Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Performance comparison of aqueous MEA and AMP solutions for biogas upgrading

  • The 11th Korea-China Clean Energy Workshop
  • Published:
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two different aqueous amine solutions were applied to CO2 removal from simulated biogas in a lab.-scale continuous absorption process that can handle 5Nm3/hr of gas treatment. The effects of the gas-to-liquid ratio in the absorber and of the temperature of the reboiler on the CO2 removal were analyzed in aqueous MEA and AMP solutions. Since the CO2 loading ratio of AMP solutions is larger than that of MEA solutions for the same absorbent concentration, the AMP solutions have higher CO2 removal efficiency than that of MEA solutions for the same gas-to-liquid ratio and reboiler temperature. Also, the 30 wt% MEA solution has a higher CO2 removal efficiency than that of the 20 wt% MEA solution at the same gas-to-liquid ratio and reboiler temperature. To evaluate the feasibility of biogas upgrading, a commercial simulator, Aspen Plus®, was used to analyze the effects of absorbent concentration, absorbent flow rate at the absorption column, and absorber height on CO2 removal and CH4 purity; the regeneration energy was also evaluated. The results were applied to the design of a pilot-scale biogas upgrading plant that can handle 10,000Nm3/day of biogas treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. S. Horikawa, M. L. Rossi, M. L. Gimenes, C. M. M. Costa and M. G. C. da Silva, Brazilian J. Chem. Eng., 21, 415 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. N. Abatzoglou and S. Boivin, Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin., 3, 42 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. H. Yang, Z. Xu, M. Fan, R. Gupta, R. B. Slimane and A. E. Bland, J. Environ. Sci., 20, 14 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. E. J. Granite and T. O’Brien, Fuel Process Technol., 86, 1423 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. N. Tippayawong and P. Thanompongchart, Energy, 35, 4531 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. E. I. Privalova, P. Maki-Arvela, K. Eranen, A. K. Avetisov, J. P. Mikkola and D. Yu. Murzin, Chem. Eng. Technol., 36, 740 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. C. H. Yu, C. H. Huang and C. S. Tan, Aerosol Air Quality Res., 12, 745 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. W. J. Choi, J. B. Seo, S. Y. Jang, J. H. Jung and K. J. Oh, J. Environ. Sci., 21, 907 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Y. E. Kim, J. A. Lim, S. K. Jeong, Y. I. Yoon, S. T. Bae and S. C. Nam, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc., 34, 783 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. U. E. Aronu, S. Gondal, E. T. Hessen, T. Haug-Wargerg, A. Hartono, K. A. Hoff and H. F. Svendsen, Chem. Eng. Sci., 66, 6393 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byoung-Moo Min.

Additional information

This paper is reported in the 11th China-Korea Clean Energy Workshop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, Y.C., Lee, JS., Moon, JH. et al. Performance comparison of aqueous MEA and AMP solutions for biogas upgrading. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 34, 921–927 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-016-0346-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-016-0346-5

Keywords

Navigation