Next Article in Journal
A New Composite Material on the Base of Carbon Nanotubes and Boron Clusters B12 as the Base for High-Performance Supercapacitor Electrodes
Next Article in Special Issue
A Threshold Line for Safe Geologic CO2 Storage Based on Field Measurement of Soil CO2 Flux
Previous Article in Journal
C—Journal of Carbon Research: 300th Publications Milestone
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performing Quality Assurance of Carbon Dioxide for Carbon Capture and Storage
Open AccessArticle

Selection of Mixed Amines in the CO2 Capture Process

Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan 33306, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 13 January 2021 / Revised: 9 February 2021 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published: 24 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue CO2 Capture and Valorization)

Abstract

In order to select the best mixed amines in the CO2 capture process, the absorption of CO2 in mixed amines was explored at the required concentrations by using monoethanolamine (MEA) as a basic solvent, mixed with diisopropanolamine (DIPA), triethanolamine (TEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), and piperazine (PZ). Here, a bubble column was used as the scrubber, and a continuous operation was adopted. The Taguchi method was used for the experimental design. The conditional factors included the type of mixed amine (A), the ratio of the mixed amines (B), the liquid feed flow (C), the gas-flow rate (D), and the concentration of mixed amines (E). There were four levels, respectively, and a total of 16 experiments. The absorption efficiency (EF), absorption rate (RA), overall mass transfer coefficient (KGa), and scrubbing factor (ϕ) were used as indicators and were determined in a steady-state by the mass balance and two-film models. According to the Taguchi analysis, the importance of the parameters and the optimum conditions were obtained. In terms of the absorption efficiency (EF), the absorption rate (absorption factor) (RA/ϕ), and the overall mass transfer coefficient (KGa), the order of importance is D > E > A > B > C, D > E > C > B > A, and D > E > C > A > B, respectively, and the optimum conditions are A1B4C4D3E3, A1B3C4D4E2, A4B2C3D4E4, and A1B1C1D4E1. The optimum condition validation results showed that the optimal values of EF, RA, and KGa are 100%, 30.69 × 10−4 mol/s·L, 1.540 l/s, and 0.269, respectively. With regard to the selection of mixed amine, it was found that the mixed amine (MEA + AMP) performed the best in the CO2 capture process.
Keywords: amine; bubble-column scrubber; Taguchi method; overall mass transfer coefficient amine; bubble-column scrubber; Taguchi method; overall mass transfer coefficient

1. Introduction

Currently, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a major issue worldwide, especially in industry, and coal-fired power plants are the most concerning source. To reduce CO2 emissions, several studies on the capture, storage, and reuse of CO2 have been explored. They have focused mainly on post-combustion and used the absorption method [1,2,3], which uses an alkaline solution to capture the CO2. The absorption of CO2 in an alkaline solution is also an effective method that is used for the removal of CO2 from flue gas; it adopts a lot of solvents, including amines, amino salts, sodium hydroxide solution, and bicarbonate solutions [4]. To date, monoethanolamine (MEA) has been used as a wilder solvent to capture CO2 and hydrogen sulfide, due to its lower cost and higher boiling point, compared to other solvents [5,6]. The important industrial alkanolamines are MEA, diethanolamine (DEA), aminomethyl propanol (TEA), and methyldiethanolamine (MDEA). However, 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) and piperazine (PZ) [7,8,9,10] are always used as an absorption solvent and promoter, respectively. Here, amines can be divided into four classes, namely: primary amines (such as MEA and diglycolamine (DGA)), secondary amines (such as DEA and diisopropylamine (DIPA)), tertiary amines (such as TEA and MDEA), and steric hindrance amines (such as AMP). The properties and drawbacks of each class of amine are listed in Table 1. In addition, the loading of MEA is limited by stoichiometry to 0.5 moles CO2 per mole amine. However, the loading is higher for secondary and tertiary amines, which have higher loadings of up to 1 mole of CO2 per mole of amine. The primary and secondary amines react rapidly with CO2 to form carbamates, which results in higher solvent regeneration costs. On the other hand, tertiary amines catalyze the CO2 hydrolysis reduction, forming bicarbonate ions and protonated amines. The heat of the reaction in bicarbonate formation is lower than that in carbamate formation, thus reducing the solvent regeneration costs. However, tertiary amines react more slowly with CO2 than primary and secondary amines. In addition, PZ, which is a cyclic diamine, can be used as an activator [11,12].
Table 1. The properties and limitations of various amines.
Table 1. The properties and limitations of various amines.
AmineChemical StructureAdvantageDrawbackReferences
Primary amineH2N-CH2-CH2-OH (MEA)
  • High absorption rate
  • Cheaper
  • Lower viscosity
  • Lower absorption capacity
  • Higher heat capacity
  • It cannot be used to absorb COS and CS2 mixed gas
  • Higher vapor pressure
  • Higher heat regeneration cost
[12]
H2N-CH2-CH2-O-CH2-CH2-OH (DGA)
Secondary amineHN-(CH2-CH2-OH)2 (DEA)
  • It can be used to capture COS and CS2 gases
  • Higher loading
  • Lower heat capacity
  • Lower vapor pressure
  • Cheaper
  • Lower heat of reaction
  • Less corrosive than MEA
  • Higher viscosity
  • A limited solubility in water
[9]
HN-(CH2-C(OH)-CH3)2 (DIPA)
Tertiary amineN-(CH2-CH2-OH)3 (TEA)
  • Higher loading
  • Lower heat capacity
  • Lower vapor pressure
  • Lower heat of reaction
  • Lower absorption rate
  • More expensive
  • Higher viscosity
[13,14]
CH3-N-(CH2-CH2-OH)2 (MDEA)
Steric hindranceHN-CH-(CH3)2-CH2-OH (AMP)
  • Higher loading
  • Higher absorption rate and higher loading
  • Good stripping property
  • Higher heat capacity
  • More expensive
  • Higher viscosity
[15,16]
Piperazine C4H10N2
(PZ)
  • Anti-oxidative
  • Anti-thermal degradation
  • Promote reaction rate
  • Water and CO2 absorption in air
[8]
The absorption of acid gases, by using mixed amines, has an advantage over the use of single amines [9,15,17]. Therefore, the rapidly-rising energy demands have led to the development of more efficient solvents for the absorption of CO2 gas [11,14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. The absorption rate of CO2 into the mixed amines of MEA + MDEA and MEA + TEA has been studied by several authors [13,25,26]. The use of AMP + MEA as an effective solvent was reported in the literature [15]. The mixed amine systems, which combine the higher equilibrium capacity of the tertiary amine (MDEA) with the higher reaction rate of the primary (MEA) and secondary amine (DEA), can bring about a considerable improvement in the gas absorption rate. The addition of piperazine to potassium carbonate, MEA, tertiary amine, and steric hindrance amine, to enhance the reaction rate, has been explored [16,19]. Most of these studies have reported the kinetics of the reaction of CO2 with different amine blends [9,15,16,17,19].
In MEA aqueous solutions, two mechanisms for the formation of carbamate have been proposed: one is the zwitterions mechanism, and the other is the termolecular mechanism [6,27]. This termolecular mechanism assumes that an amine reacts simultaneously with one molecule of CO2 and one molecule of a base, and forms an intermediate loosely-bound complex. The reaction between CO2 and the amine can be described by a two-step zwitterions mechanism [6,14]. The chemistry equations can be reduced to three important steps, i.e., carbamate formation, bicarbonate formation, and carbamate reversion:
Carbamate formation:
C O 2 + 2 R N H 2 = R N H C O O + R N H 3 +
Bicarbonate formation:
C O 2 + R N H 2 + H 2 O = H C O 3 + R N H 3 +
Carbamate reversion:
R N H C O O + C O 2 + 2 H 2 O = 2 R N H 3 + + H C O 3
The total reaction rate of all CO2 reactions in an aqueous solution is shown below:
r = k o b s ( C O 2 )
where, k o b s is the observed reaction rate constant, which is defined as follows:
k o b s = [ k 1 ( R N H 2 ) 1 + k 1 k B ( B ) ] + [ k H 2 O ( H 2 O ) + k O H ( O H ) ]
where k 1 is the forward reaction rate constant in Equation (1), k 1 is the backward reaction rate constant in Equation (1), k B is the rate constant in Equation (2), and k O H is the reaction constant of CO2 with O H . The overall reaction rate depends on the concentration of hydroxyl ions, which increases with the pKa value of the amine [6]. At a high concentration of RNH2, the absorption rate of CO2 is greater, but more RNHCOO is produced and, hence, more bicarbonate, as shown in Equations (1) and (2). Therefore, the method of controlling the chemical species in the CO2/MEA/H2O system is significant in the CO2 capture process.
During the absorption of CO2 with mixed amines, the reaction rate of the bicarbonate ion is very slow, and thus r H C O 3 is neglected. Therefore, the kinetics of individual amine for the case of k 1 / ( ( k b [ B ] ) << 1, which is second-order kinetics, can be expressed as follows [12]:
r C O 2 , M E A = k 1 , M E A [ C O 2 ] [ M E A ]   ( primary   amine )
r C O 2 , D E A = k 1 , D E A [ C O 2 ] [ D E A ]   ( primary   amine )
r C O 2 , M D E A = k 1 , M D E A [ C O 2 ] [ M D E A ]   ( tertiary   amine )
and steric hindrance amine can be expressed as follows [14]:
r C O 2 , A M P = k 1 , A M P [ C O 2 ] [ A M P ]   ( steric   hindrance   amine )
The kinetics of piperazine [28] can be expressed as:
r C O 2 , P Z = k 1 , P Z [ C O 2 ] [ P Z ]
For the case of k 1 / ( ( k b [ B ] ) ››1, the reaction rate included the item k B B / k 1 . However, the overall reaction rate for the absorption of CO2 into mixed amines can be expressed as:
r C O 2 , O V = r C O 2 , M E A + r C O 2 , A d d
where, r C O 2 , A d d is the addition of a secondary amine, a tertiary amine, a steric hindrance amine, or piperazine into MEA solution.
In the absorption experiment, the packed column [29,30,31], the wetted wall absorber [10,14,32,33,34], the Rotating Packed Bed [4], the bubble column [11,35,36,37,38], and other scrubbers [28,39] are often used. The operation of the packed column is complicated, and its operating costs are high, while the bubble column is characterized by its merits, as it has a controllable pH value, a high mass transfer coefficient, a high absorption factor, and it is easy to operate. Because of this, some researchers have adopted a bubble-column scrubber, as reported in the literature [11,35,36,37,38]. Therefore, the absorption experiment in this study is performed by using the bubble column with a mixed amine aqueous solution as the absorbent.
In this study, by using various mixed amines as solvents, a continuous bubble-column scrubber was adopted to study the effects of the type of mixed amines (A), the ratio of mixed amines (B), the liquid-flow rate (C), the gas-flow rate (D), and the concentration of total amines (E) on the removal efficiency (EF), the absorption rate (RA), the overall mass-transfer coefficients (KGa), and the scrubbing factor ( ϕ ). This was because the EF, the RA, KGa, and ϕ can be used to evaluate the performance of amines in the scrubbers and, hence, the best amines are selected. To reach the purpose, this could be accomplished effectively by using the Taguchi method [40], which is popularly known as the experimental design for industrial processes and covers many applications. For verification, the data reported here were used to evaluate the optimum data through the signal and noise (S/N) ratio analysis, which was used as a basis for the selection of mixed amines. Therefore, original research was carried out in this work. The schematic of the research is shown in Figure 1.

2. Experimental Design and Procedure

2.1. Absorption Experiment Design

The aim of the experiment was to absorb CO2 by using mixed amines in a bubble column. The results were expected to be applied to the absorption of CO2 emitted by coal-fired power plants. Therefore, the CO2 of flue gas in a coal-fired power plant at a 15% concentration of and at 50 °C was simulated to enter the column. According to previous works [41,42], the absorption of CO2 in the bubble-column scrubber is affected by the gas flow rate, the liquid flow rate, the concentration of the solvent, as well as the temperature and pH. In order to select the mixed amines, the type of mixed amines (A), the ratio of mixed amines (B), the liquid-flow rate (C), the gas-flow rate (D), and the concentration of mixed amines (E) were considered as the condition factors, and four levels for each condition factor were taken respectively, i.e., the ratio of mixed amine (5–20 wt%), gas-flow rate, Qg, (3–12 L/min), concentration of the mixed amines (1–2.5 M), and the liquid-flow rate, QL, (0.15–0.3 L/min). Theoretically, a total of 1024 (=45) experiments needed to be conducted; however, to save time and experimental costs, we used the Taguchi experimental design to reduce the groups of the experiment to L16 (45) = 16. Here, the degree of freedom was found to be as follows [40]:
N = 1 + i = 1 N V ( L i 1 )
where N is the degree of freedom, Li is the level of the ith variable, and NV is the number of the variable. Using this equation, N = 1 + (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) is found to be 16, which is also the number of experiments. The value obtained in the steady-state for each experiment was adopted to obtain the absorption rate, the absorption efficiency, the scrubbing factor, and the overall volumetric mass transfer coefficient, and then the sequence of significance and optimum condition were obtained by using statistical software. Table 2 shows the conditions and levels, and Table 3 shows the orthogonal arrays. Finally, 16 groups of experiments needed to be conducted under different conditions.
The Taguchi method uses the signal and noise ratio (S/N) as the process optimization function [40,41]. The S/N value for larger-the-better is as follows:
S N = 10 × log ( 1 n 1 n 1 z i 2 )
Here, n is the experimental number and zi is the experimental data. Using this equation and experimental data, the optimum condition and parameter importance could be determined.

2.2. Calculation of Experimental Data

Experimental data, including the absorption efficiency, the absorption rate, the scrubbing factor, and the overall mass-transfer coefficient, were all evaluated in a steady-state condition. Based on the two-film model and materials balance, the absorption rate and overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient could be derived [43]. The equations for this are as follows:
R A = 1 V L Q g P A 1 R T [ 1 ( 1 y A 1 y A 1 ) ( y A 2 1 y A 2 ) ]
And
K G a = Q g V L ln [ ( P A 1 P A 2 ) ( T 2 T 1 ) ( y A 1 y A 2 ) ]
In Equation (15), it is assumed that the concentration of CO2 gas in the liquid phase is extremely small and that it can be ignored (CA ≫ HCAL) [43,44]. Therefore, the overall mass transfer coefficient can be derived. The result equation shows that KGa can be calculated from the known inlet and outlet conditions. In the above equations, yA, VL, Qg, PA, and T represent the mole fraction of CO2, the final solution volume, the gas volumetric flow rate, the CO2 gas partial-pressure, and the gas temperature, respectively. The notations of 1 and 2 represent the inlet and outlet, respectively.
In addition, the absorption efficiency and scrubbing factor [45] are shown as:
E F = y A 1 y A 2 y A 1 × 100 %
And
ϕ = F A V L F L
where FA and FL are the molar flow rate of CO2-gas and the aqueous amine molar flow rate, respectively.

2.3. Experimental Devices and Procedures

The devices required for this experiment are shown in Figure 2 and include a bubble column, a gas-flow feed system (Bronkhorst, F-201CB DMFC), a liquid-flow system (Easy-Load, 7518-00), a pH-meter (Suntex, PC-310), a CO2 m (Guardian Plus, D600), a gas heating system (5020 Data Acquisition System), and a liquid cooling system (Deng Yng, D-620). The range of a CO2 m is 0–100%, while the confidence of a CO2 m is ± 1 2 % . In this experiment, the mixed amine was used as a test absorbent, which accounted for 5–20 wt % of the ratio in total amine concentration, which was in the range of 1–2.5 M. The required mixed amine concentration was prepared by using distilled water. Secondly, the flow rate of CO2 and nitrogen input was based on the proportion of 15% of CO2, and the gas inlet temperature was maintained at 50 °C. The experiment was started after the mixed amine was added to the column. During the experiment, the pH of the solution, the liquid temperature, the gas inlet temperature, the gas outlet temperature, the pressure, and the CO2 concentration were recorded every five minutes. The liquid at the outlet was also withdrawn for titration to observe the concentration of carbonate in the scrubbed solution. At the end of the one-hour operation, the liquid input was closed and the solution was withdrawn by using a tubing pump to measure the volume of liquid (VL) presented in the column.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Operation and Data Calculation of the Steady-State Condition

Using No. 1 as an example, the mixed amine was MEA + AMP (A), with the condition of 5% (B), 150 mL/min (C), 3 L/min (D), and 1 M (E). To understand the relationship of the outlet concentration of the gas, the gas temperature, the liquid temperature, the pH, and the inlet pressure against the duration of the operation, the measured value were divided by the initial value or setting value (such as the liquid temperature and gas inlet temperature) was defined as the Y (-) value, which was taken as the y-axis, and the time (t) was taken as the x-axis, as shown in Figure 3. After one hour, the Y-values were constant after 20 min, showing that the system had reached a steady state. Therefore, all data could be evaluated in a steady-state condition, i.e., after 20 min of operation. The CO2 concentration dropped very low, indicating that the mixed amine had a high absorption efficiency. The analysis of the experimental results may be divided into two parts. Part 1 used the Taguchi method to design 16 groups of experiments that calculated the data, namely, the absorption rate, the absorption efficiency, the overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient, and the scrubbing factor, as shown in Table 4. Part 2 searched for and confirmed the optimum condition and the sequence of significance, based on the results of the data that were calculated in Part 1 in the Taguchi analysis. Table 4 presents the values calculated by Equations (14)–(17), where the range of E is 61.33–100%, RA is 4.02–26.48 × 10−4 (mol/s·L), KGa is 0.229–0.798 (s−1), and ϕ is 0.034–0.263 (mole/mole·L). These data are comparable with those reported earlier [42,45,46]. Table 5 showed that the data obtained in this work, such as KGa in the range of 0.229–0.789 s−1, were higher than that of the sodium glycinate solution (0.051–0.189 s−1), the ammonia solution (0.0136–0.3302 s−1), the NaOH solution (0.015–0.246 s−1), and the MEA solution (0.0377–0.8881 s−1). In addition, the RA and EF were also higher than the other systems listed in Table 5.

3.2. Taguchi Analysis

The values of the absorption efficiency (EF), the absorption rate (RA), the overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient (KGa), and the scrubbing factor ( ϕ ) were substituted into Equation (12) for a Taguchi S/N ratio analysis, and the results are shown in Figure 4 and Table 6. The parameters that significantly affected the EF, RA (or ϕ ), and KGa were in the order of D > E > A > B > C, D > E > C > B > A, and D > E > C > A > B, respectively. The importance of each parameter can be quantified and can be expressed in a radar chart, as shown in Figure 5. The scope was in the range 1 to 5, such as the importance of parameters in EF, (D(5) > E(4) > A(3) > B(2) > C(1)), which are shown in the form of dotted lines. While RA (A1B3C4D4E2) and ϕ (A1B1C1D4E1) appeared to have the same radar chart, they had different optimum conditions. The data showed that D (the gas-flow rate), and E (the concentration of mixed amine) were the primary factors, while A (the type of mixed amines), and B (the percentage of mixed amines) were the minor factors. The optimum conditions for EF and KGa were A1B4C4D1E4 and A4B2C3E4D4, respectively. It also revealed the type of mixed amine (A1, MEA + AMP) that was dominant for EF, RA, and ϕ , and the type of mixed amine (A4, MEA + PZ) that was better for KGa. However, the optimum conditions still need to be confirmed.

3.3. Confirmation of the Optimum Condition

Four experiments were carried out, based on the optimum conditions, and the results are presented in Table 7. The values obtained were 100%, 30.69 mol/s·L, 1.54 s−1, and 0.297 mol/mol·L for EF, RA, KGa, and ϕ , respectively. These are the largest values, and the larger-the-better, indicating that the optimum conditions could be confirmed here. This also demonstrated that the Taguchi method that was used was efficient.

3.4. Comparisons of Mixed Amines

To compare the outcome data obtained in Table 4, the bar graphs were plotted for EF, RA, KGa, and ϕ , respectively, as shown in Figure 6. From the bar charts, the mixed amine MEA + AMP appears to be better, compared to the others, except for ϕ . In order to obtain a quantitative comparison, the average value of each group, i.e., AMP, DIPA, TEA, and PZ, was required. Using EF as an example, the average values for AMP, DIPA, TEA, and PZ were 86.1, 81.4, 83.4, and 83.3, respectively. The sequence of the value was expressed as excellent (◎), good (○), fair (△), and poor (×), respectively. The RA, KGa, and ϕ can also be estimated by using the same method. The results of the estimation of each item are listed in Table 8. Cumulatively, the significant sequence of mixed amine was A1(MEA + AMP) > A3(MEA + TEA) > A4(MEA + PZ) > A2 (MEA + DIPA). This shows that the mixed amine (MEA + AMP) was the best.

4. Conclusions

A continuous bubble-column scrubber was used successfully to select mixed amines in the CO2 capture process, by using the absorption efficiency (EF), the absorption rate (RA), the overall mass transfer coefficient (KGa), and the scrubbing factor ( ϕ ) as indicators. A total of 16 runs were carried out, using Taguchi’s experimental design, which greatly reduced the number of experiments required. According to the Taguchi analysis, the mixed amine (MEA + AMP) had a better EF, RA, and ϕ , while the mixed amine (MEA + PZ) had a better KGa. The major factors affecting the outcome data were found to be the gas-flow rate (D) and the concentration of mixed amines (E). A confirmation of the optimum conditions showed that the most optimum values of EF (100%), RA (30.69 × 10−3 mol/s·L), KGa (1.540 s−1), and ϕ (0.297), fitted into the larger-the-better category. From the radar chart and bar chart analyses, the significant sequence of mixed amines was found to be A1 (MEA + AMP) > A3 (MEA + TEA) > A4 (MEA + PZ) > A2 (MEA + DIPA). This result indicated that the mixed amine (MEA + AMP) performed the best in the CO2 capture process under the operating conditions of this study. In this case, A1B4C4D4E4 is the best for KGa and RA, while A1B1C1D1E1 is the best for EF and ϕ . In future, mixed amine (MEA + AMP) can be improved further by adding TEA, to improve the RA, and the addition of PZ, to improve ϕ .

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.-C.C. and H.-H.C.; methodology, P.-C.C.; data curation, P.-C.C., H.-H.C., J.-H.J. and C.-H.K.; resources, P.-C.C., H.-H.C., J.-H.J. and C.-H.K.; writing—original draft preparation, P.-C.C., H.-H.C., J.-H.J. and C.-H.K.; writing—review and editing, P.-C.C. and H.-H.C.; funding acquisition, P.-C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the MOST in Taiwan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Lunghwa University of Science and Technology.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Please refer to special production in Dept. of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Lunghwa University of Science and Technology.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial supports of the MOST in Taiwan (MOST-109-2221-E-262-004) and the Research Institute of Taiwan Power Company.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; writing of the manuscript; or the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ho, M.T.; Allinson, G.W.; Wiley, D.E. Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2011, 5, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Han, K.; Ahn, C.K.; Lee, M.S. Performance of an ammonia-based CO2 Capture pilot facility in iron and steel industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2014, 27, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, T.; Keener, T.C. A review: Desorption of CO2 from rich solutions in chemical absorption processes. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2016, 51, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yu, C.H.; Huang, C.H.; Tan, C.S. A Review of CO2 Capture by Absorption and Adsorption. Aerosol. Air Qual. Res. 2012, 12, 745–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abdulkadir, A.; Rayer, A.V.; Quang, D.V.; Hadri, N.E.; Dindi, A.; Feron, P.H.M.; Abu-Zahra, M.R.M. Heat of absorption and specific heat of carbon dioxide in aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine, 3-piperdienmethonal and their blends. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 2070–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vaidya, P.D.; Kenig, E.Y. Absorption of CO2 into aqueous blends of alkanolamines prepared from renewable resources. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62, 7344–7350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.F.; Qin, S.J.; Zheng, Z.S. A kinetics study on the absorption of carbon dioxide into mixed aqueous solution of methyldiethanolamine and piperazine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 3785–3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Van Wagener, D.H.; Rochelle, G.T. Stripper configurations for CO2 capture by aqueous monoethanolamine and piperazine. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 1323–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Adeosun, A.; Abu-Zahra, M.R.M. Evaluation of amine-blend solvent systems for CO2 post-combustion capture applications. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali Khan, A.; Halder, G.; Saha, A.K. Kinetic effect and absorption performance of piperizine activator into aqueous solutions of 2-amino-1-methyl-1-propanol through post-combustion CO2 capture. Korean J. Chem. Eng. Eng. 2019, 63, 1090–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mondal, M.K. Absorption of carbon dioxide into a mixed aqueous solution of diethanolamine and piperazine. Indian J. Chem. Technol. 2010, 17, 431–435. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vaidya, P.D.; Kenig, E.Y. CO2-alkanomine reaction kinetics: A review of recent work. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rangwala, H.A.; Morrell, B.R.; Mather, A.E.; Otto, F.D. Absorption of CO2 into aqueous tertiary amine/mea solutions. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1992, 70, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xiao, J.; Li, C.C.; Li, M.H. Kinetics of absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous solutions of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol+monoethanolamine. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000, 55, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Choi, W.J.; Seo, J.B.; Jang, S.Y.; Jung, J.H.; Oh, K.J. Removal characteristics of CO2 using aqueous MEA/AMP solutions in the absorption and regeneration process. J. Environ. Sci. 2009, 21, 907–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Neveux, T.; Moullec, Y.L.; Corriou, J.P.; Favre, E. Energy performance of CO2 capture processes: Interaction between process design and solvent. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 35, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dash, S.K.; Samanta, A.N.; Bandyopadhyay, S.S. Simulation and parametric study of post combustion CO2 capture process using (AMP+PZ) blended solvent. Inter. J. Greenh. Gas. Con. 2014, 21, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diao, Y.F.; Zheng, X.Y.; He, B.S.; Chen, C.H.; Xu, X.C. Experimental study on capuring CO2 greenhouse gas by ammonia scrubbing. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 2283–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oyenekan, B.A.; Rochelle, G.T. Alternative stripper configurations for CO2 capture by aqueous amines. AICHE J. 2007, 53, 3144–3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Daneshvar, N.; Moattar, M.T.Z.; Abdi, M.A.; Aber, S. Carbon dioxide equilibrium absorption in muti-component systems of CO2+TIPA+MEA+H2O, at low CO2 partial pressures: Experimental solubility data, corrosion study and molding with artificial neural network. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2004, 37, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mangalapally, H.P.; Notz, R.; Hoch, S.; Asprion, N.; Sieder, G.; Garcia, H.; Hasse, H. Pilot plant Experimental studies of post combustion CO2 capture by reactive absorption with MEA and new solvents. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 963–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kim, J.H.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, I.Y.; Jang, K.R.; Shim, J.G. Performance evaluation of newly developed absorbents for CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wen, J.Q.; Liu, D.W.; Kirk, D.W.; Yang, J.; Bao, S. Aqueous blended amine MEA+DETA solutions for CO2 absorption. APEST 2012, 6, 459–464. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin, P.H.; Wong, D.S.H. Carbon dioxide capture and regeneration with amine/alchol/water. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2014, 26, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bosch, H.; Versteeg, G.F.; van Swaaij, W.P.M. Gas-liquid mass transfer with parallel reversible reactions—III. Absorption of CO2 into solutions of blends of amines. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1989, 44, 2745–2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. David, A.; James, G.; Critchfield, E.; Rochelle, G.T. CO2 absorption/desorption in mixtures of methyldiethanolamine with monoethanolamine. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1991, 46, 2829–2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Versteeg, G.F.; Dijck, L.A.J.; Swaaij, W.P.M. On the kinetics between CO2 and Alkaloamines both in aqueous and non-aqueous solutions. An overview. Chem. Eng. Commun. 1996, 114, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Derks, P.W.J.; Kleigeld, T.; van Aken, C.; Hogendoorn, J.A.; Versteeg, G.F. Kinetics of absorption of carbon dioxide in aqueous piperazine solutions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 6837–6854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Aroonwilas, A.; Veawab, A. Integration of CO2 capture unit using blended MEA-AMP solution into coal-fired power plants. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 4315–4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Badea, A.A.; Dinca, C.F. CO2 capture from post-combustion gas by employing MEA absorption process–experimental investigation for pilot studies. UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. D 2012, 74, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fu, K.; Chen, G.; Sema, T.; Zhang, X.; Liang, Z. Experimental study on mass transfer and prediction using artificial neural network for CO2 absorption into aqueous DETA. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2013, 100, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bishnoi, S.; Rochelle, G.T. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous piperazine: Reaction kinetics, mass transfer and solubility. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000, 55, 5531–5543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sakwattanapong, R.; Aroonwilas, A.; Veawab, A. Reaction rate of CO2 in aqueous MEA-AMP solution: Experiment and modeling. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodriguez, H.; Mello, L.; Salvagnini, W.; de Paulo, J.L. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous solutions of alkanolamines in wetted wall column with film promoter. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2011, 25, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gómez-Díaz, D.; López, A.B.; La García, M.D.R.; Pacheco, R.R.; Gómez-Díaz, D. Carbon Dioxide Absorption in Triethanolamine Aqueous Solutions: Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Hindi, M.; Azizi, F. The effect of water type on the absorption and desorption of carbon dioxide in bubble columns. Chem. Eng. Comm. 2020, 207, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karamian, S.; Mowla, D. Esmaeilzadeh, The effect of various nanofluids on absorption intensification of CO2/SO2 in a single-bubble column. Processes 2019, 7, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Beiki, H.; Ansaryan, O. Nanofluids application to promote CO2 absorption inside a bubble column: ANFIS and experimental study. Energy 2020, unpublished. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chakma, A.; Lemonier, J.P.; Chornet, E.; Overend, R.P. Absorption of CO2by aqueous triethanolamine (TEA) solutions in a high shear jet absorber. Gas Sep. Purif. 1989, 3, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fraley, S.; Oom, M.; Terrien, B.; Zalewski, J. Design of Experiments via Taguchi Methods: Orthogonal Arrays. 2012. Available online: https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php (accessed on 13 January 2021).
  41. Chen, P.C.; Luo, Y.X.; Cai, P.W. CO2 Capture Using Monoethanolamine in a Bubble-ColumnScrubber. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2015, 38, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, P.C.; Lin, S.Z. Optimization in the Absorption and Desorption of CO2 Using Sodium Glycinate Solution. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chen, P.C.; Shi, W.; Du, R.; Chen, V. Scrubbing of CO2 Greenhouse gases, accompanied by precipitation in a continuous bubble-column Scrubber. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 6336–6343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jou, F.Y.; Mather, A.E.; Otto, F.D. The solubility of CO2 in a 30 mass percent monoethanolamine solution. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1995, 73, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, P.C.; Yu, S.C. CO2 Capture and Crystallization of Ammonia Bicarbonate in a Lab-Scale Scrubber. Crystals 2018, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, P.C.; Huang, C.H.; Su, T.; Chen, H.W.; Yang, M.W.; Tsao, J.M. Optimum conditions for thecapture of carbon dioxide with a bubble-column scrubber. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2015, 35, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Framework of research conducted in this study.
Figure 1. Framework of research conducted in this study.
Carbon 07 00025 g001
Figure 2. Experimental device for the absorption of CO2.
Figure 2. Experimental device for the absorption of CO2.
Carbon 07 00025 g002
Figure 3. A plot of X vs. t, showing the steady-state operation (No.1).
Figure 3. A plot of X vs. t, showing the steady-state operation (No.1).
Carbon 07 00025 g003
Figure 4. The larger-the-better for various outcome data are obtained from Taguchi analysis. (a) EF; (b) RA; (c) KGa; (d) ϕ .
Figure 4. The larger-the-better for various outcome data are obtained from Taguchi analysis. (a) EF; (b) RA; (c) KGa; (d) ϕ .
Carbon 07 00025 g004
Figure 5. A radar chart showing the importance of the parameters.
Figure 5. A radar chart showing the importance of the parameters.
Carbon 07 00025 g005
Figure 6. Bar charts of mixed amine for the comparison of various outcome data (respectively, NO.1 to NO.16). (a) Absorption efficiency; (b) Absorption rate; (c) Overall mass transfer coefficient; (d) Scrubbing factor.
Figure 6. Bar charts of mixed amine for the comparison of various outcome data (respectively, NO.1 to NO.16). (a) Absorption efficiency; (b) Absorption rate; (c) Overall mass transfer coefficient; (d) Scrubbing factor.
Carbon 07 00025 g006
Table 2. Factors and levels conducted in this study to examine the absorption and mass transfer phenomena of CO2.
Table 2. Factors and levels conducted in this study to examine the absorption and mass transfer phenomena of CO2.
FactorsLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4
Type of mixed amines (A)MEA + AMPMEA + DIPAMEA + TEAMEA + PZ
Ratio of mixed amines [wt%] (B)5101520
QL [mL/min] (C)150200250300
Qg [L/min] (D)36912
Concentration of mixed amine [M] (E)11.522.5
Table 3. The orthogonal arrays.
Table 3. The orthogonal arrays.
NOABCDE
111111
212222
313333
414444
521234
622143
723412
824321
931342
1032431
1133124
1234213
1341423
1442314
1543241
1644132
Table 4. Experimental data obtained in this study.
Table 4. Experimental data obtained in this study.
NO.EF (%)RA × 104 (mol/s·L)KGa (s−1) ϕ (mole/mole·L)
NO.195.954.020.2290.134
NO.288.169.120.3610.127
NO.384.0014.470.5230.106
NO.476.3226.480.7980.087
NO.585.3314.400.5360.108
NO.661.3315.700.3790.172
NO.796.054.210.2350.046
NO.882.898.110.2810.141
NO.968.4227.70.7300.154
NO.1076.0014.20.4320.161
NO.1192.008.540.3940.104
NO.1297.334.020.2520.035
NO.1389.338.130.3400.126
NO.141004.090.6460.034
NO.1562.6715.60.3820.263
NO.1681.3312.60.4270.229
Table 5. Comparison of data obtained for different systems.
Table 5. Comparison of data obtained for different systems.
EF (%)RA × 104 (mol/s·L)KGa (s−1)System and ConditionsReference
36.54–86.842.30–8.560.051–0.189Sodium glycinate solution(pH-stat)
pH = 9.5–11
Qg = 3–9 L/min
T = 25–40 °C
CL = 3–6 M
yA1 = 15%
[42]
17.5–97.53.68–56.80.0377–0.8881MEA solution(pH-stat)
pH = 9–11
Qg = 4–9.5 L/min
T = 25–45 °C
yA1 = 15–65%
[41]
10.9–1003.21–10.990.0136–0.3302Ammonia solution(pH-stat)
pH = 9.5
Qg = 4–9.5 L/min
T = 25–60 °C
yA1 = 15–60%
[45]
21.3–90.61.03–11.480.015–0.246NaOH solution(pH stat)
pH = 10–13
Qg = 3–12 L/min
T = 25–55 °C
yA1 = 15%
[46]
61.33–1004.02–27.700.229–0.789Mixed amine solutions
Qg = 3–12 L/min
Q = 150–300 mL/min
T = 30 °C
yA1 = 15%
This work
Table 6. Optimum conditions and importance of parameters.
Table 6. Optimum conditions and importance of parameters.
Outcome DataOptimum ConditionsImportance of Parameters
EFA1 B4 C4 D1 E4D > E > A > B > C
RAA1 B3 C4 D4 E2D > E > C > B > A
KGaA4 B2 C3 D4 E4D > E > C > A > B
ϕ A1 B1 C1 D4 E1D > E > C > B > A
Table 7. Confirmation of the optimum condition.
Table 7. Confirmation of the optimum condition.
NO.EF (%)RA × 104 (mole/s·L)KGa (s−1) ϕ (mole/mole·L)
1–1661.33–1004.02–27.70.229–0.7980.034–0.263
Optimum value10030.691.5400.297
Table 8. Comparison of mixed amines in the outcome data.
Table 8. Comparison of mixed amines in the outcome data.
Mixed AminesAMPDIPATEAPZ
EF×
RA×
KGa×
ϕ
The sequence of the value was expressed as excellent (◎), good (○), fair (△), and poor (×), respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop