Membrane Based Triethylene Glycol Separation and Recovery from ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.4.7.4 Variables that affect the performance of pervaporation. Feed concentration Due to the concentration of the preferentially permeating (usually minor) solution component, being depleted in the process. There are two aspects to be considered the activity of the target component in the feed and the solubility of the target component in the membrane. Membrane thickness Refers to dry thickness because flux is inversely proportional to membrane thickness, thin a membrane favors the overall flux but decrease selectivity. Moreover, thin membranes are used for low swelling glassy membranes and thick membranes are used for high swelling elastomeric membranes to maintain the selectivity. Permeate pressure Permeate pressure provides the driving force in pervaporation which the permeation rate of any feed component increases as its partial permeate pressure is lowered. The highest conceivable permeate pressure is the vapor pressure of the penetrant in the liquid feed. Moreover, the effect of this parameter on pervaporation performance is dictated by the magnitude of the vapor pressures encountered, and by the difference in vapor pressures between them. Temperature Feed temperature or any other representative between feed and retentate streams. The feed liquid provided the heat of vaporization of permeate, and in consequence there is a temperature loss between the feed and retentate stream where the membrane act as a heat exchanger barrier. Furthermore, temperature affects solubility and diffusivity of all permeates, as well as the extent of mutual interaction between them. Favoring the flux and having minor effect on selectivity. 2.4.7.5 Type of membranes and membrane modules The choice of the membrane strongly depends on the type of application. It is important which of the component should be separated from the mixture and whether this component is water or an organic liquid. Table 2.13 Types of Membrane for Pervaporation (Reidel et al., 1996) Hydrophilic Hydrophobic Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) Polyoctylmethylsiloxane (POMS) Polyacrylic acid (PAA) Polyether block amide (PEBA) Chitosan (CS) 22
Hollow fiber module This module is used with an inside–out configuration to avoid increase in permeate pressure within the fibers, but the outside–in configuration can be used with short fibers. Another advantage of the inside-out configuration is that the thin top layer is better protected but higher membrane area can be achieved with the outside-in configuration. Plate and Frame module Figure 2.8 Hollow fiber modules (Xu, 2001) Two adjacent membrane pairs and then the feed solution flows through the membrane between each pair of modules are composed of a double membrane or a sequence of stacked layers horizontally. Moreover, the other devices to determine which making the flow of retentate and permeated. Spiral wound module Figure 2.9 Plate-and-frame modules This module is very similar to the plate and frame system but has a greater packing density. This type of module is used with organophilic membranes to achieved organic– organic separations. 23
Page 1 and 2: Membrane Based Triethylene Glycol S
Page 3 and 4: Abstract Triethylene glycol (TEG) i
Page 5 and 6: 5 4.1 Phase I: High Pressure Membra
Page 7 and 8: List of Figure Figure Title Page 2.
Page 9 and 10: 1.1 Background of the Study Chapter
Page 11 and 12: Phase II: membrane of pervaporation
Page 13 and 14: 2.1.2 Uses of TEG (Triethylene glyc
Page 15 and 16: or mildly irritating. Moreover, for
Page 17 and 18: 2.2 Gas Separation Plants (GSPs) 2.
Page 19 and 20: Table 2.7 Sources of TEG Wastewater
Page 21 and 22: mineral, pharmaceutical, electronic
Page 23 and 24: Reverse osmosis (RO) The pore size
Page 25 and 26: Clean Membrane Fouled Membrane Figu
Page 27 and 28: Table 2.10 Comparison of Rejection
Page 29: Table 2.12 Overview of Chosen Membr
Page 33 and 34: 2.4.7.6 Applications Generally, the
Page 35 and 36: Chapter 3 Methodology This study co
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.2 Flow diagram of membrane
Page 39 and 40: The compound rejection (%) by membr
Page 41 and 42: Figure 3.5 Flow diagram of pervapor
Page 43 and 44: Table 3.5 List of UF Membranes and
Page 45 and 46: Analysis result 1. Preparation of C
Page 47 and 48: 4.1.2 Permeate flux The result of p
Page 49 and 50: study. Fast flux reduction resulted
Page 51 and 52: Conversely, higher removal of TEG i
Page 53 and 54: From Figure 4.5 and 4.6, it is obvi
Page 55 and 56: 4.3.2 Efficiency of TEG wastewater
Page 57 and 58: Table 4.4 Wastewater Characteristic
Page 59 and 60: Permeate Flux (L/m 2 .h.bar) 1 0.8
Page 61 and 62: Rejection (%) of TEG Rejection (%)
Page 63 and 64: to protect membrane from fouling by
Page 65 and 66: Phase III: Design Pre-Treatment Pro
Page 67 and 68: References Alberta Environment. Soi
Page 69 and 70: Orecki, A., Tomaszewska, M. and Kar
Page 71 and 72: Appendix A Experimental setup 63
Page 73 and 74: 61.8 mm Knob 3/8 in 180 mm A A Conc
Page 75 and 76: Table B-1 Permeate Flux with Synthe
Page 77 and 78: Table B-7 Normalized Flux at The En
Page 79 and 80: Cold Trap Zeolite membrane module F
Page 81 and 82:
Table D-1 Permeate Fluxes at The En
Page 83 and 84:
Appendix E Experimental Details for
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix F Photos of the experiment
Page 87:
NF-TS80 with 0.1% real wastewater a
show all

Membrane Based Triethylene Glycol Separation and Recovery from ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?