Rigorous modelling and optimization of hybrid separation processes based on pervaporation
Hybrid separation processes are becoming more and more important in the practice if membrane technologies are also involved. In this work, a systematic investigation is completed for three sequence alternatives of distillation and pervaporation. These are the following: pervaporation followed with distillation (PV+D), distillation followed with pervaporation (D+PV), two distillation columns and a pervaporation unit between them (D+PV+D). The hybrid separation process alternatives are evaluated with rigorous modelling tools, but first, a rigorous simulation algorithm is determined for the pervaporation. The three hybrid separation processes are rigorously modelled with CHEMCAD, and optimized with the dynamic programming optimization method for the case of the separation of ethanol-water mixture. The objective function is the total annual cost (TAC). The energy consumption is also investigated. The selection of the ethanol-water mixture has two motivations: (i) it is quite often studied and well known, and (ii) to make biofuel (ethanol) production more economical, membrane technologies might also be applied. The results are compared with each other and with the classical separation completed with heteroazeotropic distillation. The optimized TAC shows that the distillation column followed with pervaporation is the most economical hybrid separation process alternative. Its TAC is about 66% of that of the classical separation.
Keywordshybrid separation processes CHEMCAD
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- V.V. Hoof, L.V. den Abeele, A. Buekenhoudt, C. Dotremont and R. Leysen: “Economic comparison between azeotropic distillation and different hybrid systems combining distillation with pervaporation for the dehydration of isopropanol”, Sep. Purif. Technol., Vol. 37, (2004), pp. 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- N. Wynn: “Pervaporation Comes of Age”, Chem. Eng. Prog., Vol. 97, (2001), pp. 66–72.Google Scholar
- R.W. Baker: Membrane Technology and Applications, Membrane Technology and Research, 2nd ed., Wiley, England, 2004.Google Scholar
- A. L. Athayde, R. W. Baker, R. Daniels, M.H. Le and J.H. Ly: “Pervaporation for Wastewater Treatment”, Chemtech, Vol. 1, (1997), pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
- G. Cox and R.W. Baker: “Pervaporation for the Treatment of Small Volume VOC contaminated Waste Water Streams”, Industial Wastewater, Vol. 6, (1998), pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
- R. Rautenbach, C. Herion and U. Meyer-Blumenroth: “Engineering aspects of pervaporation: calculation of transport resistances, module optimization and plant design in Pervaporation membrane separation processes”, edited by R.Y.M. Huang, Membrane Science and Technology Series, 1st ed, Elsevier, New York, 1991, pp. 181–224.Google Scholar
- J. Neel: “Introduction to pervaporation in Pervaporation membrane separation processes”, edited by R.Y.M. Huang, Membrane Science and Technology Series, 1 Elsevier, New York, 1991, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
- P. Mizsey, K. Koczka, A. Deak and Z. Fonyo: “Simulation of pervaporation with the “solution-diffusion” model”, Hungarian Chemical Journal, Vol. 60, (2005), pp. 239–242 (in Hungarian).Google Scholar
- R.D. Noble: Membrane Separation Technology, Principles and Applications, Membrane Science and Technology Series, 2nd ed., Elsevier, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
- T.F. Edgar, D.M. Himmelblau and L.S. Lasdon: Optimization of Chemical Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2002.Google Scholar
- J.M. Douglas: Conceptual Design of Chemical Process, McGraw Hill Chemical Engineering Series, New York 1988.Google Scholar
- Personal communications, Sulzer Chemtech 2004Google Scholar