Membrane Based Triethylene Glycol Separation and Recovery from ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.16 Permeate Flux and Separation Factor of Ethanol/Water Mixture through Different Homogeneous Membranes. Feed: 90 wt. % Ethanol. Temperature: 70ºC. Membrane Thickness: = 50 μm (Kujawski, 2000) Polymer Permeate Flux (kg/m 2 .h) Separation Factor Polyacrylonitrile 0.03 12500 Polyacrylamide 0.42 2200 Polyvinylalcohol 0.38 140 Polyethersulfone 0.72 52 Polyhydrazide 1.65 19 Table 2.17 Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Pervaporation (Xu, 2001) Advantages Disadvantages Low energy consumption Low investment cost Better selectivity without thermodynamic limitations Clean and close operation No process wastes Compact and scalable units 26 Scarce membrane market Lack of information Low permeate flows Better selectivity without thermodynamic limitations Limited applications: Organic substances dehydration Recovery of volatile compounds at low concentrations Separation of azeotropic mixtures However, pervaporation must be regarded as a young membrane process compared to other membrane processes like reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, dialysis and even electro dialysis. There are several practical advantages of pervaporation and vapor permeation when compared with other conventional technologies: simple operation and control, reliable performance, high flexibility, unproblematic part-load operation, high product purity (no contamination by entrained), no environmental pollution, high product yield, low energy consumption, compact design (low space requirements), short erection time and uncomplicated capacity enlargement. In general, pervaporation and vapor permeation will especially be used in those cases where a small quantity has to be removed from a large quantity. In all the above applications, the most successful processes require integration with existing conventional separation unit operations. Nevertheless, pervaporation and vapor permeation have been identified as areas of vast potential for future research and commercial development.
Chapter 3 Methodology This study comprised of two main phases namely: (1) High pressure membrane filtration (2) membrane of pervaporation and (3) Design a pre-treatment process to treat wastewater. Figure 3.1 demonstrates overall experimental study. Phase I Phase II Phase III High Pressure Membrane Filtration Preliminary test: 4 Types of Membranes Comparison of NF and RO membrane treatment efficiency Determination of Optimum Concentration of TEG (Triethylene Glycol) - Use synthetic TEG wastewater - Use real TEG wastewater from GSPs Criteria of wastewater characteristics for pre-treatment selection: Figure 3.1 Experimental plan of study The detail experiment of each phase is presented in the subsequent sections 27 Membrane of Pervaporation Preliminary test: 1 Type of Membrane Comparison of pervaporation membrane treatment efficiency Determination of Optimum Concentration of TEG (Triethylene Glycol) - Use synthetic TEG wastewater Design a Pre-Treatment Process to treat TEG wastewater - Pre-Treatment is applied for organics and inorganics removal from real wastewater before entering NF and RO membrane
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 and 30: Table 2.12 Overview of Chosen Membr
Page 31 and 32: Hollow fiber module This module is
Page 33: 2.4.7.6 Applications Generally, the
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?