Follow:

Parameters for Aqueous and Water-Lean Solvents from literature

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c00940

Table 1 shows the relevant parameters for a number of aqueous and water-lean solvents. It is important to highlight that many of these parameters were not actually measured in the corresponding references. Consider for example the case of Hwang et al., (34) who have gathered data for mixtures of DIPA and various organic diluents. Although they report Henry’s coefficient of CO2 in water-lean solvents, what they did was measure the CO2 solubility in a pure organic diluent, such as ethanol, and then assumed that the CO2 solubility in ethanol + DIPA would be exactly the same. Meanwhile, DA and DB were both evaluated by the Wilke–Chang correlation. In that light, one could argue that the parameters actually measured by Hwang et al. (34) were k2 and kb/k–1, and both of these are subject to the assumptions that DADB, and HA really hold—since their experimental procedure revealed overall mass transfer coefficients, not the kinetic constants themselves. Table 1 includes the best published data on the kinetics of amines in water-lean solvents so that any serious discussion on the mass transfer phenomena in this class of absorbents often relies on this information.”

Table 1. Parameters for Aqueous and Water-Lean Solvents Compiled from the Literatureb
diluent amine CB0 T k2 kb/k–1 DA DB HA ref
H2O MEA 0.5–2.0 303 7740 (19)
MeOH MEA 0.5–2.0 303 8330 0.78 (19)
EtOH MEA 0.5–2.0 303 8330 0.35 (19)
2-PrOH MEA 0.5–2.0 303 8330 0.27 (19)
H2O DEA 0.5–1.5 303 1100 1.20 1.950a 0.667a 2.895a (19)
MeOH DEA 0.5–1.5 303 340 1.00 8.370a 1.721a 0.637a (19)
EtOH DEA 0.5–1.5 303 290 0.71 3.880a 0.912a 0.811a (19)
2-PrOH DEA 0.5–1.5 303 240 0.77 2.730a 0.482a 1.055a (19)
n-ButOH DEA 1.0–3.0 298 187 0.85 0.876 0.398 1.089 (33)
MEG DEA 1.0–3.0 298 340 0.97 0.121 0.055 3.753 (33)
MPG DEA 1.0–3.0 298 230 0.90 0.054 0.025 0.409 (33)
PC DEA 1.0–3.0 298 280 0.92 1.077 0.489 0.798 (33)
H2O MIPA 0.5–1.5 303 5920 (18)
MeOH MIPA 0.5–1.5 303 4390 0.94 (18)
EtOH MIPA 0.5–1.5 303 3640 0.53 (18)
2-PrOH MIPA 0.5–1.5 303 3270 0.31 (18)
H2O DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 583 0.17 1.950 0.724 2.895 (34)
MeOH DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 76 0.46 8.370 1.784 0.637 (34)
EtOH DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 47 0.62 3.880 0.946 0.811 (34)
2-PrOH DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 36 0.66 2.730 0.499 1.055 (34)
n-ButOH DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 35 0.77 0.876 0.413 1.089 (34)
MEG DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 75 0.42 0.121 0.057 3.753 (34)
MPG DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 47 0.52 0.054 0.025 0.409 (34)
PC DIPA 1.0–3.0 298 54 0.58 1.077 0.507
aValues were not disclosed in Sada et al. (19) but estimated by us through retroactively applying the same approach used by Park et al. (33,36) and Hwang et al. (34) discussed in this section.
bWhere CB0 is in mol·L–1T is in K, k2 is in L·mol–1·s–1kb/k–1 is in L·mol–1DA and DB are in 109 m2·s–1, and HA is in bar·L·mol–1.
With the parameters shown in Table 1, one can start analyzing the absorption behavior of CO2 in both aqueous and water-lean solvents. In an unloaded solution, the reaction will be far from reaching equilibrium and K can be set to a very high value (K ≈ ∞). For loaded solutions, we regressed K from the vapor–liquid equilibrium of CO2 in aqueous solutions of DEA from the data points obtained by Lee et al. (43) and then updated K in water-lean solvents by employing the dielectric permittivity ε of the pure diluents and eq 19a–c. Notice that eq 19a–c was fitted for MEA data and one would have to be extremely cautious before extending it to DEA. Fortunately, this is not relevant when dealing with unloaded solutions or essentially any solution far from equilibrium loading.
One can now analyze Figures 1 and 2 together with Table 1 to investigate the effects that some parameters have on the absorption performance of the solvents. The first profile in Figure 1 is that of aqueous 1.5 M DEA. Following that, a series of alcohols is accounted for, from one to four carbons long (methanol, ethanol, and 2-propanol in Figure 1 to n-butanol in Figure 2). The behavior of the penetration profile following this series is evident. As the carbon chain gets longer, the viscosity of the alcohol increases, and consequentially the diffusivities of both CO2 and amine decrease. Meanwhile, CO2 solubility also decreases. The dielectric permittivity goes down, dragging together the kinetic coefficients k2 and kb/k–1. Altogether, these effects have three consequences in the profiles: (i) the CO2 physical absorption decreases from methanol to n-butanol, as evidenced by the red-dotted lines showing lower concentrations of molecular CO2; (ii) the amount of DEA that reacts with CO2 in that limited timespan also decreases, as seen in the green-dotted lines showing lower concentrations of carbamate; and (iii) the penetration depth is reduced, and the point in space in which all curves reach their equilibrium values clearly diminishes from methanol to n-butanol. Ethylene glycol + DEA is an extreme example of this behavior, having very high viscosity and very low CO2 solubility. Propylene glycol has high CO2 solubility, but high viscosity as well, and its penetration depth is the lowest of all solvents in both Figures 1 and 2. For these reasons, these are the two diluents with the worst performance of all of the ones considered for DEA-based water-lean solvents. Finally, propylene carbonate (PC) is able to couple high CO2 solubility with moderate viscosity and kinetic coefficients, producing a profile similar to that of ethanol while having the big advantage of being comparatively nonvolatile.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Predicted penetration profiles for unloaded solvents with 1.5 M DEA in contact with CO2 partial pressure pA = 105 Pa of CO2 for a surface renewal time τ ≈ 0.05 s. Solvents = water (H2O), methanol (MeOH), ethanol (EtOH), and 2-propanol (2-PrOH).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Predicted penetration profiles for unloaded solvents with 1.5 M DEA in contact with CO2 partial pressure pA = 105 Pa of CO2 for a surface renewal time τ ≈ 0.05 s. Solvents = n-butanol (n-ButOH), monoethylene glycol (MEG), monopropylene glycol (MPG), and propylene carbonate (PC).

Leave a Comment