Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtice

Development of two plant-wide glycerol carbonate production

processes: Design, optimization and environmental analysis
Bor-Yih Yua,b,*
a
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan
b
Division of Pediatric Allergy, Asthma and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou Branch, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article History: This work firstly presents the rigorous modeling of the two plant-wide glycerol carbonate (GC) production
Received 12 November 2020 processes through the transesterification reaction of glycerol (GLY). One is the Separated Reaction and Distil-
Revised 12 December 2020 lation (SRD) process, and the other is the Reactive Distillation-based (RD) process. This work covers the ther-
Accepted 14 December 2020
modynamic and kinetic verification, the rigorous simulation of the two processes, and optimization of the
Available online 24 December 2020
proposed processes based on simulated annealing method. From optimization, it is found that the RD process
reduced about 33.1% cost from the SRD process. Also, carbon emission analyses are performed on the two
Keywords:
optimized processes, in which the CO2 emission amount per unit amount of GC formation (CO2-e, in kg CO2/
Glycerol
Glycerol carbonate
kg GC) are calculated. It is reported that the RD process reduces 36.1% of CO2 emission (CO2-e=0.207) com-
Process design pared with the SRD process (CO2-e=0.322).
Simulated annealing © 2020 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Reactive distillation
Carbon emission

1. Introduction
At present, large amount of glycerol (GLY) has been generated as
the side product from the bio-diesel production. This has caught
wide attentions of converting GLY into value-added chemicals. As
glycerol carbonate (GC) has many favorable properties (i.e. low vola-
tility, low toxicity, high bio-degradability, good reactivity), producing
it from GLY is considered promising [1].
Many routes for converting GLY into GC have been reported [1], such
as reacting GLY with urea [2], phosgene, carbon monoxide (CO), and car-
bon dioxide (CO2). However, drawbacks exist in each of them. The urea
route requires the highly-vacuumed operating condition in order to
remove the side product, ammonia. The reactants in the phosgene route
and the CO route are toxic. The stable structure of CO2 makes the direct
conversion process thermodynamically unfavorable, albeit the overall
process seems greener and more atom efficient [1
3].
An emerging route to produce GC is through the transesterifica-
tion reaction between GLY and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) [3
7].
Being endothermic and reversible, this reaction was reported to be
suitable to operate under modest temperature and pressure with
DMC in excess. Besides, generating methanol (MeOH) as the side
product, the further separation of the azeotropic mixture DMC/
MeOH is required.
To date, the development of this process has been limited to con-
ceptual design [3,8], albeit already having many contributions discus-
sing the catalyst/kinetics [5
7] and thermodynamics properties [4,9].
The only simulation study found in literature was contributed by Xu
and Xu [10], in which the GC production process was investigated as
part of an integrated bio-diesel process, yet with their focuses on the
exergy analysis and the overall process economics.
Here, two plant-wide GC production processes, the Separated
Reaction and Distillation (SRD) process and the Reactive Distillation-
based (RD) process, are rigorously studied and compared. The prelim-
inary design and the parametric studies of the RD process were
recently mentioned by our group in a conference proceeding [11].
This process is further clarified and refined with the current work.
Firstly, special attentions are paid on regressing both the thermody-
namic and the kinetic parameters. Then, two processes are proposed,
and optimized using simulated annealing approach. Finally, the envi-
ronmental analyses on the optimized processes are performed, with
the CO2 emission amount per unit amount of GC formation (CO2-e, in
kg CO2/kg GC) compared. Through this study, a baseline for further
studies (i.e. scale-up, control, operation and economical evaluation)
could be provided.
2. Overview

* Correspondence to: Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Chang

Seven components are included in the processes. They are glyc-
Gung University, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan. erol (GLY), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), methanol (MeOH), glycidol
E-mail address: boryihyu@mail.cgu.edu.tw (GLC), glycerol carbonate (GC), carbon dioxide (CO2) and aniline

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2020.12.016
1876-1070/© 2020 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
20 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25
(ANI). All of them can be found in the Aspen Plus database. The simu-
lation work was performed in Aspen Plus V10, selecting NRTL as the
thermodynamic model.
2.1. Thermodynamics
Previously, it was reported that the reaction starts from a bi-pha-
sic liquid mixture of GLY and DMC, and becoming mono-phasic with
MeOH and GC being produced [4,9]. Hence, special attentions are
paid on the behavior in between these components. The liquid-liquid
equilibrium (LLE) data, and the required binary interaction parame-
ters in this quaternary system were investigated by Wang and Lu [9],
and Esteban et al. [4]. However, Wang and Lu [9] regressed a single
set of binary pairs which only fitted to all LLE data, but failed to
describe the vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE). On the other hand, Este-
ban et al. regressed different sets of parameters under various tem-
peratures [4], which are difficult to use in the current study. The
details are collected in Section A1 of the supplemental material.
Here, the interaction parameters in between GLY/DMC/GC/MeOH
are revisited, targeting at obtaining a parameter set capable of pre-
dicting both VLE and LLE. To this end, the LLE data [4], and VLE data
for the binary system of DMC/MeOH, GLY/MeOH, and GLY/DMC
(accessed from the Aspen built-in NIST database) are used together
for re-regression. The detailed descriptions and the verification of the
re-regression are also collected in Section A1. All the binary interac-
tion parameters used in this work are listed in Table S1.
2.2. Reaction kinetics
The kinetics proposed by Singh et al. is referenced [5], which is
comprised of three reactions:
r1
GLY þ DMC ! GC þ 2MeOH
r2
GC þ 2MeOH ! GLY þ DMC
r3
GC ! GLC þ CO2
Eqs. (1) and (2) represent the reversible main reactions, and Eq. (3) is
the side reaction of GC decomposition. A very active heterogeneous cata-
lyst (Zn4La1) made up of ZnO (density=5.61 g/cm3) and La2O3
(density=6.51 g/cm3) was used. The reaction system was experimentally
studied in a batch reactor between 120 to 140 °C, and DMC excess ratio
(denoted as “ER” hereafter) from 2 to 6, using 0.5 wt% of catalyst.
The reaction rates are described in the power-law form, based on
the liquid phase mole fraction of components [5]. However, the veri-
fication results are unsatisfactory, especially the GC selectivity. There-
fore, the kinetic parameters were re-regressed based on the reported
results [5]. The kinetic expressions for Eqs. (1)
(3) with the re-calcu-
lated parameters are listed in Eqs. (4)
(6).

  
kmol
144; 400
r1 ¼ 1:31  1016 exp XDMC XGLY ð4Þ
kgcat s RT

  
kmol
60; 013
r2 ¼ 6:06  104 exp XGC XMeOH 2
kgcat s RT

  
kmol
113; 000
r3 ¼ 1:63  109 exp XGC
kgcat s RT
In the above three equations, the activation energies are in units
of kJ/kmol, and X represents mole fraction of the components in the
liquid phase. In Singh et al.’s contribution, the phase transition during
the reaction was not specifically mentioned [5]. Therefore, the mole
fraction (X) of the combined liquid phase is used for the kinetic
expression. The detailed regression steps as well as the verification
results are collected in Section A2 of the supplemental material.
Note that reaction rates were obtained in between 120 and 140 °
C, which is beyond the normal boiling point of DMC (90.0 °C) and
MeOH (64.7 °C). This indicates that the reaction was operated under
elevated pressure. As the reactions occur in the liquid phase, the
operating pressure should be in between the vapor pressure of DMC
and MeOH under the corresponding temperatures. This feature is
considered in the following up simulation studies.
3. Process development
This work targets on developing a 50 (kTon/y) GC production pro-
cess, operating at 90
95% of its full capacity. For the products, the
commercial grade of 99 mol% (i.e. 99.2 wt%) GC, and 99.9 mol% (i.e.
99.8 wt%) MeOH are specified.
3.1. The separated reaction/distillation (SRD) process
The optimized SRD process is depicted in Fig. 1, with the optimi-
zation procedure mentioned in Section 4. The process begins with
mixing 50 kmol/h of fresh GLY with 50 kmol/h fresh DMC, and the
recycled DMC, to reach ER of 2.0. This combined feed is pumped to
4.25 atm, heated to 140 °C, and sent to the reactor. Since the reactor
handles both vapor and liquid, a continuous stirred-tank reactor
(CSTR) is used (REACT). This reactor is 0.632 m3 in volume, and
packed with 63.2 kg catalyst. From which, the reaction proceeds with
81.45% per-pass conversion.
The liquid stream from the reactor is depressed to 1 atm and
flashed. The flashed liquid is sent to the downstream column (C1) to
recover the unreacted DMC from the distillate. On the other hand,
the flashed vapor (rich in DMC and MeOH) is mixed with the reactor
vapor, totally condensed, further mixed with the C1 distillate, and
sent to the pre-concentrator (PRE). In PRE, a DMC/MeOH mixture of
ð1Þ ca. 20 mol% DMC is obtained from the distillate, which is sent to the
extractive distillation section. On the other hand, a high purity DMC
stream is obtained from the PRE bottom and is recycled.
ð2Þ
The typical two-column extractive distillation process configura-
tion with a feed-effluent-heat-exchanger (FEHE) is used here. Aniline
ð3Þ
is used as the entrainer. This configuration has been proved the most
economically attractive one for this system [12]. The MeOH product
comes out from the distillate of the extractive distillation column
(EDC), while a high purity DMC stream is obtained from the distillate
of the solvent recovery column (SRC) and recycled.
The C1 bottom enters C2 for further purification. The side product
GLC is separated from the C2 distillate, while GC and the unreacted
GLY is obtained from the C2 bottom, and then sent to C3. Finally, the
GC product of 99 mol% is obtained from the C3 bottom, while the
unreacted GLY is recovered from the C3 distillate, and then recycled.
Since some CO2 is formed by GC dissociation, partial vapor-liquid
condensers are equipped in PRE and EDC, with each setting 0.2%
vapor vented from the column to avoid CO2 accumulation. Also, C1,
C2 and C3 are operated under vacuumed condition, since the normal
boiling point of GLY and GC are too high to use the high pressure
steam as the reboiler heat source. Other detailed settings of this pro-
cess can be found in Table S2.
ð5Þ
3.2. The reactive distillation-based (RD) process
ð6Þ Reactive distillation is a promising technique of process intensifi-
cation to improve the performance of the equilibrium-limited reac-
tions. Its applications have continued to attract the attentions
[13
15]. The optimized flowsheet of the RD process is depicted in
Fig. 2, with the optimization details in Section 4. The detailed simula-
tion settings are collected in Table S3. First, the fresh GLY of
50 kmol/h, and the combined DMC stream of 100 kmol/h, enter at
the 5th and 18th tray of the reactive distillation column (RDC),
respectively. The RDC has a total of 19 trays, operated at 3.09 atm,
 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25
Fig. 1. The optimized flowsheet of the SRD process.
with a 0.0068 atm pressure drop per tray assumed throughout the
column. The reactive section is in between the feed locations, with
25.46 kg catalyst packed on each tray. Note that the catalyst loading
(Wcat, in kg) is determined by the following equation:
pD2
Wcat ¼  WH  0:9  Ccat
4
The first three term of Eq. (8) (p4D  WH 0:9) indicates the total
2
liquid volume on the tray (in m3), where D is the column diameter
(in m); WH is the weir height (set at 0.1016 m), and the factor 0.9
indicates a downcomer area of 10%. The Ccat is the bulk catalyst den-
sity, defined as the mass amount of catalyst per unit volume of the
reacting medium. It is determined to be 419.20 kg/m3 from optimiza-
tion.
The RDC combines the function of the preheater, reactor and PRE
in the SRD process. A DMC/MeOH mixture with 13.7 mol% DMC is
obtained from the RDC distillate, and is sent to the extractive distilla-
tion section, in which the identical configuration as in the SRD pro-
cess is used to separate DMC and MeOH. On the other hand, the RDC
bottom is depressed to 1 atm and flashed. Besides, 99% conversion of
GLY is reached in RDC. Also, a partial vapor-liquid condenser is
equipped, setting 0.2% vapor vented from the column, so as to avoid
CO2 accumulation.
Similar to the SRD process, the flashed liquid is sent to down-
stream columns (C1 and C2) for GC recovery. Note that reaching 99%
conversion in RDC eliminates the use of the C3 here. On the other
hand, the flashed vapor is total condensed, mixed with the C1 distil-
late, and recycled to RDC.
The temperature, composition and reaction profiles inside the
RDC are illustrated in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3(a), it is noted that the tem-
peratures for some reaction stages lies outside 120 to 140 °C, on
which the kinetic expressions are verified. However, the deviation is
less than 2% (lowest: 118.2 °C, highest: 142.7 °C). Hence, it is consid-
ered acceptable. The reaction profile could be seen in Fig. 3(b). The
reaction is more active in the lower part of the column, which reason-
ably corresponds to the higher temperature over there.
As addressed, the reaction starts from being bi-phasic, and turns
mono-phasic in a batch reactor. However, after performing the
21
vapor-liquid-liquid check in RDC, no phase split is observed. This
ensures the successful continuous operation of reactive distillation.
The liquid composition profile is shown in Fig. 3(c). It could be clear
that MeOH in the middle/upper section of RDC prevents the liquid
phase from phase splitting. On the other hand, the GLY at the lower
ð8Þ section is too less to have phase separation.
4. Optimization
4.1. Optimization settings
Here, the modified version of the total annual cost (TAC) [16
18],
defined by Eq. (9), is minimized through optimization:
TCC X  X 
Obj: Func ¼ þ TOC þ Ri
Ri;base UPR
Pj
Pj;base UPP ð9Þ
PBP i j
This equation considers the annualized capital cost (the 1st term),
the total operating cost (the 2nd term), and the stream cost differen-
ces (the 3rd and 4th term). The annualized capital cost is determined
by dividing the total capital cost (TCC) by the payback period (PBP, 3
years). The total operating cost (TOC) refers to the utilities and cata-
lyst used in the production, calculated based on 8000 h of annual
operation. The cost data is referenced from Luyben’s book, and is col-
lected in Section A3 of the supplemental meterial [19]. Besides, in
order to reach the vacuumed conditions in the downstream columns,
the liquid ring pump system is suggested [20]. However, the related
costs only account for a very small portion of the objective function,
and is not considered in optimization.
The stream cost difference terms consider the costs originated
from varying reactant and product flowrates, majorly resulted from
the varying reaction conversion and the GC dissociation in the cur-
rent systems. With this concept, it keeps the objective function from
being diluted by the massive contribution of a full stream cost. While
perfoming optimization runs, the base flowrates for measuring the
difference are fixed (see Table 1). This enables the optimization
results to be comparable. In Eq. (9), the third term is for the raw
materials (i=GLY or DMC), while the last term is for the products
22 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25
Fig. 2. The optimized flowsheet of the RD process.
(j=GC or MeOH). For the unit prices (UPi and UPj), 1.036 [21], 0.685
[12], 2.40 [22] and 0.32 [12] (USD/kg) are assigned to GLY, DMC, GC
and MeOH, respectively.
The proposed processes are optimized using the simulated
annealing (SA) method. Developed by Kirkpatrick et al. [23]. based on
the work by Metropolis et al. [24], SA compares the optimization to
the annealing process of metallurgical material, which is popularly
used in optimization with process simulator [25
27]. Compared
with the frequently used sequential iterative methond [28
30], SA is
much more efficient in computation. In this work, the SA algorithm is
coded in MATLAB, which is linked with the Aspen simulation file via
ActiveX server.
In the SRD process, a total of 21 variables are optimized. There are
the reactor temperature (TR) and volume (VR), the ER, the DMC con-
tent in the PRE distillate (DDMC), the molar ratio of entrainer to feed
(FE/FF), total number trays of the extractive section (NEXT) and the
stripping section (NSTR) of EDC, the total number of trays as well as
the feed location of SRC, PRE, C1, C2 and C3 (NTSRC, NFSRC, NTPRE,
NFPRE, NTC1, NFC1, NTC2, NFC2, NTC3, NFC3), the operating pressure of
C1, C2 and C3 (PC1, PC2, PC3), and the reflux ratio of C3 (RR3).
On the other hand, 17 variables are optimized for the RD process.
Those variables different from the SRD process are the RDC operating
pressure (PRDC), feed location of GLY (NFGLY) and DMC (NFDMC) into
RDC, the DMC content in the RDC distillate (DDMC), and the bulk mass
concentration of the catalyst (Ccat). The remaining variables are ER,
FE/FF, NEXT, NSTR, NTSRC, NFSRC, NTPRE, NFPRE, NTC1, NFC1, NTC2, and NFC2.
Some less influential variables are not optimized for enhancing
the convergability of simulation runs. Firstly, the reactor pressure in
the SRD process is set to 1.1 times of the DMC vapor pressure under
corresponding temperatures (TR) during optimization. Setting a
higher one prevents MeOH from evaporating, which retards the
reaction conversion and results in higher operation cost. Secondly,
the rectifying section of EDC in both proesses is fixed at 5, which is
large enough to prevent the entrainer from going upward. Also, in
the RD process, 1 stripping stage is assumed below DMC feeding
point for maintaining the temperature at the RDC bottom. Further
increasing the stripping lower section and length leads to higher bot-
tom temperature and also the reboiler duty of RDC.
The main parameters used in SA are listed in Table 1. The pro-
posed algorithm and the detailed information of the variables are
illustrated in Fig. S1 and Table S4 for the SRD process, and in Fig. S2
and Table S5 for the RD process. Other detailed information can be
found in Section A4 of the supplemental material. The optimization
for each process was performed three times, starting from different
base cases, in order to confirm the consistency of the optimization
results.
4.2. Optimization results
Fig. 4(a) tracks the change of the objective function when optimiz-
ing the SRD process. Since both the discrete and continuous variables
are optimized in the same algorithm, the optimized configurations
from different runs may not be completely identical. This is com-
monly observed when performing SA, especially as the number of
variables becomes large. However, the objective function settles to
very similar final states, which adequately indicates the consistency
of the algorithm. The configuration with the lowest objective func-
tion among the three runs (i.e. the case 1) is selected for demonstra-
tion in Fig. 1. Similarly, Fig. 4(b) tracks the objective function while
optimizing the RD process, also with the consistency of the algorithm
proved. The configuration corresponding to the lowest objective
function (i.e the case 3) is depicted in Fig. 2.
 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25 23

Fig. 4. Tracking of the objective function. (a) The SRD process. (b) The RD process.

Fig. 5 depicts the itemized cost based on the major process units
of the selected optimized processes. Other detailed results for opti-
mizing two processes are collected in Tables S6 and S7, respectively.
Some important results of the selected optimized configuration are
listed in Table 2.
It is clear that the RD process outperforms the SRD process, with
about 33.1% reduction in the objective function. This significant dif-
ference is mainly from the integration of the preheater, reactor, and
PRE into a single RDC, which handles the energy more efficiently.

Fig. 3. Profiles in the RDC. (a) Temperature; (b) Reaction and (c) liquid-phase composi-
tion.

Table 1
The parameters used in the SA algorithm.

Values

Initial temperature (T0) 80

Final temperature (T) 0.001
Energy state (E) The objective function in Eq. (8)
Annealing rate (k) 0.85
Equilibrium number of iteration (EqNT) 63 (for the SRD process)
51 (for the RD process)
GCbase (kmol/h)a 5789.01
MeOHbase (kmol/h)a 3072.91
GLYbase (kmol/h)a 4604.74
DMCbase (kmol/h)a 4488.13
a
Used in Eq. (8) for optimizing both processes. Fig. 5. Itemized costs for the optimized SRD and RD processes.
24 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25

Table 2
Main results from optimization.

The SRD process The RD process

Objective Function (kUSD) 2334.38 1561.75

From 713.38 (QPre heater, LPS) 1965.77 (QrRDC, MPS)

Reaction 1186.01 (QREACT, LPS)

1712.70 (QrPRE, 2-bar steam) 1314.61 (QrEDC, MPS)

Energy 1120.47 (QrEDC, MPS)
Demand From 586.32 (QrSRC, HPS)
Separation 645.55 (QrC1, HPS)
79.25 (QrC2, HPS)
651.27 (QrC3, HPS)
455.31 (QrSRC, HPS)
373.55 (QrC1, HPS)
85.95 (QrC2,HPS)

GC Production Rate (kg/h) 5785.84 5798.96

*“Qr” denotes the reboiler duty, “Q” denotes the utility in heat exchangers.

This integration leads to a 37.6% cost saving as can be calculated from

Fig. 5. (i.e. 2334.38 £ 42.3% and 1561.75 £ 39.4%).
Another distinct difference in between the two processes is that
the SRD process favors an incomplete per-pass conversion of 81%
(see Table S6), comparing with the 99% conversion in the RD process.
This indicates the equilibrium-limited nature of the reaction. Hence,
a further separation column (C3) is required for separating the
unreacted GLY, contributing 11.9% of the total cost. Furthermore, the
optimized conversions in the SRD process are reported to be lower
than those in the base cases in all the optimization runs. It reveals the
unfavorable economic performances resulted from GC decomposition
at longer residence time.
Besides, in the SRD process, the cost in the extractive distillation
(i.e. EDC+SRC) rises after optimization. This penalty is offset by the
saving in PRE, as the optimized DMC content in the PRE distillate is
farther away from the azeotropic point (ca. 20 mol%). This illustrates
the interactions in between the reaction and the separation sections.
4.3. Carbon emission analysis
Carbon emission analysis considers the indirect CO2 emission
resulted from consuming steam and electricity, which are derived
from carbonaceous fuels [16,17,28,30,31]. The corresponding CO2
emission generated from using unit amount of different heating utili-
ties are collected in Table 3 [25]. Here, the reported index is the kg of
net CO2 emission per kg of GC formed (denoted as “CO2-e” hereafter).
The CO2-e from the two optimized processess, shown in Figs. 1and
2 are compared, with the reuslts shown in Fig. 6. In general, the RD
process reduces 36.1% of CO2 emission (CO2-e=0.207) from the SRD
process (CO2-e=0.322). The major reason for this significant reduction
is because the RDC reboiler duty requires only about half of the total
heating demand from the pre-heater, reactor and PRE in the SRD pro-
cess. This corresponds to a 41.1% reduction in carbon emission. (i.e.
0.322*49.0% and 0.207*45.0%). Also, the emission from the additional
651.3 kw HPS in the C3 reboiler contributes 12.6% of the total emis-
sion from the SRD process.
4.4. Further discussions
The possible further improvement on the RD process is discussed
here. Note that the current optimized RD process is operated at ER=2,
Fig. 6. The calculated CO2-e for both processes.
reaching its lower limit. Hence, the reaction performance at an even
lower ER could be interesting. Currently, this idea is not carried out,
since the kinetics is only verified at ER greater than 2.
Besides, the charm of using reactive distillation is the possibility to
reach a high reaction conversion, by just feeding the reactants at their
stoichiometric ratio. Given that this is feasible in the current system, a
high-purity GC stream is obtained at the RDC bottom. This indicates
the requirement of a higher grade heat source (i.e. electricity) to the
reboiler, owing to the unfavorably high boiling point of GC (ca 354 °C
at 1 atm). Also, the GC decomposition may occur under this situation.
To resolve these problems, operating the RDC under vacuumed con-
dition could be considered, albeit it inevitably lowers the reaction
temperature. Hence, the related experimental efforts in the future
could be valuable.
5. Conclusion
In this work, two plant-wide glycerol carbonate (GC) production
processes, the separated reactor/distillation (SRD) process and the
reactive distillation based (RD) process, were firstly investigated. The
research scope covers regressing of the thermodynamic and kinetic
parameters, designing of two processes, optimizing by simulated
annealing method, and performing carbon emission analysis. From
the generated results, the RD process reduces ca. 33.1% cost and
36.1% CO2 emission from the SRD process. Finally, it is recommended
to put more experimental efforts in developing the reaction kinetics
under a lower temperature and less excess amount of DMC. This
would reduce the energy requirement in separation, and lead to less
CO2 emission.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declare that he has no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments

Table 3 The research funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology
Information of the utilities used throughout the work [25]. of R. O. C. under grant no. MOST 108-2218-E-182 -009 -MY3 is
greatly appreciated.
Utilities Unit CO2 emission amount (kg-CO2/GJ)

Steam (2 bar, 120 °C) 66.68 Supplementary materials

Steam (6 bar, 160 °C) LPS 72.86
Steam (11 bar, 184 °C) MPS 76.60
Steam (42 bar, 254 °C) HPS 91.14 Supplementary material associated with this article can be found
in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2020.12.016.
 B.-Y. Yu / Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 117 (2020) 19
25
References
[1] Sonnati MO, Amigoni S, de Givenchy EPT, Darmanin T, Choulet O, Guittard F. Glyc-
erol carbonate as a versatile building block for tomorrow: synthesis, reactivity,
properties and applications. Green Chem 2013;15(2):283–306.
[2] Lertlukkanasuk N, Phiyanalinmat S, Kiatkittipong W, Arpornwichanop A, Aiou-
ache F, Assabumrungrat S. Reactive distillation for synthesis of glycerol carbonate
via glycerolysis of urea. Chem Eng Process 2013;70:103–9.
[3] Li JB, Wang T. Coupling reaction and azeotropic distillation for the synthesis of
glycerol carbonate from glycerol and dimethyl carbonate. Chem Eng Process
2010;49(5):530–5.
[4] Esteban J, Ladero M, Molinero L, Garcia-Ochoa F. Liquid-liquid equilibria for the
ternary systems DMC-methanol-glycerol, DMC-glycerol carbonate-glycerol and
the quaternary system DMC-methanol-glycerol carbonate-glycerol at catalytic
reacting temperatures. Chem Eng Res Des 2014;92(12):2797–805.
[5] Singh D, Reddy B, Ganesh A, Mahajani S. Zinc/lanthanum mixed-oxide catalyst for
the synthesis of glycerol carbonate by transesterification of glycerol. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2014;53(49):18786–95.
[6] Devi P, Das U, Dalai AK. Production of glycerol carbonate using a novel Ti-SBA-15
catalyst. Chem Eng J 2018;346:477–88.
[7] Li YJ, Liu JX, He DH. Catalytic synthesis of glycerol carbonate from biomass-based
glycerol and dimethyl carbonate over Li-La2O3 catalysts. Appl Catal A
Gen
2018;564:234–42.
[8] Wang HJ, Pang L, Yang C, Liu YH. Production of glycerol carbonate via reactive dis-
tillation and extractive distillation: an experimental study. Chin J Chem Eng
2015;23(9):1469–74.
[9] Wang HJ, Lu PF. Liquid-liquid equilibria for the system dimethyl carbonate plus
methanol plus glycerol in the temperature range of (303.15 to 333.15) K. J Chem
Eng Data 2012;57(2):582–9.
[10] Xu CX, Xu Q. Novel design for simultaneous production of biodiesel and glycerol
carbonate from soybean oil. Ind Eng Chem Res 2018;57(49):16809–16.
[11] Yu BY, Chen WJ. Rigorous simulation and optimization of a plant-wide glycerol
carbonate (GC) production process. Comput Aided Chem Eng 2020;48:283–8.
[12] Yu BY, Chen MK, Chien IL. Assessment on CO2 utilization through rigorous simu-
lation: converting CO2 to dimethyl carbonate. Ind Eng Chem Res 2018;57
(2):639–52.
[13] Oksal IN, Kaymak DB. Dynamic controllability comparison of reactive distillation
columns with single and double reactive sections for two-stage consecutive reac-
tions. Chem Eng Res Des 2018;129:391–402.
[14] He RN, Dong YB, Zou Y, Zhao JH, Yaseen M, Mu CX, Tong ZF. Simulation and opti-
mization of reactive distillation for the production of ethyl acetate using [BMIM]
HSO4 as catalyst. Chem Eng Res Des 2020;161:218–31.
[15] Kaymak DB, Unlu H, Ofkeli T. Control of a reactive distillation column with double
reactive sections for two-stage consecutive reactions. Chem Eng Process
2017;113:86–93.
25
[16] Wang C, Wang C, Guang C, Gao J, Zhang ZS. Hybrid reactive distillation using poly-
octylmethylsiloxane membrane for isopentyl acetate production from mixed PVA
by products. J Chem Technol Biot 2019;94(2):527–37.
[17] Wang C, Zhang ZS, Zhang XK, Gao J, Stewart B. Energy-saving hybrid processes
combining pressure-swing reactive distillation and pervaporation membrane for
n-propyl acetate production. Sep Purif Technol 2019;221:1–11.
[18] Zhang ZS, Wang C, Guang C, Stewart B. Cost-saving and control investigation for
isopentyl acetate ionic liquid catalyzed synthesis through conventional and divid-
ing-wall reactive distillation. Process Saf Environ 2019;129:89–102.
[19] Luyben WL. Principles and case studies of simultaneous design (Chapter 5). New
York: Wiley; 2011.
[20] Seider WD, Seader JD, Lewin DR. Product and process design principles: synthesis,
analysis, and evaluation 3rd ed. (Chap 22: cost accounting and capital cost esti-
mation) S., W.,. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2009.
[21] ICIS pricing: Glycerine (US Gulf), 8th January. 2014.
[22] Nguyen N, Demirel Y. Economic analysis of biodiesel and glycerol carbonate pro-
duction plant by glycerolysis. J Sustain Bioenergy Syst 2013;3:209–16.
[23] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science
1983;220:671–80 No. 4598.
[24] Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of
state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 1953;21:1087–92
No. 6.
[25] Yu BY, Wu PJ, Tsai CC, Lin ST. Evaluating the direct CO2 to diethyl carbonate (DEC)
process: Rigorous simulation, techno-economical and environmental evaluation.
J Co2 Util 2020;41:101254.
[26] Yang XL, Ward JD. Extractive distillation optimization using simulated annealing
and a process simulation automation server. Ind Eng Chem Res 2018;57
(32):11050–60.
[27] Cui Y, Zhang Z, Shi X, Guang C, Gau J. Triple-column side-stream extractive distil-
lation optimization via simulated annealing for the benzene/isopropanol/water
separation. Sep Purif Technol 2020;236:1–8.
[28] Li GJ, Wang C, Guang C, Zhang ZS. Energy-saving investigation of hybrid reactive
distillation for n-butyl acetate production from two blending feedstocks. Sep Purif
Technol 2020;235.
[29] Zhu ZY, Li GX, Yang JW, Dai Y, Cui PZ, Wang YL, Xu DM. Improving the energy effi-
ciency and production performance of the cyclohexanone ammoximation process
via thermodynamics, kinetics, dynamics, and economic analyses. Energ Convers
Manag 2019;192:100–13.
[30] Yang X, Wang S, Li GX, Zhao F, Feng Z, Chen XN, Zhu ZY, Wang YL, Gao J. Process
design and comprehensive analysis of the ethanol amination process to improve
acetonitrile production. Ind Eng Chem Res 2020;59(11):5047–55.
[31] Gadalla MA, Olujic Z, Jansens PJ, Jobson M, Smith R. Reducing CO2 emissions and
energy consumption of heat-integrated distillation systems. Environ Sci Technol
2005;39(17):6860–70.