4.5 Article

Design and Evaluation of Two-Stage Membrane-Separation Processes for Propylene-Propane Mixtures

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes12020163

关键词

membrane separation; process design; CO2 emissions; total annual cost; propylene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-stage membrane-separation process was designed to extract propylene, aiming to reduce energy consumption and production costs. The advantages of the membrane-separation process were highlighted by evaluating the indicators of CO2 emissions and total annual costs. Case studies using model membranes were also conducted to forecast the technological applications of the membrane-separation process.
Propylene is industrially produced in a mixture with propane and generally separated from the mixture via distillation. However, because distillation is an energy-consuming process, a more efficient separation process should be developed to mitigate both carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and production costs. In this study, a two-stage membrane-separation process was designed, and its CO2 emission and production costs were evaluated. The separation processes were designed to minimize energy consumption using different membrane combinations (two recently developed membranes each). To evaluate the separation processes using various membrane combinations, two indicators, i.e., CO2 emissions and total annual costs (TACs), were estimated based on the process simulation (Pro/II, version 10.1.1) results, including energy consumptions, operation expenditure, and capital expenditure. These results were compared to the distillation processes as benchmarks, and the advantages of the membrane-separation process were discussed. In the comparison, carbon taxes were implemented for assessing these two independent indicators as a single indicator, i.e., TAC with carbon tax. Furthermore, using the same scheme, model membranes were also employed in the two-stage membrane-separation process as case studies of technological forecasts.

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