2 Capture, Tr ansport and Storage, 2011 – 2014 Programme,
Final Report,” 2014.
[48] J. J. Segovia, D. Vega-Maza, C. R. Chamorro, and M. C. Martín, “High-pressure
isobaric heat capacities using a new flow calorimeter,” J. Supercrit. Fluids, vol. 46, no.
3, pp. 258–264, Oct. 2008.
[49] F. A. Aly and L. L. Lee, “Self-consistent equations for calculating the ideal gas heat
capacity, enthalpy, and entropy,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 6, no. 3–4, pp. 169–179,
Jan. 1981.
[50] E. Mohagheghian, A. Bahadori, and L. A. James, “Carbon dioxide compressibility factor
determination using a robust intelligent method,” J. Supercrit. Fluids, vol. 101, pp. 140–
149, Jun. 2015.
[51] A. M. Elsharkawy, “Efficient methods for calculations of compressibility, density and
viscosity of natural gases,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 218, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Apr. 2004.

18
[52] J. . Estela-Uribe and J. P. . Trusler, “Extended corresponding states equation of state for
natural gas systems,” Fluid Phase Equilib., vol. 183–184, pp. 21–29, Jul. 2001.
[53] A. Bahadori and H. Vuthaluru, “Rapid Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Compressibility
Factor Using Simple Predictive Tool,” in SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 2013.
[54] “Impact of Common Impurities on Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage.”
http://www.pet.hw.ac.uk/research/co2cts/.
[55] P. Guilbot, A. Valtz, H. Legendre, and D. Richon, “Rapid on-line sampler-injector: a
reliable tool for HT-HP sampling and on-line GC analysis,” Analusis, vol. 28, no. 5, pp.
426–431, Jun. 2000.
[56] E. W. Lemmon, M. L. Huber, and M. O. McLinden, “NIST standard reference database
23: reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties – REFPROP version 8.0.
Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data
Program.” 2007.
[57] E. C. Efika, R. Hoballah, X. Li, E. F. May, M. Nania, Y. Sanchez-Vicente, and J. P.
Martin Trusler, “Saturated phase densities of (CO2 + H2O) at temperatures from (293 to
450) K and pressures up to 64 MPa,” J. Chem. Thermodyn., Jul. 2015.

19
 Table 1 - Details of the chemicals, suppliers and purities of the components used in this study.

Chemical Name Source Initial Purity a Certification Analysis Method b

H2S Air Liquide 0.995 vol Air Liquide Certified SM
CO2 Air Liquide 0.99995 vol Air Liquide Certified SM
a
No additional purification is carried out for all samples.
b
SM: Supplier method

20
 Table 2 - Constants B through F in the Equation (16) by Aly and Lee [49]

Cpi constants B C D E F
CO2 2.94E+04 3.45E+04 -1.43E+03 2.64E+04 5.88E+02
H2S 3.33E+04 2.61E+04 9.13E+02 -1.80E+04 9.49E+02

21
 Table 3 - Experimental results of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system at 273 K a

No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z

Exp. uc(ρ) Exp. uc(ρ)
1 Gas 272.55 0.301 5.9 0.1 0.98 48 Liquid 272.58 27.519 1017.1 0.2 0.52
2 Gas 272.55 0.402 8.0 0.1 0.96 49 Liquid 272.59 26.955 1015.2 0.2 0.51
3 Gas 272.55 0.501 9.9 0.1 0.97 50 Liquid 272.59 26.517 1013.8 0.3 0.50
4 Gas 272.54 0.603 12.1 0.1 0.96 51 Liquid 272.58 26.025 1012.1 0.3 0.49
5 Gas 272.54 0.892 18.5 0.1 0.93 52 Liquid 272.58 25.470 1010.3 0.3 0.48
6 Gas 272.54 1.006 20.9 0.1 0.92 53 Liquid 272.58 24.975 1008.5 0.3 0.48
7 Gas 272.56 1.104 23.0 0.1 0.92 54 Liquid 272.58 24.527 1006.9 0.2 0.47
8 Gas 272.56 1.296 27.7 0.1 0.90 55 Liquid 272.58 23.985 1004.9 0.2 0.46
9 Gas 272.56 1.499 32.4 0.1 0.89 56 Liquid 272.58 23.514 1003.2 0.2 0.45
10 Gas 272.55 1.696 37.5 0.1 0.87 57 Liquid 272.58 23.027 1001.3 0.3 0.44
11 Gas 272.56 1.905 42.8 0.1 0.85 58 Liquid 272.58 22.532 999.5 0.3 0.43
12 Gas 272.56 2.003 45.2 0.2 0.85 59 Liquid 272.58 22.003 997.4 0.2 0.42
13 Gas 272.56 2.205 51.1 0.2 0.83 60 Liquid 272.58 21.490 995.3 0.3 0.41
14 Gas 272.56 2.407 56.8 0.2 0.81 61 Liquid 272.58 20.990 993.2 0.3 0.41
15 Gas 272.56 2.502 59.8 0.2 0.80 62 Liquid 272.58 20.515 991.4 0.3 0.40
16 Gas 272.55 2.709 66.4 0.2 0.78 63 Liquid 272.58 20.011 989.1 0.3 0.39
17 Gas 272.56 2.906 73.0 0.2 0.76 64 Liquid 272.58 19.576 987.6 0.3 0.38
18 Gas 272.55 2.996 76.3 0.2 0.75 65 Liquid 272.58 19.012 985.2 0.3 0.37
19 Gas 272.55 3.196 83.9 0.2 0.73 66 Liquid 272.58 18.540 983.3 0.3 0.36
20 Liquid 272.57 41.417 1058.1 0.2 0.75 67 Liquid 272.58 18.046 981.3 0.3 0.35
21 Liquid 272.58 41.400 1058.2 0.1 0.75 68 Liquid 272.57 17.556 979.1 0.3 0.34
22 Liquid 272.57 40.955 1057.0 0.2 0.74 69 Liquid 272.57 17.016 976.8 0.3 0.33
23 Liquid 272.57 40.046 1054.9 0.2 0.73 70 Liquid 272.58 16.524 974.5 0.3 0.33
24 Liquid 272.58 39.463 1053.2 0.2 0.72 71 Liquid 272.58 16.022 972.1 0.3 0.32
25 Liquid 272.57 39.008 1052.0 0.2 0.71 72 Liquid 272.58 15.502 969.5 0.3 0.31
26 Liquid 272.56 38.445 1050.7 0.2 0.70 73 Liquid 272.58 15.013 967.1 0.3 0.30
27 Liquid 272.56 38.049 1049.5 0.2 0.70 74 Liquid 272.59 14.525 964.4 0.3 0.29
28 Liquid 272.56 37.557 1048.1 0.2 0.69 75 Liquid 272.58 14.024 962.0 0.3 0.28
29 Liquid 272.56 36.988 1046.6 0.2 0.68 76 Liquid 272.59 13.502 959.4 0.3 0.27
30 Liquid 272.56 36.561 1045.5 0.2 0.67 77 Liquid 272.58 13.010 956.8 0.3 0.26
31 Liquid 272.57 36.058 1044.1 0.2 0.66 78 Liquid 272.58 12.531 954.3 0.3 0.25
32 Liquid 272.57 35.493 1042.3 0.3 0.65 79 Liquid 272.59 11.999 951.2 0.3 0.24
33 Liquid 272.56 35.060 1041.1 0.3 0.65 80 Liquid 272.59 11.511 948.4 0.4 0.23
34 Liquid 272.57 34.499 1039.5 0.2 0.64 81 Liquid 272.59 11.005 945.1 0.4 0.22
35 Liquid 272.57 33.999 1038.0 0.2 0.63 82 Liquid 272.59 10.504 942.3 0.4 0.21
36 Liquid 272.57 33.498 1036.6 0.3 0.62 83 Liquid 272.59 10.064 939.4 0.4 0.21
37 Liquid 272.58 33.011 1034.9 0.2 0.61 84 Liquid 272.60 9.499 936.2 0.3 0.19
38 Liquid 272.57 32.499 1033.1 0.2 0.60 85 Liquid 273.23 8.730 929.2 0.3 0.18
39 Liquid 272.58 31.936 1031.5 0.2 0.59 86 Liquid 273.29 8.504 926.7 0.3 0.18
40 Liquid 272.58 31.446 1030.1 0.3 0.59 87 Liquid 273.30 7.996 922.9 0.3 0.17
41 Liquid 272.57 31.002 1028.8 0.2 0.58 88 Liquid 273.31 7.524 919.4 0.3 0.16
42 Liquid 272.57 30.442 1027.2 0.2 0.57 89 Liquid 273.31 7.043 915.9 0.3 0.15
43 Liquid 272.57 30.022 1025.6 0.2 0.56 90 Liquid 273.31 6.504 911.6 0.3 0.14
44 Liquid 272.58 29.540 1023.9 0.2 0.55 91 Liquid 273.32 5.999 907.1 0.3 0.13
45 Liquid 272.58 29.015 1022.3 0.2 0.54 92 Liquid 273.31 5.510 902.8 0.3 0.12
46 Liquid 272.58 28.510 1020.5 0.2 0.54 93 Liquid 273.34 5.004 897.4 0.4 0.11
47 Liquid 272.58 28.014 1018.9 0.2 0.53 94 Liquid 273.33 4.504 892.6 0.4 0.10
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa and u(p) = 0.005 MPa
for pressures from 10-40 MPa

22
 Table 4 - Experimental results of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system at 283 K a

No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z

Exp. uc(ρ) Exp. uc(ρ)
1 Gas 282.69 0.600 11.8 0.1 0.94 49 Liquid 283.47 27.510 998.9 0.3 0.51
2 Gas 282.70 0.820 16.6 0.1 0.91 50 Liquid 283.47 27.006 996.9 0.3 0.50
3 Gas 282.70 1.004 20.1 0.1 0.92 51 Liquid 283.46 26.500 994.9 0.3 0.49
4 Gas 282.70 1.194 25.0 0.1 0.88 52 Liquid 283.47 26.012 993.0 0.3 0.48
5 Gas 282.69 1.405 29.0 0.1 0.90 53 Liquid 283.47 25.518 991.0 0.3 0.48
6 Gas 282.70 1.631 35.0 0.1 0.86 54 Liquid 283.47 25.000 988.9 0.3 0.47
7 Gas 282.69 1.794 39.0 0.1 0.85 55 Liquid 283.47 24.503 986.9 0.3 0.46
8 Gas 282.70 2.040 45.1 0.1 0.84 56 Liquid 283.47 24.005 984.8 0.3 0.45
9 Gas 282.71 2.196 49.1 0.1 0.83 57 Liquid 283.47 23.501 982.6 0.3 0.44
10 Gas 282.70 2.423 55.3 0.2 0.81 58 Liquid 283.47 23.016 980.5 0.3 0.43
11 Gas 282.71 2.634 61.3 0.2 0.80 59 Liquid 283.47 22.501 978.3 0.3 0.42
12 Gas 282.71 2.835 67.2 0.2 0.78 60 Liquid 283.47 22.004 976.1 0.3 0.42
13 Gas 282.71 3.018 72.9 0.2 0.77 61 Liquid 283.47 21.510 973.8 0.3 0.41
14 Gas 282.71 3.243 80.2 0.2 0.75 62 Liquid 283.47 21.001 971.5 0.3 0.40
15 Gas 282.70 3.401 85.8 0.2 0.73 63 Liquid 283.47 20.508 969.2 0.3 0.39
16 Gas 282.71 3.592 92.8 0.2 0.72 64 Liquid 283.47 20.010 966.8 0.3 0.38
17 Gas 282.71 3.803 101.2 0.3 0.70 65 Liquid 283.47 19.503 964.5 0.3 0.37
18 Gas 282.72 4.012 110.3 0.3 0.67 66 Liquid 283.47 19.008 962.0 0.3 0.36
19 Gas 282.72 4.099 114.3 0.3 0.66 67 Liquid 283.47 18.516 959.4 0.3 0.36
20 Gas 282.71 4.201 119.4 0.3 0.65 68 Liquid 283.47 18.016 957.0 0.3 0.35
21 Gas 282.70 4.303 125.3 0.4 0.64 69 Liquid 283.47 17.517 954.5 0.3 0.34
22 Gas 282.73 4.361 133.9 0.5 0.60 70 Liquid 283.47 17.011 951.8 0.4 0.33
23 Liquid 283.47 40.443 1041.5 0.2 0.72 71 Liquid 283.47 16.506 949.0 0.4 0.32
24 Liquid 283.47 40.004 1040.3 0.2 0.71 72 Liquid 283.48 16.008 946.2 0.4 0.31
25 Liquid 283.47 39.503 1038.9 0.2 0.70 73 Liquid 283.47 15.509 943.3 0.4 0.30
26 Liquid 283.46 39.000 1037.5 0.2 0.69 74 Liquid 283.47 15.004 940.4 0.4 0.29
27 Liquid 283.47 38.528 1036.2 0.2 0.69 75 Liquid 283.48 14.511 937.3 0.4 0.29
28 Liquid 283.46 38.004 1034.6 0.2 0.68 76 Liquid 283.47 14.002 934.4 0.4 0.28
29 Liquid 283.47 37.525 1033.1 0.2 0.67 77 Liquid 283.47 13.504 931.2 0.4 0.27
30 Liquid 283.47 37.000 1031.5 0.3 0.66 78 Liquid 283.47 13.000 928.0 0.4 0.26
31 Liquid 283.46 36.513 1030.0 0.2 0.65 79 Liquid 283.47 12.500 924.7 0.4 0.25
32 Liquid 283.47 36.014 1028.3 0.2 0.65 80 Liquid 283.48 12.002 921.3 0.4 0.24
33 Liquid 283.46 35.507 1026.8 0.2 0.64 81 Liquid 283.48 11.502 917.6 0.4 0.23
34 Liquid 283.46 35.004 1025.2 0.2 0.63 82 Liquid 283.49 11.002 914.1 0.4 0.22
35 Liquid 283.46 34.516 1023.7 0.2 0.62 83 Liquid 283.48 10.503 910.4 0.5 0.21
36 Liquid 283.47 34.012 1022.0 0.2 0.61 84 Liquid 283.48 10.062 907.0 0.5 0.20
37 Liquid 283.47 33.525 1020.3 0.2 0.61 85 Liquid 283.49 9.506 903.0 0.5 0.19
38 Liquid 283.47 33.004 1018.6 0.2 0.60 86 Liquid 283.49 9.003 898.8 0.5 0.18
39 Liquid 283.47 32.470 1017.0 0.2 0.59 87 Liquid 283.49 8.504 894.3 0.5 0.18
40 Liquid 283.46 32.001 1015.4 0.2 0.58 88 Liquid 283.49 8.001 889.8 0.5 0.17
41 Liquid 283.46 31.532 1013.7 0.2 0.57 89 Liquid 283.49 7.466 884.7 0.5 0.16
42 Liquid 283.46 31.005 1011.9 0.3 0.57 90 Liquid 283.49 7.137 882.0 0.6 0.15
43 Liquid 283.47 30.502 1010.1 0.2 0.56 91 Liquid 283.48 6.383 875.9 0.6 0.13
44 Liquid 283.47 30.014 1008.2 0.2 0.55 92 Liquid 283.47 5.962 871.5 0.6 0.13
45 Liquid 283.46 29.517 1006.4 0.2 0.54 93 Liquid 283.47 5.586 867.8 0.7 0.12
46 Liquid 283.47 29.025 1004.6 0.2 0.53 94 Liquid 283.52 5.041 861.2 0.7 0.11
47 Liquid 283.47 28.508 1002.7 0.2 0.52 95 Liquid 283.57 4.945 859.9 0.7 0.11
48 Liquid 283.48 28.010 1000.7 0.3 0.52 96 Liquid 283.92 4.600 826.5 0.8 0.10
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa and u(p) = 0.005 MPa
for pressures from 10-40 MPa

23
 Table 5 - Experimental results of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system at 298 K a

No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z

Exp. uc(ρ) Exp. uc(ρ)
1 Gas 297.51 0.320 5.7 0.1 0.99 52 Liquid 298.06 27.528 944.3 0.3 0.51
2 Gas 297.51 0.652 11.8 0.1 0.97 53 Liquid 298.06 27.004 941.7 0.3 0.50
3 Gas 297.50 0.710 13.0 0.1 0.96 54 Liquid 298.08 26.531 939.6 0.3 0.50
4 Gas 297.50 0.878 16.3 0.1 0.95 55 Liquid 298.06 26.004 937.0 0.3 0.49
5 Gas 297.50 1.019 19.5 0.1 0.92 56 Liquid 298.06 25.499 934.6 0.3 0.48
6 Gas 297.51 1.232 23.7 0.1 0.91 57 Liquid 298.07 25.023 932.1 0.3 0.47
7 Gas 297.51 1.419 27.5 0.1 0.91 58 Liquid 298.07 24.506 929.6 0.3 0.46
8 Gas 297.51 1.601 31.3 0.1 0.90 59 Liquid 298.07 24.008 926.9 0.3 0.45
9 Gas 297.51 1.810 35.8 0.1 0.89 60 Liquid 298.07 23.511 924.2 0.3 0.45
10 Gas 297.51 2.003 40.0 0.1 0.88 61 Liquid 298.07 23.013 921.5 0.3 0.44
11 Gas 297.51 2.203 44.6 0.1 0.87 62 Liquid 298.07 22.513 918.8 0.3 0.43
12 Gas 297.51 2.413 49.5 0.1 0.86 63 Liquid 298.07 22.015 915.8 0.3 0.42
13 Gas 297.50 2.616 54.4 0.1 0.85 64 Liquid 298.07 21.500 912.9 0.4 0.41
14 Gas 297.50 2.810 59.4 0.1 0.83 65 Liquid 298.06 21.003 910.0 0.4 0.41
15 Gas 297.50 2.998 64.3 0.2 0.82 66 Liquid 298.08 20.503 907.0 0.4 0.40
16 Gas 297.50 3.212 70.1 0.2 0.81 67 Liquid 298.06 19.999 903.9 0.4 0.39
17 Gas 297.51 3.399 75.3 0.2 0.79 68 Liquid 298.07 19.497 900.5 0.4 0.38
18 Gas 297.50 3.611 81.5 0.2 0.78 69 Liquid 298.06 19.001 897.3 0.4 0.37
19 Gas 297.50 3.810 87.7 0.2 0.76 70 Liquid 298.08 18.497 893.7 0.4 0.36
20 Gas 297.51 4.001 93.7 0.2 0.75 71 Liquid 298.08 18.006 890.4 0.4 0.36
21 Gas 297.50 4.206 100.8 0.2 0.73 72 Liquid 298.07 17.508 886.9 0.4 0.35
22 Gas 297.51 4.402 107.8 0.2 0.72 73 Liquid 298.08 17.005 883.1 0.4 0.34
23 Gas 297.50 4.609 115.8 0.3 0.70 74 Liquid 298.08 16.505 879.3 0.4 0.33
24 Gas 297.51 4.802 123.7 0.3 0.68 75 Liquid 298.07 16.004 875.3 0.5 0.32
25 Gas 297.50 4.999 132.4 0.3 0.66 76 Liquid 298.07 15.503 871.1 0.5 0.31
26 Gas 297.50 5.204 142.4 0.3 0.64 77 Liquid 298.07 15.005 867.0 0.5 0.30
27 Gas 297.50 5.404 153.1 0.4 0.62 78 Liquid 298.07 14.504 862.4 0.5 0.30
28 Gas 297.50 5.604 165.3 0.5 0.60 79 Liquid 298.08 14.002 857.8 0.5 0.29
29 Liquid 298.06 40.253 992.4 0.2 0.71 80 Liquid 298.07 13.633 854.0 0.5 0.28
30 Liquid 298.07 39.735 991.0 0.2 0.70 81 Liquid 298.07 13.024 848.3 0.5 0.27
31 Liquid 298.06 39.498 990.0 0.3 0.70 82 Liquid 298.07 12.512 843.3 0.6 0.26
32 Liquid 298.06 39.023 988.6 0.2 0.69 83 Liquid 298.08 11.996 837.8 0.6 0.25
33 Liquid 298.07 38.510 986.9 0.3 0.69 84 Liquid 298.07 11.500 832.0 0.6 0.24
34 Liquid 298.05 37.999 985.2 0.3 0.68 85 Liquid 298.08 11.013 825.9 0.6 0.23
35 Liquid 298.06 37.004 982.1 0.3 0.66 86 Liquid 298.08 10.511 819.3 0.7 0.23
36 Liquid 298.06 36.016 978.6 0.3 0.65 87 Liquid 298.07 9.998 812.8 0.7 0.22
37 Liquid 298.06 35.006 974.9 0.3 0.63 88 Liquid 298.07 9.500 804.5 0.8 0.21
38 Liquid 298.07 34.449 973.0 0.3 0.62 89 Liquid 298.08 9.001 795.9 0.8 0.20
39 Liquid 298.06 33.955 971.2 0.3 0.61 90 Liquid 298.08 8.504 786.3 0.9 0.19
40 Liquid 298.07 33.502 969.5 0.3 0.61 91 Liquid 298.07 8.003 775.2 1.0 0.18
41 Liquid 298.06 33.000 967.6 0.3 0.60 92 Liquid 298.07 7.503 762.2 1.2 0.17
42 Liquid 298.07 32.526 965.7 0.3 0.59 93 Liquid 298.08 7.001 746.0 1.5 0.16
43 Liquid 298.06 32.025 963.8 0.3 0.58 94 Liquid 298.07 6.900 742.3 1.6 0.16
44 Liquid 298.07 31.546 961.8 0.3 0.58 95 Liquid 298.06 6.801 738.3 1.6 0.16
45 Liquid 298.06 31.090 960.2 0.3 0.57 96 Liquid 298.06 6.700 733.8 1.7 0.16
46 Liquid 298.06 30.499 957.6 0.3 0.56 97 Liquid 298.08 6.600 729.1 1.9 0.16
47 Liquid 298.07 29.996 955.4 0.3 0.55 98 Liquid 298.06 6.500 723.9 2.0 0.16
48 Liquid 298.08 29.493 953.2 0.3 0.54 99 Liquid 298.08 6.450 720.9 2.1 0.16
49 Liquid 298.07 29.029 951.1 0.3 0.54 100 Liquid 298.08 6.401 718.3 2.2 0.16
50 Liquid 298.06 28.538 948.9 0.3 0.53 101 Liquid 298.10 6.354 716.1 2.3 0.16
51 Liquid 298.07 28.032 946.6 0.3 0.52
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa and u(p) = 0.005 MPa
for pressures from 10-40 MPa

24
 Table 6 - Experimental results of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system at 323 K a

No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z

Exp. uc(ρ) Exp. uc(ρ)
1 SC 322.40 40.495 910.3 0.3 0.72 39 SC 322.43 17.599 735.2 0.6 0.39
2 SC 322.40 39.992 908.1 0.3 0.71 40 SC 322.43 17.106 726.5 0.7 0.38
3 SC 322.42 39.502 906.0 0.3 0.71 41 SC 322.43 16.502 714.5 0.7 0.37
4 SC 322.41 39.014 903.8 0.3 0.70 42 SC 322.44 16.031 705.9 0.8 0.37
5 SC 322.41 38.492 901.2 0.3 0.69 43 SC 322.43 15.744 699.2 0.8 0.37
6 SC 322.42 38.008 899.1 0.3 0.69 44 SC 322.43 15.001 682.0 0.9 0.36
7 SC 322.42 37.495 896.5 0.3 0.68 45 SC 322.42 14.515 671.3 1.0 0.35
8 SC 322.41 37.001 894.2 0.3 0.67 46 SC 322.44 14.019 655.5 1.1 0.35
9 SC 322.42 36.519 891.6 0.3 0.66 47 SC 322.42 13.503 640.1 1.2 0.34
10 SC 322.42 36.000 889.0 0.3 0.66 48 SC 322.43 12.996 620.9 1.3 0.34
11 SC 322.41 35.495 886.3 0.3 0.65 49 SC 322.44 12.023 577.0 1.9 0.34
12 SC 322.42 35.002 883.6 0.3 0.64 50 SC 322.42 11.519 546.6 2.3 0.34
13 SC 322.42 34.503 880.8 0.3 0.64 51 SC 322.39 9.505 341.5 1.2 0.45
14 SC 322.42 34.004 878.0 0.3 0.63 52 SC 322.43 9.001 280.6 0.8 0.52
15 SC 322.42 33.498 875.2 0.3 0.62 53 SC 322.45 8.500 247.2 0.6 0.56
16 SC 322.42 33.004 872.4 0.3 0.61 54 SC 322.46 8.000 217.9 0.5 0.60
17 SC 322.43 32.503 869.6 0.3 0.61 55 Gas 322.46 7.503 192.7 0.4 0.63
18 SC 322.43 32.002 866.5 0.3 0.60 56 Gas 322.47 7.001 170.9 0.3 0.66
19 SC 322.42 31.506 863.7 0.3 0.59 57 Gas 322.47 6.501 151.5 0.3 0.70
20 SC 322.43 31.004 860.5 0.3 0.58 58 Gas 322.47 6.004 133.9 0.2 0.73
21 SC 322.43 30.505 857.5 0.3 0.58 59 Gas 322.47 5.503 118.8 0.2 0.75
22 SC 322.43 30.006 854.1 0.3 0.57 60 Gas 322.48 5.004 103.9 0.2 0.78
23 SC 322.43 29.502 850.6 0.4 0.56 61 Gas 322.48 4.501 90.7 0.2 0.81
24 SC 322.42 29.009 847.7 0.4 0.56 62 Gas 322.48 3.994 77.8 0.1 0.83
25 SC 322.42 27.425 837.1 0.4 0.53 63 Gas 322.48 3.544 66.6 0.1 0.86
26 SC 322.43 27.003 833.6 0.4 0.53 64 Gas 322.47 3.003 55.8 0.1 0.87
27 SC 322.44 26.506 829.2 0.4 0.52 65 Gas 322.48 2.803 51.5 0.1 0.88
28 SC 322.43 26.031 824.9 0.4 0.51 66 Gas 322.48 2.504 45.3 0.1 0.90
29 SC 322.42 25.008 817.6 0.4 0.50 67 Gas 322.48 2.249 40.2 0.1 0.91
30 SC 322.43 24.503 813.0 0.4 0.49 68 Gas 322.49 2.003 35.3 0.1 0.92
31 SC 322.44 24.134 809.6 0.4 0.48 69 Gas 322.49 1.749 30.7 0.1 0.92
32 SC 322.43 20.544 780.3 0.5 0.43 70 Gas 322.48 1.500 25.9 0.1 0.94
33 SC 322.40 20.400 775.4 0.5 0.43 71 Gas 322.49 1.306 22.1 0.1 0.96
34 SC 322.43 20.014 767.7 0.5 0.42 72 Gas 322.48 1.002 16.8 0.1 0.97
35 SC 322.43 19.480 761.0 0.6 0.42 73 Gas 322.49 0.801 13.5 0.1 0.96
36 SC 322.43 19.007 754.0 0.6 0.41 74 Gas 322.49 0.602 10.1 0.1 0.97
37 SC 322.44 18.728 748.8 0.6 0.41 75 Gas 322.49 0.498 8.0 0.1 1.01
38 SC 322.42 18.005 740.8 0.6 0.39 76 Gas 322.48 0.395 6.4 0.1 1.00
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa and u(p) = 0.005 MPa
for pressures from 10-40 MPa

25
 Table 7 - Experimental results of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system at 353 K a

No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z No Phase T/K p/MPa ρ/kg.m-3 Z

Exp. uc(ρ) Exp. uc(ρ)
1 SC 352.98 40.721 814.9 0.3 0.74 46 SC 352.96 19.005 551.2 0.9 0.51
2 SC 352.99 40.702 814.4 0.3 0.74 47 SC 352.98 18.502 536.7 0.9 0.51
3 SC 352.97 40.515 813.3 0.3 0.74 48 SC 352.98 18.005 522.1 1.0 0.51
4 SC 352.98 40.059 810.8 0.3 0.73 49 SC 352.96 17.499 505.7 1.0 0.51
5 SC 352.98 39.509 807.3 0.3 0.73 50 SC 352.97 17.001 488.9 1.1 0.52
6 SC 352.98 39.054 803.9 0.3 0.72 51 SC 352.97 16.500 471.0 1.1 0.52
7 SC 352.95 38.517 800.4 0.3 0.71 52 SC 352.98 16.003 452.2 1.2 0.52
8 SC 352.96 38.004 797.0 0.3 0.71 53 SC 353.00 15.503 432.9 1.2 0.53
9 SC 352.96 37.470 794.1 0.3 0.70 54 SC 352.99 15.001 412.5 1.2 0.54
10 SC 352.96 37.004 790.2 0.3 0.69 55 SC 352.98 14.500 391.7 1.2 0.55
11 SC 352.96 36.555 786.3 0.3 0.69 56 SC 352.98 14.003 371.6 1.2 0.56
12 SC 352.96 35.917 782.8 0.3 0.68 57 SC 352.98 13.497 350.2 1.2 0.57
13 SC 352.93 35.508 779.2 0.4 0.68 58 SC 352.97 13.007 329.4 1.2 0.59
14 SC 352.96 35.000 774.5 0.4 0.67 59 SC 353.00 12.511 308.8 1.1 0.60
15 SC 352.96 34.514 770.9 0.4 0.66 60 SC 352.99 12.007 288.6 1.1 0.62
16 SC 352.96 33.999 767.0 0.4 0.66 61 SC 352.98 11.500 268.9 1.0 0.63
17 SC 352.94 33.504 763.1 0.4 0.65 62 SC 352.98 10.998 250.1 0.9 0.65
18 SC 352.96 33.000 758.5 0.4 0.65 63 SC 352.99 10.504 232.8 0.9 0.67
19 SC 352.96 32.501 753.9 0.4 0.64 64 SC 352.99 9.987 217.7 0.3 0.68
20 SC 352.96 32.001 749.7 0.4 0.63 65 SC 352.99 9.504 202.4 0.3 0.70
21 SC 352.96 31.506 745.0 0.4 0.63 66 Gas 352.99 9.009 187.0 0.2 0.71
22 SC 352.96 31.043 741.1 0.4 0.62 67 Gas 352.98 8.504 172.4 0.2 0.73
23 SC 352.97 30.503 735.1 0.4 0.62 68 Gas 353.00 8.009 158.7 0.2 0.75
24 SC 352.97 30.006 730.2 0.4 0.61 69 Gas 352.99 7.526 145.7 0.2 0.77
25 SC 352.97 29.502 724.7 0.4 0.60 70 Gas 353.00 7.006 132.8 0.2 0.78
26 SC 352.98 29.007 719.7 0.4 0.60 71 Gas 352.98 6.499 120.5 0.2 0.80
27 SC 352.98 28.505 714.4 0.5 0.59 72 Gas 352.98 6.017 109.3 0.1 0.82
28 SC 352.99 28.006 708.6 0.5 0.59 73 Gas 352.98 5.511 98.1 0.1 0.83
29 SC 352.97 27.507 702.5 0.5 0.58 74 Gas 352.99 5.014 87.3 0.1 0.85
30 SC 352.98 27.002 696.2 0.5 0.58 75 Gas 352.98 4.496 77.2 0.1 0.86
31 SC 352.98 26.504 690.1 0.5 0.57 76 Gas 352.98 4.015 67.8 0.1 0.88
32 SC 352.98 25.999 683.7 0.5 0.56 77 Gas 352.98 3.498 57.6 0.1 0.90
33 SC 352.97 25.500 676.5 0.5 0.56 78 Gas 352.97 3.004 48.9 0.1 0.91
34 SC 352.97 25.005 669.8 0.5 0.55 79 Gas 352.98 2.801 44.8 0.1 0.93
35 SC 352.96 24.499 662.4 0.6 0.55 80 Gas 352.97 2.517 40.0 0.1 0.93
36 SC 352.98 24.005 654.6 0.6 0.54 81 Gas 352.97 2.253 35.5 0.1 0.94
37 SC 352.98 23.503 646.1 0.6 0.54 82 Gas 352.97 2.019 31.5 0.1 0.95
38 SC 352.98 23.002 637.9 0.6 0.53 83 Gas 352.98 1.745 27.0 0.1 0.96
39 SC 352.99 22.505 629.4 0.7 0.53 84 Gas 352.99 1.523 23.3 0.1 0.97
40 SC 352.98 22.006 619.7 0.7 0.53 85 Gas 352.98 1.267 19.0 0.1 0.99
41 SC 352.98 21.508 610.3 0.7 0.52 86 Gas 352.99 0.998 15.1 0.1 0.98
42 SC 352.96 20.999 599.7 0.7 0.52 87 Gas 352.99 0.754 11.4 0.1 0.98
43 SC 352.96 20.506 589.4 0.8 0.52 88 Gas 353.00 0.502 7.6 0.1 0.98
44 SC 352.96 19.998 577.5 0.8 0.51 89 Gas 352.99 0.399 5.9 0.1 1.00
45 SC 352.97 19.503 564.8 0.9 0.51
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa and u(p) = 0.005 MPa
for pressures from 10-40 MPa

26
Table 8 - Uncertainties with 95% level of confidence (k=2) for the measured densities of the 0.9505
mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system

Uncertainties U()
T/K Phase Data Average Max.
-3 -3
No. kg.m % kg.m %
273 Gas 19 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.8
Liquid 75 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0
SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 94 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.8
283 Gas 22 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9
Liquid 74 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1
SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 96 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.9
298 Gas 28 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.7
Liquid 73 0.6 0.1 2.3 0.3
SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 101 0.5 0.2 2.3 1.7
323 Gas 22 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.4
Liquid 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
SC 54 0.6 0.1 2.3 0.4
Total 76 0.4 0.2 2.3 1.4
353 Gas 24 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.4
Liquid 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
SC 65 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.4
Total 89 0.5 0.2 1.2 1.4
Total Gas 115 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.8
Liquid 222 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.3
SC 119 0.6 0.1 2.3 0.4
Total 456 0.4 0.2 2.3 1.8

27
Table 9 - Summarised AADs for the measured density of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S
system

Gas Liquid SC Overall

No of Exp. Data 115 222 119 456
Average PR 1.5 4.2 2.1 3.0
Absolute SRK 1.3 8.0 8.0 6.3
Deviation VPT 1.4 3.0 1.8 2.3
(%) PR-CO2 1.0 1.3 2.3 1.5
SRK-CO2 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.4
VPT-CO2 1.0 1.2 2.4 1.4
PR-Peneloux 1.3 2.3 2.6 2.1
SRK-Peneloux 1.1 3.0 3.2 2.6
GERG-2008 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.1
Maximum PR 4.5 10.6 6.5 10.6
Absolute SRK 7.1 19.4 12.2 19.4
Deviation VPT 4.6 11.6 6.5 11.6
(%) PR-CO2 4.4 4.0 4.9 4.9
SRK-CO2 4.7 3.7 3.8 4.7
VPT-CO2 4.4 4.0 5.4 5.4
PR-Peneloux 4.6 13.0 6.4 13.0
SRK-Peneloux 6.2 15.7 8.6 15.7
GERG-2008 4.3 2.5 5.7 5.7

28
 Table 10 - Specific heat capacity calculations for the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system a

ρ/ ν/ Cp0/ CpExp/ U(Cp)/ CpGERG/

T/K p/MPa Dev./(%)
kg.m-3 (m .mol ) (J.K-1.mol-1)
3 -1
(J.K-1.mol-1) (J.K-1.mol-1) (J.K-1.mol-1)
40 MPa
272.57 40.046 1054.95 4.13E-05 35.78 73.27 0.10 78.10 6.6
283.47 40.004 1040.33 4.18E-05 36.35 73.34 0.11 78.33 6.8
298.06 40.253 992.41 4.39E-05 37.09 73.42 0.11 78.71 7.2
322.40 39.992 908.08 4.79E-05 38.25 74.01 0.12 79.79 7.8
352.98 40.059 810.79 5.37E-05 39.58 74.00 0.13 80.64 9.0
35 MPa
272.56 35.060 1041.12 4.18E-05 35.78 74.86 0.13 79.31 5.9
283.46 35.004 1025.18 4.24E-05 36.35 75.19 0.13 79.80 6.1
298.06 35.006 974.89 4.46E-05 37.09 75.78 0.14 80.65 6.4
322.42 35.002 883.60 4.93E-05 38.25 77.01 0.15 82.43 7.0
352.96 35.000 774.52 5.62E-05 39.58 78.03 0.17 84.17 7.9
30 MPa
272.57 30.022 1025.61 4.24E-05 35.78 77.03 0.16 80.82 4.9
283.47 30.014 1008.20 4.32E-05 36.35 77.64 0.17 81.65 5.2
298.07 29.996 955.45 4.55E-05 37.09 78.87 0.18 83.11 5.4
322.43 30.006 854.09 5.10E-05 38.25 81.42 0.19 86.16 5.8
352.97 30.006 730.17 5.96E-05 39.58 84.11 0.21 89.33 6.2
25 MPa
272.58 24.975 1008.49 4.32E-05 35.78 79.89 0.21 82.76 3.6
283.47 25.000 988.85 4.40E-05 36.35 80.97 0.22 84.11 3.9
298.07 25.023 932.12 4.67E-05 37.09 83.34 0.24 86.50 3.8
322.42 25.008 817.64 5.32E-05 38.25 88.23 0.27 91.89 4.2
352.97 25.005 669.79 6.50E-05 39.58 93.93 0.28 97.82 4.1
20 MPa
272.58 20.011 989.08 4.40E-05 35.78 82.07 0.34 85.28 3.9
283.47 20.010 966.84 4.50E-05 36.35 83.86 0.36 87.51 4.3
298.06 19.999 903.89 4.81E-05 37.09 87.85 0.39 91.67 4.3
322.43 20.014 767.74 5.67E-05 38.25 98.41 0.45 102.20 3.8
352.96 19.998 577.46 7.54E-05 39.58 108.87 0.46 113.28 4.1
15 MPa
272.58 15.013 967.11 4.50E-05 35.78 88.80 0.82 88.83 0.0
283.47 15.004 940.37 4.63E-05 36.35 92.27 0.87 92.67 0.4
298.07 15.005 867.00 5.02E-05 37.09 100.54 0.95 100.66 0.1
322.43 15.001 682.02 6.38E-05 38.25 131.03 1.18 129.00 -1.6
352.99 15.001 412.49 0.0001055 39.58 126.51 1.24 129.50 2.4
AAD (%) 4.8
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K and u(p) = 0.005 MPa for pressures from 10-40 MPa

