Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chemical Engineering Science: Ardi Hartono, Muhammad Saeed, Arlinda F. Ciftja, Hallvard F. Svendsen
Chemical Engineering Science: Ardi Hartono, Muhammad Saeed, Arlinda F. Ciftja, Hallvard F. Svendsen
H I G H L I G H T S
c
c
c
c
c
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Received 27 September 2012
Received in revised form
18 December 2012
Accepted 6 January 2013
Available online 16 January 2013
New VLE ebulliometric data for binary aqueous 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) and piperazine
(Pz) solutions and ternary aqueous AMP/Pz solutions are reported at different temperatures and
concentrations. A proposed combination of titration and a 1H-NMR technique was developed and
determination of the composition of the ternary system was successfully carried out. Results show that
AMP is more volatile than commercial solvents such as MEA and MDEA whereas Pz is observed to be
less volatile than that of MEA and MAPA. Three thermodynamic models (NRTL, Wilson and UNIQUAC)
were used to correlate the data and the determined interaction parameters for both the binary and
ternary VLE systems are given. New binary interaction parameters for (AMP(1) and Pz(2)) are also
proposed. However, the parameters have no statistical signicance which indicates that the activity
coefcients for the species in the ternary system in general are similar to the activity coefcients
obtained from the corresponding binary mixture. More data may be required for ternary VLE
estimation, especially at higher amine concentrations.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
VLE
NMR
AMP
Pz
Absorption
Modeling
1. Introduction
A remaining challenge for the amine based CCS technology is
to reduce the regeneration energy requirement. One alternative is
to nd better solvents with improved mass transfer, higher
stability toward thermal and oxidative degradation, lower heat
of absorption, high equilibrium temperature sensitivity and high
cyclic capacity while still being environmental friendly.
AMP (2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol) as a sterically hindered
amine has been studied with regard to the low carbamate
stability (Ciftja et al., 2011; Chakraborty et al., 1986). Low
carbamate stability can be associated with formation of predominantly carbonate/bicarbonate and thereby a reduction in
152
reported some binary VLE data for this system but only the total
pressure above the Pz/H2O solution. These data were regressed to
determine binary interaction parameters in the Aspen Plus
simulator, the average absolute relative deviation (AARD)
reported was 13% and the maximum AARD was 29%. No data
could be found for the ternary system of AMP/Pz/H2O.
In this work, the binary (AMP/H2O and Pz/H2O) and ternary
(AMP/Pz/H2O) systems were studied in a modied Swietoslawski
ebulliometer. The compositions of the liquid and vapor phases
of the binary systems were determined with a titration method
while for the ternary system the phases were analysed using
1
H-NMR. The gathered data were then model to determine the
binary interaction parameters.
2. Experimental section
2.1. Material
All chemicals used were reagent grade. Both 2-amino-2methyl-1-propanol (AMP) with purity 498.5% and piperazine
(Pz) with purity 99% supplied by Sigma-Aldrich, were used without any further purication. The solutions were prepared gravimetrically by dissolving the chemical in deionized water.
About 10 wt% of deuterium oxide (D2O) solution with 99.98%
purity supplied by Sigma-Aldrich was added as locking agent for the
NMR experiments. All NMR samples were prepared gravimetrically
using an analytical balance (Mettler AE163 digital analytical) with
accuracy of 70.0001 g. Total alkalinity was determined experimentally by acid-base titration with 0.1 M H2SO4 for liquid phase and
0.01 M H2SO4 for vapor phase condensate.
2.2. Binary VLE measurements of AMP(1)H2O(3)
and Pz(2) H2O(3)
The PTxy data for the binary systems AMP/H2O and Pz/H2O
at different temperatures and concentrations were generated in a
modied Swietoslawski ebulliometer (see Fig. S1, Supplementary
material). Detailed experimental procedures can be found in
previous work (Kim et al., 2008). A gravimetrically prepared,
65 wt% solution of AMP/H2O was initially fed to the ebulliometer.
During the experiment, after each equilibration, the initial solution was diluted gradually to achieve high dilution at the end. No
problems were encountered during the experiments since the
initial solutions were always in liquid phase. On the other hand,
the binary Pz/H2O system tended to solidify at room temperature
due to the solidliquid equilibrium (Kim et al., 2011; Fosbl et al.,
2011). Therefore the initial solution was prepared at 40 wt% and
kept at 45 1C. The warm liquid was then fed into the ebulliometer and left until equilibrium was established. Both liquid and
vapour samples were collected and the amine content quantied
with the titration method.
2.3. Ternary VLE measurements of AMP(1)Pz(2) H2O(3) system
Ternary solutions containing different concentrations of AMP/
Pz were prepared gravimetrically and fed into the ebulliometer.
When equilibrium was established at specic temperature, samples of liquid and vapour phase were collected. Two parallel
samples were analysed with titration to quantify total amine and
1
H-NMR was used to quantify the ratio between AMP and Pz.
i
The ebulliometer experiment provides PTxy data for both
the binary and ternary systems and experimental activity coefcients gExp
for each amine were determined according to Eq. (1)
i
(Van Ness, 1995).
gExp
yi P
Fi
xi P3i
here xi, yi, P, P3i and Fi are liquid mole fraction, vapor mole
fraction, total pressure of solution, saturation pressure of pure
substance, and the poynting factor, respectively. Eq. (1) is developed for molecular systems and in this work we assume that the
protonation of amine can be disregarded and that the amine itself
is the main contributor in the speciation. The [Amine]/[AmineH ]
ratio is related to the difference between the actual pH of the
solution and the amine pKa value. A typical value for the
difference between pH and pKa is about 1.11.2 (for both AMP
and Pz) at innite dilution. This implies that that the contribution
of protonated amine is less than 68% for innite dilution. For
more concentrated solutions the pH will increase and the contribution of protonated amine will be even lower (see Fig. S2).
Since the measurements were performed at or below atmospheric
conditions, the poynting factor (Fi) could be set to one. The
saturation pressures of the pure substances were, for water and
Pz, taken from the DIPPR 801 (2004) and, since Pz is a solid at
room temperature, extrapolated from the data (DIPPR) at higher
temperatures. In previous work (Hilliard, 2008; Nguyen et al.,
2010) reported that an extrapolation of the DIPPR correlation
could be done with good accuracy. The reported saturation
pressure data of AMP (Pappa et al., 2006; Belabbaci et al., 2010
and Klepacova et al., 2011) were regressed in this work using an
Antoine equation, according to Eq. (2):
ln P 3AMP 15:80973986:86067=T 189:9303
153
Table 1
Thermodynamic models.
Model
Correlation
NRTL
PN
tij Gij xj
P
xj Gij
Pj N 1
N
lngNRTL
j i PN
i
k 1
Gki xk
lngWilson
1ln
i
PN
ji
k i
xk Gkj
k 1
xj Gji
PN
PN j
xk Gkj
vj
Gij exp lij =T ;
vi
UAC
ln Fxii 2z qi ln Fyii li Fxii
lngUNIQ
i
qi ln
yi tji qi qi
X
j
z
li r j qj rj 1 ;
2
x Gij
ji
Gkj xk
k i
UNIQUAC
PN
t Gkj xk
k 1 kj
tij P
N
vi
ri
Mi
xj lj
y tij
P j
k yk tkj
q xi
;
j qj xj
yi P i
r xi
;
j r j xj
Fi P i
5. Regression
The parameters of the three different thermodynamic models
were determined by using an in-house Matlab code for multiresponse parameter estimation, Modt (Hertzberg and Mejdell,
1998), with the objective function (F) as given by Eq. (3).
!2
!2
n
n
X
X
PExp
P calc
gExp
gcalc
Sol
Amine
Amine
Sol
F
gExp
P Exp
i1
i1
Amine
Amine
!2
!2
n
n
X
X
HESol Exp HESol calc
YFSol Exp YFSol calc
3
HESol Exp
YFSol Exp
i1
i1
The deviations of the model results from the experimental
data are expressed as absolute average relative deviations (AARD)
Table 2
r and q values for the selected systems.
Compound
Source
AMP
Pz
H2O
3.92
3.73
0.92
3.44
2.95
1.44
154
Table 3
VLE data for AMP(1) H2O(3) system at different temperatures.
t (1C)
P (kPa)
x1
y1
k1 y1/x1
59.97
60.03
59.98
60.04
59.97
60.00
59.97
60.00
60.00
80.01
79.98
79.99
80.00
80.02
80.02
100.02
100.01
100.00
100.00
100.02
100.02
100.01
100.01
100.01
100.02
100.00
19.2
19.1
19.0
18.9
18.6
18.3
17.6
16.5
15.1
46.1
45.6
45.5
43.5
41.5
37.1
98.9
97.4
96.8
96.8
96.0
95.0
93.5
91.6
89.2
85.4
78.0
0.0370
0.0442
0.0528
0.0638
0.0783
0.0968
0.1185
0.2092
0.2946
0.0297
0.0353
0.0408
0.1040
0.1626
0.2757
0.0228
0.0385
0.0460
0.0555
0.0675
0.0834
0.1039
0.1317
0.1621
0.2177
0.3023
0.0023
0.0027
0.0031
0.0038
0.0045
0.0052
0.0063
0.0108
0.0149
0.0034
0.0036
0.0040
0.0092
0.0129
0.0200
0.0040
0.0062
0.0069
0.0078
0.0095
0.0112
0.0133
0.0155
0.0181
0.0234
0.0309
0.0622
0.0611
0.0587
0.0596
0.0575
0.0537
0.0532
0.0516
0.0506
0.1145
0.1020
0.0980
0.0885
0.0793
0.0725
0.1754
0.1610
0.1500
0.1405
0.1407
0.1343
0.1280
0.1177
0.1117
0.1075
0.1022
Exp
Calc
Calc
Fig. 1. Experimental AMP activity coefcients gExp
and the model representation at 60 1C (a) 80 1C (b) and 100 1C (c) (J,gExp
1 ; &, g3 ; Solid lines, g1 ; Dashed lines, g3 ;
i
Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green, UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
155
Fig. 2. Experimental PTxy data and the predicted models (a) this work (J, 60 1C; &, 80 1C; B, 100 1C); (b) Pappa et al. (2006) (J,66.7 kPa; &, 80.0 kPa; B, 101.3 kPa);
(c) Belabbaci et al. (2010) (J,20 1C; &, 30 1C; B, 40 1C; , 50 1C; A, 60 1C; x , 70 1C; n, 80 1C; D, 90 1C); (c) AMP vapor pressure at 0.29 molality (m) and 4070 1C (Nguyen
et al., 2011); (Solid lines, models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green, UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
156
Freezing point data (Fosbl et al., 2011) were also used in the
regression. To estimate freezing point depression a method based
on the modied three-characteristic-parameter correlation model
for electrolyte solutions (Ge and Wang, 2009) was implemented.
Fig. 4 shows the freezing point depression data and the prediction
models. It can be said that the models predict well for only low
AMP concentrations, but in the high concentration range the
three models over-predict the experimental values. This may be
explained by the used model (Ge and Wang, 2009) being
Table 4
Binary interaction parameter of AMP(1) H2O(3) for NRTL, Wilson and UNIQUAC
models.
NRTL
a13
b13
0.73 70.3
399.977 135
a31
b31
5.737 0.9
845.19 7355
6995.157 44
l31
9446.107 143
50.26 716
1.19 70.2
u331
63.00 7 16
2.3840 70.3
WILSON
l13
UNIQUAC
u313
uT13
uT31
Table 5
Absolute average relative deviations (AARD) of models for AMP(1) H2O(3)
system.
Number of points (N)
NRTL
HESol ,%
26
80
16
3.5
5.8
6.1
7.5
7.4
8.8
3.5
6.4
7.5
YFSol ,%
14
9.5
10.7
5.1
gi,%
PSol,%
Wilson
UNIQUAC
developed for strong electrolyte solutions and the fact that AMP
is a weak base and in solution dissociates as a weak electrolyte.
Table 6
VLE data for Pz(2) H2O(3) system at different temperatures.
t (1C)
P (kPa)
x2
y2
k2 y2/x2
60.00
59.96
59.95
60.04
60.00
60.07
59.97
60.05
79.99
79.99
79.99
80.00
79.97
79.99
80.04
79.99
79.99
80.00
100.00
100.02
100.00
100.02
100.02
100.03
19.2
19.0
18.8
18.6
18.2
17.9
17.0
16.3
45.9
45.8
45.4
45.1
44.8
44.2
43.5
42.6
41.3
39.2
98.5
98.1
95.9
94.9
89.3
86.1
0.0324
0.0390
0.0469
0.0569
0.0677
0.0808
0.0991
0.1168
0.0251
0.0297
0.0347
0.0408
0.0472
0.0564
0.0652
0.0794
0.0957
0.1177
0.0237
0.0279
0.0454
0.0536
0.0937
0.1136
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0005
0.0007
0.0011
0.0017
0.0025
0.0004
0.0005
0.0005
0.0008
0.0020
0.0011
0.0014
0.0020
0.0031
0.0051
0.0006
0.0008
0.0017
0.0018
0.0043
0.0067
0.0123
0.0103
0.0085
0.0088
0.0103
0.0136
0.0172
0.0214
0.0159
0.0168
0.0144
0.0196
0.0424
0.0195
0.0215
0.0252
0.0324
0.0433
0.0253
0.0287
0.0374
0.0336
0.0459
0.0590
Fig. 3. Experimental excess enthalpy of AMP solution and the predicted model at 35 1C ( , Mathonat et al. (1997); Solid lines, models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green,
UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 4. Experimental freezing point depression of AMP solution and the predicted model (J, Fosbl et al. (2011); Solid lines, models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green,
UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
157
Exp
Calc
Calc
Fig. 5. Experimental and predicted activity coefcients for Pz at 60 1C (a) 80 1C (b) and 100 1C (c). (J, gExp
2 ; &, g3 ; Solid lines, g2 ; Dashed lines, g3 ; Blue, NRTL; Red,
Wilson; Green, UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
The k-values increase with increasing temperature and concentration indicating that Pz becomes more volatile with increasing
concentration. It is also seen that Pz is less volatile than AMP and
MEA and diamine (MAPA) but it is found to be more volatile than
that of MDEA at a similar concentration and temperature (Kim
et al., 2008).
The volatility of Pz in aqueous solution is partly seen from the
experimental activity coefcients gExp
. The reported values in
i
this work are found to be very low as seen in Fig. 5. The data
experimentally obtained and literature data found were tted
using the models presented earlier. Fig. 5ac show the experimental and predicted activity coefcients, gExp
and gCalc
, for
i
i
different temperatures. The obtained binary interaction parameters from the regression, and the standard deviations of the
parameters, are summarized in Table 7 along with the absolute
average relative deviations (AARD) of the tting in Table 8. For the
Pz/H2O system the UNIQUAC model has signicantly lower
parameter standard deviations than the NRTL. However, the
number of data points is much lower for this system than for
AMP/H2O.
It is seen from Table 8 that both the NRTL and UNIQUAC
models give much better ts than that of the Wilson model. It is
observed that the three models give a similar value of the activity
Table 7
Binary interaction parameter of Pz(2) H2O(3) for NRTL, Wilson and UNIQUAC
models.
NRTL
a23
b23
0.95 7 1.5
1208.627 531
a32
b32
4.95 7 3.4
1315.657 1180
9482.177 172
l32
4902.517 484
398.737 36
3.68 7 0.7
u332
222.147 23
1.14 7 0.4
WILSON
l23
UNIQUAC
u323
uT23
uT32
Table 8
Absolute average relative deviations (AARD) of models for Pz(2) H2O(3) system.
gi,%
PSol,%
YFSol ,%
NRTL
Wilson
UNIQUAC
24
35
12
7.9
7.9
9.1
15.3
24.3
15.4
7.9
6.5
9.7
158
Fig. 6. Experimental PTxy data and the predicted model (a) this work ( / ,60 1C; / , 80 1C; / , 100 1C); (b) Wilson and Wilding (1994)( / , 112.9 1C; / ,
198.8 1C); Solid lines, models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green, UNIQUAC; , Hilliard (2008); (c) Vapor pressure of Pz (Hilliard, 2008/Nguyen et al., 2010) ( , 0.9 m; ,
1.8 m; , 1.95 m; , 2.5 m; , 3.6 m; , 5.0 m; Solid line, NRTL; Dash-dot line; Wilson; Dash line, UNIQUAC; , e-NRTL (Hilliard, 2008). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 7. Experimental and predicted freezing point depressions for the Pz/H2O system (J, Fosbl et al. (2011); Solid lines, models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green,
UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
experimental points from this work (Fig. 6a) as well as the work
at higher pressure (Fig. 6b) (Wilson and Wilding, 1990). The
Wilson model was off at higher mole fractions and under-predicts
the y-values at higher temperature and pressure. It is also seen
that the extrapolation of the saturation pressure of Pz down to
room temperature works ne.
Hilliard (2008) reported parameters for the binary Pz/H2O
system using the e-NRTL model in Aspen Plus. He tted the
parameters based on the available data at that time, such as: the
total pressure of pure amine, VLE and heat capacity. The Hilliard
model is plotted in Fig. 6a and it is seen that the suggested
parameters t the total pressure data for Pz mole fractions,
x2 o0.05, but unfortunately shows an azeotrope at x2 0.8. We
cannot rule out the existence of an azeotrope based on the data
from the present work but it can be seen that this is unlikely for
the system at higher temperature (see Fig. 6b) based on data of
Wilson and Wilding (1994). In addition, the partial pressures of Pz
measured by Hilliard (2008) and Nguyen et al. (2010) for different
molalities and temperatures are shown in Fig. 9c. It is seen that
the models developed in this work only represent the data
satisfactorily at higher concentrations, whereas at lower concentrations the model under-predicts the vapor pressures. The
Hilliard (2008) model, black lines, works better for this set of
amine vapor pressure data. It should be noted that these data may
not be absolutely accurate as it is seen that some points at
different concentrations have about the same partial pressure of
Pz at the same temperature. The reason may be a low sensitivity
of the FTIR used for this system and it is suggested that new
parameters could be re-evaluated in Aspen Plus.
159
Freezing point data (Fosbl et al., 2011) were also used in the
regression and the freezing point depression predictions were
done as for AMP by the method of Ge and Wang (2009). Fig. 7
shows the freezing point depression data and the model. The
experimental data seem to be more scattered than those of
AMP. Both the NRTL and UNIQUAC models gave good ts. The
Table 9
Ternary VLE data for AMP(1) Pz(2) H2O(3) system at different temperatures.
t (1C)
P (kPa)
x1
y1
k1 y1/x1
x2
y2
k2 y2/x2
60.04
60.01
60.02
60.05
60.01
60.00
59.96
70.03
70.04
70.01
70.04
69.98
69.97
69.99
70.03
80.00
79.98
80.00
80.02
79.98
80.01
80.03
90.00
90.02
90.01
90.00
90.02
90.01
90.00
100.00
100.02
99.99
100.00
100.01
100.00
100.00
19.0
18.5
18.7
18.3
17.9
17.8
17.0
29.8
30.4
29.7
29.4
28.9
27.9
28.6
27.3
45.3
45.8
45.4
44.8
44.0
43.8
41.7
67.2
68.0
67.1
66.5
65.2
63.9
62.1
97.3
98.5
97.0
96.5
94.4
90.8
93.0
0.0132
0.0221
0.0262
0.0367
0.0793
0.0840
0.0910
0.0121
0.0212
0.0224
0.0250
0.0358
0.0655
0.0789
0.0908
0.0117
0.0210
0.0218
0.0228
0.0351
0.0768
0.0877
0.0132
0.0200
0.0211
0.0227
0.0746
0.0794
0.0830
0.0116
0.0200
0.0210
0.0224
0.0570
0.0816
0.0992
0.0009
0.0027
0.0027
0.0022
0.0041
0.0042
0.0070
0.0009
0.0022
0.0014
0.0019
0.0036
0.0050
0.0053
0.0070
0.0014
0.0022
0.0029
0.0025
0.0068
0.0098
0.0078
0.0015
0.0024
0.0023
0.0036
0.0085
0.0083
0.0095
0.0016
0.0033
0.0040
0.0039
0.0089
0.0077
0.0114
0.0682
0.1222
0.1031
0.0599
0.0517
0.0500
0.0769
0.0744
0.1038
0.0625
0.0760
0.1006
0.0763
0.0672
0.0771
0.1197
0.1048
0.1330
0.1096
0.1937
0.1276
0.0889
0.1136
0.1200
0.1090
0.1586
0.1139
0.1045
0.1145
0.1379
0.1650
0.1905
0.1741
0.1561
0.0944
0.1149
0.0362
0.0231
0.0395
0.0353
0.0139
0.0280
0.0474
0.0367
0.0107
0.0228
0.0384
0.0370
0.0340
0.0133
0.0474
0.0345
0.0106
0.0220
0.0350
0.0359
0.0129
0.0449
0.0336
0.0103
0.0217
0.0345
0.0128
0.0261
0.0430
0.0329
0.0101
0.0208
0.0345
0.0192
0.0422
0.0167
0.0007
0.0004
0.0014
0.0010
0.0001
0.0007
0.0014
0.0005
0.0004
0.0006
0.0006
0.0013
0.0006
0.0001
0.0009
0.0008
0.0003
0.0005
0.0007
0.0043
0.0008
0.0011
0.0009
0.0008
0.0009
0.0011
0.0005
0.0007
0.0013
0.0014
0.0004
0.0007
0.0013
0.0003
0.0011
0.0015
0.0193
0.0173
0.0354
0.0283
0.0072
0.0250
0.0295
0.0136
0.0374
0.0263
0.0156
0.0351
0.0176
0.0075
0.0190
0.0232
0.0283
0.0227
0.0200
0.1198
0.0620
0.0245
0.0268
0.0777
0.0415
0.0319
0.0391
0.0268
0.0302
0.0426
0.0396
0.0337
0.0377
0.0156
0.0261
0.0898
160
Fig. 9. Experimental freezing point depression for the ternary system and the predicted model without binary interaction for AMP/Pz (J, Fosbl et al. (2011); Solid lines,
models; Blue, NRTL; Red, Wilson; Green, UNIQUAC). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
suggested method (Ge and Wang, 2009) seems work better here
than for AMP in spite of Pz only being a slightly stronger base
than AMP. The Wilson model under-predicts the freezing point
depressions.
Table 10
The AARD value of the ternary VLE data for AMP(1) Pz(2) H2O(3) system for
different models without introducing the binary interaction of AMP(1) and Pz(2).
g1,%
g2,%
YF,%
NRTL
Wilson
UNIQUAC
18.5
42.8
2.9
17.3
40.9
8.0
17.2
44.0
2.1
Table 11
Binary interaction parameter of AMP(1) Pz(2) for NRTL, Wilson and UNIQUAC
models.
NRTL
a12
b12
7.0567
4.1687
a21
b21
2.4095
1.8764
58,053.35
l21
63,032.90
3.0
1.43
u321
uT21
3.0
1.49
WILSON
l12
UNIQUAC
u312
uT12
Table 12
The AARD value of the ternary VLE data for AMP(1) Pz(2) H2O(3) system for
different models with a new binary interaction of AMP(1) Pz(2).
g1,%
g2,%
F
Y ,%
NRTL
Wilson
UNIQUAC
15.9
46.3
2.9
22.8
43.7
8.0
15.4
46.8
2.1
the new binary interaction parameter was observed for the three
models in predicting freezing point depression (Fig. S7). From
Table 11 it can be seen that the suggested parameter has no
statistical signicance. This implies that there is no signicant
effect of tting to the ternary system and that the binary
interaction parameters with water are sufcient for describing
also the ternary system.
7. Conclusion
New ebulliometric VLE data for the binary AMP/H2O and Pz/
H2O systems and the ternary AMP/Pz/H2O system were obtained
for different temperatures and amine concentrations. A combined
titration and 1H-NMR technique to quantify the composition of
the individual amine concentrations in the ternary system was
proposed and successfully used in this work. Results show that
AMP is more volatile than some of commercial solvents such as
Acknowledgment
Direct nancial support from DNV (Det Norske Veritas AS) and
the CCERT project is greatly appreciated. The CCERT project is
supported by the Research Council of Norway (NFR 182607), Shell
Technology Norway AS, Metso Automation, Det Norske Veritas AS,
and Statoil AS.
References
Abrams, D.S., Prausnitz, J.M., 1974. Statistical thermodynamics of liquid mixtures:
a new expression for the excess gibbs energy of partly or completely miscible
systems. AlChE J. 21 (1), 116128.
Belabbaci, A., Ahmed, N.C., Mokbel, I., Negadi, L., 2010. Investigation of isothermal
(vapor liquid) equilibria of aqueous 2-amino-2-methyl-propanol (AMP),
N-benzylethanolamine, or 3-dimethylamino-1-propanol solutions at several
temperatures. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 42, 11581162.
Bishnoi, S., Rochelle, G.T., 2000. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous
piperazine: reaction kinetics, mass transfer and solubility. Chem. Eng. Sci.
55, 55315543.
Bruder, P., Grimstvedt, Mejdell, T., Svendsen, H.F., 2011. CO2 capture into aqueous
solution of piperazine activated 2-amino-2-methyl-propanol. Chem. Eng. Sci.
66, 61936198.
Chakraborty, A., Astarita, K.G., Bischoff, K.B., 1986. CO2 absorption in aqeous
solution of hindered amines. Chem. Eng. Sci. 41 (4), 9971003.
Ciftja, A.F., Hartono, A., da Silva, E.F., Svendsen, H.F., 2011. Study on carbamate
stability in the Amp/CO2/H2O system from 13C-NMR spectroscopy. Energy
Procedia 4, 14351442.
DIPPR 801, 2004, The Information and Data Evaluation Manager for Design
Institute for Physical Properties, Version 4.1.0.
161
Derks, P.W.J., Kleingeld, T., van Aken, C., Hogendoorn, J.A., Versteeg, G.F., 2006.
Kinetics of absorption of carbon dioxide in aqueous piperazine solutions.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 61, 68376854.
Ermatchkov, V., Maurer, G., 2011. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous solutions
of N-methyldiethanolamine and piperazine: prediction and correlation. Fluid
Phase Equilib. 302, 338346.
Fosbl, P.L., Neerup, R., Arshad, M.W., Tecle, Z., Thomsen, K., 2011. Aqueous
solubility of piperazine and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol plus their mixtures
using an improved freezing-point depression method. J. Chem. Eng. Data 56,
50885093.
Ge, X., Wang, X., 2009. Calculations of freezing point depression, boiling point
elevation, vapor pressure and enthalpies of vaporization of electrolyte solutions by a modied three-characteristic parameter correlation model.
J. Solution Chem. 38, 10971117.
Hertzberg, T. Mejdell, T., 1998, MODFIT for Matlab: Parameter Estimation in a
General Nonlinear Multiresponse Model.
Henni, A., Hromek, J.J., Tontiwachwuthikul, P., Chakma, A., 2003. Volumetric
properties and viscosities for aqueous AMP solutions from 25 1C to 70 1C.
J. Chem. Eng. Data 48, 551556.
Hilliard, M.D., 2008, A Predictive Thermodynamic Model for an Aqueous Belnd of
Potassium Carbonate, Pipearzine and MEA for CO2 Capture from Flue Gas. Ph.D
Dissertation, Austin, TX, USA.
Kim, I., Svendsen, H.F., Brresen, E., 2008. Ebulliometric determination of vapor
liquid equilibria for pure water, monoethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine,
3-(methylamino)-propylamine, and their binary and ternary solutions.
J. Chem. Eng. Data 53, 25212531.
Kim, I., Ma, X., Beck., R., Knuutila, H., Andreassen, J.P., 2011, Solubility Measurements of Piperazine, Presentation in Trondheim CO2 Capture, Transport and
Storage (TCCS6), Trondheim, Norway, 1416 June 2011.
Klepacova, K., Huttenhuis, P.J.G., Derks, P.W.J., Versteeg, G.F., 2011. Vapor pressures of several commercially used alkanolamines. J. Chem. Eng. Data 56,
22422248.
Mathonat, C., Maham, Y., Mather, A.E., Hepler, L.G., 1997. Excess molar enthalpies
of (water monoalkanolamine) mixtures at 298.15 K and 308.15 K. J. Chem.
Eng. Data 42, 993995.
Nguyen, T., Hilliard, M., Rochelle, G.T., 2010. Amine volatility in CO2 capture. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 707715.
Nguyen, T., Hilliard, M., Rochelle, G.T., 2011. Volatility of aqueous amines in CO2
capture. Energy Procedia 4, 16241630.
Pappa, G.D., Anastasi, C., Voutsas, E.C., 2006. Measurement and thermodynamic
modeling of the phase equilibrium of aqueous 2-amino-2-methyl-propanol
solutions. Fluid Phase Equilib. 243, 193197.
Posey, M.L., 1996, Thermodynamic Model for Acid Gas Loaded Alkanolamine
Solution. Ph.D Thesis. University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
Renon, H., Prausnitz, J.M., 1968. Local compositions in thermodynamic excess
functions for liquid mixtures. AlChE J. 14 (1), 136144.
Schmidt, K.A.G., Maham, Y., Mather, E., 2007. Use of the NRTL equation for
simultaneous correlation for vaporliquid equilibria and excess enthalpy:
applications to aqueous alkanolamines systems. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 89
(1), 6172.
Sun, W.C., Yong, C.B., Li, M.H., 2005. Kinetics of the absorption of carbon dioxide
into mixed aqueous solutions of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol and piperazine. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 503516.
Thomsen, K., Rasmussen, P., 1999. Modeling of vaporliquidsolid equilibria in
gasaqueous electrolyte systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 17871802.
Van Ness, H., 1995. Thermodynamics in the treatment of vapor/liquid equilibrium
(VLE) data. Pure Appl. Chem. 67 (6), 859872.
Wilson, G.M., 1964. A new expression for the excess free energy of mixing. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 86 (2), 127130.
Wilson, H.L., Wilding, W.V., 1994, Vapor Liquid and LiquidLiquid Equilibrium
Measurements on Twenty Two Binary Mixtures, Experimental Results for
DIPPR 19901991 Projects on Phase Equilibria and Pure Component Properties,
63115.
Xu, G.W., Zhang, C.F., Qin, A.J., Gao, W.H., Liu, H.B., 1998. Gasliquid equilibrium in
a CO2MDEAH2O system and the effect of piperazine on it. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 37, 14731477.