论文部分内容阅读
作者比较了28个石油馏分的实测等张比容与按 n-d-M 法分析结果算出的等张比容.平均误差<1%,最大误差～2%.此结果与(?)所得到的结果不同,证明了n-d-M 法的准确性。作者校验了适用于高芳烃石油馏分的 Hazelwood 法,提出一个包括含硫补正项的改进算式.又证明:如将一个石油馏分用色谱法分离成饱和的与芳烃的两部分,则饱和部分的 KH_H (按 n-d-M 法)与芳烃部分的 KH_A(按 Hazelwood 法)之总和与原馏分的 K_H 是相符的.作者不同意(?)及(?)对此问题的看法和他们据以提出的修正分析法.
The authors compared the measured isotonic specific volume of 28 petroleum fractions with the isotonic specific volume calculated from ndM analysis, with an average error of <1% and a maximum error of ~ 2%. This result is different from the results obtained from (?), Accuracy The authors have validated the Hazelwood method for high-aromatic petroleum fractions by proposing an improved formula that includes a sulfur-containing correction. It turns out that if a petroleum fraction is separated by chromatography into two parts, saturated and aromatic, The sum of KH_H (by ndM method) and the aromatics fraction of KH_A (by Hazelwood method) is consistent with the K_H of the original fraction. The authors disagree (?) And (?) On this issue and their corrective analysis law.