29
Table 11 - Estimated dew and bubble points from the measured density data for the 0.9505 mole CO2
+ 0.04905 mole H2S system a

Type Experimental Prediction (PR-CO2) Deviations (%)

uc(ρ)/
T/K p/MPa ρ/ kg.m-3 p/MPa ρ/ kg.m-3 p ρ
kg.m-3
Dew Point 272.56 3.435 97.4 0.3 3.379 93.3 -1.6 -4.2
Dew Point 282.70 4.334 127.4 0.4 4.387 125.6 1.2 -1.4
Dew Point 297.50 6.166 225.0 0.6 6.232 236.0 1.1 4.9
Bubble Point 273.32 4.193 889.9 0.5 3.445 905.5 -17.8 1.8
Bubble Point 283.90 4.621 861.4 0.7 4.537 850.5 -1.8 -1.3
Bubble Point 298.07 6.320 714.3 2.3 6.313 731.9 -0.1 2.5
Absolute Average Deviation (AAD) (%) 3.8 2.7
a
Standard uncertainties, u, are u(T) = 0.02 K, u(p) = 0.002 MPa for pressures up to 10 MPa

30
 Figure 1 - Schematic diagram of the densitometer apparatus
1) Anton Paar DMA 512 densitometer, 2) High pressure fluid vessel, 3) Capillary Valve
(ROLSITM) [55], 4) Lauda liquid bath, 5) Liquid bath of circuit, 6) Pressure transducers, 7)
Temperature probes, 8) Vacuum pump, 9) Neutralisation column, 10) Data acquisition unit,
V1) Circuit valve, V2) Flow controlling ball valve, V3)Vacuum valve, V4) Venting valve,
V5) Neutralisation valve

31
 2.5 4
a) b)
2
3

1.5
P / MPa

P / MPa
2
1

0.5 1

0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1,y1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1,y1
6 9
c) d)
8
5
7

4 6
P / MPa

P / MPa
5
3
4
2
3

1 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1,y1 x1,y1
Figure 2 - Pressure – composition diagram of the CO2 (1) + H2S (2) system. a) T =258.41 K. (), this work. b)
T = 273.15 K. (), this work; (), T=273.15 K from [28]. c) T = 293.47 K. (), this work; () T = 293.15 K
from [28]. d) T = 313.02 K. (), this work (), T = 313.15 K, from [28]. Black lines: calculated bubble and dew
lines using the SRK model with kij = 0.098. Dotted lines: calculated bubble and dew lines using the adjusted PR-
EoS model. Grey lines: calculated bubble and dew lines using the SRK-EoS model with kij =0. Broken lines (—
– —): GERG-2008 EoS.

32
 45

40

35

30
P / MPa

25

20

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Density / kg.m-3

Figure 3 - Experimental and predicted densities of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system.
Experimental results: (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K, (◊) 323.15 K and (□) 353.15 K.
Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS

33
 10
9
8
7
6
P / MPa

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 40 80 120 160 200
Density / kg.m-3
Figure 4 – Low pressure experimental and predicted densities of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole
H2S system. Experimental results: (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K, (◊) 323.15 K and (□)
353.15 K. Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS

34
 45

40

35

30
P / MPa

25

20

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Density / kg.m-3
Figure 5 – Comparison of experimental and predicted densities results of the CO2 + H2S system at two
isotherms with the literature data, Experimental results in this work: (◊) 322.4 K and (□) 353.15 K.
Stouffer et al. [7]: (♦) 325 K and ZH2S = 0.0955, (■)325 K and ZH2S = 0.0607, (●)350 K and ZH2S =
0.0607, (▲)350 K and ZH2S = 0.0955, Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS, Dash lines:
Predictions using the PR-CO2 EoS

35
 10
9
8
7
6
P / MPa

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200
Density / kg.m-3
Figure 6 – Comparison of experimental and predicted densities of the CO2 + H2S system at two
isotherms with the literature data at lower pressures, Experimental results in this work: (◊) 322.4 K
and (□) 353.15 K. Stouffer et al. [7]: (♦) 325 K and ZH2S = 0.0955, (■)325 K and ZH2S = 0.0607,
(●)350 K and ZH2S = 0.0607, (▲)350 K and ZH2S = 0.0955, Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008
EoS, Dash lines: Predictions using the PR-CO2 EoS

36
 5.0

4.0

3.0
(ρGERG-ρExp)/ρExp × 100

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0

-4.0

-5.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Density / kg.m-3

Figure 7 – Deviations of GERG-2008 EoS from experimental densities of CO2 - H2S

This work: (◊) 322.4 K and ZH2S = 0.0495, Stouffer et al. [7]: (♦) 325 K and ZH2S = 0.0955, (■) 325 K
and ZH2S = 0.0607

37
 5.0
4.0
3.0
(ρPR-CO2-ρExp)/ρExp 100

2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
0 10 20 30 40
P / MPa
Figure 8 – Deviations of the predictions using PR-CO2 equation of state from the measured data

38
 1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Z

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
P / MPa

Figure 9 – Compressibility factor of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system.
Experimental results: (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K, (◊) 323.15 K and (□) 353.15 K.
Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS

39
 1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
Z

0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0 2 4 6 8 10
P / MPa
Figure 10 – Compressibility factor of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system.
Experimental results: (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K, (◊) 323.15 K and (□) 353.15 K.
Lines: Predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS

40
 100 100
95 40 MPa 95 35 MPa
90 90

Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)
Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)

85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
60 60
55 55
50 50
270 290 310 330 350 370 270 290 310 330 350 370
T/K T/K

100 110
95 30 MPa 105 25 MPa
90 100

Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)
Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)

85 95
80 90
75 85
70 80
65 75
60 70
55 65
50 60
270 290 310 330 350 370 270 290 310 330 350 370
T/K T/K

120 160
115 20 MPa 15 MPa
150
110
140
Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)

Cp / (J.K-1.mol-1)

105
100 130
95 120
90 110
85
100
80
75 90
70 80
270 290 310 330 350 370 270 290 310 330 350 370
T/K T/K

Figure 11 - Specific heat capacity of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system.

(●) calculated Cp with 2% error, Lines: predictions using the GERG-2008 EoS

41
 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0
P / MPa

3.0

2.0
Dew points

1.0

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Density / kg.m-3
Figure 12 – Dew point determination of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system for different
isotherms, (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K

42
 20
18
16
14
12 Bubble points
P/MPa

10
8
6
4
2
0
600 700 800 900 1000
Density / kg.m-3

Figure 13 – Bubble point determination of the 0.9505 mole CO2 + 0.0495 mole H2S system for
different isotherms, (∆) 273. 15 K, (*) 283.15 K, (○) 298.15 K

43
Appendix A:

Density Measurement uncertainties

The combined standard uncertainties [38][39] of density measurements for each measured
quantity have been calculated using the root sum of the squares of uncertainties as shown in
the following equation.
𝑢𝑐 (𝜌) = √𝑢1 (𝑇)2 + 𝑢2 (𝑝)2 + 𝑢3 (𝜏)2 (A1)
where 𝑢1 (𝑇) is the estimated uncertainties due to the temperature, 𝑢2 (𝑝) the estimated
uncertainties due to pressure and 𝑢3 (𝜏) the estimated uncertainties of oscillation period.
The estimated uncertainties due to temperature variations, 𝑢1 (𝑇), has been calculated from the
equation below:
𝜕𝜌 2
𝑢1 (𝑇) = √(𝜕𝑇 ) . 𝑢(𝑇)2 (A2)

In the above equation, u(T) is the standard estimated uncertainty of temperature probe and is
𝜕𝜌
considered to be U(T) = 0.04 K. The density gradient due to the temperature variations, (𝜕𝑇 ),
has been calculated from the equation below.
𝜕𝜌 1
(𝜕𝑇 ) = 2𝑢(𝑇)
(𝜌𝑇+𝑢(𝑇) − 𝜌𝑇−𝑢(𝑇) ) (A3)

The upper and lower limits of densities due to temperature effect, 𝜌𝑇+𝑢(𝑇) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜌𝑇−𝑢(𝑇) , were
estimated from REFPROP v8.0 [56].
The similar procedures have been followed to estimate the uncertainties due to the pressure
and period of oscillations. The standard uncertainty of pressure transducer, u(p)=0.005 MPa
and standard uncertainty of oscillation period, u(τ)=0.005 µs [57].
𝜕𝜌 2
𝑢2 (𝑝) = √(𝜕𝑝) . 𝑢(𝑝)2 (A4)
𝜕𝜌 1
(𝜕𝑝) = 2𝑢(𝑝)
(𝜌𝑇+𝑢(𝑝) − 𝜌𝑇−𝑢(𝑝) ) (A5)

𝜕𝜌 2
𝑢3 (𝜏) = √( 𝜕𝜏 ) . 𝑢(𝜏)2 (A6)
𝜕𝜌 1
( )= (𝜌𝑇+𝑢(𝜏) − 𝜌𝑇−𝑢(𝜏) ) (A7)
𝜕𝜏 2𝑢(𝜏)

44
 Isobaric heat capacity uncertainties

The combined standard uncertainty [38][39] of isobaric heat capacities were calculated from
the equation below.
𝑢𝑐 (𝐶𝑝 ) = √𝑢(𝑇)2 + 𝑢(𝑝)2 + 𝑢(𝑎)2 (A8)
The uncertainties due to the temperature and pressure, u(T) and u(p), can be calculated through
Equation A9 to Equation A12.
𝜕𝐶 2
𝑢(𝑇) = √( 𝜕𝑇𝑝 ) . 𝑢(𝑇)2 (A9)
𝜕𝐶 1
( 𝜕𝑇𝑝 ) = 2𝑢(𝑇)
(𝐶𝑝 𝑇+𝑢(𝑇) − 𝐶𝑝 𝑇−𝑢(𝑇) ) (A10)

𝜕𝐶 2
𝑢(𝑝) = √( 𝜕𝑝 ) . 𝑢(𝑝)2
𝑝
(A11)
𝜕𝐶 1
( 𝜕𝑝𝑝 ) = 2𝑢(𝑝)
(𝐶𝑝 𝑝+𝑢(𝑝) − 𝐶𝑝 𝑝−𝑢(𝑝) ) (A12)

The uncertainties due to the parameter a in Equation (14) is determined by changing in the
densities. The accuracy in the density measurement is estimated to be ±1.0 kg/m3 and then the
upper and lower limits of parameter a were determined from the polynomial Equation (12).
Then, the upper and lower Cp were calculated through Equation (14). The uncertainties due to
parameter a then can be calculated through equations below.
𝜕𝐶 2
𝑢(𝑎) = √( 𝑝 ) . 𝑢(𝑎)2 (A13)
𝜕𝑎
𝜕𝐶𝑝 1
( 𝜕𝑎 ) = 2𝑢(𝑎)
(𝐶𝑝 𝑎+𝑢(𝑎) − 𝐶𝑝 𝑎−𝑢(𝑎) ) (A14)

Expanded uncertainties are defined as 𝑈(𝑋, 𝑘 = 2) = 2 × 𝑢(𝑥) in this work.

45

View publication stats