Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors

Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Industrial & engineering chemistry research 2005-07, Vol.44 (15), p.5726-5732
Main Authors: deMontigny, David, Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon, Chakma, Amit
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied sciences
Chemical engineering
Exact sciences and technology
Heat and mass transfer. Packings, plates
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23
container_end_page 5732
container_issue 15
container_start_page 5726
container_title Industrial & engineering chemistry research
container_volume 44
creator deMontigny, David
Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon
Chakma, Amit
description Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This paper evaluates the performance of a GAM system and a packed column using the overall mass transfer coefficient (K G a v) as a basis for comparison. The GAM system tested microporous polypropylene (PP) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) hollow fiber membranes while the packed column contained Sulzer DX structured packing. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) were used in both absorbers. Experimental results showed that the GAM system performed better than the packed column. GAM systems deserve the attention they have been receiving from researchers as they have significant potential to replace packed columns.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/ie040264k
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>acs_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1021_ie040264k</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>a84143450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkDFPwzAQhS0EEqUw8A-8MDAEbMeOnbEKlIJaqESR2KyLY0PaJq7sVIJ_T1BRuzCddPfdu3cPoUtKbihh9La2hBOW8dURGlDBSCIIF8doQJRSiVBKnKKzGJeEECE4H6DnwjcbCHX7gbtPi0dl9GHT1b7FcxucDw20xmLv8BzMyla48Ott00YMbYVntikDtLZvth2Yzod4jk4crKO9-KtD9Da-XxSTZPry8FiMpgnwlHSJyksGJfCSiKpUaZkZl0PupMxYSgVITg1l0ghFLXEAKq8yzhk3TElXGcvSIbre6ZrgYwzW6U2oGwjfmhL9G4TeB9GzVzt2A9HA2vWWTR0PC1kuMi7Tnkt2XB07-7WfQ1jpTKZS6MX8VY_vnmbvfCL17KALJuql34a2__if-z9oz3i7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors</title><source>American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read &amp; Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)</source><creator>deMontigny, David ; Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon ; Chakma, Amit</creator><creatorcontrib>deMontigny, David ; Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon ; Chakma, Amit</creatorcontrib><description>Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This paper evaluates the performance of a GAM system and a packed column using the overall mass transfer coefficient (K G a v) as a basis for comparison. The GAM system tested microporous polypropylene (PP) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) hollow fiber membranes while the packed column contained Sulzer DX structured packing. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) were used in both absorbers. Experimental results showed that the GAM system performed better than the packed column. GAM systems deserve the attention they have been receiving from researchers as they have significant potential to replace packed columns.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-5885</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-5045</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/ie040264k</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IECRED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Chemical engineering ; Exact sciences and technology ; Heat and mass transfer. Packings, plates</subject><ispartof>Industrial &amp; engineering chemistry research, 2005-07, Vol.44 (15), p.5726-5732</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2005 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27913,27914</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16956473$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>deMontigny, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakma, Amit</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors</title><title>Industrial &amp; engineering chemistry research</title><addtitle>Ind. Eng. Chem. Res</addtitle><description>Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This paper evaluates the performance of a GAM system and a packed column using the overall mass transfer coefficient (K G a v) as a basis for comparison. The GAM system tested microporous polypropylene (PP) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) hollow fiber membranes while the packed column contained Sulzer DX structured packing. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) were used in both absorbers. Experimental results showed that the GAM system performed better than the packed column. GAM systems deserve the attention they have been receiving from researchers as they have significant potential to replace packed columns.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Chemical engineering</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Heat and mass transfer. Packings, plates</subject><issn>0888-5885</issn><issn>1520-5045</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkDFPwzAQhS0EEqUw8A-8MDAEbMeOnbEKlIJaqESR2KyLY0PaJq7sVIJ_T1BRuzCddPfdu3cPoUtKbihh9La2hBOW8dURGlDBSCIIF8doQJRSiVBKnKKzGJeEECE4H6DnwjcbCHX7gbtPi0dl9GHT1b7FcxucDw20xmLv8BzMyla48Ott00YMbYVntikDtLZvth2Yzod4jk4crKO9-KtD9Da-XxSTZPry8FiMpgnwlHSJyksGJfCSiKpUaZkZl0PupMxYSgVITg1l0ghFLXEAKq8yzhk3TElXGcvSIbre6ZrgYwzW6U2oGwjfmhL9G4TeB9GzVzt2A9HA2vWWTR0PC1kuMi7Tnkt2XB07-7WfQ1jpTKZS6MX8VY_vnmbvfCL17KALJuql34a2__if-z9oz3i7</recordid><startdate>20050720</startdate><enddate>20050720</enddate><creator>deMontigny, David</creator><creator>Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon</creator><creator>Chakma, Amit</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050720</creationdate><title>Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors</title><author>deMontigny, David ; Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon ; Chakma, Amit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Chemical engineering</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Heat and mass transfer. Packings, plates</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>deMontigny, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chakma, Amit</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Industrial &amp; engineering chemistry research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>deMontigny, David</au><au>Tontiwachwuthikul, Paitoon</au><au>Chakma, Amit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors</atitle><jtitle>Industrial &amp; engineering chemistry research</jtitle><addtitle>Ind. Eng. Chem. Res</addtitle><date>2005-07-20</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>15</issue><spage>5726</spage><epage>5732</epage><pages>5726-5732</pages><issn>0888-5885</issn><eissn>1520-5045</eissn><coden>IECRED</coden><abstract>Several technologies have been developed for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), but absorption remains the most suitable method for large-scale industrial operations. In recent years the use of gas absorption membrane (GAM) systems has been explored as an alternative to traditional packed columns. This paper evaluates the performance of a GAM system and a packed column using the overall mass transfer coefficient (K G a v) as a basis for comparison. The GAM system tested microporous polypropylene (PP) and poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) hollow fiber membranes while the packed column contained Sulzer DX structured packing. Aqueous solutions of monoethanolamine (MEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) were used in both absorbers. Experimental results showed that the GAM system performed better than the packed column. GAM systems deserve the attention they have been receiving from researchers as they have significant potential to replace packed columns.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><doi>10.1021/ie040264k</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0888-5885
ispartof Industrial & engineering chemistry research, 2005-07, Vol.44 (15), p.5726-5732
issn 0888-5885
1520-5045
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1021_ie040264k
source American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read & Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)
subjects Applied sciences
Chemical engineering
Exact sciences and technology
Heat and mass transfer. Packings, plates
title Comparing the Absorption Performance of Packed Columns and Membrane Contactors
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T06%3A46%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-acs_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20Absorption%20Performance%20of%20Packed%20Columns%20and%20Membrane%20Contactors&rft.jtitle=Industrial%20&%20engineering%20chemistry%20research&rft.au=deMontigny,%20David&rft.date=2005-07-20&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=5726&rft.epage=5732&rft.pages=5726-5732&rft.issn=0888-5885&rft.eissn=1520-5045&rft.coden=IECRED&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/ie040264k&rft_dat=%3Cacs_cross%3Ea84143450%3C/acs_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a430t-89b2aba4b05db83b6cf9a9f7762315a741c127c581e0faa89d64424c287fdce23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true