4.7 Article

Combination of membrane separation and gas condensation for advanced natural gas conditioning

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 453, 期 -, 页码 100-107

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.060

关键词

Zeolite membrane; Precipitation; Methane; n-butane; Alkanes

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG within Schwerpunktprogramm [SPP 1570]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane separation and gas condensation are combined to reveal an advanced method for the separation of alkanes. First, the applicability of MFl membranes for alkane separation is principally demonstrated by means of realistic adsorption isotherms computed by configurational biased Monte Carlo (CBM) simulations. Next, dew point curves of mixtures comprising different ratios of n-butane (C4) and methane (C1) were calculated according to the thermodynamic methods of Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) and Peng Robinson (PR). From that, isothermal phase boundaries in dependence on the composition of the gas mixture were derived and process parameters under which condensation of the alkane mixture occurs were predetermined. Experimentally, the separation performance of MR membranes was recorded during separation of n-butane from methane It was found that liquefied n-butane in the feed and a further liquefaction in the permeate enhance the separation selectivity of MR zeolite membranes under sweeping conditions tremendously. AL the dew point of the feed mixture a sudden rise of the separation factor a is observed. At a temperature of 258 K a mixture with chi(C4) = 0.5 can be separated with a separation factor alpha(C4/C1)= 174 due to liquefaction. Experiments without sweeping show a similar behaviour. When forming a two phase mixture in the feed an increase in overall condensation efficiency eta(C4) is detected in the permeate. At 258 K and P-feed = 2 bar and p(permeate) = 1 bar 29.6% liquefied n-butane was isolated in the permeate from a mixture comprising chi(C4) =0.5. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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