https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1211
“According to the CO2 loading and heat of absorption results of 2MAE discussed in the previous section, the
compound is used as a basis for the amine blends system at the same operating conditions. It is blended with MDEA,
1DMA2P, 2DMA2P and TMPAD in varying percentages of 5, 10 and 15wt% to make a total of 30wt%.
Table 4 shows the result of blending 2MAE with 2DMAE, 1DMA2P, MDEA and TMPAD at 40 ͼC. The heat of
absorption of (2MAE 15wt% / 2DMA2P 15wt %) is -70.2 which is higher than the limit that has been set. The CO2
loading is the highest with 2MAE blended with TMDAP. For 5%, 10% and 15%wt the CO2 loading are respectively
1.35, 1.22 and 1.04. The result shows that the lowest loading is 0.54 from blending (2MAE 5wt% / MDEA 25wt %)
while the highest loading is 1.35 from the blend of 2MAE with TMPAD as (2MAE 5wt% / TMPAD 25wt %). 2MAE
blend with TMDAP in (2MAE 5wt% / TMPAD 25wt %) got both advantages for higher CO2 loading as well as the
lower heat of absorption.
By analyzing the results based on the chemical structure of the tested amines, it is observed that 1DMA2P and
2DMAE both of which are MEA derivatives does not show any significant difference in terms of CO2 loadings even
though one hydrogen has been substituted with methyl group for 1DMA2P and one hydrogen has been substituted
with ethyl group for 2DMAE. CO2 loading for 2MAE 5wt% +1DMA2P 25wt % and 2MAE 5wt% +2DMA2P were
identical with values being 0.68 and 0.69 respectively. Also, both 2MAE 10wt% +1DMA2P 20wt % and 2MAE
10wt% +2DMA2P 20 wt% have the same CO2 loading of 0.65.”
