Articles & Issues

Language: English

Conflict of Interest: In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

All issues

RIGOROUS TREATMENT OF ADSORPTION DATA FOR MULTICOMPONENT PREDICTIONS

Kim IW

Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, April 1993, 10(2), 85-92(8), 10.1007/BF02697399

Download PDF

Abstract

Three considerations in the rigorous treatment of adsorption data for multicomponent adsorption equilibria are discussed below : （1） choice of pure-component model for the ideal adsorbed solution theory; (2) variable sensitivity analysis for the choice of independent variable stes; and (3) the error-in-variables method for binary interaction parameters. The O’Brien and Myers model gave better agreement with adsorption data than the Langmuir model for single components. However, in the prediction of binary and ternary component adsorption equilibria, IAS theory combined with the O’Brien and Myers model did not show any improvement over the IAS theory with Langmuir model. Sensitivity analysis showed that large sensitivities of dependent variables to independent variables can give large deviations in the prediction of binary component adsorption. This motivated the use of the error-in-variables method, which was shown to be superior to conventional least-squares in calculating the Wilson binary parameters for the prediction of ternary component equilibria with O₂-N₂-CO adsorption data on zeolite 10X. Smaller deviations in the predictions of total amount of adsorption were found from the parameters regressed by EVM, but the errors in the prediction of mole fraction were not reduced significantly compared to the traditional least squares approach.

Keywords

References

Talu O, Myers AL, AIChE J., 34, 1887 (1988)
Kemeny S, Manczinger J, Chem. Eng. Sci., 33, 71 (1978)
Kemeny S, Manczinger J, Skjold-Jorgense S, Toth K, AIChE J., 28, 20 (1982)
Richter E, Schutz W, Myers AL, Chem. Eng. Sci., 44, 1609 (1989)
Ritter JA, Yang RT, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 26, 1679 (1987)
High MS, Danner RP, AIChE J., 32, 1138 (1986)
Reilly PM, Patino-Leal H, Technometrics, 23, 221 (1981)
O'Brien JA, Myers AL, J. Chem. Soc.-Faraday Trans., 1467 (1984)
O'Brien JA, Myers AL, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27, 2085 (1988)
Myers AL, Prausnitz JM, AIChE J., 11, 121 (1965)
Suwanayuen S, Danner RP, AIChE J., 26, 68 (1980)
Cochran TW, Kabel RL, Danner RP, AIChE J., 31, 268 (1985)
Talu O, Myers AL, AIChE J., 34, 1931 (1988)
Valko P, Vajda S, Comput. Chem. Eng., 11, 37 (1987)
Kim IW, Liebman MJ, Edgar TF, AIChE J., 36, 985 (1990)
Edgar TF, Himmelblau DM, "Optimization of Chemical Processes," McGraw Hill (1988)
Danner RP, Wenzel LA, AIChE J., 15, 515 (1969)
Cochran TW, Kabel RL, Danner RP, AIChE J., 31, 2075 (1985)
Dorfman LR, Danner RP, AIChE Symp. Ser., 71, 30 (1975)
Hyun SH, Danner RP, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 27, 196 (1982)