Homogeneous Azeotropic Distillation: Entrainer Selection

Author: Laroche, Lionel

Year: 1991

Degree: Dissertation (Ph.D.)

Advisor: Morari, Manfred

Committee Member: Unknown, Unknown

Option: Chemical Engineering

DOI: 10.7907/V760-0555

Abstract

We examine the simplest homogeneous azeotropic distillation sequence of industrial relevance, where we add an entrainer to a binary azeotrope in order to recover both azeotropic constituents as pure products. Despite its apparent simplicity, such distillation columns can exhibit an unusual behavior not observed in zeotropic distillation:

While these unusual features can be regarded as curiosities, they are essential for proper entrainer selection and design. When designing a homogeneous azeotropic sequence which separates a binary azeotrope into two pure products, we must first choose the entrainer. Currently available entrainer selection criteria, are inadequate: They contradict one another and often lead to incorrect conclusions. Indeed, for a minimum boiling azeotrope, the existing entrainer selection rules state that, one should use a high boiling component that introduces no additional azeotrope (Benedict & Rubin 1945), an intermediate boiling component that introduces no additional azeotrope (Hoffman 1964), a component which introduces no distillation boundary between the azeotropic constituents (Doherty & Caldarola 1985), and either a low boiling component that introduces no additional azeotrope or a component that introduces new minimum boiling azeotropes (Stichlmair, Fair & Bravo 1989). By taking advantage of the curious aforementioned features, we have been able to understand when these criteria, are correct, or incorrect.

In the case of homogeneous azeotropic distillation, separability at finite reflex and at infinite reflux are not equivalent and must be examined separately. By analyzing in detail the profiles of columns operated at infinite reflux, we have:

Then, we examine two situations where separation is feasible at finite reflux but not at infinite reflex.

Finally, we present practical solutions (in the case of entrainers that add no azeotropes to two problems of industrial relevance: Given a binary azeotrope that we want to separate into pure components, and a set of candidate entrainers, how do we determine which one is the best? Also, for each of these entrainers, what is the flowsheet of the feasible separation sequence(s)? We obtain these solutions by analyzing in detail the mechanisms by which heavy, intermediate and light entrainers make separation feasible, using the new notions of equivolatility curves, of isovolatility curves and of local volatility order. We show that the second question finds an easy solution from the volatility order diagram.

This analysis shows that a good entrainer is a component that "breaks" the azeotrope easily (i.e., even when its concentration is small) and yields high relative volatilities between the two azeotropic consituents. Because these attributes can be easily identified in an entrainer from the equivolatility curve diagram of the ternary mixture azeotropic component #1 - azeotropic component #2 - entrainer, we can easily compare entrainers by examining the corresponding equivolatility curve diagrams. We also demonstrate the validity and limits of this method with numerous examples.

Files