Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

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

Towards process, energy and safety based criteria for multi-objective

optimization of industrial acid gas removal process
Zainab Al Ani, Mohammed Thafseer, Ashish M. Gujarathi ∗ , G. Reza Vakili-Nezhaad ∗
Department of Petroleum & Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box 33, Al-Khod, P.C. 123, Muscat, Oman

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

Article history: Acid gas removal processes find significance in industries because of the need to meet government regu-
Received 6 February 2020 lations regarding the concentration of sweet gas. Also, the fact that the removed H2 S can be converted to
Received in revised form 18 March 2020 sulfur by the Claus process and the rising importance of carbon capture increases its importance. Opti-
Accepted 23 March 2020
mization of the process with regards to energy consumption and damage index is among the many cases
Available online 27 April 2020
carried out in this study using evolutionary algorithm, NSGA-II. The process is simulated using ProMax
4.0 which was linked to Excel to conduct the multi-objective optimization cases (EMOO). Hydrocarbon
Keywords:
recovery and sulfur removal have also been optimized. Detailed analysis of the two-objective optimiza-
Acid gas removal
DEPG
tion cases is carried out in the study followed by a three-objective case which is then compared with the
Multi-objective optimization two-objective cases and the results are reported. With industries operating under more than two objec-
Energy considerations tives, the three-objective case would provide more practical results. A four-objective case optimization
Hydrocarbon recovery study, which combines all the studied objectives, is also carried out for more industrial practical solu-
Safety indices tions. The decision makers will be able to analyze the Pareto-optimal solutions to determine the preferred
operating point.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The solvent used in this study is Dimethyl Ether of Polyethylene

Syngas produced from gasification processes contain gases like
H2 S and CO2 , which being acidic in nature can cause significant
harm to process equipment and work staff. These effects are mag-
nified at extreme process conditions which can lead to corrosion
of pipelines and casings. Government regulations have been set up
to control the concentration of these gases, especially H2 S which is
poisonous, in the released streams (George et al., 2016; Kohl and
Nielsen, 1997). Acid gas removal, as a result, becomes a necessary
step in these industries. Current processes that remove acid gases
use different kinds of solvents and the most common ones are either
chemical solvents or physical solvents (Astaria et al., 1983). The dif-
ference between the two is that the former removes the gases from
the feed stream by chemical reaction while the absorption leads to
removal using the latter. The presence of high concentration of acid
gases in the feed stream, like in this study, gives physical solvents
the nod ahead of chemical solvents. Also, solvent regeneration is
achieved by pressure reduction or the application of heat (Dyment
and Watanasiri, 2015).
∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ashishg@squ.edu.om, ashishgujrathi@gmail.com
(A.M. Gujarathi), vakili@squ.edu.om (G.R. Vakili-Nezhaad).
Glycol (DEPG), a constituent of Selexol® , and has a generic formula
CH3 (CH2 CH2 O)n CH3 , where n is between 3 and 9. Its non-reactive
nature and thermal stability gives it the edge over methanol. In
addition, owing to the high vapour pressure of methanol, refriger-
ation costs are very high while DEPG does not require a water wash
to recover the solvent (Burr and Lyddon, 2008). The solubility of CO2
and H2 S in DEPG is higher than that of CH4 and the former gases
will be preferred over the latter. Also, among these gases, DEPG has
a high selectivity of H2 S over CO2 (Dyment and Watanasiri, 2015;
Nassar et al., 2000).
The first case of optimizing a process would have been when
conditions were tweaked to improve the profits generated before
the era of computing and mathematical algorithms. As time passed,
engineers began searching for methods to decrease energy con-
sumption and improve gas recovery. This led to the development
of modeling and simulation of processes and along with that, the
need for optimization techniques arose. Single objective optimiza-
tion did not give the users much scope for improvement and as a
result, there have been advancements in the field of multi-objective
optimization (MOO), where more than one objective is considered
for optimization (Deb, 2014; Gong et al., 2014, 2013; Liu et al.,
2017). Evolutionary Algorithms, especially ones that converge to
global solutions rather than just the local front, have been preferred
in recent times because of their ability to solve real world problem

