Modeling the methyldiethanolamine-piperazine scrubbing system for CO<sub>2</sub> removal: Thermodynamic analysis

doi:10.1007/s11705-016-1555-5

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.

2016, Vol. 10

Issue (1) : 162-175 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-016-1555-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Modeling the methyldiethanolamine-piperazine scrubbing system for CO₂ removal: Thermodynamic analysis

Stefania Moioli(

),Laura A. Pellegrini

Dipartimento di Chimica, Materiali e Ingegneria Chimica “G. Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy

Download: PDF(975 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Aqueous solutions of methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and piperazine (PZ) are commonly used solvent nowadays. In this work a thermodynamic analysis with the Electrolyte-NRTL model has been performed for systems composed of acidic gases and MDEA+PZ aqueous solution. ASPEN Plus^® has been used for thermodynamic modeling. Values of binary interaction parameters for liquid phase activity coefficients have been estimated from regressions of experimental data. Moreover, the influence of the interactions between ion pairs and MDEA or PZ molecular species has been analyzed. The final aim is to obtain a reliable tool for design and simulation of absorption and stripping columns, fundamentals also in order to carry out energy saving studies.

Keywords vapor-liquid equilibrium methyldietanolamine piperazine regression Electrolyte-NRTL

Corresponding Author(s): Stefania Moioli

Online First Date: 01 February 2016 Issue Date: 29 February 2016

Cite this article:

Stefania Moioli,Laura A. Pellegrini. Modeling the methyldiethanolamine-piperazine scrubbing system for CO₂ removal: Thermodynamic analysis[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(1): 162-175.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-016-1555-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2016/V10/I1/162

Tab.1 Parameters θ_1,_j, θ_2,_j and θ_3,_j (θ_4,_j = 0) for the chemical equilibrium constant of the considered reactions

Tab.2 Values of parameters of Henry’s constants of carbon dioxide in water according to the literature

Tab.3 Experimental data available and used for calculation

Tab.4 Values of A and B resulting from the regression not including parameters related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species

Tab.5 Values of A and B resulting from the regression considering also parameters related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species

Fig.1 Parity plot of mole fraction of carbon dioxide (a) in the liquid phase and (b) in the vapor phase: Comparison between the results obtained with the regression of parameters not including those related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species and the experimental point

Fig.2 Parity plot of mole fraction of MDEA and PZ in the liquid phase: Comparison between the results obtained with the regression of parameters not including those related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species and the experimental point

Fig.3 Parity plot of mole fraction of carbon dioxide (a) in the liquid phase and (b) in the vapor phase: Comparison between the results obtained with the regression of parameters including those related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species and the experimental point

Fig.4 Parity plot of mole fraction of MDEA and PZ in the liquid phase: Comparison between the results obtained with the regression of parameters including those related to interactions with MDEA and PZ molecular species and the experimental point

Fig.5 Parity plot of mole fraction of carbon dioxide (a) in the vapor phase and (b) in the liquid phase: Comparison between the results obtained with the regression of parameters and ASPEN Plus^® and the experimental points [18]

Fig.6 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 303 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points [14,18]

Fig.7 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 328 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points [20]

Fig.8 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 343 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points from (a) Liu et al. [14], (b) Najibi and Maleki [18] and (c) Vahidi et al. [20]

Fig.9 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 383 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points [18]

Fig.10 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 393 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points [16]

Fig.11 Partial pressure of CO₂ vs. CO₂ loading at 403 K. Comparison between the obtained results and experimental points [18]

Vapor mole fraction CO₂				Liquid mole fraction CO₂
Proposed parameters	ASPEN Plus^®	Proposed parameters	ASPEN Plus^®
(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris
–0.0020	8.0789	0.0038	15.0754	–0.0002	0.0182	0.0020	0.2321
–0.0008	2.5189	0.0032	10.5015	–0.0006	0.0594	0.0003	0.0339
0.0003	0.7252	0.0020	5.6523	–0.0009	0.0886	–0.0005	0.0533
–0.0012	6.4496	0.0014	7.6932	0.0002	0.0239	0.0034	0.4803
–0.0020	8.6002	0.0010	4.2921	–0.0006	0.0680	0.0020	0.2385
–0.0012	4.1436	0.0014	4.7738	–0.0014	0.1467	–0.0004	0.0380
–0.0001	0.2010	0.0019	5.9369	–0.0017	0.1794	–0.0010	0.1073
–0.0013	5.1097	0.0040	15.9160	–0.0002	0.0188	0.0017	0.1898
0.0003	0.8098	0.0026	7.7570	–0.0008	0.0834	–0.0005	0.0465
0.0004	1.2585	0.0024	7.0927	–0.0009	0.0873	–0.0006	0.0570
–0.0022	10.8527	0.0006	2.8531	0.0002	0.0328	0.0031	0.4367
–0.0023	8.2345	0.0010	3.7259	–0.0011	0.1203	0.0001	0.0149
–0.0022	7.5717	0.0011	3.6511	–0.0012	0.1332	–0.0001	0.0116
0.0010	1.5092	0.0097	15.2933	–0.0007	0.0776	0.0038	0.3976
0.0040	5.5797	0.0098	13.7841	–0.0006	0.0593	0.0015	0.1474
0.0077	10.4956	0.0110	14.8844	–0.0005	0.0534	0.0008	0.0793
–0.0036	6.8034	0.0022	4.2135	0.0006	0.0623	0.0078	0.8750
–0.0007	1.2327	0.0058	9.5927	–0.0002	0.0240	0.0041	0.4306
0.0027	3.9497	0.0083	12.1693	–0.0005	0.0494	0.0019	0.1927
–0.0035	11.0506	–0.0026	8.3745	0.2399	50.5614	0.2467	51.9903
0.0009	1.9831	0.0009	2.0314	–0.0003	0.0306	0.0050	0.5806
0.0006	1.0345	0.0014	2.4835	–0.0005	0.0558	0.0031	0.3375
–0.0010	1.5898	–0.0003	0.3984	–0.0008	0.0862	0.0019	0.1974
0.0016	8.4183	–0.0028	14.3798	–0.0005	0.1396	0.0071	1.9266
0.0192	77.3641	0.0083	33.5482	–0.3097	38.0155	–0.3089	37.9261
0.0016	3.9922	–0.0039	9.5916	–0.0020	0.2410	0.0018	0.2203
0.0001	0.1395	–0.0053	11.0206	–0.0020	0.2201	0.0009	0.1026
0.0009	1.4482	0.0089	13.6488	–0.0002	0.0220	0.0035	0.3622
0.0039	5.5953	0.0100	14.3654	–0.0004	0.0448	0.0015	0.1561
0.0061	7.9768	0.0086	11.1324	–0.0004	0.0437	0.0005	0.0518
–0.0047	8.2794	0.0020	3.5050	0.0002	0.0171	0.0062	0.7019
–0.0018	2.9150	0.0056	8.8589	–0.0002	0.0171	0.0035	0.3733
0.0005	0.6802	0.0072	10.3951	–0.0004	0.0432	0.0017	0.1780
–0.0013	3.4126	–0.0005	1.3548	0.0003	0.0365	0.0076	1.0516
–0.0031	6.0429	–0.0005	0.9106	–0.0004	0.0441	0.0043	0.5020
0.0012	1.6973	0.0042	5.8611	–0.0013	0.1317	0.0004	0.0413
–0.0023	10.3251	–0.0034	15.1838	0.1050	41.9165	0.1119	44.6877
–0.0008	2.9862	–0.0026	9.9767	0.0020	0.5354	0.0103	2.8096
–0.0029	7.2471	–0.0049	12.4028	–0.0034	0.4746	0.0013	0.1736
–0.0052	9.8672	–0.0064	12.0837	–0.0023	0.2671	0.0008	0.0887
0.0137	17.4743	0.0005	0.6012	0.0039	0.4300	0.0157	1.7417
0.0074	6.3467	–0.0057	4.8814	–0.0003	0.0264	0.0053	0.5449
0.0107	8.5157	–0.0025	1.9971	–0.0005	0.0475	0.0037	0.3749
0.0140	10.4450	0.0001	0.0396	–0.0006	0.0628	0.0026	0.2592
0.0072	14.1907	–0.0053	10.4504	0.0133	1.7776	0.0218	2.9216
0.0023	2.9412	–0.0115	14.7824	0.0029	0.3270	0.0080	0.8972
0.0015	1.4447	–0.0142	14.0301	0.0017	0.1805	0.0050	0.5286
0.0053	4.7121	–0.0120	10.7304	0.0010	0.1010	0.0036	0.3728
0.0053	5.4041	0.0027	2.7157	0.0051	0.5650	0.0135	1.5049
0.0074	6.2500	0.0052	4.4158	0.0003	0.0341	0.0048	0.4929
0.0123	9.2319	0.0090	6.7392	–0.0003	0.0286	0.0022	0.2216
–0.0081	7.7328	–0.0093	8.8888	0.0020	0.2192	0.0064	0.7087
–0.0070	5.8525	–0.0086	7.1489	0.0010	0.1019	0.0038	0.4026
–0.0036	2.8616	–0.0059	4.7217	0.0005	0.0535	0.0029	0.3006

Tab.1 Table A1 Comparison between results obtained with ASPEN Plus^® default and the proposed parameters against experimental data[14]

Proposed parameters	ASPEN Plus^®	Proposed parameters	ASPEN Plus^®
Vapor mole fraction CO₂				Liquid mole fraction CO₂
(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris	(ris-exp)	% ass (ris-exp)/ris
–0.0015	1.4706	0.0063	6.0636	0.0053	28.9673	0.0041	22.5877
–0.00226	1.789696	0.00748	5.931238	0.006629	35.37193	0.004796	25.59125
–0.00146	0.58678	0.015965	6.406865	0.006786	25.83096	0.002592	9.867229
–0.00199	0.65759	0.017602	5.826261	0.007814	28.05692	0.003148	11.30485
–0.00046	0.112799	0.022066	5.363051	0.006747	19.8617	0.001742	5.128069
–0.00346	0.757081	0.01976	4.327995	0.006429	17.60899	0.00126	3.452281
–0.00148	0.279223	0.022182	4.194641	0.005144	12.50538	0.000269	0.654262
–0.00234	0.432586	0.021344	3.950577	0.005571	13.49953	0.000711	1.722091
–0.00302	0.503071	0.020397	3.395909	0.005055	11.26293	0.000481	1.071567
–0.00244	0.419397	0.021117	3.634279	0.003791	8.396247	–0.0009	2.001342
–0.00263	0.393123	0.019794	2.959142	0.006516	13.79854	0.002502	5.299101
–0.00254	0.378195	0.019811	2.946451	0.00512	10.47627	0.001115	2.281907
–0.00244	0.304001	0.015774	1.966294	0.003177	5.237672	0.000565	0.9312
–0.00203	0.23558	0.012989	1.506667	0.000435	0.619652	–0.00121	1.72659
–0.00203	0.235185	0.012993	1.507119	–0.00034	0.47992	–0.00199	2.808503
–0.00154	0.170436	0.01057	1.169939	–0.00202	2.55425	–0.00274	3.458777
–0.00148	0.162918	0.0104	1.147401	–0.00274	3.397227	–0.00338	4.193865
–0.00136	0.147313	0.008806	0.950564	–0.00381	4.422973	–0.00387	4.500622
–0.00133	0.143789	0.008718	0.939723	–0.00486	5.563112	–0.00489	5.594112
–0.00124	0.133092	0.008111	0.867486	–0.00367	4.166695	–0.00345	3.908687
–0.00019	0.162015	0.005779	4.909473	0.00166	8.601833	0.003733	19.33975
–0.00129	0.643146	0.00946	4.713163	0.001939	8.325998	0.003379	14.50684
–0.00226	0.720778	0.012642	4.025868	0.001701	6.102247	0.002986	10.71338
–0.00268	0.661254	0.014054	3.463961	0.000671	2.104514	0.002283	7.160177
–0.00304	0.584092	0.014432	2.769516	–0.0003	0.817732	0.002154	5.920382
–0.00331	0.572615	0.013967	2.417564	–0.00162	4.103577	0.001361	3.443636
–0.00249	0.389515	0.014083	2.200088	–0.00238	5.622108	0.001327	3.129761
–0.00305	0.439896	0.012619	1.819639	–0.00421	9.089417	0.000166	0.35771
–0.00342	0.469642	0.011492	1.579854	–0.00483	9.990777	4.1E-06	0.008479
–0.00372	6.438404	–0.00252	4.359504	0.003035	24.8683	0.005394	44.1891
–0.00262	3.032092	0.000931	1.077483	0.002486	16.73072	0.004624	31.12712
–0.0041	2.68573	0.002797	1.832833	0.002808	15.47302	0.004508	24.83816
–0.00265	1.185946	0.006493	2.90917	0.001537	6.93373	0.002948	13.2986
–0.00153	0.515994	0.009044	3.050168	0.001839	7.595015	0.003149	13.00781
–0.00062	0.161002	0.010958	2.836516	–0.00043	1.45672	0.000953	3.2567
–0.00228	0.530434	0.009574	2.227339	–0.00029	0.938018	0.001192	3.912237
–0.00111	0.173484	0.010227	1.599164	–0.00215	5.504406	0.000787	2.013327
–0.00086	0.115501	0.009007	1.205643	–0.00332	7.387743	0.000931	2.073131
–0.00035	0.043758	0.008293	1.030349	–0.00511	10.22056	2.96E-05	0.059195
–0.00031	0.03672	0.007282	0.862287	–0.00598	11.1188	–0.00016	0.291827
–0.00042	0.048582	0.006636	0.769664	–0.00669	11.94854	–0.00055	0.989747
–0.00025	0.02852	0.006089	0.689431	–0.00682	11.70332	–0.00029	0.490448
–0.00051	0.057182	0.005416	0.605191	–0.0073	12.15212	–0.00056	0.926738
–0.02346	30.65427	–0.00275	3.595908	0.004576	21.16028	0.005294	24.48252
–0.02414	9.555508	–0.00042	0.167416	–0.00746	27.20403	0.005282	19.27387
–0.00212	0.62553	0.000759	0.223694	0.001011	3.504037	0.00508	17.60161
–0.0022	0.313044	–0.00095	0.134531	0.000125	0.363437	0.003214	9.367759
–0.00066	0.088236	0.000401	0.053499	4.28E-05	0.121969	0.002788	7.943963
–0.00164	0.210948	–0.00069	0.088279	–0.00012	0.338949	0.002404	6.717504
–0.00074	0.082297	–0.00027	0.030307	–3.3E-05	0.086551	0.00126	3.285539
–0.00061	0.067832	–0.00018	0.019701	5.65E-05	0.146825	0.001255	3.260553
–0.00047	0.049619	–0.00021	0.021937	0.000111	0.27745	0.000752	1.886707
–0.00045	0.046404	–0.00026	0.027237	7.13E-05	0.174947	0.000442	1.084279
–0.00045	0.047193	–0.00027	0.027789	–3.8E-05	0.093055	0.000343	0.840921
–0.00032	0.033049	–0.00017	0.017441	–7.1E-06	0.017199	0.000246	0.595665
–0.0003	0.031224	–0.00016	0.016624	–0.0001	0.249492	0.000114	0.275501
–0.00145	2.419592	–0.00038	0.627061	0.000864	4.236852	0.003226	15.82003
–0.00225	1.371858	0.001087	0.662575	0.001203	4.960443	0.004693	19.35588
0.001528	0.438797	0.004597	1.319694	6.22E-05	0.220302	0.004568	16.17872
–0.00155	0.289617	0.000469	0.08767	–0.00085	2.695001	0.003849	12.14486
0.000611	0.107636	0.002408	0.424184	–0.00089	2.780836	0.003752	11.70184
–0.00074	0.128271	0.001001	0.172645	–0.00106	3.270937	0.003577	11.02385
–2.6E-05	0.003537	0.000881	0.11888	–0.00149	4.215129	0.002603	7.378248
–0.00014	0.016276	0.000364	0.043316	–0.00144	3.866622	0.001987	5.330923
–0.00041	0.048292	6.82E-05	0.008057	–0.00148	3.951131	0.001894	5.05095
–0.00031	0.03474	–4.5E-06	0.000503	–0.00138	3.552746	0.001502	3.878587
–0.00038	0.042281	–1E-04	0.011097	–0.00138	3.534238	0.001408	3.612999
–0.00041	0.044691	–0.00019	0.020664	–0.00133	3.363259	0.001199	3.027892
–0.0004	0.043559	–0.00018	0.019872	–0.00138	3.469914	0.001142	2.877188
–0.00023	0.025072	–5.5E-05	0.005903	–0.00132	3.291641	0.000997	2.483369
–0.00073	0.078455	–0.00056	0.059762	–0.00132	3.290856	0.000969	2.409399

Tab.2 Table A2 Comparison between results obtained with ASPEN Plus^® default and the proposed parameters against experimental data [19]

1	Kohl A L, Nielsen R. Gas Purification, 5th ed. Texas, USA: Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division, 1997
2	Nagy T, Mizsey P. Model verification and analysis of the CO2-MEA absorber-desorber system. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 39: 236–244 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.017
3	Nagy T, Mizsey P. Effect of fossil fuels on the parameters of CO2 capture. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(15): 8948–8954
4	Svendsen H F, Hessen E T, Mejdell T. Carbon dioxide capture by absorption, challenges and possibilities. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 171(3): 718–724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.01.014
5	Duke M C, Ladewig B, Smart S, Rudolph V, Diniz da Costa J C. Assessment of postcombustion carbon capture technologies for power generation. Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China, 2010, 4(2): 184–195 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-009-0234-1
6	Ravanchi M, Sahebdelfar S, Zangeneh F. Carbon dioxide sequestration in petrochemical industries with the aim of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2011, 5(2): 173–178 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-010-0562-1
7	Mumford K A, Wu Y, Smith K H, Stevens G W. Review of solvent based carbon-dioxide capture technologies. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2015, 9(2): 125–141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-015-1514-6
8	Zhang Y, Fan L, Zhang L, Chen H. Research progress in removal of trace carbon dioxide from closed spaces. Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China, 2007, 1(3): 310–316 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-007-0057-x
9	Moioli S, Pellegrini L A, Picutti B, Vergani P. Improved rate-based modeling of H2S and CO2 removal by Methyldiethanolamine scrubbing. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(5): 2056–2065 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie301967t
10	Rochelle G, Chen E, Freeman S, Van Wagener D, Xu Q, Voice A. Aqueous piperazine as the new standard for CO2 capture technology. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 171(3): 725–733 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.02.011
11	Moioli S, Pellegrini L A. Physical properties of PZ solution used as a solvent for CO2 removal. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2015, 93: 720–726 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.06.016
12	Langé S, Moioli S, Pellegrini L A. Vapor-liquid equilibrium and enthalpy of absorption of the CO2-MEA-H2O system. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2015, 43: 1975–1980
13	Xu G W, Zhang C F, Qin S J, Gao W H, Liu H B. Gas-liquid equilibrium in a CO2-MDEA-H2O system and the effect of piperazine on it. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1998, 37(4): 1473–1477 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie9506328
14	Liu H B, Zhang C F, Xu G W. A study on equilibrium solubility for carbon dioxide in methyldiethanolamine-piperazine-water solution. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1999, 38(10): 4032–4036 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990113v
15	Bishnoi S, Rochelle G T. Thermodynamics of piperazine/methyldiethanolamine/water/carbon dioxide. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2002, 41(3): 604–612 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0103106
16	Böttger A, Ermatchkov V, Maurer G. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine and piperazine in the high gas loading region. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2009, 54(6): 1905–1909 https://doi.org/10.1021/je900083k
17	Speyer D, Ermatchkov V, Maurer G. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous solutions of N-methyldiethanolamine and piperazine in the low gas loading region. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2010, 55(1): 283–290 https://doi.org/10.1021/je9003383
18	Najibi H, Maleki N. Equilibrium solubility of carbon dioxide in N-methyldiethanolamine plus piperazine aqueous solution: Experimental measurement and prediction. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2013, 354: 298–303 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2013.06.022
19	Derks P W J, Hogendoorn J A, Versteeg G F. Experimental and theoretical study of the solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous blends of piperazine and N-methyldiethanolamine. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 2010, 42(1): 151–163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2009.07.025
20	Vahidi M, Matin N S, Goharrokhi M, Jenab M H, Abdi M A, Najibi S H. Correlation of CO2 solubility in N-methyldiethanolamine+ piperazine aqueous solutions using extended Debye-Hückel model. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 2009, 41(11): 1272–1278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2009.05.017
21	Ali B S, Aroua M K. Effect of piperazine on CO2 loading in aqueous solutions of MDEA at low pressure. International Journal of Thermophysics, 2004, 25(6): 1863–1870 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-004-7740-7
22	Kamps A P S, Xia J Z, Maurer G. Solubility of CO2 in (H2O+ piperazine) and in (H2O+ MDEA+ piperazine). AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2003, 49(10): 2662–2670 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690491019
23	Moioli S, Pellegrini L A. Regeneration section of CO2 capture plant by MEA scrubbing with a Rate-Based Model. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2013, 32: 1849–1854
24	De Guido G, Langè S, Moioli S, Pellegrini L A. Thermodynamic method for the prediction of solid CO2 formation from multicomponent mixtures. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2014, 92(1): 70–79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2013.08.001
25	Pellegrini L A, Moioli S, Brignoli F, Bellini C. LNG technology: The weathering in above-ground storage tanks. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2014, 53(10): 3931–3937 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie404128d
26	Moioli S. The rate-based modelling of CO2 removal from the flue gases of power plants. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 2014, 186: 635–646 https://doi.org/10.2495/ESUS140561
27	Edwards T J, Maurer G, Newman J, Prausnitz J M. Vapor-liquid equilibria in multicomponent aqueous solutions of volatile weak electrolytes. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1978, 24(6): 966–976 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690240605
28	Moioli S, Pellegrini L A. Improved rate-based modeling of the process of CO2 capture with PZ solution. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 2015, 93: 611–620 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.03.022
29	AspenTech. ASPEN Plus® Guidelines, Burlington, MA: AspenTech, 2014
30	Austgen D M, Rochelle G T, Chen C C. Model of vapor-liquid-equilibria for aqueous acid gas-alkanolamine systems. 2. Representation of H2S and CO2 solubility in aqueous MDEA and CO2 solubility in aqueous mixtures of MDEA with MEA or DEA. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1991, 30(3): 543–555 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00051a016
31	Haghtalab A, Eghbali H, Shojaeian A. Experiment and modeling solubility of CO2 in aqueous solutions of diisopropanolamine; 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol; Piperazine at high pressures. Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics, 2014, 71: 71–83 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2013.11.025
32	AspenTech. ASPEN Properties Databank®, Burlington, MA: AspenTech, 2014
33	Dash S K, Samanta A, Samanta A N, Bandyopadhyay S S. Vapour liquid equilibria of carbon dioxide in dilute and concentrated aqueous solutions of piperazine at low to high pressure. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2011, 300(1-2): 145–154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2010.11.004
34	Chen X. Carbon dioxide thermodynamics, kinetics, and mass transfer in aqueous piperazine derivatives and other amines. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree . Texas: The University of Texas, 2011
35	Posey M L. Thermodynamic model for acid gas loaded aqueous alkanolamine solutions. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 1995
36	Brelvi S W, O’Connell J P. Corresponding states correlations for liquid compressibility and partial molar volumes of gases at infinite dilution in liquids. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1972, 18(6): 1239–1243 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690180622
37	Brelvi S W, O'Connell J P. Prediction of unsymmetric convention liquid-phase activity coefficients of hydrogen and methane. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1975, 21(1): 157–160 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690210120
38	Redlich O, Kwong J N S. On the thermodynamics of solutions. V: An equation of state. Fugacities of gaseous solutions. Chemical Reviews, 1949, 44(1): 233–244 https://doi.org/10.1021/cr60137a013
39	Austgen D M A. Model of vapor-liquid equilibria for acid gas-alkanolamine-H2O systems. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Texas: University of Texas, 1989
40	Renon H, Prausnitz J M. Local compositions in thermodynamic excess functions for liquid mixtures. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1968, 14(1): 135–144 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690140124
41	Chen C C, Britt H I, Boston J F, Evans L B. Extension and application of the Pitzer equation for vapor-liquid equilibrium of aqueous electrolyte systems with molecular solutes. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1979, 25(5): 820–831 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690250510
42	Chen C C, Britt H I, Boston J F, Evans L B. Local composition model for excess Gibbs energy of electrolyte systems. Part I: Single solvent, single completely dissociated electrolyte systems. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1982, 28(4): 588–596 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690280410
43	Chen C C, Evans L B. A local composition model for the excess Gibbs energy of aqueous electrolyte systems. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1986, 32(3): 444–454 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690320311
44	Mock B, Evans L B, Chen C C. Thermodynamic representation of phase equilibria of mixed-solvent electrolyte systems. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1986, 32(10): 1655–1664 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690321009
45	Austgen D M, Rochelle G T, Peng X, Chen C C. Model of vapor liquid equilibria for aqueous acid gas alkanolamine systems using the electrolyte NRTL equation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1989, 28(7): 1060–1073 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00091a028
46	Liu Y D, Zhang L Z, Watanasiri S. Representing vapor-liquid equilibrium for an aqueous MEA-CO2 system using the electrolyte nonrandom-two-liquid model. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 1999, 38(5): 2080–2090 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie980600v
47	Hessen E T, Haug-Warberg T, Svendsen H F. The refined e-NRTL model applied to CO2-H2O-alkanolamine systems. Chemical Engineering Science, 2010, 65(11): 3638–3648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2010.03.010
48	Pellegrini L A, Langé S, Moioli S, Picutti B, Vergani P. Influence of gas impurities on thermodynamics of amine solutions. 1. Aromatics. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(5): 2018–2024 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie302827h
49	Langè S, Pellegrini L A, Moioli S, Picutti B, Vergani P. Influence of gas impurities on thermodynamics of amine solutions. 2. Mercaptans. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(5): 2025–2031 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie302829d
50	Bishnoi S, Rochelle G T. Absorption of carbon dioxide in aqueous piperazine/methyldiethanolamine. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2002, 48(12): 2788–2799 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690481208
51	Freguia S. Modeling of CO2 removal from flue gase with monoethanolamine. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Texas: The University of Texas, 2002
52	Britt H I, Luecke R H. The estimation of parameters in nonlinear, implicit models. Technometrics, 1973, 15(2): 233–247 https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1973.10489037

[1]	Huiquan Wu, Erik Read, Maury White, Brittany Chavez, Kurt Brorson, Cyrus Agarabi, Mansoor Khan. Real time monitoring of bioreactor mAb IgG3 cell culture process dynamics via Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: Implications for enabling cell culture process analytical technology? ?[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(3): 386-406.
[2]	Jingcai ZHAO, Xingfu SONG, Ze SUN, Jianguo YU. Simulation on thermodynamic state of ammonia carbonation at low temperature and low pressure[J]. Front Chem Sci Eng, 2013, 7(4): 447-455.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed