pubs.acs.

org/IECR Article

Molecular Mechanism, Thermoeconomic, and Environmental Impact

for Separation of Isopropanol and Water Using the Choline-Based
DESs as Extractants
Peizhe Cui, Xingyi Liu, Fei Zhao, Zhaoyou Zhu, Lei Wang, and Yinglong Wang*
Cite This: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: Deep eutectic solvents (DESs), as potential green

solvents, can be used for the separation of the low-carbon alcohol
Downloaded via YEUNGNAM UNIV on April 12, 2023 at 03:42:34 (UTC).

azeotrope, which has become one of the hot spots in solvent research in
recent years. In this work, choline chloride (ChCl)/glycerol (GI) (1:2)
and ChCl/ethylene glycol (EG) (1:2) were used as extractants to study
the extractive distillation process of isopropanol (IPA) dehydration.
The high separation performance of the choline-based DESs was
explained from the point of quantum chemistry. Economic impact,
exergy loss, and environmental impact were compared between the new
processes and the traditional process. The results displayed that the
total cost of the two processes with DES as the extractant and using the
heat pump process was reduced by 30.256, 30.918, and 36.229%,
respectively. It saved a lot of cost and improved the thermodynamic
efficiency. In terms of environmental impact, compared with the traditional process, the ChCl/GI (1:2) process reduced the
emission of toxic and harmful substances by 39.94%, greatly improving environmental friendliness. The above results showed that
the choline-based DESs performed excellently in the extractive distillation process for the separation of low-carbon alcohol
azeotropes. Therefore, the development of new choline-based DESs is of great significance to the green, environmental protection
and sustainable development of chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

1. INTRODUCTION Traditional extractive distillation usually uses a single solvent

Separation of azeotropic or near-boiling mixtures has always
been a hot issue in the industry. Because the separation of an
azeotropic mixture cannot be realized by conventional
distillation and a lot of energy will be consumed in the
process, the separation of azeotropic mixtures is a very worthy
problem and has been paid much attention. Isopropanol (IPA)
is widely used in chemical and pharmaceutical industries. As a
chemical raw material, it can produce acetone, hydrogen
peroxide, and so on. As a solvent, it is cheap and cost-effective.
Therefore, the separation of IPA from industrial wastewater
not only is conducive to the recycling of IPA but also can
reduce the emission of pollutants.1 However, due to the
azeotrope formation of IPA and water, it is difficult to separate
IPA and water by conventional distillation. In recent years,
azeotropic distillation,2,3 pressure-swing distillation,4−6 liquid−
liquid extraction process,7 pervaporation,8−10 extractive dis-
tillation,11−13 and other special distillation methods have been
used to solve this problem. Among them, extractive distillation
can remove the largest or smallest azeotrope by adding an
extractant. Due to the flexible selection of extractants,
extractive distillation is widely used in the separation of
multiple azeotropes in the industry.14,15
as the extractant, for instance, ethylene glycol (EG), acetone,
acetonitrile, glycerol (GI), and phenol. Lynn and Hanson16
studied the ethanol dehydration process with EG as the
extractant. Uyazán et al.17 and Garciaherreros et al.18 used GI
as the extractant in the ethanol dehydration process, which
reduced the energy consumption compared with EG. Dai et
al.19 explored the application of EG and ionic liquids (ILs) as a
mixed extractant in the ethanol dehydration process. The
results showed that the process is better than that using EG as
a single extractant. The amount of extractant and energy
consumption were reduced by 20 and 11.53%, respectively.
Zhao et al.13 studied the separation of tetrahydrofuran−
ethanol−water ternary azeotropic systems with EG, dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO), and their mixed solvents as extractants.
Compared with EG and DMSO, the total annual cost (TAC)
of the extractive distillation with a mixed extractant was
Received: June 4, 2020
Revised: August 18, 2020
Accepted: August 19, 2020
Published: August 19, 2020

© 2020 American Chemical Society https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794

16077 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Table 1. Binary Interaction Parameters of Water (1) + IPA (2) + EG (3) + ChCl (4)
component i water IPA EG water water IPA
component j ChCl ChCl ChCl IPA EG EG
aij 0 0 0 5.3853 0 0
bij (K) −1195.09 −691.86 −1694.66 −1005.06 335.18 40.482
aji 0 0 0 −2.5041 0 0
bji (K) −867.97 351.27 −175.89 850.87 −303.17 278.34
cij 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
δT 0.26
δy2 0.0036

Table 2. Binary Interaction Parameters of Water (1) + IPA (2) + EG (3) + GI (4)
component i water IPA GI water water IPA
component j ChCl ChCl ChCl IPA GI GI
aij 0 0 0 5.3852 0 0
bij (K) −2136.88 −1205.84 −2929.25 −1005.06 617.62 259.42
aji 0 0 0 −2.5041 0 0
bji (K) −857.92 640.92 1393.98 850.87 −499.09 402.30
cij 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

reduced by 6.55 and 31.88%, respectively. The results showed
that the energy consumption of the distillation process can be
reduced using a mixed extractant under comprehensive
consideration of economy, environmental performance, and
thermal efficiency.
To obtain a more energy-saving process, it is necessary to
find an extractant with better separation performance.
Compared with traditional organic solvents, ILs have been
widely used in the separation of azeotropes in recent years due
to their advantages of high heat capacity, low vapor pressure,
and high selectivity. Boli et al.20 studied a new kind of
biodegradable ethanolamine matrix IL. The results showed
that compared with other ILs mentioned in the literatures,21,22
this new IL could make IPA more volatile and was an ideal
extractant for separation of the IPA−water mixture. Ma et al.23
used EMIMN(CN)2 as entrainer; they proposed and
optimized two kinds of extractive distillation processes for
IPA dehydration, which laid a solid foundation for the
industrial use of ILs as extractants to separate IPA and
water. However, some studies also indicated that the use of ILs
in the separation process of azeotropic mixtures was limited
due to the high price of raw materials, complex preparation
technology, poor degradation, and poor environmental friend-
liness.24,25 The traditional organic solvents and ILs are limited
by the requirements of a large amount, high preparation cost,
and biodegradability. Therefore, the development of green
mixed solvents is of great significance to the clean, highly
efficient, and sustainable development of the low-carbon
alcohol azeotrope separation process. Due to the advantages
of good separation effect and low energy consumption, mixed
extractants have gradually become the mainstream of extractive
distillation research.26−28
Deep eutectic solvents (DESs), which have similar proper-
ties as ILs, are a new mixed solvent being used in the recent
years. DESs are composed of a hydrogen-bond donor and a
hydrogen-bond acceptor; compared with ILs, they have the
advantages of low price, simple preparation, and strong
environmental friendliness.29,30 Pan et al.31 studied the
separation process of ethanol and water with choline chloride
(ChCl)/urea (1:2) as the extractant. By optimizing the process
parameters, a thermal integration process was designed to
16078
reduce the energy consumption of the process. Zhang et al.32,33
studied the separation performance of choline-based DESs
(ChCl/EG (1:2) and ChCl/GI (1:2)) for the IPA−water
mixture by the vapor−liquid equilibrium experiment and found
that the separation performance of the mixed solvent has a
great relationship with its composition. When the mass fraction
of ChCl/EG (1:2) and ChCl/GI (1:2) was 0.157 and 0.142,
respectively, the minimum azeotrope of IPA and water can be
effectively removed, and the amount of solvent used was far
less than that of the single solvent. These reports proved that it
is feasible to separate a low-carbon alcohol azeotrope with
choline-based DESs as extractants. However, due to the lack of
research on the physical properties of DESs in the literature,
this method is difficult to be used as a model. Therefore, the
above research studies on DESs are mainly focused on the
experiments of liquid−liquid equilibrium and vapor−liquid
equilibrium of extractive azeotrope separation.
In this work, two extractive distillation processes using
choline-based DESs (ChCl/GI (1:2) and ChCl/EG (1:2)) to
separate the IPA−water mixture were proposed (EG extractive
distillation (EED), ChCl/GI (1:2) extractive distillation
(CGED), and ChCl/EG (1:2) extractive distillation
(CEED)). The separation performance of the two choline-
based DESs was studied by quantum chemical means, and the
process was optimized with the minimum TAC as the target.
To further save energy, the feed preheating and heat pump
processes34 were added to the minimum TAC process
(HPED). Finally, the thermodynamic performance and
environmental impact of each process were compared. The
development of choline-based DESs is thus of great meaning to
the green, environmental protection and sustainability of the
IPA dehydration extractive distillation process.
2. MODELING AND METHOD
In this work, the physical property parameters of ChCl are
estimated by the group contribution method.35−37 The
physical parameters of EG and GI are all used as default
parameters in the Aspen Plus database.
2.1. Properties of ChCl and the Thermodynamic
Model. The critical properties and some thermophysical
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
properties of ChCl need to be input into the Aspen Plus.
Alvarez and Valderrama37 combined Lydersen38 and Joback−
Reid39 methods and gave the “improved Lydersen−Joback−
Reid” method, which is particularly suitable for compounds
with high molecular weight. In this work, the critical
properties, normal boiling point (TB), compression factor
(ZC), and eccentric factor (Ω) of ChCl are calculated using
this method and are given in Table S1. Thermophysical
parameters related to temperature, such as the vapor pressure,
heat capacity, viscosity, and surface tension of ChCl influence
the mass transmission efficiency and energy in the simulation
process. The estimation results of these physical property
parameters are given in Table S2.
In the IPA dehydration extractive distillation process, the
nonideality of the liquid is described by the thermodynamic
model NRTL and the gas phase is hypothesized to be ideal.
The binary interaction parameters between water−IPA−EG−
ChCl and water−IPA−GI−ChCl systems are obtained from
the literature,32,33 as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
2.2. Selection of an Extractant. COSMO segment
activity coefficient40 (COSMO-SAC) is a kind of conductor-
like screening model (COSMO),41 which is based on quantum
chemical calculation and has high prediction characteristics. In
recent years, it has often been used in the fields of phase
equilibrium prediction, solubility calculation, and solvent
selection.42−45 First, based on DMOL46 and the density
functional theory (DFT), the energy and structure of the
original molecules are optimized in Materials Studio 7.0. Then,
the COSMO data of water, IPA, EG, ChCl/GI (1:2), and
ChCl/EG (1:2) are imported into Origin for drawing. The σ-
distribution of IPA, water, and choline-based DESs used is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. σ-Profiles for H2O, IPA, EG, and DESs.
As shown in Figure 1 σ-profiles, the intermediate part
(−0.0082 e/Å2 < σ < +0.0082 e/Å2), the left part (σ <
−0.0082 e/Å2), and the right part (σ > +0.0082 e/Å2) are the
nonpolar area, the hydrogen-bond provider area, and the
hydrogen-bond receptor area, respectively. It can be seen from
Figure 1 that water has a relatively obvious peak value in the
range [−0.016, −0.0082] e/Å2, indicating that water can
supply hydrogen bonds. Compared with water, the peak value
of IPA in the range [−0.016, −0.0082] e/Å2 is very small,
pointing out that IPA has little ability to provide hydrogen
bonds.
EG has obvious peak value in the range [0.01, 0.015] e/Å2,
which points out that EG can receive a certain number of
16079
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
hydrogen bonds and can form a hydrogen bond with water,
thus separating IPA and water. ChCl/GI (1:2) and ChCl/EG
(1:2) have very large peak values in the range [0.012, 0.022] e/
Å2, which shows that ChCl/GI (1:2) and ChCl/EG (1:2) have
strong capacities to accept hydrogen bonds and form hydrogen
bonds with water. Thus, it is feasible to separate IPA and water
with ChCl/GI (1:2) and ChCl/EG (1:2) as extractants.
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
According to the physical parameters of ChCl and the
thermodynamic method NRTL discussed in Section 2, this
work simulated the extractive distillation process with Aspen
Plus V8.4, aiming at the recovery of IPA and water not less
than 0.995, including four processes: EED process, CGED
process, CEED process, and HPED process.
3.1. EED Process. By fixing the parameters of the column,
the relationship between the flow rate of the extractant and the
reflux ratio was explored, and the optimal flow rate of the
extractant was further determined, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flow rate optimization of EG.
To meet the target of product purity within the appropriate
reflux ratio range, the flow rate of EG was selected as 1800 kg/
h.
The flow rate and the temperature of the fresh feed are 1000
kg/h and 25 °C, respectively, and its composition is 70% IPA
and 30% water. The flow rate and the temperature of the
extractant EG are 1800 kg/h and 80 °C, respectively. As shown
in Figure 3, EG as extractant enters from the upper part of the
extractive distillation column (T1); IPA and water are
separated under atmospheric pressure. Upon obtaining the
high-purity product IPA on the top of T1, the extractant and
water flow out from the bottom of T1 and enter the extractant
recovery column (T2). In T2, the extractant and water are
separated under atmospheric pressure. The extractant flows
out from the bottom of T2. After cooling, it enters T1 together
with a small amount of the additional extractant to participate
in the separation process again.
3.2. CGED, CEED, and HPED Processes. Based on the
same method, the extractant flow rates of the CGED and
CEED processes were optimized, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, to meet the target of product
purity within the appropriate reflux ratio range, the flow rates
of ChCl/IG (1:2) and ChCl/EG (1:2) were both selected as
600 kg/h.
The CGED and CEED processes are basically the same as
the CED process, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. The difference
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 3. EED process.
Figure 4. Flow rate optimization of ChCl/GI (1:2).
Figure 5. Flow rate optimization of ChCl/EG (1:2).
is that the amount of the extractant in the two processes is 600
kg/h. In the CGED process, T2 needs to be depressurized due
to the high boiling point of GI in the CGED process. The
HPED process used high-temperature material flow from the
bottom of T2 to heat the feed, which reduced the operation
energy consumption of T1 and the cost of the condenser. On
this basis, the heat pump process was explored to further
reduce the energy consumption, as shown in Figure 8.
16080
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
4. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
In this study, three common criteria were used to evaluate the
process design, including economic impact, exergy loss, and
environmental impact analysis.
4.1. Assumptions. Suppose that the analysis of the whole
process is carried out under the following assumptions.
1 All processes are steady-state operations.
2 Heat loss is ignored.
3 Kinetic energy and potential energy are ignored.
4 The pressure drop of the whole process is ignored.
5 The solution is under equilibrium condition.47
4.2. Economic Analysis. In this work, TAC and Douglas48
were used to analyze the economic performance of the IPA
dehydration process, as shown in eq 1.
TCC
TAC = + AOC
investment payback period (1)
where the total capital cost (TCC) is composed of the column
equipment cost and the heat exchanger cost. In addition, the
HPED process also includes the compressor cost and the
auxiliary heat exchanger cost. The annual operation cost
(AOC) is composed of high-pressure steam, condensate, and
power consumption. The cost recovery period is set to 3 years,
and the annual operating time is 8000 h/year.
To obtain the optimal TAC, the sequential iterative
optimization process of the IPA dehydration process was
established, as shown in Figure 9.
The sequential iterative method was used to optimize
operating conditions to obtain the optimal TAC, as shown in
eq 2.
min TAC = f (NT1 , NF1, NT2 , NF2) (2)
In the process of optimization, the boundary judgment of
variables is expressed by eqs 3, 4, 5, and 6. Finally, the
minimum TAC on the boundary is obtained by the sequential
iterative optimization process.
min max
NT1 ≤ NT1 ≤ NT1 (3)
min max
NF1 ≤ NF1 ≤ NF1 (4)
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Figure 6. CGED process.

Figure 7. CEED process.

Figure 8. HPED process.

16081 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Figure 9. Block diagram of the sequential iterative optimization program.

min max The exergy flow of each flow can be expressed by eq 12

ij T yz
NT2 ≤ NT2 ≤ NT2 (5)

Eẋ Q = jjj1 − 0 zzzQ

j Tr z{
k
min max
NF2 ≤ NF2 ≤ NF2 (6)
(12)
4.3. Exergy Analysis. Exergy analysis is a significant
method of feasibility analysis. By combining the first law and In the whole separation process, the exergy balance is
the second law of thermodynamics, the energy loss in the determined by eq 13
process can be reflected. In this work, exergy analysis was used
in the IPA dehydration extractive distillation process, and the Eẋ in + Eẋ Qin = Eẋ out + Eẋ Qout + Eẋ shaft + Eẋ D (13)
exergy loss of each unit tray was obtained. From the angle of
thermodynamics, the entropy and exergy theory reflect the Hence, the whole exergy destruction (Ė xD,tot) and the whole
essence of energy attenuation. Entropy will lead to an exergy efficiency (εtot) are exhibited by eqs 14 and 15 for the
irreversible process and exergy loss. The relationship between system.
the increase of entropy and exergy destruction rate is shown in n
eq 7.49,50 Eẋ D,tot = ∑ Eẋ D,k
. k=1 (14)
̇
Ex D = T0Sgen (7)
̇ /(Eẋ Q )heater
εtot = Wnet (15)
The exergy efficiency in the production process of each
device is calculated by eq 8 4.4. Environmental Impact Analysis. To decrease the
.
Ex P emission of toxic and harmful gases to slow down the trend of
ε= global warming, environmental impact is becoming more and
Ex F (8) more important in the industrial process evaluation. Life cycle
In the research, it is hypothesized that the dynamics and assessment (LCA) first identifies and quantifies the con-
exergy in the equation are ignored. The specific exergy is sumption of raw materials, energy, and pollutant emission in
composed of chemical exergy and physical exergy, which can the whole life cycle. Then, the environmental damage caused
be obtained by eq 951,52 by these consumption and emission processes, and finally, the
feasibility of eliminating these damages are evaluated. When
e = e ch + e ph (9) analyzing the impact of system emissions on the environment,
53 the system boundary needs to be defined. The system
The specific physical exergy is demonstrated by eq 10
boundary is the interface between the system and the
e ph = (h − h0) − T0(S − S0) (10) environment, which is used to distinguish the environment
and elements contained in the system. The system boundary
The specific chemical exergy is demonstrated by eq 11 must be defined before further analysis.54,55
In this work, the system boundary diagram is shown in
e ch = ∑ xiei0 + G − ∑ xiGi (11) Figure 10. According to the international standard (ISO
16082 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
n n
140402006), the relevant life cycle assessment is evaluated for
each process.56
GWP = ∑ iSGWi = ∑ EFGWPi × AMTGGi
i=1 i=1 (19)
where iSGWi is the GWP of component i, EFGWPi is the
GWP correlation coefficient of component i, and AMTGGi is
the inventory analysis emission of component i.
AP is the acid gas emission that causes acid rain, acid fog,
and other harmful weather. The calculation method is shown
in eq 20.
n n
AP = ∑ ISAPi = ∑ EPAPi × AMTAPi
i=1 i=1 (20)
where ISAPi is the AP of component i, EPAPi is the AP
Figure 10. Extractive distillation separation process system boundary correlation coefficient of component i, and AMTAPi is the
diagram. inventory analysis emission of component i.
Human toxicity potential refers to the possibility of a human
being damaged in the environment of toxic substances. The
calculation method is shown in eq 21.
4.4.1. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. The definition of the
functional unit is realized by defining the system boundary.
HTP = ∑ εi × DQ HTP i
i (21)
The process of IPA dehydration extractive distillation was
analyzed by determining the system boundary with Gabi where εi is the human toxicity potential coefficient of
software. The data in and out of the system during the process component i and DQHTPi is the pollutant discharge in the
are shown in Table 3. inventory data of component i.
4.4.2. Evaluation Standard. The emission of global
warming potential (GWP), acid potential (AP), and human 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
toxicity potential (HTP) in each process is analyzed using Gabi The process of separating IPA and water by extractive
software. Both direct and indirect emissions are included in distillation with EG and the choline-based DESs was
environmental emissions. GWP mainly concentrates on CO2, compared. Their performances in TAC, exergy loss, and
CH4, and N2O, and CO2, CH4, and N2O are expressed by eqs environmental impact were discussed.
16, 17, and 18. 5.1. Economic Analysis. The TAC of the EED, CGED,
CO2 = CO2,direct + CO2,indirect CEED, and HPED processes was calculated. The detailed TAC
results are shown in Table 4.
5 6
= ∑ ∑ =ECi ,j(DCO ,j + ICO ,j)
2 2 Table 4. Total Annual Costs of Processes and Analysis
i=1 j=1 (16) Results
ch4 = ch4,direct + ch4,indirect item EG CGED CEED HPED
5 6 steam ($104/year) 20.657 12.686 13.944 8.301
= ∑ ∑ =ECi ,j(DCH ,j + ICH ,j) cooling water ($104/year) 0.778 0.474 0.502 0.275
4 4
i=1 j=1 (17) reboilers ($104) 10.527 8.353 7.728 9.998
condensers ($104) 7.007 9.802 5.056 2.692
heat exchangers ($104) 0.589
NO2 = NO2,direct + NO2,indirect
compress ($104) 5.778
5 6
columns ($104) 12.488 8.151 9.041 8.487
= ∑ ∑ =ECi ,j(DNO ,j + INO ,j)
2 2 AOC ($104/year) 21.435 13.160 14.446 10.870
i=1 j=1 (18) TCC ($104) 30.022 26.307 21.824 27.543
GWP refers to the impact of the greenhouse gas discharge TAC ($104/year) 31.442 21.929 21.721 20.051
on the global warming trend. Generally, the correlation TAC saving (%) 30.256 30.918 36.229
coefficient method is used for calculation, as shown in eq 19.

Table 3. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Data

EED CGED CEED HPED

component in out in out in out in out
water (kg) 300 299.53 300 299.79 300 299.42 300 299.37
IPA (kg) 700 699.48 700 699.79 700 699.37 700 699.41
EG (kg) 1800 282.37 282.37
ChCl (kg) 258.73 317.63 317.63
GI (kg) 341.27
energy (MJ) 4373.19 2626.67 2946.77 2662.44

16083 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 11. Stage-enthalpy deficit and stage-exergy loss.
Figure 12. Environmental impact analysis of the processes.
The TAC values of EED, CGED, CEED, and HPED were
314 424, 219 292, 217 206, and 200 509 $/year, respectively.
Compared with EED, the TAC of CGED, CEED, and HPED
decreased by 30.256, 30.918, and 36.229%, respectively.
16084
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
The amount of extractant in the CGED and CEED
processes using the choline-based DESs as extractants was
only 600 kg/h. Compared with EED using the traditional
single solvent EG as extractant, the annual operation cost was
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
reduced by 38.605 and 32.606%, respectively. The CEED
process saved 27.84% of the condenser cost, which reduced the
cost of the equipment. As shown in Figure 3, T2 needed to be
depressurized due to the high boiling point of GI in the CGED
process, so the cost of the condenser equipment has increased.
Due to the reduction of the amount of the extractant, the
throughput of T1 was correspondingly reduced, and the
required tower diameter was smaller, thereby saving 34.73 and
27.60% of the column cost, respectively.
Due to the high temperature of the extractant from the
bottom of T2, direct recycling will not only waste a lot of heat
but also consume a lot of condensed water, which is contrary
to the concept of energy saving and environmental impact. To
decrease the energy consumption, based on the CEED process,
the heat flow at the bottom of T2 is used to heat the feed, and
the heat pump process is added to T1. Although the
equipment cost of the HPED process has increased, the
consumption of steam and condensate has decreased
significantly. Compared with the CEED process, the TAC of
the HPED process has decreased by 7.688%.
5.2. Exergy Analysis. To further compare the EED,
CGED, CEED, and HPED processes, the stage-enthalpy deficit
and the stage-exergy loss in the separation process were
studied, as shown in Figure 11. Zhang et al.57 showed that the
higher the exergy loss, the lower the thermodynamic efficiency
and the more the energy consumed in the production process.
The accumulated heat and cooling demand of the column
stage are shown in the enthalpy loss in Figure 11a. The exergy
loss (see Figure 11b) was caused by the driving force or
entropy increase of the system, which included the loss of
momentum, change of chemical potential, and heat loss caused
by the mixture of materials at different temperatures. High
exergy loss leads to less available energy, which leads to
increased energy consumption and reduced thermodynamic
efficiency. The feed stream changes the concentration and
temperature distribution in the column, which affects the
exergy loss.
Due to a lot of fresh materials entering T1, the exergy loss is
mainly concentrated in T1, as shown in Figure 11b. The exergy
loss of T1 in the CGED, CEED, and HPED processes is
significantly less than that in the EED process. The number of
stages of the extractant recovery column in all processes is less,
so the feed has a greater impact on the concentration and
temperature distribution in the column, resulting in more
exergy loss. Especially, in T2 in the CGED process, because the
position of the feed stage is too low and close to the reboiler,
the exergy loss is very large, as shown in Figure 11b. In
contrast, the overall thermodynamic efficiencies of the CEED
and HPED processes are better. Among them, the HPED
process has the highest thermodynamic efficiency because it
makes better use of the heat in the process.
5.3. Environmental Impact Analysis. Equations 16, 17,
18, 19, and 20 are generally used for the life cycle evaluation of
the IPA dehydration process. As shown in Figure 12, compared
with the EED process, the GWP of the CGED and CEED
processes was decreased by 39.94 and 32.61%, respectively. It
showed that the separation of low-carbon alcohol azeotropes
with the choline-based DESs as extractants can effectively
reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, etc.), which is
of great significance for slowing down the global warming
trend.
In addition, the AP of the CGED and CEED processes was
also decreased by 39.94 and 32.61%, which can not only
16085
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
reduce the emission of acid gases (SO2, etc.) but also
contribute to the decrease of acid rain and acid fog.
Compared with the EED process, the HTP of the CGED
and CEED processes was decreased by 39.94 and 32.61%,
which showed that the separation of low-carbon alcohol
azeotrope with the choline-based DESs as extractants can
effectively reduce the potential toxicity of the process to the
human body and the environment, which is of great
significance for the realization of cleaner production.
The amount of various toxic and harmful emissions in the
HPED process is further reduced due to the effective use of its
own heat. The TAC of the CGED process is slightly higher,
but it performs best in environmental analysis due to its lower
operating cost.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the process of IPA−water azeotropic system
separation by extractive distillation with the choline-based
DESs as extractants was studied, and the HPED process was
designed based on the minimum TAC process. To show the
advantages of the choline-based DESs, all processes were
analyzed and compared on the basis of their TAC,
thermodynamic efficiency, and environmental impact.
1 Compared with the traditional single solvent, the CGED
and CEED processes with the choline-based DESs as
extractants can save a lot of equipment cost and energy
consumption, and the HPED process based on the
minimum TAC process can decrease energy consump-
tion by as much as 36.229%.
2 The thermodynamic efficiency of the new process was
obviously increased due to the decrease of the amount of
extractant used.
3 Due to the advantages of simple preparation and strong
biodegradability, the life cycle analysis (environmental
assessment) indexes GWP, AP, and HTP of the choline-
based DESs were significantly lower than those of the
traditional technology.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the choline-based DESs in
TAC, thermodynamic efficiency, and environmental impact
was better than that of the traditional organic solvent EG. This
indicates that the choline-based DESs have great potential in
performance and environmental protection and are expected to
replace traditional organic solvents in the future. This is of
great significance to the green, environmental protection and
sustainable development of the chemical industry.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794.
Scalar properties of ChCl (Table S1); thermophysical
parameters of ChCl (Table S2); basis of economics and
equipment sizing (Table S3) (PDF)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Yinglong Wang − College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao
University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R.
China; orcid.org/0000-0002-3043-0891;
Email: wangyinglong@qust.edu.cn
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Authors
Peizhe Cui − College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao
University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R.
China; orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-9287
Xingyi Liu − College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao
University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R.
China
Fei Zhao − College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University
of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R. China
Zhaoyou Zhu − College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao
University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R.
China
Lei Wang − Key Laboratory of Eco-Chemical Engineering,
Taishan Scholar Advantage and Characteristic Discipline Team
of Eco Chemical Process and Technology, College of Chemistry
and Molecular Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and
Technology, Qingdao 266042, P. R. China; orcid.org/0000-
0001-7275-4846
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Ω acentric
■ REFERENCES
(1) Wypych, G. Handbook of Solvents, Volume 2: Use, Health, and
Environment; ChemTec Publishing, 2014.
(2) Luyben, W. L. Economic Optimum Design of the Heteroge-
neous Azeotropic Dehydration of Ethanol. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012,
51, 16427−16432.
(3) Kiss, A. A.; Suszwalak, D. J. Enhanced bioethanol dehydration by
extractive and azeotropic distillation in dividing-wall columns. Sep.
Purif. Technol. 2012, 86, 70−78.
(4) Li, C.; Song, Y.; Fang, J.; Liu, Y.; Su, W.; Hu, Y. Separation
process of butanol-butyl acetate-methyl isobutyl ketone system by the
analysis to residual curve and the double effect pressure-swing
distillation. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 25, 274−277.
(5) Li, R.; Ye, Q.; Suo, X.; Dai, X.; Yu, H. Heat-Integrated Pressure-
Swing Distillation Process for Separation of a Maximum-Boiling
Azeotrope Ethylenediamine/Water. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 105,
1−15.
(6) Wang, Y.; Qi, P.; Yang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Gao, J.; Zhang, F.
Exploration of a heat-integrated pressure-swing distillation process
with a varied-diameter column for binary azeotrope separation. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 2019, 206, 1689−1705.
(7) Ma, K.; Pan, X.; Zhao, T.; Yang, J.; Zhu, Z.; Xu, D.; Wang, Y.
Dynamic Control of Hybrid Processes with Liquid-Liquid Extraction

■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 201808117, 21776145, and
21676152), the Talent Fund of Shandong Collaborative
Innovation Center of Eco-Chemical Engineering
(XTCXQN03), the State Key Laboratory Base of Eco-
Chemical Engineering (STHG1803), and the Taishan Scholar
Young Talent Program (No. tspn201909114).
for Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether Dehydration. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2018, 57, 13811−13820.
(8) Wu, Y.; Meng, D.; Yao, D.; Liu, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y.;
Gao, J. Mechanism Analysis, Economic Optimization, and Environ-
mental Assessment of Hybrid Extractive Distillation-Pervaporation
Processes for Dehydration of n-Propanol. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.
2020, 8, 4561−4571.
(9) Gupta, S.; Thorat, G. B.; Murthy, Z. V. Mixed Matrix PVA-GO-
TiO2 Membranes for the Dehydration of Isopropyl Alcohol by
Pervaporation. Macromol. Res. 2020, 28, 587−595.

■
(10) Liu, G.; Liu, S.; Ma, K.; Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Liu, G.; Jin, W.
Polyelectrolyte Functionalized Ti2CTx MXene Membranes for
ABBREVIATIONS Pervaporation Dehydration of Isopropanol/Water Mixtures. Ind.
AOC annual operation cost Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 4732−4741.
AP acid potential (11) Zhu, Z.; Yu, X.; Ma, Y.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; Cui, P.; Li, X.
Ė xP production exergy rate Efficient extractive distillation design for separating binary azeotrope
via thermodynamic and dynamic analyses. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020,
Ė xD exergy destruction 238, No. 116425.
Ė xF fuel exergy rate (12) Arifin, S.; Chien, I.-L. Design and Control of an Isopropyl
ExD,tot total exergy destruction Alcohol Dehydration Process via Extractive Distillation Using
ech specific chemical exergy Dimethyl Sulfoxide as an Entrainer. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47,
eph specific physical exergy 790−803.
e0i criterion chemical exergy of component i (13) Zhao, Y.; Ma, K.; Bai, W.; Du, D.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Gao, J.
G Gibbs free energy Energy-saving thermally coupled ternary extractive distillation process
GWP global warming potential by combining with mixed entrainer for separating ternary mixture
h0 criterion specific enthalpy containing bioethanol. Energy 2018, 148, 296−308.
(14) Lei, Z.; Li, C.; Chen, B. Extractive Distillation: A Review. Sep.
HTP human toxicity potential Purif. Rev. 2003, 32, 121−213.
LCA life cycle assessment (15) Lei, Z.; Dai, C.; Zhu, J.; Chen, B. Extractive distillation with
NF feed position of the column ionic liquids: A review. AIChE J. 2014, 60, 3312−3329.
NT number of stages (16) Lynn, S.; Hanson, D. N. Multieffect extractive distillation for
Q̇ heat transfer rate separating aqueous azeotropes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1986,
S0 standard molar entropy 25, 936−941.
Sgen entropy generation (17) Uyazán, A. M.; Gil, I. D.; Aguilar, J.; Rodríguez, G.; Caicedo, L.
T reaction temperature (K) A. Fuel grade ethanol production by extractive distillation: Process
TAC total annual cost simulation with glycerol (Engl. Transl.). Ing. Investig. 2006, 25, 45.
TB normal boiling point (18) Garciaherreros, P.; Gomez, J. M.; Gil, I. D.; Rodriguez, G.
Optimization of the Design and Operation of an Extractive
TCC total capital cost Distillation System for the Production of Fuel Grade Ethanol Using
T0 external temperature Glycerol as Entrainer. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 3977−3985.
ẇ power (19) Dai, Y.; Zheng, F.; Xia, B.; Cui, P.; Wang, Y.; Gao, J.
xi mole fraction of component i Application of Mixed Solvent To Achieve an Energy-Saving Hybrid
εtot total exergy efficiency Process Including Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Heterogeneous
ZC compression Azeotropic Distillation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 2379−2388.

16086 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
(20) Boli, E.; Dimou, E.; Voutsas, E. Separation of the isopropanol-
water azeotropic mixture using ionic liquids. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2018,
456, 77−83.
(21) Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, D.; Pan, F.; Dai, S.; Li,
W. Separation of 2-propanol and water azeotropic system using ionic
liquids as entrainers. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2016, 412, 94−100.
(22) Zhang, L.; Han, J.; Deng, D.; Ji, J. Selection of ionic liquids as
entrainers for separation of water and 2-propanol. Fluid Phase Equilib.
2007, 255, 179−185.
(23) Ma, S.; Shang, X.; Zhu, M.; Li, J.; Sun, L. Design, optimization
and control of extractive distillation for the separation of isopropanol-
water using ionic liquids. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 209, 833−850.
(24) Couling, D. J.; Bernot, R. J.; Docherty, K. M.; Dixon, J. K.;
Maginn, E. J. Assessing the factors responsible for ionic liquid toxicity
to aquatic organisms via quantitative structure-property relationship
modeling. Green Chem. 2006, 8, 82−90.
(25) Dong, K.; Liu, X.; Dong, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S. Multiscale
Studies on Ionic Liquids. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 6636−6695.
(26) Jaime, J. A.; Rodriguez, G.; Gil, I. D. Control of an Optimal
Extractive Distillation Process with Mixed-Solvents as Separating
Agent. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 9615−9626.
(27) Fang, P.; Yu, C.; Zeng, Z.; Xue, W. Design and optimization of
an acetic acid recovery system via extraction-distillation using an
isopropyl acetate plus isopropanol mixed solvent. Chem. Eng.
Commun. 2019, 21, 1−11.
(28) Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, H.; Qin, B.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, N.;
Wang, Y. Control of a Ternary Extractive Distillation Process with
Recycle Splitting Using a Mixed Entrainer. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018,
57, 339−351.
(29) Gontrani, L.; Plechkova, N. V.; Bonomo, M. In-Depth Physico-
chemical and structural investigation of a dicarboxylic acid/choline
chloride natural deep eutectic solvent (NADES): A Spotlight on the
Importance of a Rigorous Preparation Procedure. ACS Sustainable
Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 12536−12543.
(30) Altamash, T.; Amhamed, A. I.; Aparicio, S.; Atilhan, M.
Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study on High Pressure
Methane Solubility in Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2019, 58, 8097−8111.
(31) Shang, X.; Ma, S.; Pan, Q.; Li, J.; Sun, Y.; Ji, K.; Sun, L. Process
analysis of extractive distillation for the separation of ethanol−water
using deep eutectic solvent as entrainer. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2019,
148, 298−311.
(32) Zhang, L.; Lan, M.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Y. Vapor−Liquid Equilibria
for 2-Propanol Dehydration through Extractive Distillation Using
Mixed Solvent of Ethylene Glycol and Choline Chloride. J. Chem. Eng.
Data 2018, 63, 2825−2832.
(33) Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, D.; Lan, M. 2-Propanol
Dehydration via Extractive Distillation Using a Renewable Glycerol-
Choline Chloride Deep Eutectic Solvent: Vapor−Liquid Equilibrium.
J. Chem. Eng. Data 2017, 62, 872−877.
(34) Luo, H.; Bildea, C. S.; Kiss, A. A. Novel Heat-Pump-Assisted
Extractive Distillation for Bioethanol Purification. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2015, 54, 2208−2213.
(35) Mirza, N. R.; Nicholas, N. J.; Wu, Y.; Kentish, S. E.; Stevens, G.
W. Estimation of Normal Boiling Temperatures, Critical Properties,
and Acentric Factors of Deep Eutectic Solvents. J. Chem. Eng. Data
2015, 60, 1844−1854.
(36) Valderrama, J. O.; And, W. W.; Lazzus, J. A. Critical Properties,
Normal Boiling Temperature, and Acentric Factor of Another 200
Ionic Liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 1318−1330.
(37) Alvarez, V. H.; Valderrama, J. O. A modified Lydersen-Joback-
Reid method to estimate the critical properties of biomolecules.
Alimentaria 2004, 254, 55−66.
(38) Lydersen, A. L. Estimation of Critical Properties of Organic
Compounds, Report 3; University of Wisconsin, College of Engineer-
ing, Engineering Experimental Station: Madison, WI, 1955.
(39) Joback, K. K.; Reid, R. C. Estimation of Pure-Component
Properties from Group-Contributions. Chem. Eng. Commun. 1987, 57,
233−243.
16087
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
(40) Klamt, A.; Schuurmann, G. COSMO: a new approach to
dielectric screening in solvents with explicit expressions for the
screening energy and its gradient. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1993,
799−805.
(41) Lin, S.-T.; Sandler, S. I. A Priori Phase Equilibrium Prediction
from a Segment Contribution Solvation Model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2002, 41, 899−913.
(42) Naik, P. K.; Paul, S.; Banerjee, T. Liquid-Liquid Equilibria
measurements for the extraction of poly aromatic nitrogen hydro-
carbons with a low cost Deep Eutectic Solvent: Experimental and
theoretical insights. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 243, 542−552.
(43) Shah, M. R.; Yadav, G. D. Prediction of liquid-liquid equilibria
for biofuel applications by quantum chemical calculations using the
Cosmo-SAC method. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 13066−13075.
(44) Chen, Y.; Zhou, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, L. Screening solvents to
extract phenol from aqueous solutions by the COSMO-SAC model
and extraction process simulation. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2017, 451, 12−
24.
(45) Lin, S. T.; Wang, L. H.; Chen, W. L.; Lai, P. K.; Hsieh, C. M.
Prediction of miscibility gaps in water/ether mixtures using COSMO-
SAC model. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2011, 310, 19−24.
(46) Han, P. F.; She, J. J.; Xu, N.; Ding, J. Study on Salting-out
Separation and Industrialization of Tertiary-Butanol Aqueous
Solution with Potassium Carbonate. Chem. Ind. Eng. Prog. 2004, 23,
877−879.
(47) Eveloy, V.; Karunkeyoon, W.; Rodgers, P.; Alili, A. A. Energy,
exergy and economic analysis of an integrated solid oxide fuel cell -
gas turbine - organic Rankine power generation system. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2016, 41, 13843−13858.
(48) Douglas, J. M. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1988; Vol. 1110.
(49) Mehrpooya, M.; Vatani, A.; Sadeghian, F.; Ahmadi, M. H. A
novel process configuration for hydrocarbon recovery process with
auto-refrigeration system. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 42, 262−270.
(50) He, C.; You, F. Shale Gas Processing Integrated with Ethylene
Production: Novel Process Designs, Exergy Analysis, and Techno-
Economic Analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 11442−11459.
(51) Mehrpooya, M.; Ghorbani, B.; Mousavi, S. A. Integrated power
generation cycle (Kalina cycle) with auxiliary heater and PCM energy
storage. Energy Convers. Manage. 2018, 177, 453−467.
(52) Mehrpooya, M.; Mousavi, S. A. Advanced exergoeconomic
assessment of a solar-driven Kalina cycle. Energy Convers. Manage.
2018, 178, 78−91.
(53) Zhang, X.; Solli, C.; Hertwich, E. G.; Tian, X.; Zhang, S. Exergy
Analysis of the Process for Dimethyl Ether Production through
Biomass Steam Gasification. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 10976−
10985.
(54) Li, J. G.; Mei, M. Y.; Han, Y. L.; Hong, M. N.; Man, Y. Life
cycle cost assessment of recycled paper manufacture in China. J.
Cleaner Prod. 2020, 252, No. 119868.
(55) Man, Y.; Han, Y. L.; Liu, Y.; Lin, R. J.; Ren, J. Z. Multi-criteria
decision making for sustainability assessment of boxboard production:
A life cycle perspective considering water consumption, energy
consumption, GHG emissions, and internal costs. J. Environ. Manage.
2020, 255, No. 109860.
(56) Wang, Z.; Li, L.; Zhang, G. Life cycle greenhouse gas
assessment of hydrogen production via chemical looping combustion
thermally coupled steam reforming. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 179, 335−
346.
(57) Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Li, C.; Zeng, A. Heat-integrated pressure-
swing distillation process for separation of the maximum-boiling
azeotrope diethylamine and methanol. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng.
2018, 93, 644−659.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c02794
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 16077−16087