4.6 Article

Thermodynamic Insights on the Feasibility of Homogeneous Batch Extractive Distillation. 4. Azeotropic Mixtures with Intermediate Boiling Entrainer

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 18, 页码 6489-6501

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie2019432

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper shows how knowledge of the univolatility and unidistribution line location and residue curve analysis help to assess the feasibility of batch extractive rectifying or stripping distillation of azeotropic mixtures by using an intermediate boiling entrainer. We consider five minimum boiling (minT) azeotropic mixtures AB with entrainer E, namely, acetone-heptane with benzene, methanol-toluene with triethylamine, methyl acetate-cyclohexane with carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane-ethanol with acetone, and ethyl acetate heptane with benzene; and one maximum boiling (maxT) azeotropic mixture, namely, chloroform-ethyl acetate with either 2-chlorobutane, isobutylchloride, bromopropane, or bromochloromethane. All ternary diagrams A-B-E belong to the 1.0-lb class, for which all three possible univolatility, alpha(AB), alpha(BE), and alpha(AE), and unidistribution lines, K-A, K-B, and K-E can exist. With application of the general feasibility criterion of Rodriguez-Donis et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48 (7), 3544-3559), both azeotropic components, A and B, accomplish the criterion, and they can be recovered, A in an extractive rectifier and B in an extractive stripper. The process efficiency of each alternative depends strongly on the location of the alpha(AB) univolatility line interception with the triangle edge, and also depends on the alpha(BE) (alpha(AE)) in the minT (maxT) case and of the unidistribution line K-E closeness to the (E-B) (A-E) edge. Besides, choice of the rectification of A instead of the stripping of B is set by the ratio of alpha(AE)/alpha(BE), the ratio of relative volatility variation of the binary mixtures between A or B and E.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据