Advertisement

Chemical Papers

, Volume 72, Issue 10, pp 2617–2629 | Cite as

Energy-efficient dehydrogenation of methanol in a membrane reactor: a mathematical modeling

  • Ekaterina V. Shelepova
  • Ludmila Yu. Ilina
  • Aleksey A. Vedyagin
Original Paper
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

A two-dimensional non-isothermal stationary mathematical model of the catalytic membrane reactor for the process of methanol dehydrogenation is described. Copper supported on the carbonaceous support was considered as a catalyst. The reaction of methanol dehydrogenation was thermodynamically conjugated with a reaction of hydrogen oxidation taking place in a shell side of the membrane reactor. The effects of various parameters on the methanol conversion and the methyl formate yield have been calculated with the developed model and discussed. Two different types of heating the gas flow were considered and compared. In the case of conjugated dehydrogenation process, the methyl formate yield reaches 77%, when the reactor outer wall was heated up to 150 °C. When the inlet gas flows in the tube and shell sides were heated up to 100 and 83 °C, correspondingly, the yield was 72%.

Keywords

Methanol dehydrogenation Carbon-supported copper catalyst Catalytic membrane reactor Mathematical modeling Hydrogen oxidation Thermodynamically conjugated process 

List of symbols

Am

Area of membrane, m2

\(C_{i}^{\text{t,s,c}}\)

Concentrations, kmol m−3

cp

Heat capacity coefficient, kJ g−1 K−1

\(D_{{{\text{e}}i}}^{\text{t,c}}\)

Effective coefficient of radial diffusion of component i, m2 s−1

Dij

Molecular diffusivity for component i in a binary mixture of i and j, m2 s−1

\(D_{\text{m}}^{\text{t,c}}\)

Coefficient of molecular diffusion, m2 s−1

Dkn

Knudsen diffusion coefficient, m2 s−1

de

Equivalent pore channel diameter, m

de1, de2

Equivalent diameter, m

dk

Diameter of catalyst, m

dr

Diameter of membrane reactor, cm

Gt,s

Gas flow rate, ml min−1

− ∆Hj

Heat effect of reaction j, kJ mol−1

l

Length of reactor, m

Mi

Molecular weight of ith compound, g mol−1

Nt,s

Number of components in reaction mix

NR

Number of reactions within the tube side of reactor

Perm

Permeability

Pw

Perimeter of wall, m

\(P_{{{\text{H}}_{ 2} }}^{\text{t,s,c}}\)

Partial pressure of H2, atm

P0

Pressure at normal conditions, atm

Q0

Permeability constant, kmol m−1 s−1 atm−1/2, defined in Gobina and Hughes (1994): \(Q_{0} {\kern 1pt} = \;1.0061 \times 10^{ - 12} \exp \,( - \,767.38/T)\)

\(Q_{{{\text{H}}_{ 2} }}\)

Hydrogen permeation rate through the membrane, kmol s−1

r1,2

Radial coordinate into the fixed bed catalyst, in the ceramic support, m

R

Universal gas constant, J mol−1 K−1

Scr.s.

Cross-sectional area of shell side, m2

Ssp1,sp2

Specific surface area, m−1

Tt,s,c,w

Temperature, K

Tcr

Critical temperature of substance, K

T0

Temperature at normal conditions, K

\(u_{\text{l}}^{{{\text{t}},{\text{s}}}}\)

Axial velocity, m s−1

Vcr

Critical volume of substance, cm3 mol−1

wj

Rate of reaction, kmol kg cat −1  s−1

ws = ηs\({\text{R}}_{{{\text{O}}_{x} ,{\text{H}}_{ 2} }}\)

Rate of the hydrogen oxidation reaction, kmol kg cat −1  s−1

yi

Mole fraction of ith component

Ree

Reynolds number, \(\text{Re}_{\text{e}} = v_{\text{e}} d_{\text{e}} \rho_{\text{g}} /\mu\)

Sc

Schmidt number (diffusion Prandtl’s criterion), \({\text{Sc}} = \mu /(\rho_{\text{g}} D_{\text{m}} )\)

Pr

Prandtl number, \({ \Pr } = \mu c_{\text{p}} /\lambda_{\text{g}}\)

Nu

Nusselt number

Greek letters

αw

Coefficient of heat transfer at wall, kJ m−2 s−1 K−1, \(\alpha_{\text{w}} = {\text{Nu}}_{\text{we}} \lambda_{\text{g}} /d_{\text{e}}\)

α1,2

Coefficient of heat transfer between the membrane/exterior wall and fixed bed catalyst (shell side), kJ m−2 s−1 K−1

δ

Membrane thickness, m

δc

Ceramic support thickness, m

εt,s,c

Porosity of catalyst layer (tube, shell side), ceramic support

γij

Stoichiometric coefficient for i-component into j-reaction

\(\lambda_{\text{ef}}^{\text{t}}\)

Effective coefficient of radial thermal conductivity, J m−1 s−1 K−1

λc

Thermal conductivity of the ceramic support, J m−1 s−1 K−1

λg

Thermal conductivity of argon gas, reference value, J m−1 s−1 K−1

μ

Dynamic viscosity of a gas mix, kg m−1 s−1

\(\rho_{\text{G}}^{{{\text{t}},{\text{s}}}}\)

Gas density, kg m−3

\(\rho_{\text{k}}^{{{\text{t}},{\text{s}}}}\)

Density of catalyst, kg m−3

Indexes

c

Ceramic support

in

Inlet

s

Shell side

surf

Surface

t

Tube side

W

Wall of reactor

m.f.

Mole fraction

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Russian Academy of Sciences and Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations (state-guaranteed order for BIC, Project number 0303-2016-0014). The numerical calculations were carried out at Tomsk Polytechnic University within the framework of Tomsk Polytechnic University Competitiveness Enhancement Program (Grant VIU-TOVPM-316/2017).

References

  1. Adrover ME, Lopes E, Borio DO, Pedernera MN (2009) Simulation of a membrane reactor for the WGS reaction: pressure and thermal effects. Chem Eng J 154:196–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2009.04.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerov ME, Todes OM, Narinskii NA (1979) Apparatus with stationary granular layer. Khimiya, Leningrad (in Russian) Google Scholar
  3. Ai M (1984) Dehydrogenation of methanol to methyl formate over copper-based catalysts. Appl Catal 11:259–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-9834(00)81884-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amandusson H, Ekedahl L-G, Dannetun H (2001) Alcohol dehydrogenation over Pd versus PdAg membranes. Appl Catal A Gen 217:157–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-860X(01)00591-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakhtyari A, Mohammadi M, Rahimpour MR (2015) Simultaneous production of dimethyl ether (DME), methyl formate (MF) and hydrogen from methanol in an integrated thermally coupled membrane reactor. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 26:595–607.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.06.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakhtyari A, Haghbakhsh R, Rahimpour MR (2016a) Investigation of thermally double coupled double membrane heat exchanger reactor to produce dimethyl ether and methyl formate. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 32:185–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakhtyari A, Parhoudeh M, Rahimpour MR (2016b) Optimal conditions in converting methanol to dimethyl ether, methyl formate, and hydrogen utilizing a double membrane heat exchanger reactor. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 28:31–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basile A, Iulianelli A, Longo T, Liguori S, De Falco M (2011) Pd-based selective membrane state-of-the-art. In: De De Falco M, Marrelli L, Iaquaniello G (eds) Membrane reactors for hydrogen production processes. Springer, London, pp 21–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-151-6_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bretshnayder S (1966) The properties of gases and liquids. Chemistry, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  10. Chumakova NA, Matros YS (1989) Mathematical modeling of fixed-bed catalytic reactors under condition of given pressure drop. In: Matros YS (ed) Mathematical modeling of catalytic reactors. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp 5–26 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  11. Egorova EV (1998) Candidate Thesis in Technical Sciences, Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  12. Fletcher CAJ (1988) Computational techniques for fluid dynamics 1, fundamental and general techniques. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-97035-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gobina E, Hughes R (1994) Ethane dehydrogenation using a high-temperature catalytic membrane reactor. J Membr Sci 90:11–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(94)80030-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gobina E, Hou K, Hughes R (1995) Equilibrium-shift in alkane dehydrogenation using a high-temperature catalytic membrane reactor. Catal Today 25:365–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-5861(95)00115-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez-García M-Á, Dobrosz-Gómez I, Rynkowski J (2018) Learning on chemical equilibrium shift assessment for membrane reactors using Gibbs free energy minimization method. Educ Chem Eng J 22:20–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2017.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goosheneshin A, Maleki R, Iranshahi D, Rahimpour MR, Jahanmiri A (2012) Simultaneous production and utilization of methanol for methyl formate synthesis in a looped heat exchanger reactor configuration. J Nat Gas Chem 21:661–672.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-9953(11)60417-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorshkov SV, Lin GI, Rozovskii AY, Serov YM, Uhm SJ (1999a) Hydrogen diffusion through a Pd–Ru membrane in the course of methanol dehydrogenation to methyl formate on a copper-containing catalyst. Kinet Catal 40:93–99Google Scholar
  18. Gorshkov SV, Lin GI, Rozovskii AY (1999b) The mechanism of methanol dehydrogenation with methyl formate formation and the methods of process selectivity control. Kinet Catal 40:334–337Google Scholar
  19. Guo Y, Lu G, Mo X, Wang Y (2005) Vapor phase dehydrogenation of methanol to methyl formate in the catalytic membrane reactor with Cu/SiO2/ceramic composite membrane. Catal Lett 99:105–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10562-004-0783-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kobotaeva NS, Skorokhodova TS, Razdyakonova GI, Poleschuk OK (2016) Manufacturing and investigation of physical-chemical properties of metal–carbon carrier composite materials. Adv Curr Nat Sci 6:25–30 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  21. Lee JS, Kim JC, Kim YG (1990) Methyl formate as a new building block in C1 chemistry. Appl Catal 57:1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-9834(00)80720-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Novikov EA (1990) Numerical methods for solution of differential equations in chemical kinetics. In: Bykov VI (ed) Mathematical methods in chemical kinetics. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp 53–68 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  23. Plaksin GV, Baklanova ON, Lavrenov AV, Likholobov VA (2014) Carbon materials from the Sibunit family and methods for controlling their properties. Solid Fuel Chem 48:349–355.  https://doi.org/10.3103/S0361521914060032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rodríguez-Reinoso F (1998) The role of carbon materials in heterogeneous catalysis. Carbon 36:159–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(97)00173-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryashentseva MA, Avaev VL (1999) Hydrogenation of ethyl acetate over supported rhenium catalysts. Russ Chem Bull 48:998–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02494654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ryashentseva MA, Egorova EV, Trusov AI, Nougmanov ER, Antonyuk SN (2006) Application of metal–carbon catalysts in conversions of lower aliphatic alcohols. Russ Chem Rev 75:1003–1014.  https://doi.org/10.1070/RC2006v075n11ABEH003627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shelepova EV, Vedyagin AA, Mishakov IV, Noskov AS (2011) Mathematical modeling of the propane dehydrogenation process in the catalytic membrane reactor. Chem Eng J 176–177:151–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.06.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shelepova EV, Vedyagin AA, Noskov AS (2013) Effect of catalytic combustion of hydrogen on dehydrogenation in a membrane reactor. II. Dehydrogenation of ethane. Verification of the mathematical model. Comb Explos Shock Waves 49:125–132.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010508213020019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shelepova EV, Vedyagin AA, Ilina LY, Nizovskii AI, Tsyrulnikov PG (2017a) Synthesis of carbon-supported copper catalyst and its catalytic performance in methanol dehydrogenation. Appl Surf Sci 409:291–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.02.220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shelepova EV, Ilina LY, Vedyagin AA (2017b) Kinetic studies of methanol dehydrogenation. Part III: carbon-supported copper catalysts. React Kinet Mech Catal 122:385–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-017-1214-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sodesawa T (1986) Effect of support on dehydrogenation of methanol to methyl formate over Cu-containing catalysts prepared by ion exchange. React Kinet Catal Lett 32:63–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02063451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stull DR, Westrum EF, Sinke GC (1969) The chemical thermodynamics of organic compounds. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Tavazzi I, Beretta A, Groppi G, Forzatti P (2006) Development of a molecular kinetic scheme for methane partial oxidation over a Rh/α-Al2O3 catalyst. J Catal 241:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2006.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tonner SP, Trimm DL, Walnwrlght MS, Cant NW (1984) Dehydrogenation of methanol to methyl formate over copper catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 23:384–388.  https://doi.org/10.1021/i300015a012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wakamatsu H, Shimomura K (1974) Process for producing methyl formate. Patent US 3816513Google Scholar
  36. Wender I (1984) Chemicals from methanol. Catal Rev Sci Eng 26:303–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01614948408064715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yermakov YI, Surovikin VF, Plaksin GV, Semikolenov VA, Likholobov VA, Chuvilin LV, Bogdanov SV (1987) New carbon material as support for catalysts. React Kinet Catal Lett 33:435–440.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boreskov Institute of Catalysis SB RASNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.National Research Tomsk Polytechnic UniversityTomskRussia

Personalised recommendations