Insights into CO 2 capture by Flue Gas Hydrate Formation Using Selected Amino Acids - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Insights into CO2 capture by Flue Gas Hydrate Formation Using Selected Amino Acids and Surfactants

Jyoti Shanker Pandey, Yousef Daas & Nicolas von Solms

Center for Energy Resource Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering

Technical University of Denmark

Introduction

Conventional CO2 Capture Absorption, adsorption and membrane basedHigh energy consumption, high investment cost, low efficiency etcHydrate based CO2 Capture (HBCC)

Gas hydrate- crystalline solid, water + gas system. high P, low T, weak van der Waals forces.This work

CO

2

capture from post combustion (CO2+ N2) 20% and 30% CO2 mole %

Hydrate Based CO

2 Capture T= 273 K, Minimum Hydrate forming pressure

Hydrate based separation process

Hydrate based

CO

2 Capture (HBCC)Mechanical design includingStirred tank, fixed bed, bubble tower, spray tower.Water as raw material, free from contaminationNo PollutionCO

2

storage

1v CO

2

hydrate = 160 v CO

2

gas

Hydrate based CO

2

Capture (HBCC)

Additives

To improve formation conditions

Lower formation pressure & accelerate formation rate

Mixture of Thermodynamic and Kinetic Promoters (such as THF & SDS)

Chemical Additives

Kinetics

Promoters

Sodium

d

odecyl Sulfate (SDS)

Amino acids ??

Dodecyl-

trimethyl

-ammonium-chloride (DTAC)

Lower Formation Pressure

Accelerate Formation

Amino Acids & Surfactants

#

Name

Side Chain polarity

Side Chain

Molecular Formula

Molecular

Weight (gm/mole)

Hydrophobicity/

Hydropathy

Index

(

Kyte

and Doolittle, 1982)

1.1

L

–valine

Non polar

-CH(CH

3

)

2

C

5

H

11

NO

2

117.15

4.2

2.1

L

–methionine

Non polar

CH

3

-S-(CH

2

)2C5H11NO2S149.211.93.1L –histidineBasic polar, aromatic side chain-CH2C3H3N2C6H9N3O2155.16-3.24.1L-arginineBasic polaraliphatic side chainHN=C(NH2)-NH(-CH2)3C6H14N4O2174.20-4.5

5.1Sodium dodecyl SulphateAnionic Detergent NaC12H25SO4288.72(gm/mole)

Rocking Cell

Rocking Rate, Rocking AngleVolumeTemperature Ramping, Constant Temperature

A-

Bathtub

B-

High Pressure CellC- Rocking Balls

Experimental Matrix

 Concentration

P, T

Feed

Gas

Run

Water

Pure

120 bar,

1°C

CO

2

(10%)+ N

2

Fresh

SDS

500

Peq

= 56 bars (20% CO

2

) at

1°C

CO

2

(20%)+ N

2

Memory

SDS

1000

Peq

= 44 bars (

30% CO

2

) at

1°C

CO2 (30%)+ N2  SDS2000   SDS3000   L-valine 3000   L-methionine3000   L-histidine3000   L-Arginine3000   

Formation Kinetics

CO2 Separation Process

Induction Time -20

% CO2

(Fresh & Memory)

Induction time (Memory) < Induction time (Fresh)

Water- 20% CO2

Induction time

-

20% & 30% CO

2

(Fresh)

Induction time (30% CO2) < Induction time (20% CO2)

Water- 30% CO2

Gas Uptake- Fresh and Memory-20%

Uptake (Memory) < Uptake (Fresh)

Water- 20% CO2

Gas Uptake- 20% & 30% CO

2

Uptake (20% CO2

) < Uptake (

30% CO

2) Water- 30% CO2

CO

2 Recovery-20% & 30% CO2 (Fresh)

Water- 20% & 30% CO

2

CO

2 Recovery-20% & 30% CO2 (Fresh)

Water- 20% & 30% CO2

CO

2 Separation-20% & 30% CO2 (Fresh)

Conclusions

Positive hydrophobicity leads to higher gas uptake & lower induction time compare to pure water. Negative hydrophobicity, leads to lower performance than water.Higher CO2% leads to change in behavior of Amino acid performance.Weak memory effect in gas uptake.L valine & L methionine performance are comparable to surfactants (SDS) at similar concentration (3000 ppm). Trade off between gas uptake & induction time.

Discussion- way forward

Mechanism Kinetic Promotion Effect Dependent on Type of Guest CompoundAmino acid side chain properties Polarity, Structure & ChargeSide Chain lengthHydrophobicity Concentration (Presence of optimum concentration)

Surface activity & surface adsorption via capillary effect Possible reaction between Amino acids / Guest Molecules such as CO

2

Environment friendly, economical, demonstrate good potential, non corrosive, bio degradable

Potential chemical to consider during commercialization