4.5 Article

Isobaric vapor-liquid equilibria and distillation process design for separating ketones in biomass pyrolysis oil

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THERMODYNAMICS
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jct.2021.106622

关键词

Vapor-liquid equilibria; Ketones; Regression; Estimation; Separation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21927811, 91753111, 21976110]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2017BB076]
  3. Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Complex Systems [MPCS-2019-D-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on ketones in biomass pyrolysis oil, conducting experiments and calculations to obtain key data for designing distillation separation processes. It provides important references for the distillation separation process design and offers theoretical basis and technical guidance for industrial separation processes of biomass pyrolysis oil.
Biomass pyrolysis oil is a renewable resource and some of compounds (such as ketones, phenols and furans) in biomass pyrolysis oil are very useful compounds that can be used as raw materials for production of fine chemicals. Vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) data are critical and fundamental for designing distillation separation process. The VLE experiment and calculation of ketone-related binary systems (2-buta none + cyclopentanone, 2,3-butanedione + cyclopentanone) at atmospheric pressure are studied in this work. Binary interaction parameters of activity coefficient models (NRTL, Wilson and UNIQUAC) are obtained by correlating VLE experimental data. The new group CH2COCH2 is defined and the new group interaction parameters are presented and used to predict VLE data by UNIFAC-DMD model. The distillation separation process of ketones is designed and simulated based on VLE results. This work will provide theoretical basis and technical guidance for industrial separation process of biomass pyrolysis oil. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.5
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