Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compchemeng

Comparison of extractive distillation and pressure-swing distillation for

acetone/chloroform separation
William L. Luyben ∗
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The separation of acetone from chloroform is difficult because the highly nonideal vapor–liquid equi-
Received 17 April 2012 librium produces a maximum-boiling azeotrope. An earlier paper (Luyben, W. L. (2008). Control of the
Received in revised form 26 October 2012 maximum-boiling acetone/chloroform azeotropic distillation system. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Accepted 31 October 2012
Research, 47, 6140–6149) discussed the use of extractive distillation for making this separation. This paper
Available online xxx
studies the use of pressure-swing distillation for making the same separation.
Results show that the extractive distillation process is much more attractive from the standpoint of
Keywords:
both capital investment and energy consumption. But pressure-swing distillation avoids the potential
Extractive distillation
Pressure-swing
problem of product contamination by the extractive solvent that must be added to the binary system.
Azeotrope © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Distillation design
Acetone/chloroform

1. Introduction
Binary mixtures with nonideal vapor–liquid equilibrium behav-
ior produce azeotropes in some chemical systems. If the chemical
components are dissimilar and repulsion forces are strong, activity
coefficients are greater than unity and minimum-boiling azeotropes
can form. If the chemical components attract each other, activity
coefficients are less than unity and maximum-boiling azeotropes
can form.
Several strategies are used in industry to separate azeotropic
mixtures (Doherty & Malone, 2001). Some methods require the
addition of a third chemical component that shifts the vapor–liquid
equilibrium. Extractive distillation uses a higher boiling solvent.
Azeotropic heterogeneous distillation uses an entraining chemi-
cal component. Both systems require two columns to produce two
product streams that are rich in the two key components.
Extractive distillation uses a higher boiling solvent that is
fed near the top of the first extraction column to preferentially
soak up one of the key components in the binary fresh feed. This
component and the solvent leave in the bottoms stream. The
other key component goes overhead as a high-purity distillate
stream. The optimum solvent-to-feed ratio and the optimum
reflux ratio are two important design optimization variables in
the extraction column. The bottoms stream is fed to the second
column that produces a high-purity key-component distillate
∗ Tel.: +1 610 758 4256; fax: +1 610 758 5057.
E-mail address: WLL0@Lehigh.edu
product and a solvent bottoms product for recycle back to the
first column. The choice of an appropriate solvent is critical in the
design of extractive systems. Solvent selection strongly affects
energy consumption and capital investment because of differences
in selectivity, capacity and boiling points. Solvent selection also
affects controllability (Luyben & Chien, 2010).
Another popular method for separating azeotropes, which does
not involve the addition of a third component, is pressure-swing
azeotropic distillation. Two columns operating at two different
pressures are used. High-purity product streams are produced from
one end of the columns and recycle streams are produced from
the other end with compositions near the two azeotropes. This
configuration can be economically used when changes in pressure
significantly shift the composition of the azeotrope. The larger the
shift, the smaller the required recycle flowrates, so the smaller the
energy requirements in the two reboilers.
Pressure-swing distillation can be applied to both minimum-
boiling and maximum-boiling homogeneous azeotropic mixtures.
With minimum-boiling systems, the distillate streams are recy-
cled. With maximum-boiling systems, the bottoms streams are
recycled. Since producing distillate recycles requires that they be
boiled overhead, producing liquid bottoms recycle should take less
energy. Therefore intuition might lead us to expect that less pres-
sure dependence is needed in a maximum-boiling system.
Acetone and chloroform have very similar boiling points (329.4
and 334.3 K), despite having molecular weights that are consid-
erably different (58.08 and 117.4 kg/kmol). These molecules have
an attraction for each other, which results in a maximum-boiling
azeotrope. Fig. 1 gives Txy diagrams for the system at two different

0098-1354/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.10.014
2 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7
A T-x 0.7745 atm
330.0
327.5
Temperature K
325.0
322.5
0.0 0.2 0.4
Liquid/Vapor Molefrac Acetone
T-xy for ACETO-01/CHLOROFO
B
430.0
425.0
Temperature K
420.0
415.0
0.0 0.2 0.4
Liquid/Vapor Molefrac Acetone
Fig. 1. (A) Txy diagram of acetone/chloroform azeotrope at 0.77 atm. (B) Txy diagram
of acetone/chloroform azeotrope at 10 atm.
pressures. At 0.77 atm, the azeotropic composition is 34.51 mol%
acetone and the temperature is 331 K. At 10 atm, the azeotropic
composition is 28.22 mol% acetone and the temperature is 429.6 K.
This small shift in azeotropic composition is clearly shown in the xy
diagram given in Fig. 2 and indicates that pressure-swing distilla-
tion may not be attractive in this system. The purpose of this paper
is to quantitatively explore this question.
2. Extractive distillation
Luyben (2008) studied the use of extractive distillation to
separate the acetone/chloroform system. Several solvents were
explored using Aspen Plus simulations (water, chlorobenzene,
ethylene glycol and xylene), but the only one found that achieved
the desired separation was dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). The opti-
mized flowsheet is shown in Fig. 3. In the extractive distillation
column, the solvent is essentially pure DMSO and is fed in the upper
part of the extractive column (Stage 4). The fresh feed mixture of
acetone and chloroform is fed lower in the column (Stage 10). Aspen
tray-numbering notation is used with the reflux drum labeled
Stage 1. The fresh feed flowrate is 100 kmol/h of 50 mol% ace-
tone and 50 mol% chloroform. The solvent flowrate is 164 kmol/h
of 99.99 mol% DMSO.
The distillate is 99.95 mol% acetone, and the bottoms contains
only a small amount of acetone (0.1 mol%). The bottoms stream is
essentially a binary mixture of chloroform and DMSO that can be
1.0
T-y 0.7745 atm 0.77 atm
10.0 atm
0.75
y
Vapor Molefrac Acetone
x 10 atm
Y10 = 0.282
0.5
0.25
0.6 0.8 1.0
Y0.77 = 0.345
0.77 atm
T-x 10.0 atm 0.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0
T-y 10.0 atm
Liquid Molefrac Acetone
Fig. 2. xy diagram acetone/chloroform at 0.77 and 10 atm.
y
easily separated in the recovery column. The chloroform goes over-
x head in the distillate and the DMSO leaves in the bottoms, which is
recycled back to the extractive column.
The extractive column has several design degrees of freedom.
In addition to the number of trays and fresh feed and solvent feed
tray locations, the amount of solvent and the reflux ratio can be
varied to achieve the desired purities of the distillate and bottoms
streams while minimizing energy consumption. A 22-stage extrac-
tive column was used since adding more trays was found to have
0.6 0.8 1.0 little effect on the amount of solvent required and the energy con-
sumed. A 12-stage solvent recovery column was used that is fed on
Stage 6. These feed locations were found empirically by observing
their effects on reboiler energy consumptions.
The separation in the extractive column depends on the amount
of solvent circulating around the system. Fig. 4 shows that high
solvent flowrates reduce the impurity of chloroform in the dis-
tillate acetone product. For each solvent flowrate, there is a
non-monotonic effect of reflux ratio. To achieve the desired dis-
tillate purity of 99.5 mol% acetone, the minimum solvent flowrate
is 145 kmol/h (solvent-to-feed ratio of 1.45). These results are
obtained with the impurity of acetone in the bottoms held at
0.1 mol% acetone using the design spec/vary feature of Aspen Plus
and manipulating distillate flowrate.
The optimum solvent flowrate is found by determining the min-
imum total energy required in the reboilers of the two columns (QR1
and QR2 ), using four design spec/vary specifications. In the extrac-
tive column, the distillate impurity is held at 0.5 mol% chloroform
and the bottoms impurity is held at 0.1 mol% acetone by varying
distillate flowrate D1 and reflux ratio RR1 . In the solvent recov-
ery column, the distillate impurity is held at 0.01 mol% DMSO and
the bottoms impurity is held at 0.01 mol% chloroform by varying
distillate flowrate D2 and reflux ratio RR2 . Fig. 5 shows that the
reboiler duty in the extractive column QR1 decreases as solvent
flowrate increases, but the reboiler duty in the solvent recovery
column QR2 increases. The solvent flowrate that minimizes total
energy consumption is 164 kmol/h.
Fig. 3 gives the flowsheet with stream conditions, heat duties,
reflux ratios and column diameters. Both columns operate at
1.1 atm. Reflux drum temperatures are 332 and 337 K, which per-
mit the use of cooling water in the condensers. The reflux ratios are
fairly small (0.802 and 0.628), which indicates that the separations
 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7 3

Solvent (DMSO)
164.4 kmol/h 1.1 atm 1.1 atm
- Acetone 332 K 337 K
0.0001 Chloroform 2 0.737 MW 0.667 MW
2
0.9999 DMSO

4 D1 (Acetone)
50.0 kmol/h
0.995 Acetone
Feed 10 0.005 Chloroform
100 kmol/h 15 ppm DMSO D2 (Chloroform)
0.50 Acetone 6 RR = 0.628
RR = 0.802 50.0 kmol/h
0.50 Chlorofrom ID=0.829m 0.0044 Acetone
ID=1.04 m
320 K 0.9955 Chloroform
0.0001 DMSO
21
11

1.584 MW 1.044 MW
410 K 470 K
1.14 MW

320 K
B1
214.3 kmol/h B2 (DMSO)
0.0010 Acetone 164.4 kmol/h
0.2322 Chloroform - Acetone
0.7668 DMSO 0.0001 Chloroform
0.9999 DMSO

Fig. 3. Extractive distillation: acetone/chloroform/DMSO.

are not difficult and columns with relatively few trays are required. Table 1
Basis of economics and equipment sizing.
Notice that a heat exchanger is installed to cool the solvent from
the bottom of the solvent recovery column before introducing it Column diameter: Aspen tray sizing
into the extractive column. Length: NT trays with 2 ft spacing plus 20% extra length
Vessel (diameter and length in meters)
The economics of the extractive distillation system are evalu-
Capital cost = 17,640 (D)1.066 (L)0.802
ated in terms of capital investment and energy costs. Total annual Condensers (area in m2 )
cost is defined as the sum of energy costs (heat inputs in the Heat-transfer coefficient = 0.852 kW/K-m2
two reboilers) plus annual cost of capital (total capital investment Differential temperature = reflux-drum temperature − 315 K
divided by a three-year payback period). Table 1 summarizes the Capital cost = 7296 (area)0.65
Reboilers (area in m2 ):
sizing and cost relationships used, which are based on Douglas
Heat-transfer coefficient = 0.568 kW/K-m2
(1988) and Turton, Bailie, Whiting, & Shaelwitz (2003). Differential temperature = steam temperature − base temperature
Table 2 gives design and economic results. Total capital invest- Capital cost = 7296(area)0.65
ment is $650,500. Annual energy cost is $735,900 per year, using Solvent cooler (area in m2 ):
Heat-transfer coefficient = 0.852 kW/K-m2
medium-pressure steam in the reboiler of the first column and
Log-mean differential temperature
=process temperatures at inlet and outlet of cooler − 315 K temperature
Capital cost = 7296(area)0.65
Energy costs
HP steam = $9.88 per GJ
MP steam = $8.22 per GJ
Effect of S1 and RR1; acetone-chloroform;S=150,145,140 capital cost
0.035 TAC = payback period
+ energy cost
Payback period = 3 years

0.03
Table 2
Extractive distillation economics.
0.025
xD1 (Chloroform)

Extractive Recovery System

0.02 NT 22 12
QR MW 1.584 12.16
QC MW 0.737 9.368
0.015 ID m 1.04 2.700
S=140
AR m2 59.33 133.9
AC m2 50.83 842.9
0.01
Cooler m2 30.63 3114
S=145
0.005
Capital
Shell 106 $ 0.9279 0.9845
S=150 HX 106 $ 0.7726 0.7579
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 Total capital 106 $ 0.6505
RR1 Energy cost 106 $/y 0.7359

TAC 106 $/y 0.9527

Fig. 4. Effect of reflux ratio and solvent on chloroform impurity in acetone product.
4 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7
Effect of Solvent on Energy Consumption
3 VLE curves are quite close to the 45-degree line, indicating a diffi-
Min
QTotal
2.5
Minimum Total Energy
Energy (MW)
2
QR1
1.5
QR2
1 which is 50 mol% acetone. The distillate from the high-pressure
0.5
140 150 160 170 180 190
Solvent (kmol/h)
Fig. 5. Minimum energy consumption.
high-pressure steam in the reboiler of the second column. These
economics are compared to the pressure-swing distillation system
in the following section.
3. Previous studies
The separation of acetone and chloroform has been stud-
ied by several workers. Hostrup, Harper, and Gani (1999) used
this chemical system as example of the application of a hybrid
design procedure employing mathematical modeling, heuristics
and thermodynamic insights for process design. In the design of
an extractive distillation system, the recommended solvent was
methyl-n-pentyl ether. The solvent DMSO was not considered. The
flowsheet required a solvent-to-feed ratio of 3.46, which gave an
acetone product purity of 99 mol% and a chloroform product purity
of 98 mol%. The extractive column had 36 stages, and the solvent
recovery column had 30 stages. Information about reboiler duties
and reflux ratios was not provided.
The Hostrup et al. design should be compared with the design
provided in the current paper using DMSO solvent (see Fig. 3). A
much smaller solvent-to-feed ratio is required (1.64 versus 3.46),
which implies lower reboiler duties. The number of stages in both
columns are much smaller (22 versus 36 in the extractive column
and 12 versus 30 in the solvent recovery column), which implies
lower capital investment. Note also that the DMSO solvent permits
higher product purities (acetone at 99.5 versus 99 mol% and chloro-
form at 99.55 versus 98 mol%). Therefore the DMSO solvent is much
better.
The same extractive distillation separation using toluene as the
solvent was presented by Dimian (Dimian, 2003). Three alternative
column configurations were studies, and the conventional two-
column flowsheet was found to be the best. Little detailed process
information is reported, but it appears from some of the Figures
that the number of stages in the extractive column is 50 and the
solvent-to-feed ratio is 2. Both of these are larger than those used
in this paper with the DMSO solvent.
4. Pressure-swing distillation
The pressures in the two columns are selected by seeing the
effect of pressure on the two azeotropes and on the temperatures in
the reboilers. The larger the pressure difference, the larger the shift
in the azeotropic composition and the lower the recycle flowrates
and resulting energy consumption.
Fig. 2 gives the xy curves at pressures of 0.77 and 10 atm. The
cult separation. So the columns will require many trays and high
reflux ratios, both of which are unfavorable from the standpoint of
economics.
Notice that the 0.77 atm curve is further from the 45-degree line
than is the 10 atm curve at low acetone compositions. Therefore
the low-pressure column should be selected to produce the high-
purity chloroform product, which comes off in the distillate stream.
The bottoms of the low-pressure column, with a composition that
is slightly lower than the low-pressure azeotrope (34.5 mol% ace-
tone), is fed to the high-pressure column along with the fresh feed,
column is high-purity acetone product. The bottoms of the high-
pressure column, with a composition that is slightly higher than
200 the high-pressure azeotrope (28.2 mol% acetone), is fed to the low-
pressure column. Fig. 6 shows the flowsheet.
4.1. Selection of pressures
The pressure in the low-pressure column is selected such that
the reflux temperature is high enough to permit the use of cooling
water in the condenser. The material in the low-pressure condenser
is almost pure chloroform. The vapor pressure of chloroform at
326 K is 0.77 atm.
The pressure in the high-pressure column is selected such that
high-pressure steam can be used in the reboiler. The composition
of the material in the high-pressure reboiler is selected to be about
2 mol% higher to the azeotropic composition at the correspond-
ing pressure. For example, at 10 atm the azeotropic composition
is 28.22 mol% acetone. The bottoms composition is 29.8 mol% ace-
tone. The temperature of the maximum-boiling azeotrope at 10 atm
is 430 K. The actual base temperature shown in Fig. 6 is 431.6 K
since there is some pressure drop through the trays in the col-
umn (0.1 psi per tray). The saturation temperature of high-pressure
steam (41.6 atm) is 527 K, so it can be used in the reboiler. There
is very little change in the azeotropic composition at pressures
greater than 10 atm.
4.2. Selection of recycle flowrate
The feed composition (z = 50 mol% acetone) and flowrate
(F = 100 kmol/h) are given, as well as the desired compositions of
the two product streams D1 at xD1 = 99.5 mol% acetone and streams
D2 at xD1 = 0.5 mol% acetone. Overall and component balances give
the flowrates of the two product streams.
F = D1 + D2
zF = D1 xD1 + D2 xD2
Substituting the known numerical values gives
100 = D1 + D2
(0.5)(100) = D1 (0.995) + D2 (0.005)
⇒ D1 = D2 = 50 kmol/h
The compositions of the two bottoms liquid recycle streams
are selected to be close to the two azeotropic compositions at
the two pressures. For the low-pressure column, the azeotrope is
at 34.51 mol% acetone. The bottoms composition must be slightly
lower than this value. Suppose we select xB2 = 33.51 mol%. For the
high-pressure column, the azeotrope is at 28.22 mol% acetone. The
bottoms composition must be slightly higher than this value. Sup-
pose we select xB1 = 29.22 mol%, then total and component balances
 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7 5

D2 = 50 kmol/h
xD2 = 0.005

QC1 = 9.368 MW QC2 = 11.94 MW

10 atm
416.9 K 0.77 atm
326.5 K
2 2
D1 = 50 kmol/h
xD1=0.995
F = 100 kmol/h 13
Z = 0.5
320 K RR1 = 27.64 17
RR1 = 22.69

34 ID = 2.70 m ID = 3.34 m

55 QR1 = 12.16 MW 21
QR2 = 9.348 MW

431.6 K 334.8 K

B1=625 kmol/h
xB1=0.298

B2 = 575 kmol/h
xB2=0.3235

Fig. 6. Pressure-swing distillation for maximum-boiling azeotrope.

around the second column give the flowrates of the two bottoms total annual cost. Table 3 gives results. Capital costs include the
recycle streams. two vessels and the four heat-exchangers. Energy costs include the
steam consumption in the two reboilers. The designs consider heat
B1 = D2 + B2 integration of the two columns, as discussed in the next section,
B1 xB1 = D2 xD2 + B2 xB2 which significantly reduces energy costs.
The recycle stream B2 from the low-pressure column back to the The optimum high-pressure column has 56 stages with a diam-
high-pressure column can be solved for. eter of 2.70 m. Notice that the reflux ratios are very large in both
columns. Although the heat input in the low-pressure column is
D2 (xD2 − xB1 ) smaller than that in the high-pressure column, its diameter is larger
B2 =
xB1 − xB2 because of the vacuum operation (lower vapor density gives higher
vapor velocity). Figs. 7 and 8 give temperature and composition
This equation clearly shows the strong dependence of the recy-
profiles in the two columns.
cle flow on the difference between the two bottoms compositions.
An interesting feature of the design is the selection of the feed-
Substituting the known numerical values gives
tray locations. This is a pure binary system, so one would expect
B1 = 50 + D2 that the feed tray should be selected such that the composition of
B1 (0.2922) = (50)(0.005) + B2 (0.3351) the liquid on the tray is equal to the feed composition. However,
⇒ B2 = 458.7 kmol/h that is not true in this system because of the thermal condition of
B1 = 508.7 kmol/h the feed streams. Both the fresh feed at 320 K and the B2 recycle
at 334.8 K enter the high-pressure column that has much higher
Starting with this initial estimate of the B2 recycle, simulations
were run, as discussed in the next section, to find the recycle that
minimized reboiler heat input in the high-pressure column. The
optimum B2 flowrate is 575 kmol/h. The resulting recycle compo-
Table 3
sitions are xB1 = 29.8 mol% acetone and xB2 = 32.35 mol% acetone,
Optimum number of stages in high-pressure column.
which are slightly further from the azeotropic compositions than
the initial guesses. NT1 51 56 61
QR1 MW 12.50 12.16 11.74
QC1 MW 9.711 9.368 8.957
4.3. Aspen simulation ID1 m 2.744 2.700 2.650
AR1 m2 138.8 133.9 128.0
The two columns are simulated in Aspen Plus using rigorous AC1 m2 866.4 842.9 813.7
AC2 m2 3114 3114 3114
Radfrac models. The Uniquac physical property package is used.
The two distillate flowrates are fixed at 50 kmol/h and an Aspen Capital
Design/Spec Vary is set up in each column to drive the distillate com- Shell 1 106 $ 0.9279 0.9845 1.035
HX 1 106 $ 0.7726 0.7579 0.7397
positions to their corresponding purity specifications by varying
Shell 2 106 $ 0.5487 0.5487 0.5487
the reflux ratios. HX2 106 $ 1.361 1.361 1.386
The separation in the low-pressure column is fairly easy, so a
Total capital 106 $ 3.610 3.652 3.709
22-stage column is selected. The difficult separation is in the high- Energy cost 106 $/y 3.197 3.110 3.096
pressure column. Columns with various numbers of stages were
TAC 106 $/y 4.400 4.327 4.333
explored, and the optimum was selected on the basis of minimum
6 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7

A Block C1: Temperature Profile A Block C2: Temperature Profile

336.0
435.0

Temperature K
Temperature K
430.0

333.5
Temperature K

Temperature K
425.0

331.0
420.0

328.5
1.0 21.0 41.0 61.0
Stage 1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0 21.0

B Block C1: Liquid Composition Profiles Stage

1.0

ACETO-01 B Block C2: Liquid Composition Profiles

0.35
0.9
X (mole frac Acetone)
0.8

0.3
X (mole frac Acetone)
0.7

0.25
0.6

ACETO-01
0.2
0.5

0.15
0.4

0.1
0.3

0.05

1.0 21.0 41.0 61.0

Stage 1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0 21.0

Fig. 7. (A) HP column temperature profile and (B) HP column composition profile. Stage

Fig. 8. (A) LP column temperature profile and (B) LP column composition profile.

internal temperatures, so these streams are subcooled. On the other
hand the B1 stream at 431.6 K flashes as it enters the low-pressure
column, so it is partially vaporized. For example, the composition of
the B2 recycle is 32.35 mol% acetone. The stage in the high-pressure
column having this liquid composition is Stage 42. But the energy
consumption QR1 in the reboiler is 12.71 MW if the recycle is fed
onto Stage 42. If it is fed onto Stage 34 (the optimum), the reboiler
duty is 12.16 MW.
4.4. Heat integration
One of the important inherent features of pressure-swing distil-
lation is the opportunity for heat integration. Since the two columns
operate at different pressures, their temperatures are also differ-
ent. If the condenser temperature in the high-pressure column is
sufficiently larger (20–30 K) than the reboiler temperature of the
low-pressure column, a heat exchanger can serve as both a con-
denser and a reboiler. If the heat duties in the two columns are
not perfectly matched, an auxiliary condenser or reboiler can be
used.
In the acetone/chloroform system studied in this paper, the
reflux-drum temperature in the high-pressure column is 416.9 K.
The base temperature in the low-pressure column is 334.8 K,
so there is ample temperature differential that would give a
reasonable heat-transfer area. Fig. 9 gives the flowsheet of the
heat-integrated system. Note that the heat duties QC1 = 9.368 MW
and QR2 = 9.348 MW are almost perfectly balanced for this 55-stage
high-pressure column design. So no auxiliary condenser or reboiler
is required.
In the 61-stage high-pressure column, the condenser duty in
the high-pressure column is lower (8.957 MW) because more trays
require less energy input. The reboiler duty in the low-pressure
column is 9.338 MW, so in that case an auxiliary reboiler would be
required in the low-pressure column.
In the 51-stage high-pressure column, the condenser duty
in the high-pressure column is higher (9.711 MW) because
fewer trays require more energy input. The reboiler duty in
the low-pressure column is 9.351 MW, so in that case an
auxiliary condenser would be required in the high-pressure
column.
The economics of the two alternative processes show that the
total annual cost of the extractive process ($952,700 per year) is
very substantially smaller than that of the pressure-swing distilla-
tion process ($4,327,000 per year).
Some confirmation of these results can be obtained from
the previously referenced paper by Hostrup et al. (1999)
 W.L. Luyben / Computers and Chemical Engineering 50 (2013) 1–7 7

D2 = 50 kmol/h
xD2 = 0.005
D1 = 50 kmol/h
xD1=0.995
QC2 = 11.94 MW
10 atm 0.77 atm
416.9 K 326.5 K
2 2

F = 100 kmol/h 13
Z = 0.5
320 K RR1 = 27.64 17
RR1 = 22.69

34 ID = 2.70 m ID = 3.34 m
QR1 QC1
= 12.16 MW = 9.368 21
55 QR2 = 9.348 MW
MW

334.8 K
B1=625 kmol/h 416.9 K
431.6 K xB1=0.298

B2 = 575 kmol/h
xB2=0.3235

Fig. 9. Pressure-swing distillation with heat integration.

in which pressure-swing distillation was reported to give References

an economic objective profit function of $47 per hour
compared to $120 per hour for the extractive distillation
flowsheet.
5. Conclusion
Pressure-swing azeotropic distillation is much more expensive
for the acetone/chloroform separation than extractive distillation
in terms of both capital and energy. However, product con-
tamination is avoided, which may be an overriding concern in
some applications. The inherent temperature differences between
the two column permit heat integration, which lowers energy
costs.
Dimian, A. C. (2003). Integrated design and simulation of chemical processes. Amster-
dam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Doherty, M. F., & Malone, M. F. (2001). Conceptual design of distillation systems. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Douglas, J. M. (1988). Conceptual design of chemical processes. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Hostrup, M., Harper, P. M., & Gani, R. (1999). Design of environmentally benign
processes: Integration of solvent design and separation process synthesis. Com-
puters & Chemical Engineering, 23, 1395–1414.
Luyben, W. L. (2008). Control of the maximum-boiling acetone/chloroform
azeotropic system. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 47, 6140–6149.
Luyben, W. L., & Chien, I. L. (2010). Design and control of distillation systems for
separating azeotropes. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., & Shaelwitz, J. A. (2003). Analysis, synthesis and
design of chemical processes (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.