Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and ...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and novel hybrid solvents of glycerol and monoethanolamine in a pilot-scale packed bed column

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and novel hybrid solvents of glycerol and monoethanolamine in a pilot-scale packed bed column. / Mirzaei, S.; Shamiri, A.; Aroua, M.K.
In: Energy and Fuels, Vol. 34, No. 7, 16.07.2020, p. 8503-8515.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Mirzaei S, Shamiri A, Aroua MK. Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and novel hybrid solvents of glycerol and monoethanolamine in a pilot-scale packed bed column. Energy and Fuels. 2020 Jul 16;34(7):8503-8515. Epub 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389

Author

Bibtex

@article{79cf3aae35e84861ae0a1f96de17c682,
title = "Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and novel hybrid solvents of glycerol and monoethanolamine in a pilot-scale packed bed column",
abstract = "CO2 removal from mixed CO2-N2 gas was investigated by using aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) (10 wt %), glycerol (10 wt %), and a mixture of MEA (10 wt %)-glycerol (10 wt %) in a pilot-scale packed column. An Aspen Plus simulator was employed to simulate the CO2-MEA-glycerol process using a rate-based model. Then, the experimental data of the pilot-scale columns were applied to validate the simulation results. The lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the MEA solvent were measured in 3.65 and 13.9% mol CO2/mol MEA with 1.4 and 3.9 L/min gas flow rates, respectively. In comparison to the CO2-MEA system, the lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the CO2-MEA-glycerol system increased by 42.2 and 14.8%, respectively, under the same conditions. The values of CO2 loadings predicted by the simulation were in concordance with the experimental values. The results showed that the hybrid MEA-glycerol solution had a better CO2 absorption performance than the aqueous MEA solution. ",
keywords = "Carbon dioxide, Computer software, Flow of gases, Glycerol, Packed beds, Aspen Plus Simulators, CO2 absorption, Experimental values, Glycerol process, Monoethanolamine, Packed bed column, Pilot scale columns, Rate based model, Ethanolamines",
author = "S. Mirzaei and A. Shamiri and M.K. Aroua",
note = "This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Energy and Fuels, copyright {\textcopyright} American Chemical Society after peer review and technical editing by the publisher. To access the final edited and published work see https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
day = "16",
doi = "10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "8503--8515",
journal = "Energy and Fuels",
issn = "0887-0624",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Co2absorption/desorption in aqueous single and novel hybrid solvents of glycerol and monoethanolamine in a pilot-scale packed bed column

AU - Mirzaei, S.

AU - Shamiri, A.

AU - Aroua, M.K.

N1 - This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Energy and Fuels, copyright © American Chemical Society after peer review and technical editing by the publisher. To access the final edited and published work see https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389

PY - 2020/7/16

Y1 - 2020/7/16

N2 - CO2 removal from mixed CO2-N2 gas was investigated by using aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) (10 wt %), glycerol (10 wt %), and a mixture of MEA (10 wt %)-glycerol (10 wt %) in a pilot-scale packed column. An Aspen Plus simulator was employed to simulate the CO2-MEA-glycerol process using a rate-based model. Then, the experimental data of the pilot-scale columns were applied to validate the simulation results. The lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the MEA solvent were measured in 3.65 and 13.9% mol CO2/mol MEA with 1.4 and 3.9 L/min gas flow rates, respectively. In comparison to the CO2-MEA system, the lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the CO2-MEA-glycerol system increased by 42.2 and 14.8%, respectively, under the same conditions. The values of CO2 loadings predicted by the simulation were in concordance with the experimental values. The results showed that the hybrid MEA-glycerol solution had a better CO2 absorption performance than the aqueous MEA solution.

AB - CO2 removal from mixed CO2-N2 gas was investigated by using aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) (10 wt %), glycerol (10 wt %), and a mixture of MEA (10 wt %)-glycerol (10 wt %) in a pilot-scale packed column. An Aspen Plus simulator was employed to simulate the CO2-MEA-glycerol process using a rate-based model. Then, the experimental data of the pilot-scale columns were applied to validate the simulation results. The lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the MEA solvent were measured in 3.65 and 13.9% mol CO2/mol MEA with 1.4 and 3.9 L/min gas flow rates, respectively. In comparison to the CO2-MEA system, the lowest and highest rich CO2 loadings for the CO2-MEA-glycerol system increased by 42.2 and 14.8%, respectively, under the same conditions. The values of CO2 loadings predicted by the simulation were in concordance with the experimental values. The results showed that the hybrid MEA-glycerol solution had a better CO2 absorption performance than the aqueous MEA solution.

KW - Carbon dioxide

KW - Computer software

KW - Flow of gases

KW - Glycerol

KW - Packed beds

KW - Aspen Plus Simulators

KW - CO2 absorption

KW - Experimental values

KW - Glycerol process

KW - Monoethanolamine

KW - Packed bed column

KW - Pilot scale columns

KW - Rate based model

KW - Ethanolamines

U2 - 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389

DO - 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b04389

M3 - Journal article

VL - 34

SP - 8503

EP - 8515

JO - Energy and Fuels

JF - Energy and Fuels

SN - 0887-0624

IS - 7

ER -