4.6 Article

Conceptual process design of extractive distillation processes for ethylbenzene/styrene separation

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH & DESIGN
卷 90, 期 12, 页码 2086-2100

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2012.05.019

关键词

Sulfolane; Ionic liquids; Extractive distillation; Ethylbenzene; Styrene; Conceptual design

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current styrene production process the distillation of the close-boiling ethylbenzene/styrene mixture to obtain an ethylbenzene impurity level of 100 ppm in styrene accounts for 75-80% of the energy requirements. The future target is to reach a level of 1-10 ppm, which will increase the energy requirements for the distillation even further. Extractive distillation is a well-known technology to separate close-boiling mixtures up to high purities. The objective of this study was to investigate whether extractive distillation using ionic liquids (ILs) is a promising alternative to obtain high purity styrene. Three ILs were studied: [3-mebupy] [B(CN)(4)], [4-mebupy] [BF4], and [EMIM] [SCN]. Extractive distillation with sulfolane and the current conventional distillation process were used as benchmark processes. The IL [4-mebupy][BF4] is expected to outperform the other two ILs with up to 11.5% lower energy requirements. The operational expenditures of the [4-mebupy][BF4] process are found to be 43.2% lower than the current distillation process and 5% lower than extractive distillation with sulfolane extractive distillations. However, the capital expenditures for the sulfolane process will be about 23% lower than those for the [4-mebupy][BF4] process. Finally, the conclusion can be drawn from the total annual costs that all studied extractive distillation processes outperform the current distillation process to obtain high purity styrene, but that the ILs evaluated will not perform better than sulfolane. (C) 2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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