OP-II-3

PL-5In summary therefore, a significant body of work has been carried out thatdemonstrates the benefits of reactor structuration at the meso-scale (viz. similarscale to bubbles; 0.5-5 mm say). Despite this, and the supporting evidence in theliterature, there has been relatively little commercial implementation in terms ofreplacing conventional trickle bed and stirred tank reactors. Clearly, the evidence isnot as compelling as the proponents (that include the authors of this paper) wouldlike to believe. There are fundamental barriers, such as the relative cost of extrudatesfor trickle bed packing and monolithic substrates (whether honeycomb or foam).There is, more importantly, a lack of clarity on the key performance parameters foreach design option, and relatively few meaningful comparisons of the different designoptions; for example there are relatively few studies that rigorously compare thetrickle bed and monolith reactors 29 . In order to progress implementation of thesuperior structured reactor and catalyst concepts the research community needs toaddress specifically where each of these reactor design concepts has uniqueperformance characteristics.1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829Mills & Chaudhari (1997) Catal. Today 37, 367–404.Stitt (2002) Chem. Eng. J. 90, 47–60.Kapteijn, Heiszwolf, Nijhuis & Moulijn, (1999), Cat-Tech 3, 24Cybulski & Moulijn (2006) Structured Catalysts and Reactors (2 nd Ed.) Pub. Taylor & FrancisLerou & Ng (1996) Chem.Eng.Sci., 51, 1595Irandoust & Andersen (1988): Chem.Eng.Sci., 43, 1983Bercic and Pintar (1997) Chem.Eng.Sci, 52, 3709Kreutzer, Du, Heiswolf, Kapteijn & Moulijn (2001) Chem.Eng.Sci, 56, 6015Heiszwolf et al. (2005) App. Cat. A, 288, 175Kays & London (1984), Compact Heat Exchangers, 3 rd Ed., McGraw-Hill (1 st ed. 1955)Thonon & Tochon (2004) pp. 121–165: Stankiewicz A., Moulijn J.A. (Eds.), Re-Engineering the ChemicalProcessing Plant, Marcel Dekker.Edge, Pearce, Phillips, (1997), pp. 175–190 in: Semel J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second InternationalConference on Process Intensification, Antwerp, Pub. BHR GroupPhillips, (1999) pp. 71–87 in: Green A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the third International Conference onProcess Intensification, Antwerp, Pub BHR Group.Green, Johnson, Westall, Bunegar, Symonds (2001), pp. 215 in: Gough M. (Ed.), Better Processes forBetter Products, BHR Group, Cranfield, UK,Wiese, Protzmann, Koch, Roettger, Trocha (2002) US Patent 6,492,564Enache, Thiam, Dumas, Ellwood, Hutchings, Taylor, Hawker & Stitt (2007), Catal. Today, 128, 18Gavriilidis, Angeli, Cao, Yeong & Wan, (2002), Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 80(A1) 3Bavykin, Lapkin, Kolaczkowski & Plucinski (2005) Appl. Catal. A: Gen. 288, 175Lim, Sederman, Gladden & Stitt (2004) Chem.Eng.Sci, 59 5403Anadon, Sederman & Gladden (2006) A.I.Ch.E. Journal, 52, 1522 (2006),Nigam & Larachi (2005) Chem.Eng.Sci 60, 5880-5894Dautzenberg & Mukherjee (2001) : Chem.Eng.Sci., 56, 251Calis, … Dautzenberg, van den Bleek (2001) Chem. Eng. Sci. 56. 1713Urseanu, Ellenberger & Krishna (2001), Cat.Today, 69, 105Stemmet, van der Schaaf, Kuster & Schouten (2006), Trans.I.Chem.E, 84(A12), 1134Stitt & Winterbottom (2006) Patent Application, WO2006 104401 A1Enache, Hutchings, Taylor, Natividad, Raymahassay, Winterbottom & Stitt (2005) Ind.Eng.Chem.Res. 44,6295Pollington, Enache, Landon, Meenakshisundaram, Dimitratos, Wagland, Hutchings & Stitt (2009)Cat.Today 145, 169–175(a) Edvinsson & Cybulski (1994) Chem.Eng.Sci 49 5653-5666;(b) Edvinsson & Cybulski (1995) Catalysis Today 24, 173-179(c) Nijhuis, Dautzenberg & Moulijn (2003) Chem Eng.Sci, 58, 1113-1124(d) Enache, Landon, Lok, Pollington & Stitt (2005) I.E.C.Research, 44, 9431(e) Fishwick, Natividad, Kulkarni, McGuire, Wood, Winterbottom & Stitt (2007) Cat.Today 128, 108–11418