Optimization of liquid–liquid extraction combined with either heterogeneous azeotropic distillation or extractive distillation processes to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions

Zhao, Tingran; Geng, Xueli; Qi, Pengchao; Zhu, Zhaoyou; Gao, Jun; Wang, Yinglong

doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2018.01.037

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oleyl alcohol has a high separation factor as compared to other candidate solvents, but the high boiling range would require high pressure steam during recovery as reported by Harvianto et al Oleyl alcohol is also costlier than the other solvents and is associated with a high pumping cost. Isobutyl alcohol and 1-butanol have distribution coefficients suitable for separation but form heterogeneous azeotropes with water; however, these azeotropes can be broken down by installing a decanter. − Further, both of these solvents have lower boiling points than oleyl alcohol, hence conferring the benefit of using medium pressure steam in the solvent recovery section. Additionally, according to the Chen et al the solvent with distribution coefficients greater than 1 are considered as good for extraction.…”

Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost- and Energy-Efficient Butanol-Based Extraction-Assisted Distillation Designs for Purification of 2,3-Butanediol for Use as a Drop-in Fuel

Haider

Harvianto²,

Qyyum

et al. 2018

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Butanediol has attracted interest as a promising drop-in fuel, mainly due to its high antiknock index and high heating value. Microbial production of 2,3-butanediol is considered more environmentally friendly and sustainable than chemical-based production methods. However, to achieve the 99% purity required for use as fuel, the dehydration and purification steps associated with the microbial production process consume tremendous amounts of energy. This high energy consumption limits the feasibility of the microbial production process at the commercial scale. A commercially feasible and sustainable 2,3-butanediol production process is proposed based on an energy efficient extraction-assisted distillation scheme. On the basis of economic, technical, and environmental considerations, isobutyl alcohol and 1-butanol were chosen as suitable solvents for the proposed scheme. Regression analysis and data validation were applied to verify the incorporated experimental data which was then used in the well-established commercial process simulator Aspen Plus. Results indicate that the overall energy efficiency of the purification step of the microbial 2,3-butanediol production process can be improved greatly, with up to 24.5% and 31.3% reductions in total annualized cost for the isobutyl alcohol-and 1-butanol-based designs, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost- and Energy-Efficient Butanol-Based Extraction-Assisted Distillation Designs for Purification of 2,3-Butanediol for Use as a Drop-in Fuel

Haider

Harvianto²,

Qyyum

et al. 2018

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Separation of non-ideal azeotrope-containing mixtures is often complex and serious challenge. Therefore, there is need for hybrid process that can efficiently and economically separate azeotropic mixtures, such as pressure change, extractive, homogeneous azeotropic and heterogeneous azeotropic distillation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], hybrid distillation-pervaporation process [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ] extractive heterogeneous azeotropic distillation (EHAD) [ 16 , 17 , 18 ] and hydrophilic or organophilic pervaporation (HPV, OPV) [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. It can be mentioned that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [ 25 , 26 ] can be separated from wastewater by pervaporation membranes and distillation processes, e.g., ethyl acetate-ethanol [ 27 , 28 ], acetone-butanol-ethanol [ 29 ], isobutanol [ 30 , 31 ], isopropanol [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], tetrahydrofuran (THF) [ 36 ], ethanol [ 37 , 38 , 39 ], methanol [ 35 , 40 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Alcohol-Water Mixtures by a Combination of Distillation, Hydrophilic and Organophilic Pervaporation Processes

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It can be stated that in the fine chemical industries, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, large amounts of liquid waste and industrial waste solvents are generated during the production technology. Addressing these is a key issue because their disposal often accounts for the largest proportion of the cost of the entire technology. There is need to develop regeneration processes that are financially beneficial to the plant and, if possible, reuse the liquid waste in the spirit of a circular economy, in a particular technology, or possibly elsewhere. The distillation technique proves to be a good solution in many cases, but in the case of mixtures with high water content and few volatile components, this process is often not cost-effective due to its high steam consumption, and in the case of azeotropic mixtures there are separation constraints. In the present work, the membrane process considered as an alternative; pervaporation is demonstrated through the treatment of low alcohol (methanol and ethanol) aqueous mixtures. Alcohol-containing process wastewaters were investigated in professional process simulator environment with user-added pervaporation modules. Eight different methods were built up in ChemCAD flowsheet simulator: organophilic pervaporation (OPV), hydrophilic pervaporation (HPV), hydrophilic pervaporation with recirculation (R-HPV), dynamic organophilic pervaporation (Dyn-OPV), dynamic hydronophilic pervaporation (Dyn-HPV), hybrid distillation-organophilic pervaporation (D + OPV), hybrid distillation-hydrophilic pervaporation (D + HPV), and finally hybrid distillation-hydrophilic pervaporation with recirculation (R-D + HPV). It can be stated the last solution in line was the most suitable in the terms of composition, however distillation of mixture with high water content has significant heat consumption. Furthermore, the pervaporation supplemented with dynamic tanks is not favourable due to the high recirculation rate in the case of tested mixtures and compositions.

show abstract

“…The results show that the hybrid system has such huge potential for energy saving that there is a reduction by 58.7% in the annual operating cost compared to the HAD system alone. Zhao et al 21 . put forward a system combining liquid–liquid extraction with extractive distillation or azeotropic distillation for the separation of a mixture of water and propylene glycol methyl ether, using chloroform or 2‐ethylhexanoic acid (2‐EA) as solvent, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel energy‐efficient extraction‐assisted distillation design for isopropanol–butanol–ethanol purification for use of gasoline additive

et al. 2021

J of Chemical Tech & Biotech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Biobutanol is considered to be a promising alternative biofuel in terms of sustainability and environmental friendliness because of its desirable properties. High purity isopropanol–butanol–ethanol (IBE) mixture can be directly used as gasoline additive. However, the purification process of IBE is hindered because of its low concentration and high energy consumption. In order to reduce energy consumption and improve the efficiency of the IBE purification process, two novel processes combining liquid–liquid extraction with extractive distillation or azeotropic distillation are proposed. Moreover, the heat integration designs of the processes are carried out to further reduce energy. These processes are compared with regard to energy, economic, environmental and exergy impact. RESULTS The results show that the energy consumption of these enhanced processes are effectively reduced compared with the original process in the literature. Among them, the thermal integrated process of liquid–liquid extraction combined with extractive distillation is the best design, which has a total annual cost of $32.656 × 105 and an energy consumption of 5936.94 kW. CONCLUSION Compared with the original process, this process can save 71.33% of energy consumption. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Optimization of liquid–liquid extraction combined with either heterogeneous azeotropic distillation or extractive distillation processes to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions

Cited by 35 publications

References 38 publications

Cost- and Energy-Efficient Butanol-Based Extraction-Assisted Distillation Designs for Purification of 2,3-Butanediol for Use as a Drop-in Fuel

Cost- and Energy-Efficient Butanol-Based Extraction-Assisted Distillation Designs for Purification of 2,3-Butanediol for Use as a Drop-in Fuel

Separation of Alcohol-Water Mixtures by a Combination of Distillation, Hydrophilic and Organophilic Pervaporation Processes

A novel energy‐efficient extraction‐assisted distillation design for isopropanol–butanol–ethanol purification for use of gasoline additive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About