Aspen Plus

Rate-Based Model of the CO2 Capture Process by

Mixed PZ and MDEA Using Aspen Plus
Copyright (c) 2010-2014 by Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aspen Plus, the aspen leaf logo and Plantelligence and Enterprise Optimization are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Aspen Technology, Inc., Bedford, MA.

All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

This software includes NIST Standard Reference Database 103b: NIST Thermodata Engine Version 7.1

This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This documentation contains AspenTech
proprietary and confidential information and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are solely responsible for the proper use of
the software and the application of the results obtained.

Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the documentation, the sole warranty for the software
may be found in the applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH MAKES NO
WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENTATION,
ITS QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Aspen Technology, Inc.

20 Crosby Drive
Bedford, MA 01730
USA
Phone: (1) (781) 221-6400
Toll Free: (1) (888) 996-7100
URL: http://www.aspentech.com
Revision History
Version Description

V7.2 First version

V7.3 Update databank to PURE25.
Add missing transport properties parameters in the bkp file to be
consistent with the documentation.
Add the definition of acid gas loading and amine weight fraction
convention.
Update Figure 3c.
Add two reactions into the kinetics.
V7.3.2 Update databank to PURE26.
V8.0 Update databank to PURE27.
V8.2 Update databank to PURE28.
Update the simulation results.
V8.6 Update databank to PURE32.

Revision History 1
Contents
Revision History ......................................................................................................1

Contents..................................................................................................................2

Introduction ............................................................................................................3

1 Components .........................................................................................................4

2 Physical Properties...............................................................................................5

3 Reactions ...........................................................................................................16

4 Simulation Approach ..........................................................................................19

5 Simulation Results .............................................................................................21

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................22

References ............................................................................................................23

2 Contents
Introduction

This file describes an Aspen Plus rate-based model of the CO2 capture process
by the aqueous solutions of mixed piperazine (PZ) and methyldiethanolamine
(MDEA). As there are no industrial or pilot plant data publicly available for this
process, a flash model is used to test the feasibility of CO2 absorption from a
gas stream containing CO2 and N2 by the aqueous solutions of mixed PZ and
MDEA. Thermophysical property models and reaction kinetic models are
based on the recent works of Austgen (1991)[1], Hilliard (2008)[2], Bishnoi and
Rochelle (2000, 2002)[3,4]. Transport property models and model parameters
have been validated against available experimental data from open literature.
The model includes the following key features:
 True species including ions
 Electrolyte NRTL method for liquid and RK equation of state for vapor
 Concentration-based reaction kinetics
 Electrolyte transport property models

Introduction 3
1 Components

The following components represent the chemical species present in the

process:

Table 1. Components Used in the Model

ID Type Name Formula

MDEA Conventional METHYL-DIETHANOLAMINE C5H13NO2

PZ Conventional PIPERAZINE C4H10N2
H2O Conventional WATER H2O
CO2 Conventional CARBON-DIOXIDE CO2
H3O+ Conventional H3O+ H3O+
OH- Conventional OH- OH-
HCO3- Conventional HCO3- HCO3-
CO3-2 Conventional CO3-- CO3-2
MDEAH+ Conventional MDEA+ C5H14NO2+
PZH+ Conventional PZH+ C4H11N2+
PZH+2 Conventional PZH+2 C4H12N2+2
HPZCOO Conventional HPZCOO C5H1ON2O2
PZCOO- Conventional PZCOO- C5H9N2O2-
PZCOO-2 Conventional PZCOO-2 C6H8N2O4-2
N2 Conventional NITROGEN N2
O2 Conventional OXYGEN O2
CO Conventional CARBON-MONOXIDE CO
H2 Conventional HYDROGEN H2

4 1 Components
2 Physical Properties

The electrolyte NRTL method and RK equation of state are used to compute
liquid and vapor properties, respectively, in the rate-based PZ+MDEA model.
CO2, N2, O2, CO and H2 are selected as Henry-components to which Henry’s
law is applied. Henry’s constants are specified for these components with
water and MDEA. In the reaction calculations, the activity coefficient basis for
the Henry’s components is chosen to be Aqueous. Therefore, in calculating
the unsymmetric activity coefficients (GAMUS) of the solutes, the infinite
dilution activity coefficients will be calculated based on infinite-dilution
condition in pure water, instead of in mixed solvents.
The Henry’s constant parameters of CO2 in water are regressed with the
binary CO2-H2O VLE data[5-11], and those of CO2 in MDEA are obtained from
Wang et al. (1992)[12]. The NRTL interaction parameters between CO2 and
H2O are set to zero, those between MDEA and H2O are determined from the
regression with binary MDEA-H2O VLE data[13-15], excess enthalpy data[16-18]
and heat capacity data[19-21], and those between PZ and H2O are obtained by
fitting the binary PZ-H2O VLE data[2, 22, 23] and heat capacity data[2].
The interaction energy parameters between H2O and (MDEAH+, HCO3-),
between H2O and (MDEAH+, CO3-2), and those between MDEA and (MDEAH+,
HCO3-), GMELCC, were regressed using the CO2 absorption heat data in
aqueous MDEA solution[24, 25], ternary MDEA-H2O-CO2 VLE data [26-30], heat
capacity data [31] and liquid phase concentration data[32].
The interaction energy parameters between H2O and (PZH+, HCO3-) and those
parameters between H2O and (PZH+, PZCOO-), GMELCC, were regressed
using the CO2 absorption heat data in aqueous PZ solution[2], ternary PZ-H2O-
CO2 VLE data[2, 33], and heat capacity data[2].
The interaction energy parameters between H2O and (MDEAH+, PZCOO-) and
those between H2O and (MDEAH+, PZ(COO-)2), GMELCC, were regressed with
the CO2 solubility data in mixed aqueous PZ and MDEA solution[23, 34-35].
The dielectric constants of nonaqueous solvents are calculated by the
following expression:

1 1
 T   A  B   (1)
T C 
The parameters A, B and C for MDEA in Aspen databanks are 21.9957,
8992.68 and 298.15, and those for PZ are 11.26958, 8796 and 298.15.

2 Physical Properties 5
 The liquid molar volume model and transport property models have been
validated and model parameters regressed against available experimental
data from open literatures. Specifications of the transport property models
include:
 For liquid molar volume, the Clarke model, called VAQCLK in Aspen Plus,
is used with option code 1 to use the quadratic mixing rule for solvents.
The interaction parameter VLQKIJ for the quadratic mixing rule between
MDEA and H2O is regressed against experimental MDEA-H2O density data
from Bernal-Garcia et al. (2003)[36] and VLQKIJ between PZ and H2O is
regressed against experimental PZ-H2O density data from Arunkumar and
Syamalendu (2006)[37] and Derks et al. (2005)[38]. The Clarke model
parameter VLCLK/1 is also regressed for main electrolytes (MDEAH+,
HCO3-) and (MDEAH+, CO3-2) against experimental MDEA-H2O-CO2 density
data from Weiland (1998)[39].
 For liquid viscosity, the Jones-Dole electrolyte correction model, called
MUL2JONS in Aspen Plus, is used with the mass fraction based ASPEN
liquid mixture viscosity model for the solvent. There are three models for
electrolyte correction and the PZ+MDEA model always uses the Jones-
Dole correction model. The three option codes for MUL2JONS are set to 1
(mixture viscosity weighted by mass fraction), 1 (always use Jones and
Dole equation when the parameters are available), and 2 (ASPEN liquid
mixture viscosity model), respectively. The interaction parameters
between MDEA and H2O in the ASPEN liquid mixture viscosity model,
MUKIJ and MULIJ, are regressed against experimental MDEA-H2O viscosity
data from Teng et al. (1994)[40]. The Jones-Dole model parameters,
IONMUB, for MDEAH+, is regressed against MDEA-H2O-CO2 viscosity data
from Weiland (1998)[39]. Although Arunkumar and Syamalendu (2006)[37]
and Derks et al. (2005)[38] reported some experimental viscosity data for
aqueous PZ solutions, they are not enough to regress MUKIJ and MULIJ
between PZ and H2O due to absence of high concentration data points, so
MUKIJ and MULIJ between PZ and H2O are left to be defaulted at zero.
There are no viscosity data available for the CO2-PZ-H2O system, so no
regression can be done for the Jones-Dole model parameters, IONMUB,
for PZH+, PZCOO- and PZ(COO-)2. IONMUB of HCO3- is regressed against
KHCO3-H2O viscosity data from Palaty (1992)[41] and that of CO32- is
regressed against K2CO3-H2O viscosity data from Pac et al. (1984)[42].
 For liquid surface tension, the Onsager-Samaras model, called SIG2ONSG
in Aspen Plus, is used with its option codes being -9 (exponent in mixing
rule) and 1 (electrolyte system), respectively. The predictions of surface
tension of the MDEA-H2O-CO2 system can be in the range of the
experimental data from Weiland (1996)[43]. The parameters of PZ for the
DIPPR liquid surface tension equation are regressed to fit the pure PZ
surface tension experimental data from Moerke and Roscher[44].
 For thermal conductivity, the Riedel electrolyte correction model, called
KL2RDL in Aspen Plus, is used.
 For binary diffusivity, the Nernst-Hartley model, called DL1NST in Aspen
Plus, is used with option code of 1 (mixture viscosity weighted by mass
fraction).
In addition to the updates with the above transport properties, the aqueous
phase Gibbs free energy and heat of formation at infinite dilution and 25°C
(DGAQFM and DHAQFM) and heat capacity at infinite dilution (CPAQ0) for

6 2 Physical Properties
 MDEAH+ are regressed with heat of absorption[24. 25], VLE[26-30], heat
capacity[31] and liquid phase concentration data[32], DGAQFM and DHAQFM of
PZH+ are determined from the dissociation constant of PZ[45], DGAQFM and
DHAQFM of HPZCOO, PZCOO- and PZ(COO-)2, and CPAQ0 of PZH+, HPZCOO,
PZCOO- and PZ(COO-)2 are determined by fitting the CO2 absorption heat
data[2], heat capacity data[2] and CO2 solubility data[2, 33].
The estimation results of various transport and thermal properties are
summarized in Figures 1-8. Note that CO2 loading is defined as the ratio of
the moles of apparent CO2 to the moles of apparent amines. Apparent means
before reaction, so for example if 1 mole of PZ and 1 mole of MDEA are added
to 8 moles of water, and then 0.3 moles of CO2 is added to this mixture at
sufficient pressure to dissolve all the CO2, then the CO2 loading is 0.3/(1+1)
= 0.15, regardless of the forms of CO2, PZ and MDEA after reacting. Weight
percent of amine is calculated without CO2, so in the above example, it is
calculated from the mixture of 1 mole of PZ, 1 mole of MDEA and 8 moles of
water. Since PZ has a molecular weight of 86.139, MDEA has a molecular
weight of 119.164, and water has a molecular weight of 18.015, this equals
86.139/(86.139+119.164+8*18.015) = 0.24652 or about 25 wt% PZ and
119.164/(86.139+119.164+8*18.015) = 0.34103 or about 34 % MDEA.

1100

1050

1000
Density, kg/m3

950
EXP05 298K
EXP06 298K
900 EST 298K
EXP05 313K
EXP06 313K
850 EST 313K
EXP05 323K
EXP06 323K
EST 323K
800 EST 298.15K
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
PZ Mass Fraction

2 Physical Properties 7
 1200

1150

1100
Density, kg/m3

1050
EXP MDEA 30w t%
EXP MDEA 40w t%
1000 EXP MDEA 50w t%
EXP MDEA 60w t%
EST MDEA 30w t%
950 EST MDEA 40w t%
EST MDEA 50w t%
EST MDEA 60w t%
900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
CO2 Loading, m ol/m ol

Figure 1a. Liquid Density of MDEA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K, experimental data

from Weiland (1998)[39]

1030

1020

1010
Density, kg/m3

1000

990

980

970
EST PZ=2m LD=0.16
960 EST PZ=2m LD=0.27
950
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tem perature, C

Figure 1b. Liquid Density of PZ-CO2-H2O. ‘LD’ denotes CO2 loading.

8 2 Physical Properties
 1000.00
EXP MDEA 30w t%
EST MDEA 30w t%
EXP MDEA 40w t%
EST MDEA 40w t%
EXP MDEA 50w t%
EST MDEA 50w t%
Log(Viscosity, mPaS)
EXP MDEA 60w t%
100.00 EST MDEA 60w t%

10.00

1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading

Figure 2a. Liquid Viscosity of MDEA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K, experimental data

from Weiland (1998)[39]

1
Viscosity, mPaS

EST PZ=2m LD=0.16

EST PZ=2m LD=0.27

0.1
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tem perature, C

Figure 2b. Liquid Viscosity of PZ-CO2-H2O. ‘LD’ denotes CO2 loading.

2 Physical Properties 9
 0.08
EXP MDEA 30w t%
EST MDEA 30w t%
EXP MDEA 40w t%
EST MDEA 40w t%
0.07 EXP MDEA 50w t%
EST MDEA 50w t%

Surface Tension, N/m

EXP MDEA 60w t%
EST MDEA 60w t%
0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
CO2 Loading

Figure 3a. Surface tension of MDEA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K, experimental data

from Weiland (1996)[43]

0.05

0.04
Surface Tension, N/m

0.03

0.02 EXP
EST
0.01

0
250 300 350 400 450
T, K

Figure 3b. Surface tension of pure PZ, experimental data from Moerke and
Roscher (1982)[44]

10 2 Physical Properties
 0.07

0.06

Surface tension, N/m

0.05

0.04

0.03
EST, LD = 0.16
0.02 EST, LD = 0.27

0.01

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Temperature, C

Figure 3c. Surface tension of PZ-CO2-H2O (PZ concentration is 2m). ‘LD’

denotes CO2 loading.

0.4

0.35
Thermal Conductivity, Watt/mK

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15
EST MDEA 30w t%
0.1 EST MDEA 40w t%
EST MDEA 40w t%
0.05
EST MDEA 60w t%
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CO2 Loading, mol/m ol

Figure 4a. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of MDEA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K

2 Physical Properties 11
 0.5

0.45

Thermol Conductivity, Watt/m-K

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1 EST PZ=2m LD=0.16

0.05 EST PZ=2m LD=0.27

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Tem perature, C

Figure 4b. Liquid Thermal Conductivity of PZ-CO2-H2O. ‘LD’ denotes CO2

loading.

140

120

100
H eat cap acity,kJ/km o l.K

80

60

40 30w t% M D EA ,EX P 30w t% M D EA ,ES T

40w t% M D EA ,EX P 40w t% M D EA ,ES T
20 50w t% M D EA ,EX P 50w t% M D EA ,ES T
60w t% M D EA ,EX P 60w t% M D EA ,ES T
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
C O 2 lo ad in g ,m o lC O 2/m o lM D EA

Figure 5a. Liquid Heat Capacity of MDEA-CO2-H2O at 298.15K, experimental

data from Weiland (1997)[31]

12 2 Physical Properties
 4.5

3.5

Heat capacity, kJ/kg.K

3

2.5

2
EXP Loading = 0.31
1.5
EST Loading = 0.31
1 EXP Loading = 0.80
0.5 EST Loading = 0.80

0
300 320 340 360 380 400

Temperature, K

Figure 5b. Liquid Heat Capacity of PZ-CO2-H2O (PZ concentration is 2m),

experimental data from Hilliard (2008)[2]. ‘LD’ denotes CO2 loading.

80

70

60
A b so rp tio n h eat,kJ/m o l

50

40

30

20 313K ,EX P 313K ,ES T

353K ,EX P 353K ,ES T
10
393K ,EX P 393K ,ES T

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
C O 2 lo ad in g ,m o lC O 2/m o lM D EA

Figure 6a. Integral CO2 absorption heat in aqueous MDEA solution (MDEA
mass fraction = 0.30), experimental data from Mathonat (1995)[24]

2 Physical Properties 13
 120

100

Absorption heat, kJ/mol CO2

80

60

40 EX P 40C
EX P 80C
EX P 120C
ES T 40C
20 ES T 80C
ES T 120C

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

CO2 loading

Figure 6b. Differential CO2 absorption heat in aqueous PZ solution (PZ

concentration is 2.4m), experimental data from Hilliard (2008)[2]

10000

1000

100
CO2 pressure, kPa

10

0.1

0.01 EX P 313K EX P 313K

EX P 353K EX P 373K
EX P 393K EX P 393K
0.001 ES T 313K ES T 353K
ES T 373K ES T 393K
0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

CO2 loading, mol CO2/mol MDEA

Figure 7a. VLE of MDEA-CO2-H2O (MDEA mass fraction is around 0.50). Empty
symbols represent experimental data from Jou et al. (1982)[29] and full
symbols represent experimental data from Ermatchkov et al. (2006)[28]

14 2 Physical Properties
 100
EX P 40C
ES T 40C
EX P 60C
10 ES T 60C

CO2 pressure, kPa

1

0.1

0.01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

CO2 loading

Figure 7b. CO2 Partial Pressure of PZ-CO2-H2O (PZ concentration is 2m),

Experimental Data from Hilliard (2008)[2]

1000

100
CO2 pressure, kPa

10

EXP 303K
1 EXP 323K
EST, 303K
EST, 323K

0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

CO2 loading

Figure 8. CO2 Partial Pressure of PZ-MDEA-CO2-H2O (PZ concentration is 0.7M

and MDEA concentration is 2.8M), Experimental Data from Derks (2010)[2]

2 Physical Properties 15
3 Reactions

PZ is a cyclic amine, as shown in Figure 9. It can associate with H+ to form an

ion PZH+, and react with CO2 to form a carbamate ion PZCOO- and a
dicarbamate ion PZ(COO-)2.

Figure 9. PZ Molecular Structure

MDEA is a tertiary amine, as shown in Figure 10. It can associate with H+ to
form an ion MDEAH+.

Figure 10. MDEA Molecular Structure

The electrolyte solution chemistry has been modeled with a CHEMISTRY

model with CHEMISTRY ID = P-M. This CHEMISTRY ID is used as the global
electrolyte calculation option in the simulation by specifying it on the Global
sheet of the Properties | Specifications form. Chemical equilibrium is
assumed with all the ionic reactions in the CHEMISTRY P-M. In addition, a
REACTION model called P-M-REA has been created. In P-M-REA, all
reactions are assumed to be in chemical equilibrium except those of CO2 with
OH- and CO2 with PZ and PZCOO-.

A. Chemistry ID: P-M

1 Equilibrium 2H 2 O  H 3 O   OH 
2 Equilibrium CO 2  2H 2 O  HCO 3  H 3 O 
3 Equilibrium HCO 3  H 2O  CO 32   H 3O 

16 3 Reactions
 4 Equilibrium PZH   H 2 O  PZ  H 3 O 
5 Equilibrium PZ  HCO 3-  PZCOO -  H 2 O
6 Equilibrium HPZCOO  H2O  PZCOO -  H 3 O 
7 Equilibrium 
PZCOO -  HCO 3-  PZ COO - 
2  H 2O
8 Equilibrium MDEAH   H 2 O  MDEA  H 3 O 

B. Reaction ID: P-M-REA

1 Equilibrium 2H 2 O  H 3 O   OH 
2 Equilibrium HCO 3  H 2 O  CO 32   H 3 O 
3 Equilibrium PZH   H 2 O  PZ  H 3 O 
4 Equilibrium HPZCOO  H 2 O  PZCOO   H 3 O 
5 Equilibrium MDEAH   H 2 O  MDEA  H 3 O 
6 Kinetic CO 2  OH   HCO 3
7 Kinetic HCO 3  CO 2  OH 
8 Kinetic PZ  CO 2  H 2 O  PZCOO -  H 3 O 
9 Kinetic PZCOO -  H 3 O   PZ  CO 2  H 2 O
10 Kinetic PZCOO -  CO 2  H 2 O  PZ (COO - ) 2  H 3 O 
11 Kinetic PZ(COO - ) 2  H 3 O   PZCOO -  CO 2  H 2 O
12 Kinetic MDEA  CO 2  H 2 O  MDEAH   HCO 3-
13 Kinetic MDEAH   HCO -3  MDEA  CO 2  H 2 O
The equilibrium constants are calculated from the standard Gibbs free energy
change. DGAQFM. DHAQFM and CPAQ0 of MDEAH+, PZH+, PZCOO-, PZ(COO-)2
and HPZCOO, which are used to calculate the standard Gibbs free energy, are
determined in this work. The DGAQFM (or DGFORM), DHAQFM (or DHFORM)
and CPAQ0 (or CPIG) parameters of the other components can be obtained
from the databank of Aspen Plus.
The power law expressions (T0 not specified) are used for the rate-controlled
reactions (reactions 6-11 in P-M-REA):

  E  1 1  N
r  k T T0  exp     C i i
n a
(2)
 R  T T0  i 1
Where:
r = Rate of reaction;
k = Pre-exponential factor;
T = Absolute temperature;

3 Reactions 17
 T0 = Reference temperature;
n = Temperature exponent;
E = Activation energy;
R = Universal gas constant;
N = Number of components in the reaction;
Ci = Concentration of component i;
ai = The stoichiometric coefficient of component i in the reaction equation.
If T0 is not specified, the reduced power law expression is used:

E N
r  kT n exp (  ) C i i
a
(3)
RT i 1
In this work, the reduced expression is used. In equation (3), the
concentration basis is Molarity, the factor n is zero, k and E are given in
Table 2.
The kinetic parameters for reactions 6 are taken from the work of Pinsent et
al. (1956)[46], and the kinetic parameters for corresponding reversible
reactons 7 are calculated by using the kinetic parameters of reaction 6 and
the equilibrium constants of the reversible reactions 6 and 7. The kinetic
parameters for reactions 8-11 in Table 2 are derived from the work of Bishnoi
and Rochelle (2000, 2002)[3, 4], and those for reactions 12 and 13 are derived
from the work of Rinker et al. (1997)[47].

Table 2. Parameters k and E in Equation (1)

Reaction No. k E , cal/mol
6 4.32e+13 13249
7 2.38e+17 29451
8 4.14e+10 8038.3
9 7.94e+21 15758
10 3.62e+10 8038.3
11 5.56e+25 18372
12 2.22e+7 9029
13 1.06e+16 25424

18 3 Reactions
4 Simulation Approach

As we are unable to find industrial or pilot plant data publicly available for CO2
capture process by aqueous solutions of mixed PZ and MDEA, we use a single
stage equilibrium model (flash calculations) to simulate the CO2 absorption
from a gas stream of CO2 and N2 by mixed PZ and MDEA.
Simulation Flowsheet – In the following simulation flowsheet in Aspen Plus
(Figure 11), CO2 is absorbed by mixed PZ and MDEA from a mixture of CO2
and N2 in an absorber.

GASOUT

LEANIN
ABSOR BER

GASIN

RIC HOUT

Figure 11. PZ+MDEA Simulation Flowsheet in Aspen Plus

4 Simulation Approach 19
 Unit Operations - Major unit operations in this model have been represented
by Aspen Plus blocks as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Aspen Plus Unit Operation Blocks Used in the

mixed PZ and MDEA Model
Unit Aspen Plus Block Comments / Specifications
Operation
Flash Flash2 1. Temperature is set at 40 °C
2. Pressure is set at 1 atm

Streams - Feeds to the absorber are gas stream GASIN containing N2 and
CO2 and liquid solvent stream LEANIN containing aqueous PZ and MDEA
solution loaded with some CO2. Feed conditions are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Feed specifications

Stream ID GASIN LEANIN

Substream: MIXED
Temperature: °C 40 40
Pressure: atm 1 1
Flow rate mole/hr mole/hr
H2O 0 71000
PZ 0 1000
MDEA 0 3000
CO2 3000 300
N2 27000 0

Prop-Sets – Prop-Set XAPP is used to report apparent mole fraction of CO2,

N2, PZ, MDEA and H2O in liquid streams.

20 4 Simulation Approach
5 Simulation Results

The simulation has been run successfully in Aspen Plus. Key simulation results
are presented in Table 5. Here the RICHOUT and LEANOUT compositions are
the mole fraction of apparent components.

Table 5. Key Simulation Results

Stream ID GASOUT RICHOUT

Substream: MIXED
Temperature: °C 40 40
Pressure: atm 1 1
Total flow 30655 mol/hr 72905 mol/hr
Mole-Frac Mole-Frac
H2O 0.068 0.922
PZ 0 0.014
MDEA 0 0.040
CO2 0.049 0.024
N2 0.883 0

5 Simulation Results 21
6 Conclusions

The Rate-Based PZ+MDEA model provides a simple simulation of the CO2

capture process by aqueous solutions of mixed PZ and MDEA with rigorous
electrolyte thermodynamics and solution chemistry and reaction kinetics for
the liquid phase reactions.
The model is meant to be used as a guide for modeling the CO2 capture
process with mixed PZ and MDEA. Users may use it as a starting point for
more sophisticated models for process development, debottlenecking, plant
and equipment design, among others. Further validation of this PZ+MDEA
model will be done when industrial or pilot plant data become available.

22 6 Conclusions
References

[1] D.M. Austgen, G.T. Rochelle, C.-C. Chen, “Model of Vapor-Liquid Equilibria
for Aqueous Acid Gas-Alkanolamine Systems. 2. Representation of H2S and
CO2 Solubility in Aqueous MDEA and CO2 Solubility in Aqueous Mixtures of
MDEA with MEA and DEA”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 30, 543-555 (1991)
[2] M.D. Hilliard, "A Predictive Thermodynamic Model for an Aqueous Blend of
Potassium Carbonate, Piperazine, and Monoethanolamine for Carbon Dioxide
Capture from Flue Gas", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
(2008)
[3] S. Bishnoi, G. Rochelle, “Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Aqueous
Piperazine: Reaction Kinetics, Mass Transfer and Solubility”, Chemical
Engineering Science, 55, 5531-5543 (2000)
[4] S. Bishnoi, G. Rochelle, “Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Aqueous
Piperazine/Methyldiethanolamine”, AIChE Journal, 48, 2788-2799 (2002)
[5] S. Takenouchi and G.C. Kennedy, “The Binary System H2O–CO2 at High
Temperatures and Pressures”. Am. J. Sci., 262, 1055–1074 (1964)
[6] K. Tödheide and E.U. Franck, Zeitschrift fur Physikalische Chemie Neue
Folge, BD. 37, S.387-401 (1963)
[7] W.S. Dodds, L.F. Stutzman and B.J. Sollami, "Carbon Dioxide Solubility in
Water", industrial and engineering chemistry, 1 (1), 92-95 (1956)
[8] S.E. Drummond, “Boiling and Mixing of Hydrothermal Fluids: Chemical
Effects on Mineral Precipitation”, Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University,
(1981)
[9] A. Zawisza and B. Malesiska, “Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Liquid Water
and of Water in Gaseous Carbon Dioxide in the Range 0.2-5 Mpa and at
Temperature up to 473K", J. Chem. Eng. Data, 26, 388-391 (1981)
[10] R. Wiebe and V.L. Gaddy, “The solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Water at
Various Temperatures from 12 to 40 ◦C and at Pressures to 500 atm”, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 62, 815–817 (1940)
[11] G. Houghton, A.M. Mclean, and P.D. Ritchie, "Compressibility, Fugacity,
and Water-solubility of Carbon Dioxide in the Region 0-36 atm and 0-100 C",
Chemical engineering science, 6, 132-137 (1957)
[12] Y. W. Wang, S. Xu, F. D. Otto, A. E. Mather, “Solubility of N2O in
Alkanolamines and in mixed solvents”, Chem. Eng. J. 48, 31-40 (1992)

References 23
 [13] S. Xu, S. Qing, Z. Zhen, C. Zhang, J. Carroll, “Vapor Pressure
Measurements of Aqueous N-Methyldiethanolamine Solutions”, Fluid Phase
Equilib., 67, 197-201 (1991)
[14] E. Voutsas, A. Vrachnos, K. Magoulas, “Measurement and
Thermodynamic Modeling of the Phase Equilibrium of Aqueous N-
Methyldiethanolamine Solutions”, Fluid Phase Equilib., 224, 193-197 (2004)
[15] I. Kim, H. F. Svendsen, E. Borresen, “Ebulliometric Determination of
Vapor-Liquid Equilibria for Pure Water, Monoethanolamine, N-
Methyldiethanolamine, 3-(Methylamino)-propylamine, and Their Binary and
Ternary Solutions”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 53, 2521-2531 (2008)
[16] M. L. Posey, “Thermodynamic Model for Acid Gas Loaded Aqueous
Alkanolamine Solutions”, PhD thesis, the University of Texas at Austin, (1996)
[17] Y. Maham, A. E. Mather, L. G. Hepler, “Excess Molar Enthalpies of (Water
+ Alkanolamine) Systems and Some Thermodynamic Calculations”, J. Chem.
Eng. Data, 42, 988-992 (1997)
[18] Y. Maham, A. E. Mather, C. Mathonat, “Excess properties of
(alkyldiethanolamine + H2O) mixtures at temperatures from (298.15 to
338.15) K”, J. Chem. Thermodyn., 32, 229-236 (2000)
[19] L. F. Chiu, M. H. Li, “Heat Capacity of Alkanolamine Aqueous Solutions”,
J. Chem. Eng. Data, 44, 1396-1401 (1999)
[20] Y. J. Chen, T. W. Shih, M. H. Li, “Heat Capacity of Aqueous Mixtures of
Monoethanolamine with N-Methyldiethanolamine”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 46,
51-55 (2001)
[21] K. Zhang, B. Hawrylak, R. Palepu, P. R. Tremaine, “Thermodynamics of
Aqueous Amines: Excess Molar Heat Capacities, Volumes, and Expansibilities
of (Water + Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)) and (Water + 2-Amino-2-methyl-
1-propanol (AMP))”, J. Chem. Thermodyn., 34, 679-710 (2002)
[22] H. L. Wilson, W. V. Wilding, “Vapor-Liquid and Liquid-Liquid Equilibrium
Measurements on Twenty-two Binary Mixtures”, DIPPR Data Ser., 2. 63-
115(1994)
[23] A. P. –S. Kamps, J. –Z. Xia, G. Maurer, “solubility of CO2 in (H2O +
Piperazine) and in (H2O-MDEA-Piperazine)”, AIChE J. 49, 2662-2670(2003)
[24] C. Mathonat, “Calorimetrie de mélange, a ecoulement, a temperatures et
pressions elevees. Application a l’etude de l’elimination du dioxide de carbone
a l’aide de solutions aqueuses d’alcanolamines”, Universite Blaise Pascal, Paris,
(1995)
[25] J. K. Carson, K. N. Marsh, A. E. Mather, “Enthalpy of Solution of Carbon
Dioxide in (Water + Monoethanolamine, or Diethanolamine, or N-
Methyldiethanolamine) and (Water + Monoethanolamine + N-
Methyldiethanolamine) at T = 298.15 K”, J. Chem. Thermodyn., 32, 1285-
1296 (2000)
[26] G. Kuranov, B. Rumpf, N. A. Smirnova, G. Maurer, “Solubility of Single
Gases Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide in Aqueous Solutions of N-
Methyldiethanolamine in the Temperature Range 313-413 K at Pressures up
to 5 Mpa”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 35, 1959-1966 (1996)

24 References
 [27] A. P.–S. Kamps, A. Balaban, M. Jodecke, G. Kuranov, N. A. Smirnova, G.
Maurer, “Solubility of Single Gases Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide in
Aqueous Solutions of N-Mythyldiethanolamine at Temperatures from 313 to
393 K and Pressures up to 7.6 MPa: New Experimental Data and Model
Extension”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40, 696-706 (2001)
[28] V. Ermatchkov, A. P.–S. Kamps, G. Maurer, “Solubility of Carbon Dioxide
in Aqueous of N-Methyldiethanolamine in the Low Gas Loading Region”, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., 45, 6081-6091 (2006)
[29] F. Y. Jou, A. E. Mather, F. D. Otto, “Solubility of H2O and CO2 in Aqueous
Methyldiethanolamine Solution”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Design Develop.,
21, 539-544 (1982)
[30] F. Y. Jou, J. J. Carroll, A. E. Mather, F. D. Otto, “The Solubility of Carbon
Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide in a 35 weight % Aqueous Solution
Methyldiethanolamine”, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 71, 264-268 (1993)
[31] R. H. Weiland, J. C. Dingman, D. B. Cronin, “Heat capacity of Aqueous
Monoethanolamine, Diethanolamine, N-Methyldiethanolamine, and N-
Methyldiethanolamine-Based Blends with Carbon Dioxide”, J. Chem. Eng.
Data, 42, 1004-1006 (1997)
[32] W. Bottinger, M. Maiwald, H. Hasse, H., “Online NMR Spectroscopic
Study of Species Distribution in MDEA-H2O-CO2 and MDEA-PIP-H2O-CO2”, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., 47, 7917-7926 (2008)
[33] Ermatchkov, A. P.–S. Kamps, S. Speyer, G. Maurer, “Solubility of Carbon
Dioxide in Aqueous Solutions of Piperazine in the Low Gas Loading Region”, J.
Chem. Eng. Data., 51, 1788-1796(2006)
[34] M. Vahidi, M. S. Matin, M. Goharrokhi, M. H. Jenab, M. A. Abdi, S. H.
Najibi, “Correlation of CO2 solubility in N-methyldiethanolamine + Piperazine
Aqueous Solutions Using Extended Debye-Huckel Model”, J. Chem.
Thermodynamics, 41, 1272-1278 (2009)
[35] P. W. J. Derks, J. A. Hogendoorn, G. F. Versteeg, “Experimental and
Theoretical Study of the Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Aqueous Blends of
Piperazine and N-methyldiethanolamine”, J. Chem. Thermodynamics, 42,
151-163 (2010)
[36] J.M. Bernal-Garcia, M. Romas-Estrada, G.A. Iglesias-Silva, “Densities
and Excess Molar Volumes of Aqueous Solutions of N-Methyldiethanolamine
(MDEA) at Temperatures from (283.15 to 363.15)K”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 48,
1442-1445 (2003)
[37] S. Arunkumar, S.B. Syamalendu, "Density and Viscosity of Aqueous
Solutions of Piperazine and (2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol + Piperazine) from
298 to 333 K ", J. Chem. Eng. Data, 51, 467- 470 (2006)
[38] P.W.J. Derks, K.J. Hogendoorn, G.F. Versteeg, "Solubility of N2O in and
density, viscosity, and surface tension of aqueous piperazine solutions", J.
Chem. Eng. Data, 50, 1947-1950 (2005)
[39] R.H. Weiland, J.C. Dingman, D.B. Cronin, G.J. Browning, “Density and
Viscosity of Some Partially Carbonated Aqueous Alkanolamine Solutions and
Their Blends”, J. Chem. Eng. Data, 43, 378-382 (1998)

References 25
 [40] T.T. Teng, Y. Maham, L.G. Hepler, A.E. Mather, “Viscosity of Aqueous
Solution of N-Methyldiethanolamine and of Diethanolamine”, J. Chem. Eng.
Data., 39, 290-293 (1994)
[41] J.S. Pac, I.N. Maksimova, L.V. Glushenko, ”Viscosity of Alkali Salt
Solutions and Comparative Calculation Method”, J. Appl. Chem. USSR, 57,
846 (1984)
[42] Z. Palaty, “Viscosity of diluted aqueous K2CO3/KHCO3 solutions”, Collect.
Czech. Chem. Commun., 57, 1879 (1992)
[43] R.H. Weiland, “Physical Properties of MEA, DEA, MDEA and MDEA-Based
Blends Loaded with CO2”, GPA Research Report No. 152, August 1996
[44] Moerke, K, Roscher, T, “Determination of the surface tension of some
ethyleneamines”, Leuna protocol, 9101 (1982)
[45] E. S. Hamborg, G. F. Versteeg, “Dissociation Constants and
Thermodynamic Properties of Amines and Alkanolamines from (293 to 353)
K”, J. Chem.. Eng. Data, 54, 1318-1328(2009)
[46] B.R. Pinsent, L. Pearson, F.J.W. Roughton, “The Kinetics of Combination
of Carbon Dioxide with Hydroxide Ions”, Trans. Faraday Soc., 52, 1512-1520
(1956)
[47] E. B. Rinker, S. S. Ashour, O. C. Sandall, “Experimental Absorption Rate
Measurements and Reaction Kinetics for H2S and CO2 in Aqueous DEA, MDEA
and Blends of DEA and MDEA”, GPA Research Report, No. 159, 1997

26 References