Premium
A novel energy‐efficient extraction‐assisted distillation design for isopropanol–butanol–ethanol purification for use of gasoline additive
Author(s) -
Xu Yinggui,
Li Jinlong,
Ye Qing,
Li Yudong,
Chen Lijuan,
Zhang Haoxiang,
Wang Naigen
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of chemical technology and biotechnology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.64
H-Index - 117
eISSN - 1097-4660
pISSN - 0268-2575
DOI - 10.1002/jctb.6659
Subject(s) - distillation , process engineering , gasoline , exergy , energy consumption , extraction (chemistry) , process (computing) , butanol , biofuel , efficient energy use , process design , exergy efficiency , extractive distillation , environmental science , waste management , pulp and paper industry , chemistry , ethanol , process integration , computer science , chromatography , organic chemistry , engineering , electrical engineering , operating system
BACKGROUND Biobutanol is considered to be a promising alternative biofuel in terms of sustainability and environmental friendliness because of its desirable properties. High purity isopropanol–butanol–ethanol (IBE) mixture can be directly used as gasoline additive. However, the purification process of IBE is hindered because of its low concentration and high energy consumption. In order to reduce energy consumption and improve the efficiency of the IBE purification process, two novel processes combining liquid–liquid extraction with extractive distillation or azeotropic distillation are proposed. Moreover, the heat integration designs of the processes are carried out to further reduce energy. These processes are compared with regard to energy, economic, environmental and exergy impact. RESULTS The results show that the energy consumption of these enhanced processes are effectively reduced compared with the original process in the literature. Among them, the thermal integrated process of liquid–liquid extraction combined with extractive distillation is the best design, which has a total annual cost of $32.656 × 10 5 and an energy consumption of 5936.94 kW. CONCLUSION Compared with the original process, this process can save 71.33% of energy consumption. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry