Next Article in Journal
Analytical Characterization of Thermal Efficiency and Emissions from a Diesel Engine Using Diesel and Biodiesel and Its Significance for Logistics Management
Previous Article in Journal
Ni Supported on Pr-Doped Ceria as Catalysts for Dry Reforming of Methane
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

CO2 Sequestration Potential Competitive with H2O and N2 in Abandoned Coal Mines Based on Molecular Modeling

by
Tianyang Liu
1,
Yun Li
1,*,
Yaxuan Hu
1,
Hezhao Li
1,
Binghe Chen
1,
Qixu Zhang
1,
Qiufeng Xu
2,* and
Yong Li
1,3
1
College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
2
Oil and Gas Survey, China Geological Survey, Beijing 100083, China
3
State Key Laboratory for Exploration and Intelligent Development of Coal Resources, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(7), 2123; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072123
Submission received: 6 June 2025 / Revised: 26 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 3 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental and Green Processes)

Abstract

To facilitate the local recycling of coal mine waste gas and investigate multi-component gas adsorption under high pressure conditions, this study develops a coal nanopore model using molecular dynamics (MD) and grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) methods and simulates the adsorption behavior of coal mine waste gas components (CO2, H2O, N2) under varying pressure levels and gas molar ratios at 353.15 K. We evaluated the adsorption capacity and selectivity for both single-component and multi-component gases, quantifying adsorption interactions through adsorption heat, interaction energy, and energy distribution. The simulation results revealed that the contribution of the three gases to the total adsorption amount followed the order: H2O > CO2 > N2. The selective adsorption coefficient of a gas exhibits an inverse correlation with its molar volume ratio. Isothermal heat adsorption of gases in coal was positive, decreasing sharply with increasing pressure before leveling off. Electrostatic interactions dominated CO2 and H2O adsorption, while van der Waals forces governed N2 adsorption. As the gas mixture complexity increased, the overlap of energy distribution curves pronounced, highlighting competitive adsorption behavior. These findings offer a theoretical foundation for optimizing coal mine waste gas treatment and CO2 sequestration technologies.

1. Introduction

Currently, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion exceed 40 billion tons per year, representing a significant contributor to global warming. CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technology plays a pivotal role in addressing the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and achieving the goals of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality [1,2,3]. CCS involves separating CO2 from industrial or related emission sources, transporting it to storage sites, and isolating it from the atmosphere over the long term. This process primarily consists of four components: capture, transportation, geological storage, and monitoring [4,5,6]. CO2 geological storage, a key component of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology, is a critical technological pathway toward achieving carbon neutrality. To ensure the stability and safety of CO2 storage, CO2 is primarily transported and stored underground in a supercritical state (pressure of 7.38 MPa and critical temperature of 31.1 °C) [6,7]. Coal mine waste gases include landfill gas (approximately 40–60% CH4, 32–40% CO2, 2–4% N2, and 3–12% H2O), coal mine drainage gas (H2O content exceeding 20%), coal mine air exhaust gas (CH4 content below 1%), and associated natural gas [8,9]. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, also contributes to global warming [10]. With advancements in CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and methane separation and utilization (MSU) technologies, capturing and storing coal mine exhaust gases during downstream mining processes can help mitigate the impact of mining on climate change [11].
The main factors influencing the adsorption capacity of coal mine waste gases include pore shape, pore size, and coal surface functional groups. Wang et al. [12,13] classified pore shapes into five types across three scales (nanoscale, microscale, and macroscale): spherical (0.2–0.8 μm), tubular (0.8–10 μm), slot (10–30 μm), slit (30–40 μm), and flat slit (50–240 μm). These pores exhibit a wide size range and a continuous distribution from microscale to mesoscale [14]. Among these, micropores with sizes below 10 nm contribute most significantly to adsorption capacity [15,16]. Pore size in coal also varies with the degree of coalification; as metamorphism increases, micropore content rises while macropore content decreases [16,17]. Dong et al. [18] found that pore size has a more substantial influence than functional groups in pure adsorption, with pore structure and original functional group contributions to CO2/CH4 adsorption quantified at 71% and 29%, and 83% and 17%, respectively. Liu et al. [19,20] discovered that oxygen-containing functional groups (e.g., -OH and -COOH) preferentially adsorb H2O over CO2. Yu et al. [21] determined the adsorption sequence of CO2 and CH4 on functional groups in vitrinite coal structures using simulations, which ranked as follows: -OH > -COOH > -C2O > -CO > -C for CO2, and -OH > -CO > -C2O > -C > -COOH for CH4.
Recent studies have utilized molecular mechanics, molecular dynamics, and Monte Carlo methods to calculate gas adsorption in coal [22,23,24,25], providing theoretical insights for managing gas hazards and improving energy utilization in air-mining regions [26]. Si et al. [27] examined the competitive adsorption behaviors of CO2/N2/O2 at low pressures, while Li et al. [28] analyzed the competitive adsorption of CO2, N2, and CH4 at different temperatures and studied changes in coal pore structure before and after gas injection. Liu et al. [29] simulated the adsorption of CH4, CO2, H2O, and N2 on a heterogeneous coal surface model using GCMC. Guo et al. [30] employed MC simulations to investigate competitive saturation adsorption of O2 and H2O within coal particles and applied the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) to study intra- and inter-particle convection, diffusion, and adsorption. Despite these advancements, the microcosmic mechanism for coal mine waste gas adsorption remains underexplored.
The adsorption behavior of CH4 in coal seam pores, including competitive adsorption in both single-component and multi-component systems, has been extensively studied in recent years [13,31]. Cai et al. [32] investigated the regulatory role of pore structure evolution in coal on the three-phase transformation mechanism of methane. Esen et al. [33] analyzed the effects of different coal lithotypes on methane adsorption and the efficiency of coalbed methane production. However, studies focusing on the subcomponents of coal mine waste gas (CO2, H2O, N2) under high fugacity conditions remain relatively scarce.
Accordingly, a nanopore model was constructed, and grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were conducted to examine coal mine waste gas adsorption. Three gases (CO2, H2O, N2) with varying pressure and molar concentrations were targeted to explore the competitive adsorption mechanisms and their underlying causes. This study extends existing gas adsorption models by incorporating competitive adsorption mechanisms among CO2, H2O, and N2, a critical but underexplored factor in coal mine gas management. By bridging molecular simulations with macroscopic carbon sequestration predictions, we provide a multiscale theoretical framework, offering practical insights for optimizing underground coal seam storage.

2. Models and Methodology

2.1. Construction and Optimization of Models

Proximate analysis serves as a fundamental methodology for characterizing coal composition, systematically dividing coal constituents into four principal components under standardized conditions: moisture (M), ash (A), volatile matter (V), and fixed carbon (FC). This analytical approach employs conditional testing procedures, where each component is quantified through specific thermal treatment protocols—moisture by oven drying, ash by high-temperature combustion, volatile matter through pyrolysis under inert atmosphere, and fixed carbon by mass balance calculation.
Air-dried basis (ad) reflects coal samples that have equilibrated with laboratory humidity conditions, where only surface moisture is removed while inherent moisture remains. Dry basis (d) eliminates all moisture content. These bases are measured under idealized conditions and can be converted to each other. Dry ash-free basis (daf) is the core benchmark system for industrial analysis of solid fuels and refers to the organic combustible content of the fuel after the hypothetical removal of all water and ash from the fuel [34]. These bases are measured under idealized conditions and can be converted to each other.
The coal samples were produced in the northern Ordos Basin. In this study, the coal samples were analyzed by proximate and maceral composition analysis. The results are shown in Table 1.
The slit nanopore model was constructed using the coal molecular fragment shown in Figure 1a. The amorphous cell module and geometry optimization via the molecular dynamics were applied to achieve the model with the lowest energy, as depicted in Figure 1b. The chemical formula for the model is C2884H2352N28O210 (C: 85.00%, H: 5.77%, N: 0.96%, O: 8.25%). The pore width was set to 40 Å, with periodic boundaries and lattice parameters defined as α = β = γ = 90°, and edge lengths of A = 38.3150 Å, B = 38.3150 Å, and C = 86.6008 Å. The total density of the gap-containing model was 0.531417 g/cm3, with additional parameters listed in Table 2.
Molecular models of CO2, H2O, and N2 were constructed using Material Studio 2023 (Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA, San Diego, USA), and optimized with the Compass force field to achieve the lowest molecular energy.

2.2. Simulation and Analytical Methods

In this study, the adsorption properties of CO2, N2, and H2O at 353.15 K were simulated using grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) and molecular dynamics (MD) methods. GCMC is suitable for simulating adsorption processes in open systems. Under constant temperature, volume, and chemical potential conditions, it simulates the interactions between gas molecules and adsorbent surfaces through stochastic operations such as random displacement, insertion, and deletion of molecules, thereby obtaining key data such as adsorption isotherms. MD, based on Newton’s laws of motion, tracks molecular trajectories in phase space by solving equations of motion, enabling the study of molecular dynamic behaviors and interaction energies [35].
Simulations were conducted at pressure ranging from 0 to 30 MPa. As shown in Table 3, the gases studied included single-component CO2, H2O, and N2, as well as two-component gas mixtures with molar volume ratios of 1:9, 3:7, 5:5, 7:3, and 9:1 (CO2/H2O, CO2/N2, and H2O/N2), and three-component gas mixtures with molar volume ratios of 1:1:1, 1:1:2, 1:2:1, and 2:1:1 (CO2/H2O/N2).
The small molecule models of CO2, H2O, and N2 gases with the lowest energy after geometry optimization in Materials Studio were simulated in the Sorption module using the parameters shown in Table 2.
To quantify the gas adsorption capacity, adsorption selectivity S i / j was used to describe the degree of relative enrichment of the two-component gas in the adsorbed phase. The selective adsorption S i / j of gas i on gas j is defined, as shown in (1) [36]
S i / j = x i / x j y i / y j
where xi (xj) and yi (yj) denote the substance fraction of gas i (j) in the adsorption phase and gas phase, respectively. If S i / j > 1, it indicates that the adsorbent has a stronger affinity for gas i and is more easily enriched in the adsorption phase. The greater the adsorption selectivity, the better the separation performance of the gas mixture.

3. Results

3.1. Adsorption Simulation Results

The adsorption results of the three-component gases at pressure loading to 30 MPa equilibrium are shown in Figure 2. These include the blue-dashed CO2 density distribution, the red-dashed H2O density distribution, and the green-dashed N2 density distribution.

3.2. Isothermal Adsorption Capacity

As shown in Figure 3a, the adsorption amounts of the three gases (H2O, CO2, and N2) exhibit a monotonic increase with increasing pressure. The adsorption isotherm of CO2 rises rapidly at low pressure before gradually reaching saturation, while the adsorption rate of H2O is faster at low pressure but slows as pressure increases. In contrast, the adsorption of N2 follows a nearly linear trend. At 30 MPa, the adsorption amounts of H2O, CO2, and N2 are 1428.56 mol/mol, 1018.66 mol/mol, and 433.40 mol/mol, respectively. When pressure exceeds 12 MPa, the adsorption capacity of H2O exceeds that of CO2, with the overall adsorption order being H2O > CO2 > N2. This suggests that H2O adsorbs more strongly than CO2 at nanopore sites, primarily due to the abundance of polar functional groups (e.g., hydroxyl, carboxyl, carbonyl, and ether bonds) on the nanopore surfaces of coal beds [19,37]. H2O, with its strong polarity and permanent electric dipole moment, forms hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions with these surface groups. CO2, although less polar, can still undergo chemical adsorption with acidic surface groups such as carbonyl. N2, being non-polar, is adsorbed only through weaker intermolecular interactions such as van der Waals forces, leading to its lower adsorption [37].
Figure 3b–d present the adsorption of two-component gas. At any molar volume ratio, the contribution to total adsorption shows a similarity to that of the single component. At 30 MPa and a molar component ratio of 1, the gas adsorption for the CO2/H2O binary system is 373.37 mol/mol for CO2 and 698.43 mol/mol for H2O, with H2O adsorption being 1.87 times that of CO2. This is 1.40 times greater than the adsorption of single-component gases under the same conditions, indicating that H2O dominates competitive adsorption in the CO2/H2O system. In the CO2/N2 system, the adsorption amounts are 428.82 mol/mol for CO2 and 143.69 mol/mol for N2, with CO2 adsorption being 2.98 times that of N2, which is 2.35 times greater than the adsorption in a single-component gas system. This demonstrates CO2’s competitiveness over N2. In the H2O/N2 binary system, the adsorption of H2O consistently exceeds that of N2 across various molar component ratios.
Figure 3e illustrates the adsorption behavior of CO2/H2O/N2 mixtures. In both binary and ternary competitive adsorption systems, the saturated adsorption amounts are lower than those of the corresponding single-component systems, with adsorption amounts increasing with the molar volume fractions of CO2, H2O, and N2.

3.3. Competitive Adsorption

In Figure 4a, the adsorption selectivity S H 2 O / C O 2 is highest when the initial molar volume of CO2 in the gas phase is high. The selectivity initially decreases rapidly with increasing pressure before exhibiting an upward trend. At low pressures, the adsorption sites are primarily occupied by H2O, which, due to its significant polarity, is preferentially enriched, leading to a higher H2O/CO2 adsorption selectivity. As the pressure surpasses 6 MPa, CO2 gradually occupies the adsorption sites, diminishing the selective adsorption advantage of H2O. In Figure 4b, the adsorption selectivity decreases sharply and then stabilizes with increasing pressure at any molar fraction. The highest S C O 2 / N 2 values are observed at lower CO2 molar volume (with y C O 2 : y N 2 = 1:9), with high selectivity peaks, particularly at low pressures. The adsorption selectivity pattern in Figure 4c is similar to that in Figure 4b, but S H 2 O / N 2 shows an increasing trend from 6 to 30 MPa, in contrast with S C O 2 / N 2 . The highest S H 2 O / N 2 values are found at lower molar volumes of H2O (with y H 2 O : y N 2 = 1:9). In summary, the smaller the molar volume ratio of the gas, the greater difference in the adsorption capacities of the two-component gas system, and the higher the selective adsorption coefficient for the corresponding gas.

4. Discussion

To clarify the adsorption mechanism, the controlling factors for competitive adsorption were identified through a quantitative analysis of the total interaction energy, the heat of adsorption for different gases, and the energy distribution.

4.1. Adsorption Heat Influences

The magnitude of the heat of adsorption can measure the degree of adsorption strength. The larger the heat of adsorption, the stronger the interaction between the adsorbed molecules and the solid surface, the easier the molecules are captured on the adsorption sites, and the stronger the adsorption [38]. The heat of adsorption changes during the loading process were observed by the visual molecular simulation tool, and the heat of adsorption of the gas after reaching equilibrium was statistically calculated.
The change rule of heat of adsorption of CO2, N2, and H2O with pressure is shown in Figure 5a, the size of heat of adsorption of CO2 and H2O decreases and then increases with the increase in pressure, and the range of change of heat of adsorption of N2 is relatively small. At 4.925–9.011 kcal/mol, the range of change of heat of adsorption of H2O is larger at 3.892–10.016 kcal/mol, which indicates that the pressure of CO2 is less than 20 MPa. The heat of adsorption of N2 decreases with the increase in pressure and then stabilizes at about 2.000 kcal/mol. In general, the heat of adsorption of CO2 and H2O is higher than that of N2. In the early stage of adsorption, the high-energy sites on the surface are preferentially occupied and the heat of adsorption is higher. As the adsorption sites are gradually occupied, the remaining sites have lower energy and the heat of adsorption decreases.
The change of heat of adsorption of the two-component system with the pressure and the composition of the system gas is shown in Figure 5b–d. The magnitude of the heat of adsorption of CO2 and H2O decreases and then increases with the increase in pressure, and the change in the heat of adsorption of N2 is not obvious under high pressure. The heat of adsorption of CO2 in the CO2/H2O system is 7.336 kcal/mol at 90% CO2 content and 30 MPa, which is larger compared with 5.128 kcal/mol in the CO2/N2 system, indicating that H2O has less inhibitory effect on CO2 adsorption in the nanopore space of coal beds compared to N2. The combinations of higher molar concentration of N2 present a greater heat of adsorption, and the increase in molar concentration increased the competitive adsorption capacity of N2 in the two-component gas.
In Figure 5e, the heat of adsorption of CO2 is higher in the combination CO2/H2O/N2 = 1/1/2 than in CO2/H2O/N2 = 1/2/1 at pressure lower than 6 MPa, and the opposite trend is observed at pressure above 6 MPa, indicating that the adsorption capacity of CO2 molecules increases with higher pressure and higher gas water content. The trend in heat of adsorption for the two-component and three-component systems of CO2, N2, and H2O are similar to those of the single-component system. The promotion of CO2 adsorption by H2O and the difference in adsorption amounts of the three gases by the average gas adsorption heat clear response, as shown in Figure 5f, corroborate the aforementioned arguments.

4.2. Interaction Energy of the System Influences

Interaction energy represents the change in the total energy of the system before and after adsorption. The greater the absolute value of the interaction energy, the more stable the adsorption system becomes [39]. It mainly includes electrostatic energy and van der Waals energy; electrostatic energy is mainly caused by hydrogen bonding and electrostatic force, and van der Waals energy is mainly caused by van der Waals force.
As shown in Figure 6a, the interaction energy follows the trend H2O > CO2 > N2 in single-component gases, in which the interaction energy between H2O and CO2 is dominated by the electrostatic energy (which is about 76% of the interaction energy of CO2), the interaction energy of H2O is dominated by the electrostatic energy, and the interaction energy of N2 is completely dominated by the van der Waals energy.
As shown in Figure 6b–d, at 353.15 K and 30 MPa, with the same gas molar occupancy, the interaction energy in the CO2/H2O system is −4666.56334 kcal/mol, in the CO2/N2 system is −1337.28507 kcal/mol, and in the H2O/N2 system is −4009.13858 kcal/mol. This indicates that the stability of the binary mixed systems follows the order: CO2/H2O > H2O/N2 > CO2/N2, with the strongest interaction observed between CO2 and H2O. As the pressure increases, the interaction energies of all the binary mixed systems show a slow upward trend. In the CO2/H2O and H2O/N2 systems, electrostatic energy predominantly governs the interaction energy, while in the CO2/N2 system, van der Waals forces become more influential, and the role of electrostatic energy diminishes. In the CO2/H2O system, the total interaction energy decreases with an increase in the CO2 molar fraction, leading to reduced adsorption stability of the gas mixture. Conversely, in the CO2/N2 system, the total interaction energy increases as the CO2 molar fraction increases, with N2 playing a lesser role in the interaction energy.
As shown in Figure 6e, in the three-component gas mixture, the total gas interaction energy exhibits a gradual and steady increase with rising pressure. The CO2/H2O/N2 = 1/2/1 mixture has the highest total interaction energy among the four different gas combinations, indicating that increasing the H2O content in the gas mixture contributes to greater adsorption system stability. The interaction energies of the gas mixtures, averaged over molar volume ratios between 0 and 30 MPa, are displayed in Figure 6f. The results indicate that the average gas adsorption energy of the CO2/H2O two-component system is 3.51 times higher than that of the CO2/N2 system, while the average gas adsorption energy of the H2O/N2 system is more than 2.61 times higher than that of the CO2/N2 system.

4.3. Energy Distribution of Different Gases Influences

The peak position and width of the energy distribution reflect the adsorption stability of the gas molecules and the energy distribution of the adsorption sites, the higher the absolute value of the interaction energy, the more favorable the adsorption sites occupied by the gas, and the more stable the combination with the coal molecules [40].
The adsorption energies of the single-component gases are shown in Figure 7a. The adsorption energy distribution of H2O is the widest, with the smoothest energy distribution curve; the adsorption energy distribution of N2 is the narrowest, with the highest peak value; and the energy distribution of CO2 lies between them. The most significant adsorption energy of H2O is −16.35 kcal/mol, that of CO2 is −8.15 kcal/mol, and that of N2 is −0.55 kcal/mol. This indicates that H2O is the dominant gas (significantly enhancing the stability of the system), CO2 exhibits a strong competitiveness, while N2 has a relatively weak competitive effect.
The adsorption energy distributions of the two-component gas mixtures (CO2/H2O, H2O/N2, and CO2/N2) are shown in Figure 7b–d. The larger the overlap of the interaction energy distribution curves, the more intense the competitive adsorption between the gases. In other words, the competitive intensity in the binary mixed system follows the order: CO2/H2O > H2O/N2 > CO2/N2. In the CO2/N2 mixed system, the absolute value of the most significant adsorption energy of CO2 increases from 3.85 kcal/mol to 4.45 kcal/mol as the molar concentration of CO2 increases, and the interaction energy distribution curve shifts slightly to the left. In the H2O/N2 hybrid system, as the H2O concentration increases, the absolute value of the most significant adsorption energy of H2O increases from 5.55 kcal/mol to 6.25 kcal/mol, with the distribution curve shifting leftward. In the CO2/N2 mixture system, as the CO2 molar concentration increases, N2 gradually exhibits two gas absorption peaks, with the absolute value of the adsorption energy corresponding to the first gas absorption peak being lower than that of the second peak. Comparing the interaction energy distribution curves of single-component and two-component adsorption, it is evident that the shifts of the CO2 and H2O curves in the competitive adsorption system are larger, while the shifts of the N2 curve are smaller and concentrated mainly in the high-energy region. This further confirms that the role of N2 in the adsorption system is weaker.
In Figure 7e, the overlapping portion of the interaction energy distribution curves in the three-component gas mixture is larger compared with that in the two-component mixtures. The energy distribution curves of CO2 and H2O approximately overlap, indicating enhanced competitive and synergistic interactions within the adsorption system. N2 shows a more obvious two-gas absorption peak. The average most significant adsorption energies of the single-component, two-component, and three-component gases are shown in Figure 7f. The absolute values of the average most significant adsorption energies of N2 in the two-component and three-component gas mixtures are higher compared with those in the single-component system. This suggests that N2 achieves a more favorable competition for the adsorption sites, which contrasts with CO2 and H2O.

4.4. Coal Mine Waste Gas Geologic Sequestration Practice

The simulation results demonstrate that, when the H2O content exceeds 10%, the CO2 adsorption capacity decreases by approximately 20%. It is recommended that in actual production, the coal mine gas should undergo dehydration treatment prior to injection to maintain the H2O molar fraction at ≤5%, thereby reducing its competitive adsorption with CO2 for active sites. If the coal mine gas contains a high concentration of N2, CO2 purification technologies such as membrane separation should be employed to prevent the reduction in CO2 adsorption capacity caused by N2 dilution.
Under geological conditions similar to those in this study, a stepwise pressurization strategy is advised. The initial pressure should be controlled at approximately 10 MPa, where the CO2 adsorption rate reaches its maximum. After stabilization, the pressure can be gradually increased to enhance the long-term stability of CO2 sequestration. A framework for the implementation of underground storage of coal mine waste gas was designed as shown in Figure 8.
Currently, conventional adsorption analyzers, such as BET apparatuses, are primarily suitable for single-component gas testing or measurements under pressures < 10 MPa. Moreover, the simultaneous presence of H2O and CO2 in multi-component gas mixtures can lead to the corrosion of experimental setups. In future research, combining scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to examine nanopore structures, along with the development of a high-pressure multi-component gas adsorption system, represents a critical pathway from theoretical modeling to experimental validation.

5. Conclusions

This study accounts the results of competitive adsorption of coal mine waste gas in the nanopores by quantifying the parameters of heat of adsorption, interaction energy, and energy distribution. This study extends existing models of gas adsorption and provides practical insights for optimizing underground coal seam sequestration. The contribution to the total adsorption amount followed the sequence: H2O > CO2 > N2. The smaller the corresponding molar volume ratio of the gases, the higher the selective adsorption coefficient of that gas. Adsorption results are influenced by three main factors.
(1) As pressure rises, the isothermal heat of adsorption curve first decreases sharply, followed by a gradual increase. Between 6 and 30 MPa, the slope of the isothermal heat of adsorption curve for H2O and CO2 is the steepest, while the curve for N2 remains relatively flat. (2) At pressure between 3 and 30 MPa, the interaction energy of the gas mixtures increases gradually with increasing pressure. Electrostatic energy dominates the interaction energy of CO2 and H2O, while van der Waals energy governs the interaction energy of N2. The average adsorption energy of the CO2/H2O and H2O/N2 combination is approximately three times that of the CO2/N2 combination. (3) As the degree of gas mixing increases, the overlap of the energy distribution curves intensifies. The energy distribution curves for CO2 and H2O shift significantly to the right, while N2 shows more prominent dual adsorption peaks.

Author Contributions

T.L.: writing—original draft, Data curation, formal analysis. Y.L. (Yun Li): writing—review and editing, software, data curation, resources. Y.H.: writing—review and editing, investigation. H.L.: writing—review and editing. B.C.: writing—review and editing. Q.Z.: writing—review and editing. Q.X.: writing—review and editing, validation. Y.L. (Yong Li): writing—review and editing, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42072194, U1910205) and the Innovation Training Program for Undergraduates of China University of Mining and Technology—Beijing (No. 202402043).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. The Paris Agreement. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement (accessed on 1 June 2025).
  2. Soltani, S.M.; Lahiri, A.; Bahzad, H.; Yan, Y. Sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming for combined CO2 capture and hydrogen production: A state-of-the-art review. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2021, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aminu, M.D.; Nabavi, S.A.; Rochelle, C.A.; Manovic, V. A review of developments in carbon dioxide storage. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 1389–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Petrovic, B.; Gorbounov, M.; Soltani, S.M. Influence of surface modification on selective CO2 adsorption: A technical review on mechanisms and methods. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2021, 312, 110751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bachu, S. CO2 storage in geological media: Role, means, status and barriers to deployment. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lin, Z.; Kuang, Y.; Li, W.; Zheng, Y. Research status and prospects of CO2 geological sequestration technology from onshore to offshore: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2024, 258, 104928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, Q.; Teng, F.; Nielsen, C.P.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, L. Large methane mitigation potential through prioritized closure of gas-rich coal mines. Nat. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Lu, X.; Xu, J.; Sang, P.; Guo, S.; Zhu, H.; Guo, W. Molecular simulation of CO2/CH4 adsorption in brown coal: Effect of oxygen-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-containing functional groups. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 423, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Majdinasab, A.; Zhang, Z.; Yuan, Q. Modelling of landfill gas generation: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2017, 16, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhao, C.; Chen, X.; Anthony, E.J.; Jiang, X.; Duan, L.; Wu, Y.; Dong, W.; Zhao, C. Capturing CO2 in flue gas from fossil fuel-fired power plants using dry regenerable alkali metal-based sorbent. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2013, 39, 515–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Azadi, M.; Northey, S.A.; Ali, S.H.; Edraki, M. Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation. Nat. Geosci. 2020, 13, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, X.; Pan, J.; Wang, K.; Ge, T.; Wei, J.; Wu, W. Characterizing the shape, size, and distribution heterogeneity of pore-fractures in high rank coal based on X-ray CT image analysis and mercury intrusion porosimetry. Fuel 2020, 282, 118754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, T.; Deng, Z.; Hu, H.; Ding, R.; Tian, F.; Zhang, T.; Ma, Z.; Wang, D. Pore structure of deep coal of different ranks and its effect on coalbed methane adsorption. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 59, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Duan, X.; Hu, Z.; Shao, N.; Li, W.; Li, Y.; Chang, J.; Shen, R. Establishment of a new slip permeability model of gas flow in shale nanopores based on experimental and molecular dynamics simulations studies. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 193, 107365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, X.; Zhang, F.; Li, Z.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Q.; Nie, B.; Yang, T. Nanopore characteristics of coal and quantitative analysis of closed holes in coal. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 24639–24653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mou, P.; Pan, J.; Niu, Q.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Song, D. Coal pores: Methods, types, and characteristics. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 7467–7484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Okolo, G.N.; Everson, R.C.; Neomagus, H.W.; Roberts, M.J.; Sakurovs, R. Comparing the porosity and surface areas of coal as measured by gas adsorption, mercury intrusion and SAXS techniques. Fuel 2015, 141, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dong, K.; Zhai, Z.; Guo, A. Effects of pore parameters and functional groups in coal on CO2/CH4 adsorption. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 32395–32407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, Y.; Wilcox, J. Molecular simulation studies of CO2 adsorption by carbon model compounds for carbon capture and sequestration applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, Y.; Wilcox, J. Molecular simulation of CO2 adsorption in micro-and mesoporous carbons with surface heterogeneity. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2012, 104, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Song, Y.; Jiang, B.; Lan, F. Competitive adsorption of CO2/N2/CH4 onto coal vitrinite macromolecular: Effects of electrostatic interactions and oxygen functionalities. Fuel 2019, 235, 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tan, B.; Cheng, G.; Fu, S.; Wang, H.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X. Molecular simulation for physisorption characteristics of O2 in low-rank coals. Energy 2022, 242, 122538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Long, H.; Lin, H.; Yan, M.; Chang, P.; gang Li, S.; Bai, Y. Molecular simulation of the competitive adsorption characteristics of CH4, CO2, N2, and multicomponent gases in coal. Powder Technol. 2021, 385, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, Z.; Bai, Y.; Yu, H.; Hu, H.; Wang, Y. Molecular simulation of thermodynamic properties of CH4 and CO2 adsorption under different moisture content and pore size conditions. Fuel 2023, 344, 127833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, S.; Jin, Z.; Deng, C. Molecular simulation of coal-fired plant flue gas competitive adsorption and diffusion on coal. Fuel 2019, 239, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, J.; Min, F.-f.; Liu, L.; Liu, C.; Lu, F. Experimental investigation and DFT calculation of different amine/ammonium salts adsorption on kaolinite. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 419, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Si, J.; Yang, X.; Li, L.; Yang, B.; Chen, J. Molecular simulation of competitive adsorption of CO2/N2/O2 gas in bituminous coal. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2024, 693, 134068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, Z.; Hu, H.; Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Yan, F.; Bai, Y.; Yu, H. Molecular simulation of CO2/N2 injection on CH4 adsorption and diffusion. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 20777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, X.-Q.; He, X.; Qiu, N.-X.; Yang, X.; Tian, Z.-Y.; Li, M.-J.; Xue, Y. Molecular simulation of CH4, CO2, H2O and N2 molecules adsorption on heterogeneous surface models of coal. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2016, 389, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guo, H.; Zhou, H.; Guo, C.; Nie, R.; Liang, X. Technology, Numerical simulation of adsorption process of O2/H2O mixed gas in coal porous media. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2024, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Q.; Tang, S.; Zhang, S.; Xi, Z.; Xin, D.; Jia, T.; Yang, X.; Zhang, K.; Li, J.; Wang, Z. Methane Adsorption Capacity of Deep Buried Coal Seam Based on Full-Scale Pore Structure. Nat. Resour. Res. 2025, 34, 1481–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sui, H.; Li, X.; Cai, J.; Deng, S.; Xu, E.; Xue, F.; Xie, H. Study on the mechanism of methane “solid–liquid–gas” conversion controlled by the evolution of coal micro-and nanopore structure. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 11473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Esen, O.; Fişne, A. A comprehensive study on methane adsorption capacities and pore characteristics of coal seams: Implications for efficient coalbed methane development in the Soma Basin, Türkiye. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2024, 57, 6355–6375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. ISO 17246:2024; Coal and Coke—Proximate Analysis. ISO: Geneve, Switzerland, 2024. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/86978.html (accessed on 1 June 2025).
  35. Shao, B.; Wang, S.; Li, T.; Chen, X.; Ma, Y. GCMC-MD prediction of adsorption and diffusion behavior of shale gas in nanopores. Fuel 2024, 377, 132696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zheng, Y.; Li, Q.; Yuan, C.; Tao, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, G.; Liu, J. Influence of temperature on adsorption selectivity: Coal-based activated carbon for CH4 enrichment from coal mine methane. Powder Technol. 2019, 347, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, Y.; Gao, P.; Zhou, Q.; Meng, G.; Liu, W.; Xing, Y.; Xiao, X. Controls on Graphitization and Nanopore Characteristics of Organic Matter in Marine Overmature Shale. Nat. Resour. Res. 2025, 34, 1527–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, C.; Yang, Z.; Luo, H.; Yang, T.; Tong, L.; Yuan, Y.; Yuan, C.; Chahine, R.; Xiao, J. Analytical and numerical estimations of isosteric heat of adsorption with application to hydrogen purification. Fuel 2025, 381, 133398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, J. Computational study of adsorption and separation of CO2, CH4, and N2 by an rht-type metal–organic framework. Langmuir 2012, 28, 12122–12133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jia, J.; Xing, Y.; Li, B.; Wu, Y.; Wang, D. Molecular simulation study of adsorption-diffusion of CH4, CO2 and H2O in gas-fat coal. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 24131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Nanopore model of coal seam.
Figure 1. Nanopore model of coal seam.
Processes 13 02123 g001
Figure 2. Adsorption results of three-component gases at pressure 30 MPa.
Figure 2. Adsorption results of three-component gases at pressure 30 MPa.
Processes 13 02123 g002
Figure 3. Gas adsorption at different molar mass ratios.
Figure 3. Gas adsorption at different molar mass ratios.
Processes 13 02123 g003
Figure 4. Adsorption selectivity of two-component gases at different molar mass ratios.
Figure 4. Adsorption selectivity of two-component gases at different molar mass ratios.
Processes 13 02123 g004
Figure 5. Isosteric heat of adsorption of gases at different molar mass ratios.
Figure 5. Isosteric heat of adsorption of gases at different molar mass ratios.
Processes 13 02123 g005
Figure 6. Gas interaction energies at different molar mass ratios.
Figure 6. Gas interaction energies at different molar mass ratios.
Processes 13 02123 g006
Figure 7. Gas energy distribution at different molar mass ratios.
Figure 7. Gas energy distribution at different molar mass ratios.
Processes 13 02123 g007
Figure 8. Implementation framework for underground sequestration of coal mine waste gas.
Figure 8. Implementation framework for underground sequestration of coal mine waste gas.
Processes 13 02123 g008
Table 1. Analysis results of coal samples.
Table 1. Analysis results of coal samples.
Proximate AnalysisMaceral Composition Analysis
Mad 1Ad 2Vdaf 3FCdaf 4VitriniteInertiniteLiptiniteMineral
0.73%15.32%14.88%85.12%90.63%3.13%3.51%2.73%
1 Moisture content on air-dried basis; 2 ash yield on air-dried basis; 3 volatile matter on dry ash-free basis; 4 fixed carbon on dry ash-free basis.
Table 2. Analog parameters settings.
Table 2. Analog parameters settings.
SettingAmorphous Cell ParametersSettingSorption Parameters
TaskPackingTaskAdsorption isotherm
QualityFineMethodMetropols
Temperature353.15 KTemperature353.15 K
Force fieldCOMPASSFugacity steps10
ChargesForcefield-assignedChargesForcefield-assigned
ElectrostaticEwaldQualityCustomized
van der WaalsAtom-basedEquilibration steps10,000
Production steps100,000
Force fieldCOMPASS
ElectrostaticAtom-based
van der WaalsAtom-based
Table 3. Gas pressure settings.
Table 3. Gas pressure settings.
NO.AdsorbateNO.Adsorbate
Set Pressure (MPa)Set Pressure (MPa)
CO2N2H2OCO2N2H2O
130//143/27
2/30/159/21
3//301615/15
4327/1721/9
5921/1827/3
61515/19101010
7219/20157.57.5
8273/217.5157.5
9/327227.57.515
10/921
11/1515
12/219
13/273
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, T.; Li, Y.; Hu, Y.; Li, H.; Chen, B.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, Q.; Li, Y. CO2 Sequestration Potential Competitive with H2O and N2 in Abandoned Coal Mines Based on Molecular Modeling. Processes 2025, 13, 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072123

AMA Style

Liu T, Li Y, Hu Y, Li H, Chen B, Zhang Q, Xu Q, Li Y. CO2 Sequestration Potential Competitive with H2O and N2 in Abandoned Coal Mines Based on Molecular Modeling. Processes. 2025; 13(7):2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072123

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Tianyang, Yun Li, Yaxuan Hu, Hezhao Li, Binghe Chen, Qixu Zhang, Qiufeng Xu, and Yong Li. 2025. "CO2 Sequestration Potential Competitive with H2O and N2 in Abandoned Coal Mines Based on Molecular Modeling" Processes 13, no. 7: 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072123

APA Style

Liu, T., Li, Y., Hu, Y., Li, H., Chen, B., Zhang, Q., Xu, Q., & Li, Y. (2025). CO2 Sequestration Potential Competitive with H2O and N2 in Abandoned Coal Mines Based on Molecular Modeling. Processes, 13(7), 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072123

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop