Articles & Issues
- Language
- English
- Conflict of Interest
- In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Publication history
-
Received June 30, 2016
Accepted December 10, 2016
-
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.
Copyright © KIChE. All rights reserved.
All issues
Performance comparison of aqueous MEA and AMP solutions for biogas upgrading
Korea Institute of Energy Research, 152 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129, Korea 1Hansol EME, 55 Bundang-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 13591, Korea
bmmin@kier.re.kr
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, March 2017, 34(3), 921-927(7), 10.1007/s11814-016-0346-5
Download PDF
Abstract
Two different aqueous amine solutions were applied to CO2 removal from simulated biogas in a lab.-scale continuous absorption process that can handle 5Nm3/hr of gas treatment. The effects of the gas-to-liquid ratio in the absorber and of the temperature of the reboiler on the CO2 removal were analyzed in aqueous MEA and AMP solutions. Since the CO2 loading ratio of AMP solutions is larger than that of MEA solutions for the same absorbent concentration, the AMP solutions have higher CO2 removal efficiency than that of MEA solutions for the same gas-toliquid ratio and reboiler temperature. Also, the 30 wt% MEA solution has a higher CO2 removal efficiency than that of the 20 wt% MEA solution at the same gas-to-liquid ratio and reboiler temperature. To evaluate the feasibility of biogas upgrading, a commercial simulator, Aspen Plus®, was used to analyze the effects of absorbent concentration, absorbent flow rate at the absorption column, and absorber height on CO2 removal and CH4 purity; the regeneration energy was also evaluated. The results were applied to the design of a pilot-scale biogas upgrading plant that can handle 10,000 Nm3/day of biogas treatment.
References
Horikawa MS, Rossi ML, Gimenes ML, Costa CMM, da Silva MGC, Br. J. Chem. Eng., 21, 415 (2004)
Abatzoglou N, Boivin S, Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin., 3, 42 (2009)
Yang H, Xu Z, Fan M, Gupta R, Slimane RB, Bland AE, J. Environ. Sci., 20, 14 (2008)
Granite EJ, O'Brien T, Fuel Process. Technol., 86(14-15), 1423 (2005)
Tippayawong N, Thanompongchart P, Energy, 35(12), 4531 (2010)
Privalova EI, Maki-Arvela P, Eranen K, Avetisov AK, Mikkola JP, Murzin DY, Chem. Eng. Technol., 36(5), 740 (2013)
Yu CH, Huang CH, Tan CS, Aerosol Air Quality Res., 12, 745 (2012)
Choi WJ, Seo JB, Jang SY, Jung JH, Oh KJ, J. Environ. Sci., 21, 907 (2009)
Kim YE, Lim JA, Jeong SK, Yoon YI, Bae ST, Nam SC, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc., 34, 783 (2013)
Aronu UE, Gondal S, Hessen ET, Haug-Wargerg T, Hartono A, Hoff KA, Svendsen HF, Chem. Eng. Sci., 66, 6393 (2011)
Abatzoglou N, Boivin S, Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin., 3, 42 (2009)
Yang H, Xu Z, Fan M, Gupta R, Slimane RB, Bland AE, J. Environ. Sci., 20, 14 (2008)
Granite EJ, O'Brien T, Fuel Process. Technol., 86(14-15), 1423 (2005)
Tippayawong N, Thanompongchart P, Energy, 35(12), 4531 (2010)
Privalova EI, Maki-Arvela P, Eranen K, Avetisov AK, Mikkola JP, Murzin DY, Chem. Eng. Technol., 36(5), 740 (2013)
Yu CH, Huang CH, Tan CS, Aerosol Air Quality Res., 12, 745 (2012)
Choi WJ, Seo JB, Jang SY, Jung JH, Oh KJ, J. Environ. Sci., 21, 907 (2009)
Kim YE, Lim JA, Jeong SK, Yoon YI, Bae ST, Nam SC, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc., 34, 783 (2013)
Aronu UE, Gondal S, Hessen ET, Haug-Wargerg T, Hartono A, Hoff KA, Svendsen HF, Chem. Eng. Sci., 66, 6393 (2011)
