4.6 Article

Solvent Screening and Process Optimization for Separating Propylene Oxide from Direct Propylene Epoxidation with H2 and O2

Journal

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages 395-402

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.8b05407

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [91434117]
  2. Shanghai Natural Science Foundation [17ZR1407300]
  3. Shanghai Rising Star Program [17QA1401200]
  4. Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [222201718003]
  6. Open Project of State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering [SKL-Che-15C03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to develop a separation process of propylene oxide (PO) from direct propylene epoxidation with H-2 and O-2 via solvent screening followed by process optimization, where PO absorption/ concentration/refinery and solvent recovery tower are involved. A comparison of absorption processes among 15 ethers/ketones/esters/aromatics solvents shows that propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate, and acetophenone are more appropriate absorbents because of their high PO/solvent recovery, absence of reactions/azeotropes, and low energy consumption. Process optimization is further performed for the outlet PO purity requirement, e.g., 99.98% of LyondellBassell. It demonstrates PC to be the most promising solvent, which can afford outlet PO/PC purity and recovery of 99.98%/100% and 99.94%/99.95%. Meanwhile, the solvent recovery tower has lowered stages by 5-14 and energy consumption by 2-3.5 times, respectively. Moreover, the developed separation process is also applicable for inlet components containing propane and acrolein. These results could guide the separation process design of PO from the direct propylene epoxidation with H-2 and O-2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available