See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329915570

ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE CUMENE PROCESS

INTENSIFICATION WITH THE AID OF COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 4,419

4 authors:

Pedro Gabriel Junqueira Lopes Patrick V. Mangili

Universidade Federal Fluminense SBM Offshore
6 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rafael Santos Diego Martinez Prata

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Universidade Federal Fluminense
10 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   623 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic Optimization of Chemical Processes View project

Sustainability Evaluation of Industrial Processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick V. Mangili on 16 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Nova Friburgo - RJ

ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE CUMENE PROCESS

INTENSIFICATION WITH THE AID OF COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION

Pedro Gabriel Junqueira Lopes1 – pedrojunqueira@id.uff.br

Patrick Vaz Mangili1,2 – patrickmangili@gmail.com
Rafael Oliveira dos Santos1 – ro_santos@id.uff.br
Diego Martinez Prata1 – pratadiego@gmail.com
1
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering – Niterói, RJ,
Brazil
2
SENAI CETIQT, SENAI Institute of Innovation for Biosynthetics – Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Abstract. This paper presents a comparison between a conventional technology and a

reactive distillation (RD) technology for producing cumene in terms of their annual costs and
environmental impacts. The results showed that, for 1 ton of product formed, the former
consumes 1.93 GJ (62%) more energy, emits 0.15 ton (31%) more CO2 and consumes 2.08 m3
(54%) more water than the latter. Moreover, the economic evaluation of both technologies
demonstrated that the RD process’s total annualized cost is US$ 43.9 (26.8%) lower than the
conventional process’s, which represents a significant economic advantage of the former over
the latter. In light of this, it was possible to verify the relevance of process intensification in
terms of reducing costs and environmental impacts.

Keywords: CAPEX, Cumene, Eco-indicators, OPEX, Process Simulation

1. INTRODUCTION

Notwithstanding the current concerns related to the environmental impacts caused mainly
by industrial processes, the world has notoriously taken steps towards an alarming situation,
especially with regard to global warming and the negligent exploitation of natural resources.
In fact, the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) has increased significantly, while the misuse
of natural resources has resulted in immeasurable effects on the environment.
In light of this, numerous countries have met in order to present engaging proposals
regarding sustainable development, as in the case of Brazil, for instance, that established the
so-called “National Plan on Climate Change” (PNMC) in 2009, which settles the country’s
compliance with international agreements and assures its duty into reducing GHG emissions
(MMA, 2015). Hence, developing strategies that balance both economic growth and
environment preservation has increasingly been the object of organizations that aim at
sustainable development, particularly when it comes to industrial activities.

Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

In this context, this paper presents a study related to the relevance of the economic and
environmental evaluation of industrial processes. To this end, two different cumene
production processes are compared in terms of their respective eco-indicators (energy
consumption, CO2 emissions and water consumption) and total annualized costs.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This section presents the literature review regarding the cumene production processes, as
well as the relevance of both economic and environmental analysis for the industry.

2.1. Cumene Process Intensification

Process intensification refers to a strategy for reducing the size of an industrial plant,
which is achieved by specifically designing equipment to blend unit operations (e.g. reactive,
distillation, static mixing, microchannel heat exchange, etc.) in order to reduce not only
utilities requirements but also the production costs (Stankiewicz & Moulijn, 2000). For this
reason, such strategy has been more and more used by the industries in their processes.
An example to be pointed out is the cumene production, which can be enthrallingly
performed by reactive distillation (RD). As discussed by Batista et al. (2014), the cumene is
produced by a modified Friedel-Crafts alkylation, as represented by Eq. (1), which can be
undesirably followed by the formation of p-diisopropylbenzene (PDIB), as shown in Eq. (2).

C6 H 6  C3 H 6  C9 H 12 (1)

C9 H 12  C3 H 6  C12 H 18 (2)

According to Pathak et al. (2011), the formation of PDIB can be partially overturned by
carrying out such operation in a RD column, since a third reaction corresponding to the PDIB
transalkylation occurs, as represented by Eq. (3). The use of a RD column not only results in a
much more compact plant layout but also increases the process’ yield, since such system
merges both reaction and separation processes in a single equipment, with a more efficient
energetic use and less occupied ground space.

C12 H 18  C6 H 6  2C9 H 12 (3)

2.2. Environmental Analysis

The evaluation of the environmental effects of an industrial process is a must-do, since it

must comply with local requirements in order to be established. Therefore, although said
evaluation may be performed via several methods, it must provide consistent information on
such impacts. In this regard, eco-indicators represent a convenient tool for predicting the
ecological impacts resulted from industrial activities, since they are mainly aimed at assisting
in the selection of safe economic and environmental decisions by evaluating the efficiency of
a process through the ratio of an environmental and an economic variable (ESCAP, 2009).

2.3. Economic Analysis

The development of processes must also undergo continuous economic evaluations in

order to determine whether they are financially feasible or impracticable. Nevertheless,
Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

according to Silla (2003), although estimations may show a potential profitability, it is

possible that the capital requirements for investment and operation “strain the financial
capabilities” of the company. Therefore, the evaluation of the economic feasibility of a
process must take into account the total capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) expenditures.
CAPEX and OPEX stand for the costs associated with initial expenses (e.g. purchasing
and installing industrial equipment, acquiring land for construction, etc.) and operational
investments (e.g. raw material, utilities supply, etc.), respectively (Sinnott, 2005). Thus, the
estimation of such expenses is conveniently useful for assisting in decision-making tasks,
especially with regard to the selection of different production routes and plant configurations.

3. METHODOLOGY

This section discloses the methodology used for simulating the conventional (process A)
and RD (named “process B” hereafter) cumene production processes and the utility systems,
determining their eco-indicators and estimating their total annualized costs (TACs).

3.1. Process Simulation

The cumene production plants studied in this paper, as well as the utility systems, were
simulated in AspenTech’s Aspen Plus® V8.8 software. The simulations were performed in a
Laptop Intel® Core™ i7 at 2.0 GHz with 8 GB RAM and 1TB hard drive, in Windows 8.1
operational system. A more detailed description of the simulated cumene and utility plants is
disclosed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

3.2. Eco-indicators

The energy consumption eco-indicator is calculated by adding up the energy demands of

all heating sources for each process, which are given by simulation. The overall energy
demand of each plant is then divided by their respective total equivalent production rate.
Regarding the CO2 emissions, the same procedure for calculating the eco-indicator used
by Batista et al. (2014) was applied. Therefore, the energy to CO2 emission conversion factors
considered for both combustion and indirect emissions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Conversion factors for indirect CO2 emissions.

Parameter Conversion factor Reference

Electricity to CO2 0.0227 tCO2/GJ MCTIC (2017)
Energy to CO2 (natural gas basis) 0.0561 tCO2/GJ IPCC (2006)

The value of 0.0227 tCO2/GJ corresponds to the average CO2 emissions related to
electricity generation in Brazil, in 2016. One should note that Batista et al. (2014) not only
used the 2013’s conversion factor and simulated the processes in an old version of a different
software (UniSim® R390) but also did not simulated the utilities plant. Therefore, it is
believed that the results obtained in this work are more complete and accurate.
Finally, the water consumption eco-indicator is calculated by determining the total
amount of water (make-up) required to compensate the losses in the processes and in the
utilities plant and dividing the result by the total equivalent production rate of each process. In
this regard, it is firstly necessary to determine the water/steam requirements for each heat
exchanger, which is automatically performed by the Aspen Plus’ utility function. In fact, it is

Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

only necessary to specify the equipment inlet and outlet conditions for each utility, as
disclosed in Table 2, so that the software can estimate the circulating flow rates.

Table 2 - Heuristics for cooling and heating utilities.

Utility Parameter Inlet Outlet Reference

Cooling Water Temperature 30º C 45º C Turton et al. (2012)
(CW) Pressure 516 kPa 496 kPa Turton et al. (2012)
Boiler Feed Temperature 175º C 254º C Walas (1990)
Water (BFW) Pressure 4238 kPa 4238 kPa Walas (1990)
High Pressure Temperature 254º C 253.7º C Seider et al. (2010)
Steam (HPS) Pressure 4238 kPa 4238 kPa Seider et al. (2010)

It should be highlighted that, according to Turton et al. (2012), only latent heat must be
taken into consideration when steam is used as heating source. Therefore, if HPS is entering
the equipment at 254º C, for instance, it should leave it at approximately the same
temperature, since no sensible heat is exchanged. Furthermore, Luyben (2010) stated that the
tubular reactor in the conventional process (named “process A” hereafter) is cooled by BFW
and, due to the heat exchange, HPS is produced. In this paper, as in Luyben (2010)’s work,
such steam was considered to be exported to generate profit.
After calculating the water and steam requirements of each equipment, the losses
associated to both processes and utility systems must be quantified, as presented in Table 3.
Subsequently, both the requirements and the losses are specified in the simulation of the
utility systems, which are described in detail in Section 4.2. Finally, the software calculates,
through energy and mass balances, the required make-up flow rates.

Table 3 - Heuristics for water and steam losses.

Utility system Variable Heuristics Reference

Tower losses 1% Walas (1990)
Cooling water Blowdown 3% Walas (1990)
cw losses 3% Walas (1990)
Condensate return 80% U.S. Department of Energy (2010)
Treatment losses 1% Turton et al. (2012)
Steam generation Blowdown 1% Suzuki (1999)
hps losses 20% Turton et al. (2012)
bfw losses 3% Seider et al. (2010)

3.3. Total Annualized Cost

The economic analysis of both processes was carried out by calculating both CAPEX and
OPEX and specifying a hypothetical payback period (PB) of 3 years, as used by Luyben
(2010) and Pathak et al. (2013). Thus, it was possible to estimate the TAC for each
technology from Eq. (4).

CAPEX
TAC   OPEX (4)
PB

Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

The TACs presented in this paper were calculated with the aid of AspenTech’s Process
Economic Analyzer V8.8 with basis on updated utility prices and currencies. Moreover, the
equipment sizes used in the CAPEX estimation were the same as presented by the reference
authors. Nevertheless, some other assumptions required for calculating the OPEX were
considered, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - OPEX estimation assumptions.

Basis Variable Value Reference

Plant operating time 8000 h/year ------
Guidelines Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 15% ------
Project lifetime 20 years ------
Operators per shift 9 Turton et al. (2012)
Operator Cost (OC) 44315 US$/year Turton et al. (2012)
Supervisors per shift 2 Turton et al. (2012)
Labor Supervisor Cost (SC) 53178 US$/year Turton et al. (2012)
Number of shifts 5 Turton et al. (2012)
Laboratory labor 20% of (OC + SC) Silla (2003)
Maintenance Labor (ML) 2% of CAPEX Silla (2003)
Operating costs 10% of ML Sinnott (2005)
Supply
Maintenance 2%/year of CAPEX Sinnott (2005)
Overhead 80% of labor costs Silla (2003)
Taxes and insurance 2%/year of CAPEX Silla (2003)
Other Depreciation 10%/year of CAPEX Turton et al. (2012)
Unscheduled equipment 10% of CAPEX ------
General Sales and R&D 3% of the total costs Sinnott (2005)

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESSES

The conventional cumene production process (named “process A” hereafter) studied in

this work was presented by Luyben (2010), while the reactive distillation cumene production
process (named “process B” hereafter) was proposed by Pathak et al. (2011). Both plants, as
well as the utility systems, were considered to operate under steady state conditions.

4.1. Cumene Production

In process A, illustrated in Fig. 1, pure benzene is mixed with a propylene stream

(containing 0.5 mol% propane) and the resulting mixture is preheated prior to being sent to a
tubular reactor, in which the reactions described by Eqs. (1) and (2) take place. The reactor
product is then cooled down and sent to a flash vessel in order to separate the fuel gas from
the process stream, which is sent to the separation/purification section that comprises a series
of two distillation columns.
In process B, illustrated in Fig. 2, a pure benzene stream and a propylene stream
(containing 0.5 mol% propane) are fed to a reactive distillation column, in which the reactions
described by Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) occur. In addition, from such column fuel gas is retrieved in
the top and the reaction products leave at the bottom. Such products are sent to a second
distillation column in order to separate cumene from the unreacted components, which are
recycled to the first column. A more detailed description of processes A and B, as well as

Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

their equipment parameters and stream conditions, are provided by Luyben (2009) and Pathak
et al. (2011), respectively.

Figure 1 - Conventional cumene production process simulated in Aspen Plus®.

Figure 2 - Reactive distillation cumene production process simulated in Aspen Plus®.

4.2. Utility Systems

In order to facilitate the estimation of the water consumption eco-indicator, both cooling
water and steam generation systems were simulated according to Turton et al. (2012), as
illustrated Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. It is worth mentioning that such simulations and the
same procedure for calculating the water make-ups were carried out for both cumene
processes.
Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

Figure 3 - Generic cooling system simulated in Aspen Plus®.

In the flow diagram presented in Fig. 3, cooling water (CW) is sent to the process’
coolers and condensers and then mixed with a water make-up stream prior to being recycled
to a cooling tower CT-501. Subsequently, the cooled water is pressurized and sent back to the
process. The total CW circulating flow rate required in the coolers and condensers is specified
in stream “CW”, while the losses disclosed in Table 3 are specified in the respective streams.

Figure 4 - Generic steam generation system simulated in Aspen Plus®.

In the flow diagram presented in Fig. 4, high pressure steam (HPS) is generated in a
boiler CL-601 and sent to the process’ heaters and reboilers. The resulting condensate is
mixed with a make-up water stream and sent to a deaerator DS-601, which removes
impurities from the water in order to avoid equipment fouling and corrosion. Subsequently,
the boiler feed water (BFW) is sent back to the boiler. In addition, if a BFW-cooled
equipment is present (e.g. process A’s reactor), part of the BFW stream is used as cooling
utility. The total HPS circulating flow rate required in the heaters/reboilers and the BFW
circulating flow rate required in the reactor are specified in streams “HPS” and “BFW”,
respectively, while the losses disclosed in Table 3 are specified in the respective streams.

5. RESULTS

This section presents the results obtained for the main streams, as well as for the eco-
indicators and the total annualized costs of each process.
Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

5.1. Main Streams Results

The results for the main process streams are disclosed in Table 5, from which it can be
inferred that the total production rates of processes A and B correspond to the mass flow rate
of stream “Cumene”, that is, 11.06 t/h and 12.05 t/h, respectively.

Table 5 - Simulation results.

Flow Mass composition

Temperature Pressure
Stream Process rate
(° C) (kPa) C6H6 C3H8 C3H6 C9H12 DIPB
(t/h)
A 25 2500 7.710 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Benzene
B 25 400 7.815 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
A 25 2500 4.300 0.000 0.948 0.052 0.000 0.000
Propene
B 25 400 4.400 0.000 0.948 0.052 0.000 0.000
A 90 175 0.560 0.490 0.031 0.395 0.084 0.000
Gas
B 50 150 0.300 0.145 0.073 0.782 0.000 0.000
A 150 100 11.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.999 0.001
Cumene
B 170 150 12.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.999 0.001
A 215 100 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.395 0.605
DIPB
B ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

5.2. Utility Systems Results

The results for the utility streams are disclosed in Table 6, from which it can be verified
that the total make-ups for processes A and B are 42.46 m3/h and 21.14 m3/h, respectively.

Table 6 - Utilities plant results.

Water flow rate (m3/h)

System Stream
Process A Process B
CW 415.00 277.00
Process losses 12.45 8.31
Cooling CWR 432.20 288.5
water Tower losses 4.32 2.89
Blowdown 12.84 8.57
Make-up 29.61 19.76
HPS 16.09 6.69
BFW 3.54 ------
Process losses 8.96 1.34
Steam
Blowdown 0.45 0.07
generation
Condensate return 36.20 5.41
Treatment losses 0.26 0.03
Make-up 12.85 1.38
Total make-up 42.46 21.14

5.3. Eco-indicators Results

By adding up all energy stream values given from simulation and following the IPCC
(2006) guidelines for converting energy use to CO2 emissions, it was possible to determine
the energy consumption and CO2 emissions eco-indicators for each process, as presented in
Table 7. Furthermore, regarding the water consumption, the eco-indicator could be easily
determined from the total make-up flow rates disclosed in Table 6, as presented in Table 8.
Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

Table 7 - Energy consumption and CO2 emissions eco-indicators.

Energy consumption Process A Process B

source (emission type) Demand CO2 emitted Demand CO2 emitted
CL-601* (combustion) 34.420 GJ/h 1.930 tCO2/h 14.250 GJ/h 0.800 tCO2/h
Process pumps (indirect) 0.101 GJ/h 0.006 tCO2/h 0.079 GJ/h 0.004 tCO2/h
Utility pumps (indirect) 0.069 GJ/h 0.004 tCO2/h 0.047 GJ/h 0.003 tCO2/h
Stream “Gas” (fugitive) ------ 3.218 tCO2/h ------ 3.066 tCO2/h
Total 34.590 GJ/h 5.158 tCO2/h 14.376 GJ/h 3.873 tCO2/h
Production rate 11.060 t/h 11.060 t/h 12.050 t/h 12.050 t/h
Energy eco-indicator 3.127 GJ/t 1.193 GJ/t
CO2 eco-indicator 0.466 tCO2/t 0.321 tCO2/t
*The energy requirement for the boiler is calculated by adding up the energy requirements for each
heater/reboiler in the process and dividing the result by the boiler efficiency, which was considered to be 80%,
according to the U.S. Department of Energy (2003).

Table 8 - Water consumption eco-indicators.

Variable Process A Process B

Total water make-up 42.46 m3H2O/h 21.14 m3H2O/h
Production rate 11.060 t/h 12.050 t/h
Water eco-indicator 3.84 m3H2O/t 1.76 m3H2O/t

From Table 8 it is possible to verify that, for 1 ton of product formed, process A
consumes 1.93 GJ (62%) more energy, emits 0.15 ton (31%) more CO2 and consumes 2.08
m3 (54%) more water than process B, which is, therefore, the most ecologically friendly.

5.4. Cost Estimation Results

From the assumptions described in Section 3.3 it was possible to determine the capital
and operating expenditures for both processes A and B. Hence, it was possible to estimate the
total annualized costs from Eq. (4), as shown in Table 9, from which it can be verified that,
for 1 year of operation, the TAC of process A is US$ 43.9 (26.8%) greater than process B’s.

Table 9 - TAC results.

Basis Process A Process B

Total CAPEX (million US$) 5.3 3.9
Total OPEX (million US$/year) 161.7 118.3
Payback Period (years) 3 3
TAC (million US$/year) 163.5 119.6

The TACs for processes A and B were estimated by Luyben (2010) and Pathak et al.
(2013), respectively, without taking into account the utilities plant and other general expenses
such as the number of shifts and operators, overhead costs, maintenance costs, taxes and
insurance, among others. In addition, one should note that, unlike both Luyben (2010) and the
present paper, Pathak et al. (2013) did not take into account the raw materials costs in their
calculations and, for this reason, the TAC estimated by said authors is much lower.
Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017
 XX ENMC e VIII ECTM
16 a 19 de Outubro de 2017
Instituto Politécnico Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – Nova Friburgo - RJ

6. CONCLUSION

The comparison between the conventional and reactive distillation cumene production
technologies studied in this paper demonstrated that the latter (process B) is more
environmentally economically attractive than the former (process A). The results showed that,
for 1 ton of cumene produced, process B consumes 1.93 GJ (62%) less energy, emits 0.15 ton
(31%) less CO2 and consumes 2.08 m3 (54%) less water than process A. In addition, the
economic analysis of both processes, carried out by estimating their TACs with basis on their
respective CAPEX and OPEX, showed that the process B’s TAC is US$ 43.9 (26.8%) lower
than the process A’s.
Hence, it was also possible to demonstrate the usefulness of computational simulation in
estimating process parameters and comparing different technologies in a relatively cheap
basis. In this regard, one can infer that process simulation is a convenient tool for assisting in
decision-making tasks (i.e. choosing the most suitable plant configuration).

REFERENCES

Batista, I. R., de Menezes, D. Q. F., Prata, D. M., Peixoto, F. C. (2014). Evaluation of CO2 Emissions in the
Cumene Industry through Simulation. XVII ENMC & V ECTM, 2014.
ESCAP – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (2009). Eco-efficiency Indicators: Measuring
Resource-use efficiency and the Impact of Economic Activities on the Environment. United Nations:
Bangkok. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/785eco.pdf.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual, v.
3. Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs6.html. Accessed on July 20, 2017.
Luyben, W. L. (2010). Design and Control of the Cumene Process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 49, 719–734.
MCTIC – Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (2017). Fator de Emissão de CO 2 pela
geração de energia elétrica no Sistema Interligado Nacional (SIN). Available at
http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/321144.html#ancora. Accessed on July 20, 2017.
MMA – Brazilian Ministry of Environment (2015). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. Available at:
http://www.mma.gov.br/component/k2/item/10570-indc-contribui%C3%A7%C3%A3o-nacionalmente-
determinada.
Pathak, A. S., Agarwal, S., Gera, V., Kaistha, N. (2011). Design and Control of a Vapor-Phase Conventional
Process and Reactive Distillation Process for Cumene Production. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50, 3312–3326.
Seider, W. D., Seader, J. D., Lewin, D. R., Widagdo, S. (2008). Product & Process Design Principles. 3. ed. New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 768 p.
Silla, H. (2003). Chemical Process Engineering: Design and Economics. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis Group
LLC. 483 p.
Sinnott, R. K. (2005). Chemical Engineering Design. Jordan Hill, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. vol. 6.
3. ed. 1038 p.
Stankiewicz, A., Moulijn, J. (2000). Process Intensification: Transforming Chemical Engineering. Chem. Eng.
Prog., 22–34.
Suzuki, T. K. (1999). Handbook of water treatment. 2. ed. Kurita Water Industries.
Turton, R., Bailie, R. C., Whiting, W. B., Shaeiwitz, J. A., Bhattacharyva, D. (2012). Analysis, Synthesis, and
Design of Chemical Process. 3. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1088 p.
UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2004). A Manual for the Preparers and
Users of Eco-efficiency Indicators. Available at http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20037_en.pdf. Accessed on
July 20, 2017.
U.S. Department of Energy (2010). Guidelines for Estimating Unmetered Industrial Water Use. Available at
http://pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19730.pdf. Accessed on July 13, 2017.
U.S. Department of Energy (2003). Furnaces and Boilers. Available at http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-
and-boilers. Accessed on July 15, 2017.
Walas, S. M. (1990). Chemical Process Equipment: Selection and Design. Newton, MA: Butterworth-
Heinemann. 755 p.

Anais do XX ENMC – Encontro Nacional de Modelagem Computacional e VIII ECTM – Encontro de Ciências e Tecnologia de Materiais, Nova
Friburgo, RJ – 16 a 19 Outubro 2017

View publication stats