Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34

Accepted Manuscript

An improvement scheme for pressure-swing distillation with and


without heat integration through an intermediate connection to
achieve energy savings

Yinglong Wang , Kang Ma , Mengxiao Yu , Yao Dai , Rujia Yuan ,


Zhaoyou Zhu , Jun Gao

PII: S0098-1354(18)30280-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.09.012
Reference: CACE 6226

To appear in: Computers and Chemical Engineering

Received date: 5 April 2018


Revised date: 29 August 2018
Accepted date: 15 September 2018

Please cite this article as: Yinglong Wang , Kang Ma , Mengxiao Yu , Yao Dai , Rujia Yuan ,
Zhaoyou Zhu , Jun Gao , An improvement scheme for pressure-swing distillation with and without heat
integration through an intermediate connection to achieve energy savings , Computers and Chemical
Engineering (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.09.012

This is a PDF file 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 final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
 The PSDIC was proposed for separating binary azeotropic mixture.
 The effect of partial heat integration on the PSDIC was investigated.
 Energy and TAC saving were achieved by PSDIC and PHIPSDIC compared with PSD
process.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

An improvement scheme for pressure-swing distillation with and without heat


integration through an intermediate connection to achieve energy savings
Yinglong Wang a,*, Kang Maa, Mengxiao Yua, Yao Daia, Rujia Yuan, Zhaoyou Zhua, Jun Gaob
a
College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao

266042, China
b
College of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Shandong University of Science and

Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China

T
Corresponding Author

IP
*E-mail: yinglongw@126.com

CR
Abstract: Pressure-swing distillation is widely studied in academia and industry. Energy

consumption is a key criterion for judging whether a pressure-swing distillation is better than other

US
distillation methods. An improved process with an intermediate connection was developed based

on the two-column pressure-swing distillation for separating a binary azeotropic mixture to save
AN
energy and reduce the total annual cost. The proposed pressure-swing distillation was applied to

three case systems, two minimum-boiling azeotropic mixtures of ethyl acetate/ethanol and
M

methanol/chloroform and one maximum-boiling azeotropic mixture of ethylenediamine/water.

According to our analysis, the proposed pressure-swing distillation and heat-integrated scheme
ED

can reduce energy consumption and total annual cost. The pressure-swing distillation with the

intermediate connection is promising for saving energy. This advantage assists in promoting the
PT

application of pressure-swing distillation and overall energy savings in the chemical process

industry.
CE

Keywords: pressure-swing distillation, heat integration, intermediate connection, TAC,

energy consumption
AC

Nomenclature

TAC = total annual cost

PSD = pressure-swing distillation

PHIPSD = partial heat integration pressure-swing distillation

FHIPSD = full heat integration pressure-swing distillation

PSDIC = pressure-swing distillation with intermediate connection

PHIPSDIC = partial heat integration pressure-swing distillation with intermediate connection


2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

NT1, NT2 = number of stages in columns 1 and 2

NF1, NF2 = feed location in columns 1 and 2

S = recycle stream flow rate

NREC = recycle location

RR1, RR2 = the reflux ratios of columns 1 and 2

NS1 = side-stream outlet location

NS2 = side-stream feed location

T
FS = side-stream flow rates

IP
EA = ethyl acetate

CR
ETOH = ethanol

EDA = ethylenediamine

1. Introduction
US
Separation of mixture plays an important role in chemical and pharmaceutical industries. The
AN
process for separating the chemical mixtures into pure or purer forms, such as distillation, takes up

10-15 % of the world energy consumption (Sholl et al.,2016). Although some new and developing
M

separation technologies, such as membrane separation technology, emerge in an endless stream,

distillation is still the most important separation method that used in current industrial plants (Kiss,
ED

2014; Luis et al., 2014; Sholl et al.,2016). The energy consumption of distillation takes up 49% of

the separation process energy consumption (Sholl et al.,2016). Therefore, it is of industrial and
PT

academic significance to develop the energy saving technologies of distillation.

Distillation includes conventional simple distillation for the separation of ideal systems and
CE

special distillation for the separation of azeotropes (Aniya et al., 2018; Cao et al., 2017; Kiss et al.,

2012; Luyben, 2013). Special distillation methods include pressure-swing distillation (PSD)
AC

(Luyben, 2012; Tripodi et al., 2017; Zhu, et al., 2016), azeotropic distillation (Pla-Franco et al.,

2014; Yu et al., 2015), extractive distillation (Li et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2017),

catalytic distillation (Li et al., 2017; Pătruţ et al., 2014), etc. However, special distillation

consumes more energy due to the presence of azeotrope (Kiss et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2012).

Several energy saving technologies including thermal coupling (Zhao et al.,2018; Van Duc Long

and Lee, 2013), heat pumps (Kazemi et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2016), heat integration (Luyben,

2014; Zhu et al., 2017), were proposeded for distillation. Among them, thermally coupled
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

technology is widely applied in azeotropic and extractive distillation. Heat pump technology is

suitable for the separation of close-boiling mixtures (Kiss, 2014). Heat integration technology is

the most effective method for saving energy although this method does not apply to all distillation

processes. Compared with azeotropic and extractive distillation, PSD can separate binary

azeotropic mixtures without resorting to a third component, and heat integration for PSD can be

enforced easily. Although PSD technology is widely used for azeotropic systems, the major

obstacle at present is its high energy consumption. It is of great significance to improve energy

T
efficiency of PSD in chemical process industry.

IP
Energy saving technologies of PSD as well as the corresponding design have been studied

CR
and analysised by many researchers in recent years. (Kiran and Jana, 2015; Luyben, 2014;

Suphanit, 2010). Li et al. (Li et al., 2016) proposed a partial heat integration pressure-swing

distillation (PHIPSD) process for


US
separating a maximum-boiling azeotrope

ethylenediamine/water. The new process can save energy consumption by up to 19.79 % and
of
AN
reduce the TAC by 15.30 %. Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2016) studied a full heat integration

pressure-swing distillation (FHIPSD) to separate methyl acetate/methanol for a 27.68 % savings in


M

the TAC. Luo et al. (Luo et al., 2014) studied different distillation methods for isopropyl

alcohol/diisopropyl ether and found that the FHIPSD saves 7.97 % in energy and leads to a 5.75 %
ED

reduction in the total annual cost (TAC) compared to the extractive distillation. Zhang et al.

(Zhang et al., 2017) studied a heat-integrated PSD process for separating the minimum-boiling
PT

azeotrope ethyl acetate and ethanol. The FHIPSD process is of interest because it can save 33.33 %

on energy, reduce CO2 emissions by 31.33 % and save 26.64 % of the TAC compared to the
CE

conventional process. There are also other energy-saving methods that are applied to PSD

processes. Xia et al. (Xia et al., 2017) proposed an integrated PSD process to take advantage of
AC

self-heat recuperation technology, and it provided significant savings in energy consumption

compared with the PSD process. Kiran et al. (Kiran and Jana, 2015) proposed a hybrid heat

integration scheme for bioethanol separation through the PSD route by integrating an internal heat

integrated distillation column with fewer internal heat exchangers and a vapor recompression

column. Mulia-Soto and Flores-Tlacuahuac (Mulia-Soto and Flores-Tlacuahuac, 2011) proposed

an internal heat integrated pressure-swing distillation process for bioethanol separation, and the

novel heat integration provides great energy savings. All of the studies make contribuions to the
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

energy saving in chemical industry. In summary, heat integration is widely used in PSD to reduce

energy consumption.

This study aims to propose a new PSD process by introducing an intermediate connection

between the two columns to reduce the energy consumption and TAC. An improved PSD process

with an intermediate connection (PSDIC) is explored using side streams between two columns.

Three different cases are studied here to uncover the energy savings advantages and the economic

performance for the PSDIC process. In these cases, ethyl acetate (EA)/ethanol (ETOH) and

T
methanol/chloroform are minimum-boiling azeotropic mixtures and ethylenediamine (EDA)/water

IP
is a maximum-boiling azeotropic mixture. Moreover, the heat-integrated aspects of PSD and

CR
PSDIC were also explored. A comparison was performed between conventional partial heat

integration pressure-swing distillation (PHIPSD) and partial heat integration pressure-swing

US
distillation with an intermediate connection (PHIPSDIC). The energy efficiency of PSD with and

without heat integration can be further improved by introducing an intermediate connection


AN
between the two columns. The work provided an alternative method to achieve energy saving for

PSD and will contribute to the azeotropic separation by distillation with less energy requirement.
M

2. Design and economical optimization of the PSDIC process

A recent paper by Tututi-Avila et al. (Tututi-Avila et al., 2017) presented an improved process
ED

with a side-stream extractive distillation system for energy savings. The remixing problem of the

conventional configuration is avoided in the proposed structure by a proper location of the side
PT

stream tray. Inspired by this paper, we tried to introduce a side stream between the two columns in

the PSD process to test whether the mass transfer process or composition of the columns can be
CE

changed. We studied the improved PSDIC process to enhance both heat and mass transfer by

introducing a side stream. A side-stream from the high-pressure column is fed into the
AC

low-pressure column (Fig. 1).

TAC has been extensively used in designs for obtaining an optimal process (Luo et al., 2014;

Zhu et al., 2016). TAC, including the total capital cost and total operating cost, was calculated, and

the total capital cost is assumed to be the capital cost divided by the plant lifetime (Eq. (1)). The

plant lifetime is 3 years. A uniform economical evaluation formula was used for all the systems in

this study. Based on the minimum TAC and Douglas economic calculation model (Li et al., 2016),

the economic performances of all the processes were analyzed in this paper. A detailed economic
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

calculation model is shown in Table 1.


total capital cost
TAC= plant lifetime
+total operating cost (1)

Aspen Plus V7.2 software was used to simulate the steady-state PSD process. For the

conventional PSD process, the design variables must be optimized, including the number of stages

in the C1 and C2 columns (NT1 and NT2), the feed locations (NF1 and NF2), the reflux ratios of the

two columns (RR1 and RR2), the recycle stream flow rate (S), and the recycle location (NREC).

T
Compared to the conventional PSD, the optimization of the PSDIC process is more complicated,

IP
because it has to include three additional variables, namely, the side-stream outlet location (NS1),

the side-stream feed location (NS2) and the side-stream flow rate (FS). To make the comparison,

CR
we set the same column pressure and purity specification based on the references (Zhang et al.,

2017; Hosgor et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016) For optimization, a sequential iterative optimization

US
procedure (Li et al., 2017) for the PSDIC process was established as shown in Fig. 2. The

sequential iterative optimization process is time-consuming, so an efficient calculation software


AN
(Two-column pressure-swing distillation optimization software) was developed to implement the

optimization procedures and provide more accurate results (Wang et al., 2016). The user interface
M

is programmed in Visual Basic, and a calling simulation was performed in Aspen Plus

automatically in each iteration of the optimization algorithm. The optimization interface is shown
ED

in Fig. 3.

3. Separation for the minimum-boiling azeotrope


PT

3.1 Separation of EA and ETOH

In this paper, the separation of the minimum-boiling azeotrope was studied for the PSDIC
CE

process. In the process of chemical industry, most of the azeotropes are minimum-boiling point

ones (Liang et al., 2017). The T-x,y diagram for the minimum-boiling azeotrope and the minimum
AC

boiling point appear at the tangent point of the vapor curve and the liquid curve, as shown in Fig.

4. EA and ETOH are both very important organic chemical raw materials and excellent industrial

solvents that are widely used in the chemical industry. The binary azeotropic mixture of EA and

ETOH is produced during the process of producing EDA. Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2017)

designed PSD processes with and without heat integration for separating the minimum-boiling

azeotrope EA and ETOH.

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The UNIQUAC method was used in the process of simulation. The feed flowrate was set at

100 kmol/h with a composition of 50 mol% EA and 50 mol% ETOH. The product purities of

ETOH and EA were required to be no less than 99.6 mol%. The benchmark case of the

conventional PSD and PHIPSD refers to the work by Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2017), and the

results are shown in Fig. 5 (a, c).

Based on the reference work, the PSDIC process was studied to separate the

minimum-boiling azeotrope system. The T-x,y diagram of operating pressures with the stream

T
information on PSDIC for ETOH/EA is shown in Fig. 6. The optimal results of the PSDIC process

IP
were found according to the objective of reaching a minimum TAC. The process is illustrated in

CR
Fig. 5(b). The side stream outlet is located at stage 23 and the side-stream feed is found at stage 10.

The side-stream flow rate is 56 kmol/h. The comparative results of the conventional PSD and the

US
PSDIC process are shown in Table 2. The PSDIC process is superior to the optimum of the PSD

process, for 8.17 % in energy consumption savings and a 7.91 % reduction in the TAC.
AN
Furthermore, the PHIPSDIC process was simulated and analyzed with the optimal parameters

shown in Fig. 5(d). The integrated process had a better economic performance than the non-heat
M

integration process. Moreover, the PHIPSDIC process provides more energy savings and cost

reductions than the PHIPSD process. Thus, the separation using the new partial heat-integrated
ED

two-column process leads to a significant reduction in the energy consumption, of up to 18.32 %

and with a TAC savings of up to 15.21 %.


PT

3.2 Separation of methanol and chloroform

A binary mixture of chloroform and methanol is often organic waste from the chemical and
CE

pharmaceutical industries. This mixture is also widely used in the production of dyes and drugs.

Methanol and chloroform exhibit a minimum-boiling azeotrope with a 0.66 chloroform molar
AC

composition at atmospheric pressure. Hosgor et al. (Hosgor et al., 2014) studied the separation of

methanol-chloroform by pressure-swing distillation.

During this process, the NRTL thermodynamic model was used to predict the physical

properties of the simulation. The feed stream was fed into the low-pressure column at first. The

flowrate was 100 kmol/h, and contained 50% each chloroform and methanol. The operational

pressure of the HPC is 10.0 atm, and that of the LPC is 1.0 atm. The product purities of methanol

and chloroform were required to be no less than 99.5 mol%. The optimal results for the
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

conventional PSD and the PHIPSD process refers to the work of Hosgor et al., with the results

shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(c).

Same as separation system EA and ETOH, the PSDIC process for the separation of the

methanol and chloroform azeotropic mixture was explored based on the study of Hosgor et al

(Hosgor et al., 2014). Fig. 8 displayed the T-x,y diagram of operating pressures with the stream

information of PSDIC for Methanol/Chloroform. Unlike the conventional PSD process, the

processes with and without heat integration are illustrated in Fig. 7(b, d). The location of the side

T
stream outlet is set to stage 1, and that of the side-stream is set to stage 16. The side-stream flow

IP
rate is 18 kmol/h. The comparative results of the conventional PSD and the PSDIC process are

CR
shown in Table 3. Compared with the optimal conventional PSD process by Hosgor proposed, the

PSDIC process can lead to a 5.43 % reduction in energy consumption and a 4.79 % reduction in

US
the TAC. Compared with the conventional PHIPSD process, the separation using the optimum

PHIPSDIC process can lead to a reduction of as much as 2.39 % in energy use and 2.31 % in TAC.
AN
After optimization, the side-stream outlet location is close to the top, while the side-stream feed

location is close to the recycle location. The PSDIC process and the PHIPSDIC process can
M

provide little in the way of energy savings and are therefore not appropriate for the

methanol/chloroform separation system. The feasibility of the PSDIC is worthy of futher


ED

discussion and research.

4 Separation for the maximum-boiling azeotrope


PT

The PSDIC process was also applied to the separation of the maximum-boiling azeotrope to

test the energy saving effect of the process. For the maximum-boiling azeotrope, the bottom
CE

streams are recycled during the PSD process. The T-x,y diagram for the maximum-boiling

azeotrope is given in Fig. 9. The EDA is an important chemical raw material and an intermediate
AC

of fine petroleum chemicals. EDA and water form a maximum-boiling azeotrope at atmospheric

pressure. There are several separation methods that are addressed in the literature (Fulgueras et al.,

2015; Ye et al., 2015). For example, Li et al. (Li et al., 2016) designed a PHIPSD process for

separating EDA and water.

The process for EDA and water separation was designed based on the UNIQUAC model. The

feed flowrate was 100 kmol/h with a composition of 40 mol% EDA and 60 mol% water. The

operation pressure of the HPC and LPC is 2.0 atm and 0.1 atm, respectively. The product purities
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of EDA product and water were set at no less than 99.5 mol%. The optimal results of the

conventional PSD and the PHIPSD can refer to the work by Li et al. (Li et al., 2016), as in the

results shown in Fig. 10 (a, c).

The PSDIC process was studied for the maximum-boiling azeotrope system EDA and water

and the basis process from Li et al. (Li et al., 2016). For EDA/water, the T-x,y diagram of the

operating pressures with the stream information in the PSDIC is presented in Fig. 11. The optimal

results of the PSDIC process were calculated according to the objective of the minimum TAC. The

T
process is illustrated in Fig. 10 (b). The location of the side stream outlet is at stage 82, while that

IP
of the side-stream feed is at stage 15. The side-stream flow rate is 23 kmol/h.

CR
The detailed results for the energy consumption by the conventional PSD and PSDIC

processes are shown in Table 4. Compared with the optimal results of the reference PSD process,

US
the PSD with the intermediate connection process is more promising, with 10.86 % energy savings

and a 8.64 % reduction in the TAC. The energy saving effect of the PHIPSDIC process is verified
AN
by this maximum-boiling azeotrope study case. Compared with the reference PHIPSD process, the

separation by the optimum PHIPSDIC process can bring more energy savings, of up to 17.86 %,
M

and a TAC reduction of 13.45 %.

5. Discussion
ED

The improvement in the proposed PSD process adds a side stream between the two columns.

This process was analyzed and found to exhibit much better performance than the conventional
PT

PSD and PHIPSD process in terms of energy savings and TAC reduction. In this study, we

compared this new process with the conventional PSD processes and found it to have superior
CE

performance in relation to energy savings for the separation of minimum-boiling azeotropic

mixtures and maximum-boiling azeotropic mixtures. Additionally, we also found that the energy
AC

savings of the PSDIC is obvious in the EOTH/EA and EDA/water systems but not in

methanol/chloroform. Not every conventional PSD can be changed into a PSDIC process, and the

scope of the PSDIC application is worth exploring. According to Fig. 12, the difference in the

liquid concentration profile between PSD and PSDIC in the C1 column is not obvious for the

ETOH/EA system. All the liquid concentrations monotonously change with the variety of the C1

column stage. However, it should be noted that there are obvious differences in the liquid

concentration profiles in the C2 column. The liquid concentrations of PSDIC have a greater slope
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

than those of the PSD from the 10th to the 20th stages. For the methanol/chloroform and

ethylenediamine/water systems in Figs. 13 and 14, the liquid concentrations show similar

differences between PSDIC and PSD while the difference is slighter compared with the ETOH/EA

system.

The reduced remixing is the primary energy saving method in the improved process.

However, there is no obvious reduction in the remixing effect after introducing the intermediate

connection, and the reason underlying the energy savings is worthy of investigation. Based on the

T
above analysis, we found that the obtained energy savings from the HIPSDIC was also better than

IP
that from the conventional HIPSD. The reduction in TAC leads to a large reduction in the total

CR
operating cost. The reduction of the reboiler duty in the high-pressure column also leads to a

reduction in the operating cost. The observation shows that the new PSD reboiler duty of the

US
high-pressure column is greatly reduced with a slight increase in the reboiler duty of the

low-pressure column. This reduces the consumption of high level steam in the PSD column.
AN
Furthermore, we calculated the composition difference between the azeotropic composition and

the distillate composition in the two columns of three systems. The composition differences are
M

2.96 mol%/3.46 mol%, 1.75 mol%/1.11 mol%, 0.11 mol%/4.56mol%, respectively. Empirically,

most design values for the composition of the distillate streams are 1-2 mol% different from the
ED

corresponding azeotropic composition (Luyben., 2012; Luyben., 2014). A recent study of the

relationship between composition difference and total annual cost was studied (Wang et al., 2015)
PT

and the results showed that the value of composition differences of THF/ethanol deviated the

empirical value 1-2 mol% to nearly 25% with the minimum total annual cost. Therefore, the
CE

composition differences for different systems with the minimum total annual cost varied in large

extent. The composition differences between the azeotropic composition and the distillate
AC

composition in the two columns used in the three case studies were set the same as the references

(Zhang et al., 2017; Hosgor et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016). For the reason, the composition

difference between the azeotropic composition and the distillate composition were not further

studied.

In addition, the operating pressure selection was also an important parameter in the design of

PSD. To further study the effect of pressure on energy consumption of the PIDSC processes, we

optimized the operating pressure of two columns based on the minimum TAC. The new sequential
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

iterative optimization procedure was shown in Fig. S1 in the Supporting information. For the two

columns of three systems of ETOH/EA, M/C, EDA/water, the optimum pressures of high pressure

and low pressure column were 8.7/0.5 atm, 12.1/1 atm, 8/0.08 atm, respectively. For the pressure

in the low pressure column of three systems, the 0.5, 1, 0.08 atm were selected as the optimum

pressure considering the use of cooling water. The optimal operation conditions of the N-PSDIC

process under optimum pressures were displayed in Figs. S2, S3 and S4. The energy and TAC of

three systems can save 22.41%/19.77%, 11.43%/8.95%, 51.77%/49.15% compared with the

T
conventional PSD processes, respectively. The detailed parameters and costs of three systems

IP
under optimal operating pressure were shown in Tables S1, S2 and S3. The results showed that the

CR
operating pressure in PSDIC was worth studying.

6. Conclusions

US
This study introduced further intensification in the two-column pressure-swing distillation

process and proposed a pressure-swing distillation with an intermediate connection for separating
AN
three azeotropic mixtures. A comparative analysis is made with the conventional pressure-swing

distillation and the new pressure-swing distillation process with and without heat integration. The
M

results showed that the pressure-swing with the intermediate connection has a better energy saving

effect in the ethyl acetate/ethanol and ethylenediamine/water systems. The energy saving effect of
ED

partial heat integration on the pressure-swing distillation with the intermediate connection process

was more obvious. According to the strength of the energy savings and cost reduction, the
PT

pressure-swing distillation with the intermediate connection process is promising and likely to

expand the applications of pressure-swing distillation.


CE

Author information

Corresponding Author
AC

E-mail: yinglongw@126.com.

Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21676152) and

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21776145).

Appendix A. Supplementary information


11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Supplementary information associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at

Reference

Aniya, V., De, D., Singh, A., Satyavathi, B. (2018). Design and operation of extractive distillation

systems using different class of entrainers for the production of fuel grade tert- butyl

Alcohol:A techno-economic assessment. Energy, 144, 1013-1025.

Cao, Y., Hu, J., Jia, H., Bu, G., Zhu, Z., Wang, Y. (2017). Comparison of pressure-swing

distillation and extractive distillation with varied-diameter column in economics and dynamic

T
control. Journal of Process Control, 49, 9-25.

IP
Fulgueras, A. M., Poudel, J., Kim, D. S., Cho, J. (2015). Optimization study of pressure-swing

CR
distillation for the separation process of a maximum-boiling azeotropic system of

water-ethylenediamine. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 33, 46-56.

US
Hosgor, E., Kucuk, T., Oksal, I. N., Kaymak, D. B. (2014). Design and control of distillation

processes for methanol–chloroform separation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 67,


AN
166-177.

Kazemi, A., Mehrabani-Zeinabad, A., Beheshti, M. (2018). Recently developed heat pump
M

assisted distillation configurations: A comparative study. Applied Energy, 211, 1261-1281.

Kiran, B., Jana, A. K. (2015). A hybrid heat integration scheme for bioethanol separation through
ED

pressure-swing distillation route. Separation and Purification Technology, 142, 307-315.

Kiss, A. A. (2014). Distillation technology - still young and full of breakthrough opportunities.
PT

Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 89, 479-498.

Kiss, A. A., Flores Landaeta, S. J., Infante Ferreira, C. A. (2012). Towards energy efficient
CE

distillation technologies – Making the right choice. Energy, 47, 531-542.

Li, H., Xiao, C., Li, X., Gao, X. (2017). Synthesis of n-Amyl Acetate in a Pilot Plant Catalytic
AC

Distillation Column with Seepage Catalytic Packing Internal. Industrial & Engineering

Chemistry Research, 56, 12726-12737.

Li, L., Guo, L., Tu, Y., Yu, N., Sun, L., Tian, Y., Li, Q. (2017). Comparison of different extractive

distillation processes for 2-methoxyethanol/toluene separation: Design and control. Computers

& Chemical Engineering, 99, 117-134.

Li, L., Tu, Y., Sun, L., Hou, Y., Zhu, M., Guo, L., Li, Q., Tian, Y. (2016). Enhanced Efficient

Extractive Distillation by Combining Heat-Integrated Technology and Intermediate Heating.


12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 55, 8837-8847.

Li, R., Ye, Q., Suo, X., Dai, X., Yu, H. (2016). Heat-Integrated Pressure-Swing Distillation

Process for Separation of a Maximum-Boiling Azeotrope Ethylenediamine/Water. Chemical

Engineering Research and Design, 105, 1-15.

Liang, S., Cao, Y., Liu, X., Li, X., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Y. (2017). Insight into

pressure-swing distillation from azeotropic phenomenon to dynamic control. Chemical

Engineering Research and Design, 117, 318-335.

T
Luis, P., Amelio, A., Vreysen, S., Calabro, V., & Van der Bruggen, B. (2014). Simulation and

IP
environmental evaluation of process design: Distillation vs. hybrid distillation–pervaporation

CR
for methanol/tetrahydrofuran separation. Applied Energy, 113, 565-575.

Luo, H., Liang, K., Li, W., Li, Y., Xia, M., Xu, C. (2014). Comparison of Pressure-Swing

US
Distillation and Extractive Distillation Methods for Isopropyl Alcohol/Diisopropyl Ether

Separation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 53, 15167-15182.


AN
Luyben, W. L. (2012). Pressure-Swing Distillation for Minimum- and Maximum-Boiling

Homogeneous Azeotropes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 51, 10881-10886.


M

Luyben, W. L. (2013). Comparison of extractive distillation and pressure-swing distillation for

acetone/chloroform separation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 50, 1-7.


ED

Luyben, W. L. (2014). Control of a Heat-Integrated Pressure-Swing Distillation Process for the

Separation of a Maximum-Boiling Azeotrope. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research,


PT

53, 18042-18053.

Luyben, W. L. (2014). Methanol/trimethoxysilane azeotrope separation using pressure-swing


CE

distillation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 53, 5590-5597.

Ma, Y., Luo, Y., Yuan, X. (2017). Simultaneous Optimization of Complex Distillation Systems
AC

with a New Pseudo-transient Continuation Model. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry

Research, 56, 6266-6274.

Mulia-Soto, J. F., Flores-Tlacuahuac, A. (2011). Modeling, simulation and control of an internally

heat integrated pressure-swing distillation process for bioethanol separation. Computers &

Chemical Engineering, 35, 1532-1546.

Pătruţ, C., Bîldea, C. S., Kiss, A. A. (2014). Catalytic cyclic distillation – A novel process

intensification approach in reactive separations. Chemical Engineering and Processing:


13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Process Intensification, 81, 1-12.

Pla-Franco, J., Lladosa, E., Loras, S., Montón, J. B. (2014). Thermodynamic Analysis and Process

Simulation of Ethanol Dehydration via Heterogeneous Azeotropic Distillation. Industrial &

Engineering Chemistry Research, 53, 6084-6093.

Sholl, DS., Lively, RP. (2016) Seven chemical separations to change the world. Nature, 532,

435-37.

Suphanit, B. (2010). Design of internally heat-integrated distillation column (HIDiC): Uniform

T
heat transfer area versus uniform heat distribution. Energy, 35, 1505-1514.

IP
Tripodi, A., Compagnoni, M., Ramis, G., Rossetti, I. (2017). Pressure-swing or

CR
extraction-distillation for the recovery of pure acetonitrile from ethanol ammoxidation process:

A comparison of efficiency and cost. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 127,

92-102.
US
Tututi-Avila, S., Medina-Herrera, N., Hahn, J., Jiménez-Gutiérrez, A. (2017). Design of an
AN
energy-efficient side-stream extractive distillation system. Computers & Chemical Engineering,

102, 17-25.
M

Van Duc Long, N., Lee, M. (2013). Optimal retrofit design of extractive distillation to energy

efficient thermally coupled distillation scheme. AIChE Journal, 59, 1175-1182.


ED

Wang, Y., Cui, P., Ma, Y., Zhang, Z. (2015). Extractive distillation and pressure-swing distillation

for THF/ethanol separation. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 90, 1463-1472.
PT

Wang, Y., Bu, G., Wang, Y., Zhao, T., Zhang, Z., Zhu, Z. (2016). Application of a simulated

annealing algorithm to design and optimize a pressure-swing distillation process. Computers &
CE

Chemical Engineering, 95, 97-107.

Wei, Z., Zhang, B., Wu, S., Chen, Q., Tsatsaronis, G. (2012). Energy-use analysis and evaluation
AC

of distillation systems through avoidable exergy destruction and investment costs. Energy, 42,

424-433.

Xia, H., Ye, Q., Feng, S., Li, R., Suo, X. (2017). A novel energy-saving pressure swing distillation

process based on self-heat recuperation technology. Energy, 141, 770-781.

Yang, M., Feng, X., & Liu, G. (2016). Heat integration of heat pump assisted distillation into the

overall process. Applied Energy, 162, 1-10.

Yu, H., Ye, Q., Xu, H., Dai, X., Suo, X., Li, R. (2015). Comparison of alternative distillation
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

processes for the maximum-boiling ethylenediamine dehydration system. Chemical

Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 97, 84-105.

Yu, H., Ye, Q., Xu, H., Zhang, H., Dai, X. (2015). Design and Control of Dividing-Wall Column

for tert-Butanol Dehydration System via Heterogeneous Azeotropic Distillation. Industrial &

Engineering Chemistry Research, 54, 3384-3397.

Zhang, Q., Liu, M., Li, C., Zeng, A. (2017). Heat-integrated pressure-swing distillation process for

separating the minimum-boiling azeotrope ethyl-acetate and ethanol. Separation and

T
Purification Technology, 189, 310-334.

IP
Zhao, Y., Ma, K., Bai, W., Du, D., Zhu, Z., Wang, Y., Gao Jun. (2018). Energy-saving thermally

CR
coupled ternary extractive distillation process by combining with mixed entrainer for

separating ternary mixture containing bioethanol. Energy, 148, 296-308.

US
Zhao, Y., Zhao, T., Jia, H., Li, X., Zhu, Z., Wang, Y. (2017). Optimization of the composition of

mixed entrainer for economic extractive distillation process in view of the separation of
AN
tetrahydrofuran/ethanol/water ternary azeotrope. Journal of Chemical Technology &

Biotechnology, 92, 2433-2444.


M

Zhu, Z., Ri, Y., Jia, H., Li, X., Wang, Y., Wang, Y. (2017). Process evaluation on the separation of

ethyl acetate and ethanol using extractive distillation with ionic liquid. Separation and
ED

Purification Technology, 181, 44-52.

Zhu, Z., Xu, D., Jia, H., Zhao, Y., Wang, Y. (2017). Heat Integration and Control of a
PT

Triple-Column Pressure-Swing Distillation Process. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry

Research, 56, 2150-2167.


CE

Zhu, Z., Xu, D., Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y. (2016). Separation of acetonitrile/methanol/benzene

ternary azeotrope via triple column pressure-swing distillation. Separation and Purification
AC

Technology, 169, 66-77.

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Basis of Economics

Parameters Data

Condensers Heat transfer

Coefficient = 0.852 kW/Km2

Capital cost = 7296 × (A,m2)0.65


Q

T
Heat transfer area : A = (K×∆t)

IP
Reboilers Heat transfer

Coefficient = 0.568 kW/Km2

CR
Capital cost = 7296 × (A,m2)0.65
Q

US
Heat transfer area : A = (K×∆t)

Q is the duty of heat exchanger, (kW); △t is temperature difference,


AN
(K); k is heat transfer coefficients

Column vessel Capital

Cost = 17640×(D, m)1.066×(L, m)0.802


M

Length: H=1.2×0.61×(NT - 2)
ED

Diameter: D is calculated by Aspen tray sizing

Energy cost LP stream(433K): $7.78 per GJ


PT

MP stream(457K): $8.22 per GJ

HP stream(527K): $9.88 per GJ


CE

Cool water(310K): $0.354 per GJ


AC

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Detailed parameters and costs of the ethyl acetate-ethanol processes.

Variables PSD PSDIC PHIPSD PHIPSDIC

QC1 (MW) 2.792 2.015 1.794 0.730

QR1 (MW) 3.454 2.823 3.454 2.823

QC2 (MW) 1.375 1.816 1.375 1.816

QR2 (MW) 0.998 1.285 - -

T
Total capital cost (106 $)

IP
1.1575 1.0725 1.1391 1.0458

Total operating cost(106 $) 1.0838 0.9953 0.8500 0.6943

CR
TAC(106 $/yr) 1.4696 1.3534 1.2300 1.0429

Energy saving (%) 0 8.17 0 18.32

TAC saving (%)


US0 7.91 0 15.21
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Detailed parameters and costs of the methanol-chloroform processes.

Variables PSD PSDIC PHIPSD PHIPSDIC

QC1 (MW) 1.83 1.79 1.83 1.79

QR1 (MW) 1.69 1.65 0.44 0.53

QC2 (MW) 1.25 1.12 - -

QR2 (MW) 1.66 1.52 1.66 1.52

T
Total capital cost (106 $)

IP
0.7432 0.7231 0.7024 0.6873

Total operating cost(106 $) 0.8030 0.7594 0.5102 0.4980

CR
TAC(106 $/yr) 1.0507 1.0004 0.7443 0.7271

Energy saving (%) 0 5.43 0 2.39

TAC saving (%)


US0 4.79 0 2.31
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Detailed parameters and costs of the Ethylenediamine-water processes.

Variables PSD PSDIC PHIPSD PHIPSDIC

QC1 5.151 4.121 3.622 2.326

QR1 5.861 4.816 5.861 4.819

QC2 1.971 2.222 1.971 2.222

QR2 1.529 1.795 - -

Total capital cost (106 $) 1.6998 1.6732 1.6758 1.6416

T
Total operating cost(106 $)

IP
1.8027 1.6070 1.4445 1.1865

TAC(106 $/yr) 2.3693 2.1647 2.0031 1.7337

CR
Energy saving (%) 0 10.86 0 17.86

TAC saving (%) 0 8.64 0 13.45

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 1. Flowsheet for pressure-swing distillation with intermediate connection.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Fig. 2. Sequential iterative optimization procedure of PSD with intermediate connection.

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 3. The Two-column pressure-swing distillation optimization software.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 4. Txy diagrams of homogeneous minimum boiling azeotrope.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT

Fig. 5. Flowsheet of ethyl acetate/ethanol for (a) PSD, (b) PSDIC, (c) PHIPSD and (d) PHIPSDIC.
CE

24
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Fig. 6. T-xy for ETOH-EA systems at 6 atm and 0.5 atm.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT

Fig. 7. Flowsheet of methanol/chloroform for (a) PSD, (b) PSDIC, (c) PHIPSD and (d) PHIPSDIC.
CE

26
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 8. T-xy for Methanol/Chloroform systems at 1 atm and 10 atm.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 9. Txy diagrams of homogeneous maximum boiling azeotrope.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT

Fig. 10. Flowsheet of Ethylenediamine/water for (a) PSD, (b) PSDIC, (c) PHIPSD and (d) PHIPSDIC.
CE

29
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Fig. 11. T-xy for EDA-H2O systems at 2 atm and 0.1 atm.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
Fig. 12. Liquid composition profiles for ETOH and EA.

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
Fig. 13. Liquid composition profiles for Methanol and Chloroform.

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
Fig. 14. Liquid composition profiles for EDA and water.

IP
CR
Graphical Abstract

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

33