Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352

International Conference on Recent Advancement in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, RAAR

2016, 10-12 November 2016, Bhubaneswar, India

Performance Investigation of Natural Refrigerant R290 as a

Substitute to R22 in Refrigeration Systems
C S Choudharia*, S N Sapalib
a
AISSMS College of Engineering, Pune – 411 001, India
b
College of Engineering Pune – 411 005, India

Abstract

Use of natural refrigerant R290 can play a vital role in fulfilling the objectives of the international protocols like Montreal and
Kyoto. Because of environmental problems such as ozone depletion and global warming, R22 needs to be phased out on urgent
basis. This paper analyzes the possibilities of R290 as a potential substitute to R22.Thermodynamic performance analysis of
refrigerants R290 and R22 was carried out using standard vapour compression cycle, with evaporating temperature range of -
25°C to 10°C for the condensing temperature of 45°C, based on analytical calculations. Refrigerant properties were obtained
from REFPROP 9.0.Performance parameters like, discharge temperature, volumetric refrigerating capacity and required mass
flow of refrigerant were found to be lower with R290 when compared to R22.Coefficient of performance with R290 is slightly
lower than that of with R22.However, higher COP can be expected by especially designed system pertaining to the properties of
R290.Overall, R290 can be a better substitute to R22 in real applications because of its excellent environmental and thermo-
physical properties.

©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility ofthe organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Keywords:COP, natural refrigerant; refrigeration system; R22; R290.

1. Introduction

Refrigeration technology has forever played an important role in improving the human standard of living.
Inventions such as the refrigerator and air-conditioner have become a necessity for comfort living. However, right
from its inception, the refrigeration industry has been constantly tackling the issues of safety and environmental
impact of refrigerants. Despite the constant effort from the researchers, the industry has still been a major contributor
towards environmental degradation.

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.084
 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352 347

After an early struggle with natural refrigerants and issues like their flammability, the industry received a major
catapult with the discovery of CFCs and HCFCs. Since their introduction in 1930, CFCs and HCFCs have been
widely used. This success can be attributed to their excellent thermo-physical properties and security. However, in
1974, it had been observed that CFCs and HCFCs are responsible for ozone layer depletion. Ozone layer is a
protective shield, the depletion of which leads the harmful ultra violet (UV) rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere.
Taking this effect into account, decisions were made regarding the phasing out of CFCs and HCFCs at the Montreal
Protocol in 1987. While manufacturers were still in the process of replacing CFCs with HCFCs and subsequently
HCFCs with HFCs, another environmental issue, that is, global warming came into light. Climate change and rise in
average temperature of earth’s atmosphere are the serious consequences of the global warming. Though HFCs and
many other substances had a lower value of ozone depletion potential (ODP) they were discovered to have higher
global warming potential (GWP) value. This created the need for new environment friendly yet energy efficient
refrigerants. The search for such a refrigerant seems to have taken researchers back to the natural hydrocarbon such
as Propane (R290)[1-3].
For the past few decades, flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants have been prohibited in normal refrigeration and
air-conditioning applications due to a safety concern. Infact, hydrocarbon R290 was identified as an odorless,
colorless safe refrigerant possessing excellent thermo-physical properties in the year 1920. However, after the
development of CFCs and HCFCs in 1928, it was neglected because of its flammability. With the current change in
scenario and technological developments, the industry now seems more receptive towards R290 as a potential
replacement for R22 [10-14].
Various studies have been carried out with Propane and its mixture [4-7]. Devotta et al.[4]studied R290
refrigerant as an alternative to R22 in window air conditioners. Their results demonstrated that the cooling capacity
and energy consumption of R290 were lower than those of R22 by 6.6 to 9.7% and 12.4 to 13.5%, respectively. The
COP ofR290 was higher than that of R22 by 2.8 to 7.9%.Purkayastha and Bansal [5] analyzed R22 in a 15 kW heat
pump with R290 and showed that R290 has higher COP than R22 by 18%. However, R290 had a lower refrigeration
capacity than R22, by 16%. Chang et al.[6]investigated R290, R1270, R600, R600a and mixtures of R290/R600a
and R290/R600 as R22 alternatives in a heat pump. They reported that the cooling and heating capacities of R290
were smaller and COP was slightly higher than that of R22. Zhou et al.[7]compared the system performances of a
split type air conditioner with R22 and R290 with various operating conditions. Their results indicate that the
refrigerant charge and mass flow rate of R290 were only 44% and 47% of R22, and R290 had 4.7- 6.7% lower
cooling capacity and 12.1- 12.3% lower input power than R22. The energy efficiency ratio (EER) of R290 was 8.5%
higher than that of R22.
Present work demonstrates the applicability of refrigerant R290 as a substitute to R22, with the comparative
analysis of properties of R22 and R290 with its thermodynamic performance for different applications.

Nomenclature

CFCs choloroflurocarbons h enthalpy in kJ/kg

HCHCs hydrochloroflurocarbons P pressure in MPa
HFCs hydroflurocarbons RE refrigerating effect in kJ/Kg

2. Properties of Refrigerants R22 and R290

Selection of a refrigerant is a complex process involving detailed analysis of environmental, thermo physical and
safety properties.

2.1. Environmental properties

Ozone depletion potential (ODP) and global warming potential (GWP) and atmospheric life are the significant
factors demonstrating environmental impact of refrigerant when released to the surroundings. ODP is a normalized
348 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352

indicator based on a value of 1.000 for refrigerant R11, of the ability of refrigerant to destroy ozone molecules.
GWP is an indicator of potency to warm the planet by the action of greenhouse gases. The atmospheric lifetime is
an indication of the average existence of the refrigerant released into the atmosphere, until it decomposes. Table 1
shows the environmental properties of refrigerants R22 and R290.

Table 1 Environmental properties of refrigerants R22 and R290

Refrigerant Chemical formula Atmospheric life in years Global warming potential Ozone depletion potential
R22 CHClF2 12 1700 0.055
R290 C3H8 0.041 20 0.000
+
Global warming potential relative to CO2, (100 years’ horizon)
R290 is non-ODP substance with very low GWP value. However, the term total equivalent warming index
(TEWI) is used to assess the effect of refrigerant on the environment. TEWI is the sum of the direct contribution due
to refrigerant leakage and the indirect contribution due to energy consumption to operate the system. R290 has very
low or no direct effect on global heating and indirect effect also expected to be lower because of its excellent thermo
–physical properties.

2.2. Physical and thermo-physical properties

Table 2.Physical properties of refrigerants R22 and R290 [3]

Molecular weight Normal boiling point Critical temperature Critical pressure Latent heat of
Refrigerant
(kg/Kmol) ( °C ) (°C) (MPa) evaporation (kJ/kg)
R22 86.47 -40.75 96.2 4.99 233.7
R290 44.10 -42.2 96.7 4.25 425.4

Latent heat of evaporation of R290 is higher than that of R22 by 80 %, at a normal boiling point. The higher
latent heat of evaporation indicates lower refrigerant mass requirement. Normal boiling points of two refrigerants
closely match indicating similar pressure curves and similar areas of application.
Thermo-physical properties of refrigerant determine the energy performance of the refrigeration system. Table 3
shows thermo-physical properties of the refrigerant R22 and R290, at evaporating temperature of 10°C and
condensing temperature of 45°C. The lower liquid density of R290 reflects the lower requirement of refrigerant
mass resulting in lower friction and better heat transfer coefficients in evaporator and condenser. Refrigerant
viscosity is the major source of irreversibility and influences condensation and boiling heat transfer coefficients.
R290 has lower viscosity and higher thermal conductivity which improves the performance of condenser and
evaporator. The higher specific heat of R290 gives lower discharge temperature.

Table 3 Thermo-physical properties of the refrigerants R22 and R290 at nominated operating conditions [8]

Temp Refrigerant
Property State
(oC) R22 R290

Saturation pressure 10 Liquid 0.640 0.601

(MPa) 45 Vapour 1.729 1.534
10 Liquid 1253.8 517.56
Density (kg/m3)
45 Vapour 75.45 34.14
10 Liquid 197.97 115.69
Viscosity (µPa-s)
45 Vapour 13.69 9.13
Thermal conductivity 10 Liquid 0.0911 0.101
(W /m °C) 45 Vapour 0.0135 0.0224
10 Liquid 1.1836 2.5318
Specific heat (kJ/kg °C)
45 Vapour 1.0487 2.3714
 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352 349

2.3. Safety characteristics

According to ASHRAE standard 34, R290 is classified as A3 class refrigerant, which means that, it is a nontoxic
and highly flammable refrigerant. Some characteristics in relation to the flammability of the refrigerant are shown in
Table 4. Lower flammability limit (LFL) is the lowest concentration at which the refrigerant burns in air under
prescribed test conditions. According to ASHRAE standard 15, leakage concentration of R290 should not exceed
the 20% of lower flammability limit. The heat of combustion (HOC) is an indicator of how much energy, the
refrigerant releases when it burns in air.

Table 4Safety properties of refrigerant R290[5]

LFL by LFL by Heat of Combustion Ignition Ignition
Toxicity
mass volume combustion velocity temperature energy Safety class
( ppm )
(kg/m3) (%) (kJ/kg) (m/s) (°C) (J)

0.075 2.1 50500 0.4 466°C 0.00025 1000 A3

Flammability of R290 is a major concern. However, it should be remembered that it does not combust
spontaneously in contact with air. Necessary preconditions for any accidents would be the release and the mixing of
the refrigerant with air in correct proportion (1% to 10%) and the presence of an ignition source with energy greater
than 2.5 x 10-4kJ or a surface with a temperature higher than 440°C.
Safe use of R290 is quite possible with few precautions. Seal tight system, charge minimization, and proper
ventilation are the general basis for the safer use of flammable refrigerants. Different groups and organizations are
working on a development of new safety standards for the use of flammable refrigerants. Most of the existing
regulations are not in favor of R290 as there was an option of safe refrigerants like CFCs and HCFCs for about 50
years. Relaxation in these regulations is expected in coming days with the need of environment-friendly and energy
efficient refrigerant.

3. Comparative analysis of refrigerant performances

A theoretical investigation of the performance of the vapor compression cycle with refrigerant R22 and R290 was
carried out. Performance parameters such as pressure ratio (PR), discharge temperature ( t d ), refrigerant mass flow
rate ( mr ), volumetric refrigeration capacity (VRC) and coefficient of performance (COP) were investigated for
various evaporating temperatures ranging between -25 °C to 10 °C, at a constant condensing temperature of 45 °C.

3.1. Simulation conditions

For the performance analysis of refrigerant R22 and R290, a standard vapor compression cycle with a cooling
capacity of 1 TR was considered. Fig. 1 shows the state points 1 to 7 on a pressure-enthalpy diagram for a
refrigeration cycle considered.

Fig. 1 Pressure-enthalpy diagram with superheating and sub cooling

350 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352

Important assumptions made were: Negligible pressure drop and negligible heat loss to the surroundings.
Isentropic compression and isenthalpic expansion. Superheating of 10 °C in the evaporator and sub cooling of 5 °C
in the condenser. Properties of pure refrigerants were calculated using the REFPROP 9.0.

Thermodynamic properties at each state were determined and performance parameters were determined by using
well-known equations.

ܲଶ
The pressure ratio = ൗܲ (1)
ଵ

The Isentropic Compression work,Wcomp(kJ/Kg) = ݄ଶ െ  ݄ଵ (2)

The refrigerating effect (RE) (kJ/Kg) = ݄ଵ െ  ݄଺ (3)

The power per ton of refrigeration (P/TR) (kW) = 3.5 W comp/ RE (4)

The volumetric refrigeration Capacity (VRC) = ρ1.RE (5)

The coefficient of performance (COP) = RE/Wcomp (6)

3.2. Results and analysis

Applying the different equations for the refrigeration cycle as shown in fig.1 under predetermined conditions of
operation and using REFPROP.9, performance parameters for R22 and R290, like Pressure ratio(PR), discharge
temperature (td), volumetric refrigeration capacity (VRC), refrigerant mass flow rate (mr), power per TR and
coefficient of performance (COP) were obtained and plotted against evaporating temperature (Te) as shown in figs.
2-7.

Fig. 2 Variation in pressure ratio Fig. 3 Variation in discharge temperature

 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352 351

Fig. 4 Variation in volumetric capacity Fig. 5 Variation in refrigerant mass flow rate

Fig. 6 Variation in power per TR Fig. 7 Variation in coefficient of performance

Table 5 Performance parameters at nominated operating condition of condensing temperature of 45°C evaporating temperature of 10°C
Refrigerant
Discharge Refrigeration Compressor
Pressure VRC Power per TR mass flow
Refrigerant temperature effect work COP
ratio (kJ/m3 ) ( kW/ TR ) rate per TR
(°C ) ( kJ/kg ) ( kJ/kg )
( Kg/s )
R22 2.70 68.49 166.15 25.95 6.39 6055.38 0.5496 0.0211
R290 2.55 57.56 294.84 46.23 6.37 5066.98 0.5519 0.0119

Lower pressure ratio is desirable as the volumetric and isentropic efficiencies are expected to increase with
decrease in pressure ratio influencing the mass flow rate of the refrigerant and COP of the system. .It can be seen in
fig.2 that pressure ratio decreases with increase in evaporating temperature for constant condensing temperature.
R290 gives slightly lower pressure ratio compared to R22.
Compressor discharge temperature is an important characteristic of an alternative refrigerant selection. Lower
discharge temperature improves the life of the compressor by improving stability of the refrigerant and lubricant.
Fig. 3 shows that discharge temperatures with R290 is much lower than that of R22.
Volumetric refrigerating capacity (VRC) is a measure of the size of the compressor required for particular
operating conditions. Similar VRC requires no change in compressor size. Fig 4reports that R290 gives lower VRC
values by about 15 % compared to R22.
R290 have a smaller density than that of the R22 and hence the amount of charge decreases significantly with
R290.Refrigerant mass flow rate with R290 is about 43% than that of R22.This lower refrigerant requirement will
reduce the direct emission of refrigerant lowering the greenhouse warming.
352 C.S. Choudhari and S.N. Sapali / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 346 – 352

The coefficient of performance (COP) is the measure of energy efficiency of a refrigeration system. Fig. 7 depicts
the variation in COP with evaporating temperature. COP values with R290 are almost equal to slightly lower when
compared with R22. With the special design of refrigeration system for R290, COP can be improved which can be
higher than that of R22.

4. Conclusions

In this work, comparative performance analysis of R290 with R22 on a standard vapour compression cycle was
carried out for different evaporating temperatures at constant condensing temperature. It was observed that R290
gives lower discharge temperature which is important factor improving the life of compressor. Refrigerant mass
flow rate required with R290 is lower by 50 % compared to R22.The coefficient of performance with R290 closely
matches with R22.However, higher COP can be expected by especially designed system pertaining to the properties
of R290.Overall, R290 can be a better substitute to R22 in real applications because of its excellent environmental,
thermo-physical properties and energy efficient performance.

References

[1] James M. Calm, “Emissions and environmental impacts from air conditioning and refrigeration systems”, International Journal of
Refrigeration 25 (2002) 293-305.
[2] James M. Calm, “ The next generation of refrigerants – historical review, considerations, and outlook, International Journal of
Refrigeration 31 (2008) 1123-1133
[3] James M. Calm, Glenn C. Hourahan, “ Refrigerant data summary”, Engineered systems, 18(11): 74-888, November 2001
[4] Devotta S et. al.,“ Performance assesment of HC-290 as a drop in substitute to HCFC-22 in a window air conditioner, International
journal of refrigeration,2005;28:594-604
[5] B. Purkayastha, P. K. Bansal,“ Experimental study on HC290 and a commercial liquified petrolium gas (LPG) mix as suitable
replacement for HCFC22“, International Journal of refrigeration 21(1998) 213-217
[6] Y.S. Chang et. al.,“Performance and heat transfer charactristics of hydrocarbon refrigerants in a heat pump system“, Interantional
Journal of refrigeration 23(2000) 232-242
[7] Zhou G et. al.,“ Performance of a split type air conditioner matched with coiled adiabatic capillary tubes using HCFC22 and HC290“,
Applied Energy 2010;24(4):870-85.
[8] Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties REFPROP Version 9.0”, NIST Standard Reference Database 23, NOV 2010.
[9] Emerson Climate Technologies, “Refrigerant choices for commercial refrigeration”, Emerson Climate Technologies, 2010.
[10] Chao Chieh Yu, Tun-Ping Teng, “Retrofit assessment of refrigerator using hydrocarbon refrigerants”, Applied Thermal Engineering,
66(2014) 507-518
[11] Akio Miyara, “Condensation of hydrocarbons – a review”, International Journal of Refrigeration 31 (2008) 621-632
[12] Eric Granryd, “Hydrocarbons as refrigerants - an overview”, International Journal of Refrigeration 24 (2001) 15-24
[13] Bjorn Palm, “Hydrocarbons as refrigerants in small heat pump and refrigeration systems – a review”, International Journal of
Refrigeration 31 (2008) 552-563
[14] A. S. Dalklicet. al. “ A performance comparison of vapour compression refrigeration system using various alternative refrigerants,
International communications in Heat and mass transfer 37(2010) 1340-1349
[15] Tun-Ping Tenget. al. “ Retrofit assessment of window air conditioner”, Applied Thermal Engineering 32(2012) 100-107
[16] Lampugnani, G. and Zgliczynski, M., "R290 as a substitute of R502 and R22 in commercial refrigeration and air Conditioning”,
International Compressor Engineering Conference. (1996) ( Paper 1087)
[17] Wu, J.H., Yang, L. D., Hou, J., “Experimental performance study of small wall room air conditioner retrofitted with R290 and
R1270”,International Journal Refrigeration,35(7) 2012, 1860-1868.