4.7 Article

Finding a suitable thermodynamic model and phase equilibria for hydrodeoxygenation reactions of methyl heptanoate

期刊

FUEL
卷 90, 期 11, 页码 3315-3322

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.06.050

关键词

Vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE); PSRK; Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO); Methyl heptanoate; m-Xylene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replacement of fossil fuels with biomass-based components is of increasing public and scientific interest. Unfortunately, most biomass-based compounds contain oxygen and oxygen content must be diminished before use of the compounds as fuel. Removal is usually done catalytically, with hydrogen supplied to convert the oxygen to water. Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) of biomass-based compounds is often studied with model compounds, and the system investigated here was methyl heptanoate + m-xylene. Modeling of the reaction kinetics requires that behavior of the reaction mixture as a function of reaction time must be described. A suitable thermodynamic model for non-ideal system at high pressure and temperature is needed, and this demands correct modeling of the solubility of hydrogen and the water of reaction. For validation of the thermodynamic models isothermal vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) for the methyl heptanoate + m-xylene system was measured at 398.15 K and 408.15 K with a circulation still. The experimental VLE exhibited slight negative deviation from Raoult's law. No azeotropic behavior was found. The experimental VLE results were correlated with the Wilson model with temperature-dependent parameters and used in testing of the SRK, original UNIFAC, UNIFAC-Dortmund, and PSRK predictive models. PSRK was preferred for further estimations. All VLE measurements passed the point consistency tests. Simulated reaction conditions for HDO of methyl heptanoate at the initial and final points were calculated to determine the effect of vapor-liquid equilibrium on the composition of reaction mixtures. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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