Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 526–533 | Cite as

Process simulation and economic analysis of reactor systems for perfluorinated compounds abatement without HF effluent

Research Article

Abstract

New and efficient reactor systems were proposed to treat perfluorinated compounds via catalytic decomposition. One system has a single reactor (S-1), and another has a series of reactors (S-2). Both systems are capable of producing a valuable CaF2 and eliminating toxic HF effluent and their feasibility was studied at various temperatures with a commercial process simulator, Aspen HYSYS®. They are better than the conventional system, and S-2 is better than S-1 in terms of CaF2 production, a required heat for the system, natural gas usage and CO2 emissions in a boiler, and energy consumption. Based on process simulation results, preliminary economic analysis shows that cost savings of 12.37% and 13.55% were obtained in S-2 at 589.6 and 621.4 °C compared to S-1 at 700 and 750 °C, respectively, for the same amount of CaF2 production.

Keywords

perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) CF4 process simulation economic analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gompel J V, Walling T. A new way to treat process exhaust to remove CF4. Semiconductor International, 1977, 20(10): 95–100Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsai W T, Chem H P, Hsien W Y. A review of uses, environmental hazards and recovery/recycle technologies of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) emissions from the semiconductor manufacturing processes. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2002, 15(2): 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown R S, Rossin J A, Thomas C J. Catalytic process for control of PFC emissions. Semiconductor International, 2001, 24(6): 209–215Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takita Y, Morita C, Ninomiya M, Wakamatsu H, Nishiguchi H, Ishihara T. Catalytic decomposition of CF4 over AlPO4-based catalysts. Chemistry Letters, 1999, 28(5): 417–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu X F, Jeon J Y, Choi M H, Kim H Y, Choi W C, Park Y K. A strategy to protect Al2O3-based PFC decomposition catalyst from deactivation. Chemistry Letters, 2005, 34(3): 364–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song J, Chung S, Kim M, Seo M, Lee Y, Lee K, Kim J. The catalytic decomposition of CF4 over Ce/Al2O3 modified by a cerium sulfate precursor. Journal of Molecular Catalysis A Chemical, 2013, 370: 50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han W, Chen Y, Kin B, Liu H, Yu H. Catalytic hydrolysis of trifluoromethane over alumina. Greenhouse Gases. Science and Technology, 2014, 4(1): 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park N, Park H, Lee T, Chang W, Kwon W. Hydrolysis and oxidation on supported phosphate catalyst for decomposition of SF6. Catalysis Today, 2012, 185(1): 247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee Y C, Jeon J K. A study on catalytic process in pilot plant for abatement of PFC emission. Cleanroom Technology, 2012, 18(2): 216–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elkanzi E M. Simulation of the process of biological removal of hydrogen sulfide from gas. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Gas Processing Symposium, 2009, 1: 266–275Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sunny A, Solomon P A, Aparna K. Syngas production from regasified liquefied natural gas and its simulation using Aspen HYSYS. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2016, 30: 176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kazemi A, Malayeri M, Gharibi kharaji A, Shariati A. Gharibi kharaji A, Shariati A. Feasibility study, simulation, and economical evaluation of natural gas sweetening processes–Part 1: A case study on a low capacity plant in iran. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2014, 20: 16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peters L, Hussain A, Follmann M, Melin T, Hagg M B. CO2 removal from natural gas by employing amine absorption and membrane technology–A technical and economical analysis. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 172(2-3): 952–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ahmad F, Lau K K, Shariff A M, Murshid G. Process simulation and optimal design of membrane separation system for CO2 capture from natural gas. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2012, 36(10): 119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ploegmakers J, Jelsma A R T, van der Ham A G J, Nijmeijer K. Economic evaluation of membrane potential for ethylene/ethane separation in a retrofitted hybrid membrane-distillation plant using Unisim Design. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(19): 6524–6539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi J, Park M, Kim J, Ko Y, Lee S, Baek I. Modelling and analysis of pre-combustion CO2 capture with membranes. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2013, 30(6): 1187–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marchioro Y P A, Lakew A A, Bolland O. Integration of lowtemperature transcritical CO2 Rankine cycle in natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) with post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 12: 213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park M, Kim E. Thermodynamic evaluation on the integrated system of VHTR and forward osmosis desalination process. Desalination, 2014, 337(17): 117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nahar G A, Madhani S S. Thermodynamics of hydrogen production by the steam reforming of butanol: Analysis of inorganic gases and light hydrocarbons. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(1): 98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leonzio G. Process analysis of biological Sabatier reaction for biomethane production. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 290(15): 490–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denz N, Ausberg L, Bruns M, Viere T. Supporting resource efficiency in chemical industries IT-based integration of flow sheet simulation and material flow analysis. 21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 2014, 15: 537–542Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ou L, Thilakaratne R, Brown R C, Wright M M. Techno-economic analysis of transportation fuels from defatted microalgae via hydrothermal liquefaction and hydroprocessing. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2015, 72: 45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Apostolakou A A, Kookos I K, Marazioti C, Angelopoulos K C. Techno-economic analysis of a biodiesel production process from vegetable oils. Fuel Processing Technology, 2009, 90(7-8): 1023–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanchez M J G, Tsotsis T T. Catalytic membranes and membrane reactors. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2002, 5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lim H. Hydrogen selectivity and permeance effect on the water gas shift reaction (WGSR) in a membrane reactor. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2015, 32(8): 1522–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turton R. Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. New Jersey: Pearson, 2013, 157–226Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Advanced Materials and Chemical EngineeringCatholic University of DaeguGyeongbukKorea
  2. 2.Department of Environment and Energy EngineeringChonnam National UniversityGwangjuKorea
  3. 3.Korea Institute of Energy ResearchDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations