4.5 Article

Reactive absorption of carbon dioxide in aqueous n-methyldiethanoloamine solutions catalysed with carbonic anhydrase in a rotating packed bed (RPB)

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2023.109266

关键词

N-methyldiethanolamine; CO2 absorption; RPB; Rotating packed bed; MDEA; Carbonic anhydrase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the absorption of carbon dioxide in a rotating packed bed with two different types of metal foam packing material and two types of liquid absorbents. The addition of carbonate anhydrase significantly improved the absorption efficiency but also narrowed the operating window. The results showed significantly higher mass transfer efficiency compared to a packed column absorption process.
Studies on absorption of carbon dioxide in the rotating packed bed (RPB) were performed with two different types of metal foam packing, and two types of liquid absorbents: 30 wt.% solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine in water, with and without the addition of 0.2 wt.% of carbonic anhydrase. Different rotation speeds, gas flow rates and liquid flow rates were investigated. Results were evaluated using normalized interphase molar flow. Increased rotation speeds and phase flow rates positively affected the interphase mole flow of CO2, but high gas and liquid flow rates limited the operating window due to flooding. The addition of anhydrase significantly increased the absorption efficiency, but also narrowed the operating window. The addition of carbonic anhydrase resulted in an increase in the degree of absorption 2-5-fold for the analogous gas and liquid flow rates, compared to the amine without the biocatalyst. The highest normalized mole flow of 66.3 kmol h-1 m- 3 was observed for NC1116 packing with the solvent containing anhydrase, while the highest normalized mole flow for solvent without catalyst was 26.2 kmol h-1 m- 3. The results were compared with analogous absorption processes in a packed column and showed up to 50-fold higher mass transfer efficiency.

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