Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 1840–1845 | Cite as

Phase separation characteristics in biphasic solvents based on mutually miscible amines for energy efficient CO2 capture

The 11th Korea-China Clean Energy Workshop

Abstract

One of the challenges with regard to the aqueous amine-based CO2 capture process is the considerable energy requirement for solvent regeneration. To overcome this challenge, a biphasic solvent was employed in this study. Here, the phase separation behavior of amine blends depending on the characteristic structures of the solvent component was investigated using a turbidity measurement apparatus. Amines were classified as (1) primary/secondary amines or tertiary/sterically hindered amines depending on the CO2 reaction species, such as carbamate and bicarbonate (2) alkyl and alkanolamines, depending on the presence of a hydroxyl group, (3) chain and cyclic amines, and (4) mono- and polyamines depending on the molecular structure. Easy phase separation occurred in solvent blends containing polyamines such as DETA (diethylenetriamine), TETA (triethylenetetramine), and DEEA (2-(diethylamino) ethanol). The types with the greatest potential were the DETA/DEEA blended solvents. A phase separation could be determined based on the difference in the reaction rate with CO2 and the low solubility between the carbamate species of DETA and DEEA.

Keywords

Biphasic Solvents Solvent Screening CO2 Capture Regeneration DEEA DETA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Seo, L. D. Simoni, M. Ma, M. A. Desilva, Y. Huang, M. A. Stadtherr and J. F. Brennecke, Energy Fuels, 28, 5968 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Zheng, M. Tao, Q. Liu, L. Ning, Y. He and Y. Shi, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 8905 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Aleixo, M. Prigent, A. Gilbert, F. Porcheron, I. Mokbel, J. Jose and M. Jacquin, Energy Procedia, 4, 148 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Raynal, P. Alix, P.-A. Bouillon, A. Gomez, M. le F. de Nailly, M. Jacquin, J. Kittel, A. di Lella, P. Mougin and J. Trapy, Energy Procedia, 4, 779 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Bruder and H. F. Svendsen, Energy Procedia, 23, 45 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Z. Xu, S. Wang and C. Chen, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, 16, 107 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Zhang, Y. Qiao and D. W. Agar, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 90, 743 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Q. Ye, X. Wang and Y. Lu, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, 39, 205 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Hasib-ur-Rahman, M. Siaj and F. Larachi, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, 6, 246 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Hasib-ur-Rahman and F. Larachi, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 11443 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Institute of Chemical Engineers, Seoul, Korea 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biological EngineeringKorea National University of TransportationChungju, ChungbukKorea
  2. 2.Green Energy Process LaboratoryKorea Institute of Energy ResearchYuseong-gu, DaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations