Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modelling solubility of CO 2 and hydrocarbon gas mixture in ionic liquid
([emim][FAP]) using ASPEN Plus
PII: S0167-7322(16)32222-X
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2016.09.071
Reference: MOLLIQ 6348
Please cite this article as: Bishwadeep Bagchi, SushmitaSati, Vidyasagar Shilapuram,
Modelling solubility of CO2 and hydrocarbon gas mixture in ionic liquid ([emim][FAP])
using ASPEN Plus, Journal of Molecular Liquids (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2016.09.071
This is a PDF le of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its nal form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could aect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
Chemical Engineering Department, National Institute of TechnologyWarangal.
IP
Telangana State-506 004, India
R
ABSTRACT - In the present study bubble point pressure, solubility and selectivity of CO2
SC
and Hydrocarbon mixture with [emim][FAP] as an ionic liquid has been studied by ASPEN
NU
Plus simulations. Ternary systems considered were CO2, [emim][FAP] and one of the
hydrocarbons (HC) viz., methane, ethane, propane, and butane. Peng Robinson equation of
MA
state with quadratic van der Waals (vdW) mixing rule model was chosen to perform the
of CO2/HC, and HC/[emim][FAP] were considered for this study. Results showed that, type
TE
of hydrocarbon (or carbon chain length) had a dominant effect on the selectivity of CO2 over
P
hydrocarbon. Selectivity of CH4 compared with other hydrocarbons is higher by more than
CE
one order of magnitude. Concentration of hydrocarbon in the feed stream of the ternary
system is the main deciding factor in addition to temperature in determining the solubility,
AC
bubble point pressure and phase transition from two phase liquid system to single liquid
phase.
Keywords: ASPEN Plus, Ionic liquids, Natural Gas, Carbon dioxide, Hydrocarbons,
Selectivity
* Corresponding Author
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction
Natural gas, which is a major source of energy, must satisfy certain specifications of
T
limit in the natural gas stream may lead to formation of dry ice during liquefaction process,
IP
gas hydrate formation during transportation, and reduction in the heating value [1-3].
R
Conventionally, the removal of CO2 from the natural gas or flue gas from any industrial
SC
stream is achieved by sending it through an absorber stripper combination in which a solvent
is utilized to selectively dissolve CO2 [4]. Conventional solvents such as mono ethanol amine
NU
(MEA), Selexol, etc. are employed for CO2 removal [1-2, 5]. The MEA process suffers from
MA
various drawbacks, hence, the use of ionic liquids (IL) as an alternative solvent is gaining
prominence [5-8]. Unique properties of ILs such as non-toxicity, high heat capacity, low
D
vapour pressure, high electroelasticity, non-flammability, high thermal and chemical stability
TE
has made it as an attractive alternative for the CO2 capture process [9-11].
The anionic part of the IL is primarily responsible for determining the solubility of
P
CO2 in ionic liquid. It has been observed that ILs with fluorous anions like [Tf2N-], [BF4-] and
CE
[PF6-] exhibit highest CO2 solubility [12]. A highly fluorinated IL with a large anion would
AC
be stable in presence of moisture and air [13]. A disadvantage of using Ionic Liquids with
temperatures it releases hydrofluoric acid (HF) which is a toxic and corrosive substance,
some of the fluorine atoms are replaced by the perflouroalkyl groups which help in increasing
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[emim][FAP] was chosen for this particular study. Since only carbon dioxide is to be
dissolved into the solvent, a high CO2 solubility coupled with a low affinity towards CH4 and
other hydrocarbons present in natural gas is required. Althuluth et. al. [16-19] experimentally
T
measured the bubble point pressure for a binary system comprising of [emim][FAP] with
IP
CO2, methane, ethane, propane and butane individually. Estimated ideal selectivities from
R
solubility data of CO2, methane, ethane, propane and butane with IL showed that CO2 was
SC
preferentially absorbed over hydrocarbons. However, above results showed that limited
amount of data is available covering a narrow temperature range between 300 K and 360 K.
NU
Typical natural gas is composed of methane with 80% mole fraction and above, along
MA
with other HCs namely ethane, propane, butane and pentane (below 10% mole fraction) and
hydrocarbons on CO2 and methane solubility and bubble point pressure. To the best of
TE
comprising of IL with CO2 and CH4 are available which have estimated the bubble point
P
CE
available for a limited temperature and mole fraction range. Also, to the authors knowledge,
AC
CO2 and C2H6 or CO2 with C3H8 or CO2 with C4H10. In addition, it is practically impossible
to study the solubilities of these hydrocarbons along with CO2 in ionic liquids experimentally
for a wide range. Hence, the motivation behind this work is to develop a model in Aspen Plus
that can provide the solubility, bubble point pressure data and selectivity of CO2 over
temperatures, and feed gas compositions. As a first step, the reported experimental data
available in the literature has been used to validate the adopted approach [20]. The binary
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Equilibrium (VLE) data available. These binary interaction parameters were used in
simulations to cover a wide range of temperature and composition. Since both CO2 and
hydrocarbon are competing for its solubility in the ionic liquid, effect of temperature and
T
molar ratios of CO2 to HC (x1/x2) and HC to IL (x2/x3) on bubble point pressure, solubility
IP
and selectivity has been studied for a wide range.
R
It should be noted that pure IL was considered while performing the simulations since
SC
the presence of impurities in the IL gives rise to various changes in its physical and chemical
properties which can change its stability and solubility. ILs with highly fluorinated anions
NU
such as FAP become unstable in the presence of water at high temperatures and can
MA
hydrolyze to form hydrogen fluoride [22]. The presence of moisture and halide content in IL
affects its viscosity [23]. An IL with higher viscosity exhibits comparatively lower absorption
D
and desorption rates [16]. The presence of chlorides drastically increases the viscosity of IL
TE
while the presence of water reduces it. The halides present in the ILs may also increase its
corrosive ability [24]. Hence, while attempting to reproduce these simulation results
P
2. Thermodynamic modelling
Peng Robinson Equation of State (PR EOS) has been applied to model the thermodynamic
where P is the pressure, T is temperature, is the mixture molar volume, a and b are
constants contributing for molecular interaction and co-volume, and R is the universal gas
constant. This equation of state can be applied to a single species or a mixture. However, in
the case of a mixture, different mixing rules may be adopted in estimation of 'a' and 'b'. In
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
present study the quadratic van der Waals (vdW) mixing rule as presented below were
adopted.
T
IP
with
R
SC
NU
Here, and are the binary interaction parameters, and are pure component
As mentioned above, the main objective of this work is to determine the bubble point
TE
pressures for systems of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrocarbon (viz. Methane, Ethane, Propane
P
and Butane) in an IL. Also, the vapour phase and liquid phase compositions at the calculated
CE
Aspen Pluss model library offers the option of carrying out VLE calculations by
AC
choosing FLASH2 or FLASH3 block. Flash3 block is employed to perform rigorous three
solved using this column [26]. As an input to the block (FLASH3), two out of the four given
specifications need to be provided: flash temperature, flash pressure, heat duty, and the
fraction of the feed vaporized to perform equilibrium calculations. It solves the appropriate
material, energy balance and equilibrium equations depending on the input provided. Within
the range of temperatures chosen and with the selected equation of state, for the ternary
system considered, it was observed to have a maximum of three phases (a vapour phase and
two liquid phases). Hence, Flash3 block was chosen for performing the simulations. By
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
providing the initial flow rates of CO2, CH4 and IL to the flash column at the chosen
temperature and setting the vapour fraction of the FLASH3 unit available in separators of
model pallet in simulation environment to zero, bubble point pressures were computed [27].
T
ASPEN Plus (Version 8.4) was employed to perform the thermodynamic modelling of
IP
the CO2+HC+IL ternary system. Each simulation was carried out by considering a different
R
hydrocarbon each time along with Carbon Dioxide and Ionic Liquid. CO2 and Hydrocarbon
SC
were specified in the component specifications of ASPEN Plus. [emim][FAP] component is
not available in the inbuilt data banks of ASPEN Plus. Molecular structure and functional
NU
groups of [emim][FAP] were provided as an input to specify this compound. Peng Robinson
MA
equation of state (EOS) with quadratic mixing rule (VLMXQUAD) was chosen.
For each binary system of CO2 + IL and HC+IL, the binary interaction parameters
D
required for PR EOS modelling were obtained by regressing the binary vapour liquid
TE
equilibrium (VLE) data extracted from Althuluth et.al [16-19]. The VLE data for the
CO2-IL system was regressed to obtain the first binary interaction parameter, kij(kij= kji), with
P
both single temperature dependant term and also with two temperature dependant terms. It
CE
was observed that using two temperature dependant terms gave a lower root mean square
AC
error (RMSE) value. A second binary interaction parameter lij with a single temperature
independent term was also used to correct the volume of mixing [16]. For the HC-IL system,
the binary interaction parameter kij with single temperature dependant term and lij with a
single temperature independent term was fitted to the VLE data. RMSE value of less than 5%
was obtained when both kij and lij were used. Binary interaction parameters obtained are
fraction of inlet feed components of 0.01K, 0.003MPa, and 0.005 respectively are considered
for regression of binary interaction parameters. Critical properties of the hydrocarbons were
taken from literature [28] while the critical properties for the IL were taken from the values
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
estimated by Althuluth et.al using the modified group contribution method of Lydersen-
Joback-Reid [30].
The flowsheet developed for modelling the ternary system is shown in Fig. 1.
T
FLASH3 column with two inlet streams and three outlet streams were chosen. One of the
IP
inlet streams carried the feed gas mixture of CO2 and HC while the other stream carried the
R
solvent (IL). The temperatures of each stream and of the FLASH3 column were set to the
SC
same value. Vapour fraction in the FLASH3 block was set to 0 to calculate the bubble point
pressure [27]. This means that the out let vapour stream of FLASH3 does not carry any
NU
material and all the feed entering into the FLASH3 i.e. CO2+HC+IL flow exists in the liquid
MA
phase. The block pressure and the compositions of all components in the streams leaving the
block were tabulated. A calculator block was employed to calculate the selectivity.
D
Reason for choosing FLASH3 column is to explore the possibility of extending our
TE
future work. For this ternary system there is a possibility that at some conditions more than
P
one liquid phase (two immiscible liquid phases) may form, Since FLASH3 has one outlet
CE
vapour stream and two outlet liquid streams, it can identify all the phases but not FLASH2
AC
4. Design of Experiment
In real time situation, ionic liquid is chosen to maximize the CO2 solubility and minimise the
HC solubility. Hence, molar feed ratio of input streams decides the extent of solubility/bubble
[emim][FAP] was observed. The lowest solubility observed was around 0.01. Hence, HC/IL
ratio (x2/x3) was varied from 0.01 to 0.8 to cover the entire spectrum. In order to investigate
the relative effect of mole flows of HC on CO2 solubility, the carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ratio (x1/x2) was varied from 0.1 to 10. This was done so that both the cases where the molar
flow rate of hydrocarbon is more than the molar flow rate of carbon dioxide and vice versa
can be observed. These values of x1/x2 and x2/x3 were solved to yield the mole fractions of
T
individual CO2, HC and IL in the feed stream. These mole fractions obtained were multiplied
IP
by 100 so that to choose 100 kmol/time as the total molar flow rate as the basis which were
R
then multiplied by 100(basis) to make the total input mole flow of ternary system
SC
(CO2+HC+IL) to 100 kmol/time as the basis. 'x1/x2' ranging from 0.1 to 10 comprising of 9
different values and x2/x3 ranging from 0.01 to 0.8 comprising of 13 different values resulted
NU
in 117 cases. The design matrix of input molar flow rates considering the above broad range
MA
of mole ratios chosen is shown in the Table S1 of the Supporting Information. Corresponding
design matrix is also depicted in Fig.2. Temperature range was chosen to be from 183.15 K
D
to 493.15 K. A lower range of 183.15 K was chosen as neither any hydrocarbon nor carbon
TE
dioxide remains in vapour phase at temperatures lower than it. Upper limit temperature of
493.15 K was chosen since IL begins to decompose from this temperature onwards [16].
P
The values of molar flow rates of CO2, HC and IL along with the flash temperature
CE
was provided as input to the FLASH3 column of ASPEN in the simulation environment. The
AC
bubble point pressures along with the liquid and vapour phase compositions, and selectivity
where and respectively denote the gas phase and liquid phase composition of the
respective component 'i'. Both of these compositions are computed using the PR EOS. This
relation takes into consideration the non idealities present in the system. Please read
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
The above adopted methodology was verified by implementing it to the experimental
IP
conditions of Ramdin et.al [20] and validating their results. In their study, bubble point
R
pressure of CO2, CH4 and IL ternary system was determined for three different ionic liquids
SC
viz., [bmim][Tf2N], [emim][dep], and [thtdp][dca]. Three different CO2/CH4 ratios (x1/x2)
with variations in CH4/IL ratio (x2/x3) for temperatures between 300 K and365 K were
NU
considered to determine the bubble point pressures.
MA
Figure 3 shows the validation of the experimental results with the present simulation
methodology for all the ionic liquids chosen by Ramadin et al. [20] in terms of parity plots.
Please read pressure as bubble point pressure throughout including in tables and figures.
D
TE
In other words, pressure and bubble point pressure is used interchangeably. It was observed
that for the system of CO2 + CH4 + [emim][dep], simulated values are in close agreement
P
with the experimental values, with a deviation within 5%. Whereas for the system of CO2 +
CE
CH4 + [bmim][Tf2N] and for CO2 + CH4 + [thtdp][dca], the error % between experimental
AC
and predicted were within 15% and 10% respectively. Upon observation of all these parity
plots, it can be seen that for only the experimental data points corresponding to the higher
values of x2/x3 i.e.0.201 in the case of [bmim][Tf2N] and of 0.174 in the case of [thtdp][dca]
resulted in large deviation. Otherwise, the deviation between experimental and predicted
might have been well within 5%. Thus, it may be concluded that the applied ASPEN Plus
methodology with FLASH3 block can be adopted in our present study with the chosen IL of
[emim][FAP] with different gas mixture of CO2 with HC (either methane or ethane or
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As the next step, comparison was made between the ILs chosen by Ramdin et.al [20]
with [emim][FAP] in terms of bubble point pressures at same conditions of temperature and
compositions for the CO2, CH4 and IL ternary system. It was observed that [emim][FAP] has
T
the lowest bubble point pressure as compared to their ionic liquids as shown in Fig. 4. This
IP
establishes the superiority of [emim][FAP] over other ILs in terms of ease of solubility.
R
After validating the present simulation methodology with the experimental conditions
SC
as discussed above, same methodology was extended to the ternary system of CO2 + HC +
[emim][FAP] for a wide range of compositions and temperatures. Each time HC considered
NU
was either one of methane/ethane/propane/butane. Hence, individually simulations were run
MA
by considering one hydrocarbon at a time for the ternary system and the respective solubility,
bubble point pressure and selectivity was calculated for a set of x1/x2 and x2/x3 at a particular
D
value of temperature. At this condition of x1/x2 and x2/x3 simulations were repeated for
TE
different temperatures so as to cover broad temperature range from the highest melting point
'xi' stands for input mole fraction of component 'i' into the FLASH3 column. Subscript 1, 2,
and 3 stands for CO2, HC, and IL respectively. Individually each simulation was performed
for a given CO2+HC+IL ternary system for all 117 cases of Table S1 of supporting
information for all hydrocarbons. Each simulation at a given composition (fixed value of
x1/x2 and x2/x3) was run from the lowest possible temperature of -183.15K to 473.15K with a
CO2+HC+IL ternary system exists in single liquid phase for all the molar ratios considered in
this study for all hydrocarbons. Data highlighted in red colour shows that for that particular
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
hydrocarbon, under those particular molar ratios, single liquid phase was not observed in the
chosen temperature range (183.15 to 493.15 K). It has been noticed that depending on the
composition (x1/x2 and x2/x3), at lower temperatures, simulations showed that there were two
T
different liquid phases. With further increase in temperature, the ternary system appears in a
IP
single liquid phase from two different liquid phases. Table S2 shows that the temperature
R
range from lowest possible to highest possible temperature in which single liquid phase
SC
existed was depending on the x1/x2, x2/x3, and type of hydrocarbon (or equivalently carbon
NU
progress for the ternary systems considered in this study, hence, those results are not
MA
presented here. Since the objective of the present study is to find the solubility, bubble point
pressure and selectivity, the molar ratios (x1/x2 and x2/x3) and temperature range in which
D
only single liquid phase exists is considered for this study. Out of the 117 cases of Table S1,
TE
the operable mole ratios (x1/x2 and x2/x3) and temperature ranges that were common to all the
hydrocarbons in which only one liquid phase exists is provided in Table S2 of Supporting
P
Information. Hence, in the present study, results corresponding to these conditions (x1/x2,
CE
x2/x3, and temperature range) are presented from Fig. 5 onwards. Therefore, caution is to be
AC
noticed that all the results presented from Fig.5 is when the ternary system is in single liquid
phase. The respective molar flow rates corresponding to different set of x 1/x2 and x2/x3 can be
Figure 5 shows the bubble point pressure estimation as a function of temperature for a
particular composition (i.e. at fixed value of x1/x2 for various x2/x3). Each curve in fig. 5 is
with increase in x2/x3. As the ratio of x2/x3 increases, the difference between the mole
fractions of CH4 and IL decreases. Therefore, for a particular x1/x2, the effect of change of
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
x2/x3 is much less pronounced on the mole fraction of carbon dioxide as compared to the
mole fractions of HC and IL. This can be noticed from the Table S1. Therefore, mole
fractions of HC and IL become dominant factors in deciding the bubble point pressure of the
T
system. Consecutively, the effect of mole fraction of carbon dioxide on the bubble point
IP
pressure is less. In other words, for a system of carbon dioxide and methane, carbon dioxide
R
gets completely dissolved into the IL at a pressure much lower than that at which CH4 gets
SC
dissolved.
NU
with increase in temperature. This monotonic behaviour (Type-1) is observed till a particular
MA
value of x2/x3 (up to 0.3). Beyond this particular x2/x3 of 0.3, different trends of variation of
bubble point pressure with temperature is noticed. Increase in bubble point pressure to a peak
D
value at lower temperatures followed by decrease in bubble point pressure for further
TE
increase in temperature was observed (for the case of x2/x3 of 0.4 and 0.5). As the relative
difference between the mole fractions of x2 and x3 diminishes, the pressures required to
P
pressure. This behaviour, noticed for the cases of x2/x3 at 0.4 and 0.5 was not at all observed
for all other x1/x2 ranging from 0.1 to 10 except for x1/x2=0.33. For x2/x3=0.6, bubble point
pressure was not calculated in the complete temperature range because below 440.15 K two
liquid phases were observed as discussed in discussion w.r.to Table S2. The bubble point
pressure decreased with increase in temperature beyond this temperature. Reason is, once the
single liquid phase starts, with increase in temperature the solubility of both HC and CO2
might be increasing causing to decrease in bubble point pressure. This behaviour of decrease
in bubble point pressure with temperature beyond particular value of x 2/x3 (Type-2) is not
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
noticed for the methane at all other x1/x2s but only upto x1/x2 of 0.5 (Refer Figure S1 of the
supporting information).
Selectivity of the CO2/CH4 system has been calculated by using the Eq. (4). These
T
were calculated at different molar ratios (x1/x2 and x2/x3) for a wide temperature range. Since
IP
the objective is to maximize the solubility of CO2 and minimize the solubility of HC, this
R
study will give an idea of the temperature and molar flows that can maximize the selectivity.
SC
Higher the selectivity better is the CO2 removal over hydrocarbon with an IL.
NU
x1/x2 for CO2+CH4+[emim][FAP] ternary system. As temperature is increased, it can be seen
MA
that selectivity of CO2 over CH4 decreases. This is expected as bubble point pressures
increased with increase in temperature. As temperature is increased, the mole fraction of CH4
D
in vapour phase decreases while the mole fraction of CO2 in vapour phase increases because
TE
of temperature affect on relative solubility of CH4 and CO2. This contributes to a decrease in
selectivity of CO2 over CH4. It can also be observed that effect of x1/x2 is negligible
P
compared to temperature. Results show that for a particular x2/x3, the selectivity is mostly
CE
dependent on the temperature of the system as compared to x1/x2. Selectivity values changed
AC
by almost two order of magnitudes when the temperature is changed from 183.15 to 493.15
K.
For lower temperatures, higher values of selectivity are observed. Hence, the natural
gas separation process from CO2 should be conducted at lowest temperatures for maximum
separation. Comparison of all the results at different x2/x3 showed that for smaller values of
x2/x3(from 0.01 to 0.05), selectivity values do not differ with change in composition, at a
particular temperature (Refer Figure S2 of the supporting information). As the ratio of x2/x3 is
gradually increased, selectivity decreases significantly. Even at higher values of x2/x3 for
temperatures above, say 280K, selectivity values do not change much by changing x1/x2.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 7 shows the bubble point isopleths of the ternary system as a function of temperature at
T
x1/x2=0.33 for different x2/x3 for CO2+C2H6+[emim][FAP] ternary system. A trend similar to
IP
the CO2+CH4+[emim][FAP] system is observed for the bubble point pressure verses
R
temperature behaviour (Type-1 & 2). For a constant ratio of CO2/C2H6, pressure increases
SC
with increase in temperature till a certain ratio of C2H6/IL, after which pressure starts
decreasing with increase in temperature. However, the value of x2/x3 (in this case 0.4 whereas
NU
0.3 when HC as CH4) at which this transition takes place may be different for different
MA
hydrocarbons.
x2/x3=0.04 for different x1/x2 for CO2+C2H6+[emim][FAP] ternary system. This shows that at
TE
a given x1/x2 selectivity increases with increase in temperature to a particular value followed
increase in x1/x2 at a given temperature and its effect is dominant at lower temperature. As
CE
the temperature increases, selectivity at different x1/x2s is almost approaching each other.
AC
about 5.5 with a minimum of about 1.5 has been noticed for the entire temperature change
studied.
Fig. 9 shows the bubble point isopleths of the ternary system as a function of temperature at
x1/x2=0.33 for different x2/x3 for CO2+C3H8+[emim][FAP] ternary system. CO2 + C3H8
system follows a trend similar to the previous hydrocarbon (C2H6) i.e. two types of
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the mole fractions of C3H8 and IL become close to each other, pressure starts decreasing with
increase in temperature.
T
Fig. 10 shows the selectivity of the ternary system as a function of temperature at
IP
x2/x3=0.5 for different x1/x2 for CO2+C3H8+[emim][FAP] ternary system. At lower
R
temperatures, selectivity increases with increase in temperature and reaches a peak value and
SC
then starts decreasing with increase in temperature. This could be due to the fact that C3H8
has a boiling point of 231.15 K and at such low temperatures; it remains in liquid state which
NU
results in this opposite trend. At very low temperatures, selectivity is less than 1, implying
MA
that C3H8 is more soluble as compared to CO2 in IL. Temperature is not the only factor that
affects solubility for this system but mole fractions of HC and IL are also contributing factors
D
to the solubility. Maximum selectivity of about 1.3 with a minimum of about 0.7 has been
TE
noticed for the entire temperature change studied. Temperatures between 250K to 300 K. this
Fig. 11 shows the bubble point isopleths of the ternary system as a function of temperature at
x1/x2=0.33 for different x2/x3 for CO2+C4H10+[emim][FAP] ternary system. Two types of
behaviour similar to the other hydrocarbons is noticed in this case where pressure increases
with temperature for a constant x2/x3. As similar to C3H8 + CO2 system, for larger values of
x2/x3, starting from 0.4, pressure starts decreasing with increase in temperature.
with increase in temperature. Also, selectivity of CO2 over C4H10 is less than one, implying
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
that C4H10 is preferentially more soluble in the IL compared to Carbon dioxide. As the
x2/x3 ratio (Refer supporting information). As more amount of C4H10 is sent as compared to
T
carbon dioxide, the difference between the mole fractions of C4H10 and IL fades, selectivity
IP
gets enhanced and crosses 1 at combinations of some higher values of C4H10/IL and high
R
temperatures. Crossing a value of 1 for selectivity implies that carbon dioxide is now more
SC
soluble in the ionic liquid as compared to butane which is desired in most scenarios. Hence to
achieve such a condition, temperatures higher than 400 K and x2/x3 ratio of 0.2 or more is
required.
NU
MA
5.6 Comparison of CO2+HC+IL system
D
pentane) and impurities such as CO2, H2S, and nitrogen compounds. Hence, individually
solubility, bubble point pressure and selectivity studies have been studied for a ternary system
P
considering two gases, one of which is CO2 and the other being HC in [emim][FAP].
CE
Comparison of these ternary systems would give an idea of the scenario when all the gases
AC
are present together in the natural gas for the removal of CO2.
system as a function of temperature at x1/x2=0.1 for different x2/x3 (for a particular inlet feed
composition). Fig. 5 to 10 spans for all hydrocarbons from methane to butane as one of the
component in the ternary system. For all hydrocarbons, at lower values of x2/x3, pressure
till a particular value of x2/x3. That particular value of x2/x3 may be different for different
hydrocarbons and for different x1/x2. Beyond this particular x2/x3, only for CH4 at x1/x2=0.33,
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
different trend of variation of bubble point pressure with temperature is noticed. The reason
It can be observed from fig. 13 that decrease in bubble point pressure is noticed after a
T
particular value of x2/x3. Beyond this x2/x3, it can be noticed that bubble point pressures are
IP
not applicable for entire region when all HCs are considered together. For example, for
R
x2/x3=0.5 bubble point pressure is obtained for narrower temperature range as the HC is
SC
moving from methane to butane (also refer Table S2). Recall that all the results presented in
this fig. belongs to a single liquid phase, since at lower temperatures in which data is not
NU
reported corresponds to two liquid phase region. Results imply that the type of hydrocarbon
MA
plays a significant role.The reason for decrease in bubble point pressure with temperature at
higher x2/x3 is as follows. At a given x2/x3, for fixed x1/x2 (fixed composition) and type of
D
hydrocarbon, just below this temperature there were two liquid phases existing. Hence, high
TE
pressures are required for higher x2/x3 (since x2 is HC) to let the HC solubilise in the IL. Once
the single liquid phase starts, with increase in temperature the solubility of both HC and CO2
P
might be increasing causing to decrease in bubble point pressure. All these observations are
CE
attributed to the hydrocarbon chain length and different levels of interactions among the
AC
ternary system at prevailing conditions i.e., molar compositions and temperature. This
particular value of x2/x3 beyond which this behaviour noticed is different for different
hydrocarbons.
However, immaterial which type of hydrocarbon it is, this behaviour of two different
trends (Type-1 & 2) of one trend of increase in bubble point pressure with temperature at
lower x2/x3 followed by decrease in bubble point pressure with temperature at higher values
of x2/x3is noticed only up to x1/x2 of 0.75. Beyond x1/x2 of 0.75 for all hydrocarbons which
there were monotonic increase (systematic trends) in bubble point pressure with increase in
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
temperature i.e., only type-1 behaviour (Refer FigureS1, S3, S5 and S7 of supporting
information).
T
system as a function of temperature at x2/x3=0.2 for different x1/x2. Selectivity of the CO2/HC
IP
system has been calculated by using the Eq. (4). Since objective is to maximize the solubility
R
of CO2 and minimize the solubility of HC, this study will give an idea of temperature and
SC
molar flows that can be chosen to maximize the selectivity. Higher the selectivity better is the
NU
Upon comparison of fig. 14 for all HCs, at a given x1/x2 and x2/x3 (molar composition
MA
of the feed stream is fixed), it can be observed that different profiles of selectivity variations
have been noticed with change in temperature. That is, monotonic decrease with methane as
D
HC, increase followed by decrease with ethane or propane as HC and monotonic increase
TE
with butane as HC. In addition, at a particular molar composition and temperature, there is
drastic difference in selectivity of CO2 with methane compared to CO2 with ethane, propane
P
and butane. Quite high values of selectivity are noticed with methane compared to other HC.
CE
These significant differences in trends and values could be attributed to the carbon chain
AC
length or type of hydrocarbon and prevailing conditions such as molar composition and
temperature. The fig. 14 also confirms that this IL can solubilise more CO2 compared to CH4
that of CO2. In natural gas CH4 is more than 80% mole fraction and relatively lesser amounts
of other hydrocarbons are present, therefore, results show that this IL can be justified for
supporting information (Fig. S1 to S8), the best possible molar ratios and operating
temperatures for better separation can be obtained. In addition, for a particular ternary system
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
it can be noticed that temperature has a dominant effect on the selectivity in addition to nature
In the ternary system, both HC and CO2 will be competing simultaneously to dissolve
T
in the IL. However, the interactions among the components of the ternary system at different
IP
conditions of molar composition, and system temperature play an important role. Thus the
R
ideal selectivity calculated from individual binary system of CO2+IL and HC+IL may be
SC
different from real case scenario of ternary CO2+HC+IL system. Fig. 13 and 14 shows the
comparisons of hydrocarbons from individual subplots of each hydrocarbon as one of the two
solutes.
NU
MA
Figure 15 shows the effect of hydrocarbons on bubble point pressure at constant
composition (x1/x2 and x2/x3) and constant temperature. It can be observed from the figure
D
that bubble point pressure for CO2+CH4+IL system is substantially higher than the bubble
TE
point pressures of other CO2+HC+IL system. This difference consistently declines as the
temperature is raised with increase in selectivity (Refer Table S9 to S17). For low x2/x3, at
P
higher temperatures (more than 400 K) the bubble point pressures of all the CO2+HC+IL
CE
become almost equal. Higher hydrocarbons are more soluble in the IL as compared to lower
AC
hydrocarbons. As explained previously and from these results, bubble point pressure is
(x1/x2 and x2/x3) and constant temperature. It can be observed from the figure that selectivity
for CO2+CH4+IL system is substantially higher than the selectivity of other CO2+HC+IL
system (Refer Table S18 to S20 of Supporting Information). This difference consistently
selectivity between CH4 compared to other HC over CO2 is noticed at lower temperature but
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
at higher temperatures, though the selectivity is higher for CH4 compared to other HC over
T
5.7 Henrys Constant and Ideal Selectivity
IP
Henry's constant can be defined for a binary system as
R
SC
where is the fugacity of the solute '1' in solvent '2' and is the mole fraction of solute '1'
NU
in solvent. can be estimated by employing a suitable equation of state with the assumption
that only pure solute is present in the vapour phase and applying the equilibrium condition of
MA
= .
liquid. Lower the value of Henry's constant, higher is its solubility. For the present analysis,
TE
where is the fugacity of the solute in vapour phase, is the mole fraction of solute
dissolved in solvent, P is the bubble point pressure, H21 is the Henry's constant of gas in the
solvent at the liquid saturation pressure, is the partial molar volume of the gas at infinite
dilution, R is the Universal Gas Constant, and T is the absolute temperature. Here, the solvent
[emim][FAP] has a negligible vapour pressure [31]. Hence, the saturated vapour pressure
was considered as zero and can be taken as the fugacity of pure solute.
the slope of the line yields the value of , while the intercept is . During simulations,
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the value of fugacity was directly obtained for each of the cases by defining a suitable
property set and adding it in sensitivity analysis in order to obtain its value for each of the
cases.
T
The values of the Henrys constant obtained for this system obtained by simulations
IP
are compared against the experimental values provided by Althuluth et. al [17-19] in Table
R
2. It may be observed that deviations of the simulated values of Henrys constant from the
SC
reported values in literature are negligible.
Ideal selectivity can be calculated from the obtained values of Henry's Constants.
hydrocarbons as a function of temperature. The trends observed in all these plots are similar
to the trends observed for variation in Real Selectivity with temperature which is shown in
AC
Fig 14. The range of values taken by both real selectivity and ideal selectivity for a particular
hydrocarbon are almost identical. Variations in their actual values at a particular temperature
occur since real selectivity is dependent on the composition of the system and takes into
6. Conclusions
Peng Robinson equation of state with quadratic van der Waals (vdW) mixing rule model
was chosen with FLASH3 block to estimate the bubble point pressure, solubility and
selectivity of various ternary systems with methane, ethane, propane, and butane as one
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of the component with CO2 in an ionic liquid [emim][FAP] using ASPEN Plus
simulations with an accuracy of less than 15% in measurement of bubble point pressure
Adopted methodology has been verified within reasonable accuracy of 15% with the
T
experimental data of the reported literature pertaining to solubility of the CO2 and CH4
IP
gas mixture in three ILs ([bmim][Tf2N], [emim][dep], and [thtdp][dca]) which were
R
different from the IL chosen for the present study
SC
At a given CO2 to HC ratio from 0.01 to 0.75, two types of behaviour in bubble point
NU
ratio followed by decrease in bubble point pressure with increase in temperature at
MA
higher CH4 to IL ratio is noticed for all four ternary systems considered. Whereas beyond
0.75 of CO2 to HC ratio only increase in bubble point pressure with temperature is
D
Type of hydrocarbon (or carbon chain length) had a dominant effect on the selectivity of
Selectivity of CH4 as compared to other hydrocarbons is higher in more than one order of
Concentration of hydrocarbon in the ternary system is the major factor deciding the
phase transition from two phase liquid system to single liquid phase, solubility and
bubble point pressure, temperature being the second major factor for the same.
Nomenclature
a Constant
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
b Constant
HC Hydrocarbon (methane/ethane/propane/butane)
T
IL Ionic Liquid
IP
kii,kij,kji,kjj Binary interaction parameters
R
lii, ljj Binary interaction parameters
SC
P Pressure
T Temperature in K
D
VLE Vapour-Liquid-Equilibrium
TE
Vm Molar volume
Subscript
AC
i Component i (i=1 for CO2, i=2 for CH4/C2H6/C3H8/C4H10, i=3 for IL)
Superscript
R Real
References
[1] B. Guo, A. Ghalambor, Natural Gas Engineering Handbook, Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston, 2005.
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Loos, Solubility of CO2and CH4in Ionic Liquids: Ideal CO2/CH4Selectivity, Ind. Eng.
T
[4] Tennyson, R. N.; Schaaf, R. P., Guidelines can help choose proper process for gas-
IP
treating plants, Oil Gas J. 75 (1977) 78 86.
R
[5] Ramdin, M.; de Loos, T. W.; Vlugt, T. J. H. State-of-the-Art of CO2 Capture with Ionic
SC
Liquids, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 8149 8177.
[6] D.M. DAlessandro, B. Smit, J.R. Long Angew. Carbon dioxide capture: prospects for
NU
new materials. Chem. Int. Ed., 49 (2010)60586082
MA
[7] F. Karadas, M. Atilhan, S. Aparicio, Review on the use of ionic liquids (ILs) as
alternative fluids for CO2 capture and natural gas sweetening, Energy Fuels, 24
D
(2010)58175828
TE
[8] S. Kumar, J.H. Cho, I. Moon, Ionic liquid-amine blends and CO2 BOLs: Prospective
solvents for natural gas sweetening and CO2 capture technology-A review, Int. J.
P
[10] Z. Lei, C. Dai, X. Liu, L. Xiao, B, Chen Extension of the UNIFAC model for ionic
[11] M. Wlazo, E.I. Alevizou, E.C. Voutsas, U. Domanska, Prediction of ionic liquids
(2015) doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2015.08.032
[12] C. Cadena, J.L. Anthony, J.K. Shah, T.I. Morrow, J.F. Brennecke, E.J. Maginn, Why
is CO2 so Soluble in Imidazolium-Based Ionic Liquids?, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126 (2004)
5300-5308.
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[13] M.J. Muldoon, S.N.V.K. Aki, J.L. Anderson, J.K. Dixon, J.F. Brennecke, Improving
[14] A. P. de los Rios , Francisco Jose Hernandez Fernandez, Ionic Liquids in Separation
T
Technology, Elsevier Science Ltd, 2014
IP
[15] N. V. Ignatev, U. Welz-Biermann, A. Kucheryna, G. Bissky, H. Willner, New ionic
R
liquids with tris(perfluoroalkyl)trifluorophosphate (FAP) anions, J. Fluorine. Chem. 126
SC
(2005) 1150-1159.
[16] Mamoun A. M. Althuluth, Natural Gas Sweetening Using Ionic Liquids, PhD Thesis,
NU
Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2014.
MA
[17] M. Althuluth, M.C. Kroon, C.J. Peters, Solubility of Methane in the Ionic Liquid 1-
[18] M. Althuluth, M.T. Mota-Martinez, M.C. Kroon, C.J. Peters, Solubility of Carbon
[19] M. Althuluth, M.T. Mota-Martinez, A. S. Berrouk, M.C. Kroon, C.J. Peters, Removal
AC
of Small Hydrocarbons (Ethane, Propane, Butane) from Natural Gas Streams using the
T.W. deLoos, T.J.H. Vlugt, Computing bubble-points of CO2/CH4 gas mixtures in ionic
liquids from Monte Carlo simulations, Fluid Phase Equilib., 418 (2016) 100-107.
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[22] R. Quinn, J.B. Appleby, G.P. Pez, Hydrogen sulfide separation from gas streams
using salt hydrate chemical absorbents and immobilized liquid membranes, Separation
T
[23] R. Seddon Kenneth, A. Stark, M.-J. Torres, Influence of chloride, water, and organic
IP
solvents on the physical properties of ionic liquids, in: Pure and Applied Chemistry,
R
(2000) 2275.
SC
[24] M. Uerdingen, C. Treber, M. Balser, G. Schmitt, C. Werner, Corrosion behaviour of
[25]
NU
D.-Y. Peng, D.B. Robinson, A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng.
MA
Chem.Fundam., 15 (1976) 59-64.
[26] Ralph Schefflan, Teach Yourself the Basics of Aspen Plus, Wiley, 2016
D
[27] Stanley I. Sandler, Using Aspen Plus in Thermodynamics Instruction: A Step by step
TE
guide; American Institute of Chemical Engineers and John Wiley& Sons Inc. USA,
2015.
P
[29] M. Althuluth, A. Berrouk, M.C. Kroon, C.J. Peters, Modeling solubilities of gases in
using the PengRobinson equation of state, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 53 (2014)11818
11821
[31] S. Raeissi, C.J. Peters, A potential ionic liquid for CO2-separating gas membranes:
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
PTE
CE
AC
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
List of Figures
Sr. No Caption
1 Aspen Plus flowchart used for the modelling and simulation of CO2 and Hydrocarbon
mixture in [emim][FAP]
T
2 Experimental design of the Ternary system CO2+HC+ [emim][FAP] considered for
IP
simulations
R
3 Validation of experimental results of Ramdin et al. [19] by present Aspen Plus simulation
SC
methodology for (a) CO2 +CH4+[bmim][Tf2N], (b) CO2 +CH4+[emim][dep], (c) CO2
+CH4+[thtdp][dca]
4 Comparison of bubble point pressure of CO2+CH4 gas mixture with [emim][FAP] with
NU
that of Ramdin et al. [19] (a) bmim][Tf2N], (b) emim][dep], (c) [thtdp][dca]
5 Bubble point isopleths of the ternary system as a function of temperature at x 1/x2=0.33
MA
for different x2/x3 for CO2+CH4+[emim][FAP] ternary system
6 Selectivity of CO2+CH4+[emim][FAP] ternary system as a function of temperature at
x2/x3=0.04 for different x1/x2
D
9 Bubble point isopleths of the ternary system as a function of temperature at x1/x2=0.1 for
different x2/x3 for CO2+C3H8+[emim][FAP] ternary system
AC
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
(a) T=183.15K, (b) T=493.15 K
IP
17 Comparison of ideal selectivity of CO2 over hydrocarbons as a function of temperature
R
SC
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 1
T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
PTE
CE
AC
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 2
T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
PTE
CE
AC
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 3 (a)
14
12
T
+15%
IP
10
R
-15%
Pressure Predicted (MPa)
SC
6
4
NU
MA
2
D
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Pressure Experimental (MPa)
P
CE
AC
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 3 (b)
+5%
7
T
IP
-5%
6
R
Predicted Bubble point Pressure (MPa)
SC
4
NU
MA
2
1
D
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Experimental Bubble point Pressure (MPa)
P
CE
AC
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 3 (c)
6
+10%
T
5
-10%
IP
Predicted Bubble Point Pressure (MPa)
R
4
SC
3
2 NU
MA
1
D
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Experimental Bubble Point Pressure (MPa)
P
CE
AC
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 4(a)
14
25-75 mixture
T
12
R IP
10
SC
8
Pressure (MPa)
6
NU x2 /x3
MA
0.043
4 0.129
0.201
D
2
TE
0
P
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 4 (b)
6
50-50 mixture
T
IP
5
R
SC
4
Pressure (MPa)
3
NU
MA
2
D
x2 /x3
TE
1 0.02
0.033
P
0.049
0
CE
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 4 (c)
12
75-25 mixture
T
x2 /x3
IP
10 0.086
0.121
R
0.174
SC
8
0.258
Pressure (MPa)
NU
6 MA
4
D
2
TE
0
P
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 5
120
x1 /x2 = 0.33
x2 /x3
T
0.01
IP
100 0.02
0.03
R
0.04
SC
80 0.05
0.1
0.2
NU
60 0.3
Pressure (MPa)
0.4
0.5
MA
40 0.6
D
20
TE
0
P
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 6
180
x2 /x3 = 0.04
T
160
IP
140
R
x1 /x2
SC
120
Selectivity
0.1
100 0.33
NU
0.5
80 0.75
MA
1
60
3
5
40
7
D
10
20
TE
0
P
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 7
T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
PTE
CE
AC
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 8
6
x2 /x3 = 0.1 x1 /x2
T
0.1
IP
5
0.33
0.5
R
0.75
SC
4
1
Selectivity
NU
5
3
7
MA
2
D
1
TE
0
P
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 9
40
x2 /x3 x1 /x2 = 0.33
T
0.01
35
IP
0.02
R
30 0.03
Pressure (MPa)
SC
0.04
25
0.05
0.1
NU
20
0.2
0.3
MA
15
0.4
10 0.5
D
0.6
5
TE
0
P
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 10
1.4
x2 /x3 =0.5
T
1.2
R IP
1
SC
Selectivity
0.8
x1 /x2
NU
0.1
0.6 0.33
MA
0.5
0.75
0.4
1
3
D
0.2 5
TE
7
10
0
P
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 11
T
IP
R
SC
NU
MA
D
PTE
CE
AC
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 12
1
x1 /x2 x2 /x3 = 0.03
T
0.9
0.1
IP
0.8 0.33
R
0.5
0.7
0.75
SC
0.6 1
Selectivity
3
0.5
NU
5
0.4 7
MA
0.3 10
0.2
D
0.1
TE
0
180 230 280 330 380 430 480
Temperature (K)
P
CE
AC
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 13 (a)
T
100
x2 /x3 x1 /x2 = 0.1
IP
0.01
90 0.02
0.03
R
80 0.04
0.05
SC
0.1
70
0.2
0.3
Pressure (MPa)
NU
60 0.4
0.5
0.6
50
0.7
MA
40
30
D
20
TE
10
P
0
CE
46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 13 (b)
T
45
x2 /x3 x1 /x2 = 0.1
IP
40 0.01
0.02
R
0.03
35
SC
0.04
Pressure (MPa)
0.05
30
0.1
NU
0.2
25 0.3
0.4
MA
20 0.5
0.6
15 0.7
D
10
TE
5
P
0
CE
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 13 (c)
T
40
x2 /x3 x1 /x2 = 0.1
IP
0.01
35
R
0.02
SC
30 0.03
Pressure (MPa)
0.04
25
NU
0.05
0.1
20
0.2
MA
0.3
15
0.4
D
10 0.5
TE
0.6
5
P
0
CE
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 13 (d)
T
14
x2 /x3 x1 /x2 = 0.1
IP
0.01
12
R
0.02
SC
0.03
10
0.04
NU
Pressure (MPa)
8 0.05
0.1
MA
6 0.2
0.3
4 0.4
D
0.5
TE
2
P
0
180 230 280 330 380 430 480
CE
Temperature (K)
AC
49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 14 (a)
180
x2 /x3 = 0.2
T
160 x1 /x2
IP
0.1
140 0.33
R
0.5
SC
120 0.75
1
Selectivity
100
3
80
NU
MA
60
40
D
20
TE
0
P
50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 14 (b)
6
x2 /x3 = 0.2
x1 /x2
0.1
T
5
0.33
IP
0.5
0.75
R
4 1
3
SC
Selectivity
2
NU
MA
1
D
TE
0
180 230 280 330 380 430 480
Temperature (K)
P
CE
AC
51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 14 (c)
1.6
x2 /x3 = 0.2
1.4
T
IP
1.2
R
1
Selectivity
SC
0.8
0.6
NU x1 /x2
MA
0.1
0.4
0.33
0.5
0.2 0.75
D
1
3
TE
0
180 230 280 330 380 430 480
Temperature (K)
P
CE
AC
52
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 14 (d)
1.2
x2 /x3 = 0.2
T
IP
x1 /x2
0.8 0.1
R
0.33
SC
0.5
0.6
0.75
Selectivity
NU
1
0.4 3
MA
0.2
D
0
TE
53
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 15 (a)
0.7
0.045
x1/x2 = 1
T
0.04
0.035
IP
0.6
0.03
0.025
R
0.02
0.5
SC
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.4 0
NU
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 CH4
Bubble Point Pressure (Mpa)
C2H6
C3H8
0.3
MA
C4H10
0.2
D
TE
0.1
P
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
CE
x2/x3
AC
54
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 15 (b)
T
25
IP
x1 /x2 =1
R
20
SC
15
NU
Bubble point Pressure(Mpa)
CH4
MA
10 C2H6
C3H8
C4H10
5
D
TE
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
P
x2 /x3
CE
AC
55
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 16 (a)
180
T
Selectivity vs x2/x3
160
IP
140
R
CH4
SC
Selectivity
120
C2H6
6 C3H8
100
NU
C4H10
5
80
4
MA
3
60
2
40
D
1
TE
0
20
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
P
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
x2/x3
CE
AC
56
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 16 (b)
2.5
T
Selectivity vs x2 /x3
CH4
IP
C2H6
2
R
C3H8
C4H10
SC
1.5
NU
Selectivity
MA
1
D
TE
0.5
P
CE
0
0 0.01 0.02 x2 /x3 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
AC
57
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 17
180
CH4 Ideal Selectivity vs Temperature
T
160 C2H6 7
1.6
IP
C3H8
1.4
140 6
C4H10 1.2
R
1
5 0.8
SC
120
0.6
4 0.4
100 0.2
NU
0
3
Ideal Selectivity
40
0
D
0
170 270 370 470 570 670 770
P
Temperature (K)
CE
AC
58
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
List of Tables
Sr. Caption
No
T
1 Binary interaction parameter obtained from ASPEN Plus
IP
2 Comparison of experimental values of Henrys constant of ref. [17-19] with the
R
simulated values for binary system
SC
3 Comparison of experimental values of ideal selectivity of CO2 over hydrocarbons of
ref. [19] with the simulated values at various temperatures
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
59
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
T
Table 1:Binary interaction parameter obtained from ASPEN Plus
IP
Pair Interaction Parameter Source
CR
CO2-CH4 kij = 0.0919 Aspen Database
US
CO2- C2H6 kij = 0.1322 Aspen Database
N
CO2- C3H8 kij = 0.1241 Aspen Database
MA
CO2- C4H10 kij = 0.1333 Aspen Database
D
CO2-[emim][FAP] Regression of VLE Data of Ref.[18]
P TE
CE
lij = -0.114290764; lji = -0.382557421
AC
CH4-[emim][FAP] Regression of VLE Data of Ref. [17]
60
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2: Comparison of experimental values of Henrys constant of ref. [17-19] with the simulated values for binary system
Temp (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
T
(K)
IP
(Ref. [17]) Simulated (Ref. [19]) Simulated (Ref. [19]) Simulated (Ref. [19]) Simulated (Ref. [18]) Simulated
283 - - - - - - - - 2.24 2.28
CR
293 - - - - - - - - 2.76 2.82
303 38.45 36.98 10.54 10.66 4.60 4.66 2.04 2.01 3.32 3.44
US
313 39.36 39.49 11.76 11.59 5.40 5.49 2.51 2.51 4.06 4.14
323 40.39 40.39 13.02 12.99 6.29 6.37 3.06 3.06 4.68 4.83
N
333 41.43 41.40 14.30 14.36 7.21 7.29 3.67 3.66 5.36 5.64
MA
343 42.39 42.31 15.60 15.70 8.14 8.24 4.33 4.31 6.09 6.40
353 43.17 43.10 16.89 17.00 9.09 9.21 5.03 5.01 6.86 7.30
D
363 43.66 43.75 18.17 18.24 10.21 10.13 5.78 5.75 7.71 8.24
P TE
CE
AC
61
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3: Comparison of experimental values of ideal selectivity of CO2 over hydrocarbons of ref. [19] with the simulated values at various
temperatures
T
Temp
IP
(K)
(ref. [19]) Simulated (ref. [19]) Simulated (ref. [19]) Simulated (ref. [19]) Simulated
CR
303 11.58 10.75 3.17 3.10 1.39 1.35 0.61 0.59
313 9.69 9.54 2.90 2.80 1.33 1.33 0.62 0.61
US
323 8.63 8.37 2.78 2.69 1.34 1.32 0.65 0.63
333 7.73 7.34 2.67 2.55 1.35 1.30 0.69 0.65
N
343 6.96 6.61 2.56 2.45 1.34 1.29 0.71 0.67
MA
353 6.29 5.90 2.46 2.33 1.33 1.26 0.73 0.69
363 5.66 5.31 2.36 2.22 1.32 1.23 0.75 0.70
D
P TE
CE
AC
62
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
T
Bubble Point Isopleths exhibited two distinct behaviors at different compositions
IP
Carbon chain length influenced the selectivity of CO2 over hydrocarbon
R
Selectivity of CO2 over CH4 compared to other hydrocarbons is higher by at least one
SC
order of magnitude
NU
MA
D
P TE
CE
AC
63