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.03.023
0957-5820/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
with ease (Adeyemo and Stretch, 2018; Dulebenets, 2019; Gong
et al., 2018a,b; Maier et al., 2019; Monsef et al., 2019).
Carbon capture has been proposed as a mean to minimize CO2
being emitted into the atmosphere (Bosoaga et al., 2009). This helps
especially in the case of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
(IGCC) plants that produce a lot of CO2 , which needs to be dis-
posed, within the environmental regulations, in place (Kawabata
et al., 2013). IGCC plants have an acid gas removal unit to purify
the syngas, with the exit stream being sent to the Claus process to
produce sulfur. Instead of releasing the CO2 to the open, it is cap-
tured and sent to sequestration sites (Palmer, 2012). The Selexol®
process, which uses the DEPG solvent, is utilized in the acid gas
removal unit to remove H2 S and CO2 from the syngas (Gatti et al.,
2015; Im et al., 2015; Yavini et al., 2015). Stephens (2005) stud-
ied different sequences for the removal of H2 S and CO2 . One was
to separate each gas individually by keeping the H2 S removal sys-
tem first. Another choice is to erect a unit that absorbs both the
gases. The second option was considered in this study (Stephens,
2005). A dual-stage Selexol® process was simulated by Kapetaki
et al. (2015) to find operating conditions required to reach specific
goals in regards to recovery of acid gases (Kapetaki et al., 2015).
MOO was used to solve single bed adiabatic operation and steam
injection pseudo isothermal operation of styrene reactor, where
multi-objective differential evolution (MODE) algorithm results
were compared to NSGA algorithm (Gujarathi and Babu, 2009).
An improved version of NSGA-II that includes the use of jump-
ing gene was used to solve three problems of an industrial semi
batch nylon-6 reactor (Ramteke and Gupta, 2008). The maximiza-
tion of high-value end products and minimization of low-value end
products were among the objectives considered for the MOO of
petroleum processing units using NSGA-II (Ivanov and Ray, 2014).
Ochieng et al. (2013) discussed the minimization of total energy
and maximization of hydrocarbon recovery in the Benfield HiPure
Gas Sweetening Unit. These objectives are among the ones that
will be evaluated in this study (Ochieng et al., 2013). The cumene
production process was optimized for several objectives, which
included a safety-based one and the optimization was carried out
with NSGA-II with EMOO means (excel-based MOO). The study
was able to achieve critical findings regarding cumene process
improvement (Sharma et al., 2013). The production of levulinic acid
from empty fruit bunch was optimized for safety, environment and
economic objectives using genetic algorithm. The obtained Pareto-
fronts showed a good potential for improving the process (Hafyan
et al., 2020).
The objectives in this study are optimized using NSGA-II (Deb,
2002). The Pareto-optimal front obtained is analyzed by the deci-
sion makers in order to find the best operating point for the
industry. The considered objectives are increasing the recovery of
CH4 and H2 S removal and to minimize the total consumed heat
and damage index (DI). These four objectives are combined to form
four cases with bi-objective nature and one case with three and
four objectives. This is the first time for a research work to optimize
these objective combinations and cases. For this purpose, several
decision variables and limitations are taken into consideration. A
visual basic application (VBA) code is used to act as an interface
between ProMax v4.0 simulator and the Excel-based MOO, NSGA-
II. The user provides the ranges of the decision variables and the
required constraints for the optimization. The VBA code accesses
the variables from the simulator at every stage of the optimization
run, which is then stored in Excel and can be utilized by the user
for calculations and analysis.
2. Process description
There are a number of acid gas removal (AGR) processes run-
ning in industries all over the world treating a wide variety of
87
gas streams. Processes using a solvent for the removal are more
common, especially while dealing with syngas and natural gas
(Korens et al., 2002). Being the cheaper alternative, amine-based
chemical solvents are generally preferred. However, the presence
of high amounts of acid gases in the stream means physical solvents
are required. Selexol® solvent, or DEPG, is selected over methanol
because of its ability to operate at normal temperatures and low
toxicity.
The acid gas removal process using DEPG has been depicted
in Fig. 1. The feed, dry basis sour gas, is a gas mixture containing
81.98 % CH4 , 18 % CO2 and 128 ppm H2 S by mole basis. After being
saturated with steam, this stream now called sour feed, enters a
10-stage high pressure absorber where it comes in contact with
two DEPG streams of different concentrations. The lean solvent
enters the top stage of the absorber from the bottom of the stripper
after passing through the refrigeration unit, while the semi lean
solvent is the bottom of the low pressure flash tank (LP Flash).
Concentrated solvent, termed as Rich DEPG, is flashed under high
pressure in another tank (HP Flash) and the top product returns
to the absorber after being cooled. The sulfur free gas leaves from
the top of the absorber after the acid gases have been absorbed
by the solvent streams. The rich solvent exits from the bottom of
the absorber to the HP Flash. As said before, the vapour stream
of the HP Flash is compressed, cooled and then sent back to the
absorber. The liquid stream goes to the heat recovery system and
then a preheater to raise its temperature before entering the LP
Flash. Vapour stream from the LP Flash is the CO2 rich gas, which
can be sent to a Claus process to convert the H2 S to sulfur and then
for carbon capture. The energy in the vapour stream can also be
used to produce electricity instead of wastage. The bottom stream
from the LP Flash forms the semi lean solvent stream after pass-
ing through the makeup tank and is cooled by the heat recovery
system and a cooler before entering the absorber. A portion of
this stream is split and sent to the 5-stage low pressure strip-
per after heating. This stream is stripped in the presence of air
and the top stream consisting mainly of the acid gases is released.
The bottom stream containing traces of the gases is now the lean
solvent, which after refrigeration enters the absorber. The SRK
Polar property package was used in the simulation using ProMax
4.0.
Validation of the process was carried out by comparing the
results of this process with that of Doctor et al. (1993). The feed
for both the processes is a mixture of about 40 % nitrogen, 30 %
hydrogen, 25 % CO2 , and trace amounts of CO, water, methane and
H2 S. Doctor et al. (1993) had carried out the process at high and
low pressure. Since this study focuses on a high pressure process,
only that is compared.
The AGR process has a better composition for the sweet gas,
which is due to the presence of a semi lean solvent stream which
is absent in the IGCC process. The composition of the rich solvent
leaving the absorber was also checked and it has higher concen-
tration of acid gases than the IGCC counterpart does. Thus it can
be concluded that the simulation compares reasonably and gives
improved results (see Table 1).
3. Problem formulation
In an era where energy demand has been sky rocketing, the
amount of heat consumed by an industrial process comes into
focus. Sweetening processes require large amounts of energy to
reach the required purity for the sweet gas. With the rising energy
costs, it becomes necessary to include minimization of the Total
Heat of the process among the considered objectives for multi-
objective optimization. The total heat of the system is found by
88 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

Fig. 1. Acid Gas Removal using DEPG (ProMaxv4.0, 2018).

Table 1
Comparison of IGCC and AGR processes.a .

Component Sour Feed lbmol/h Treated Gas lbmol/h Rich Solvent lbmol/h CO2 Rich Gas lbmol/h

IGCC AGR IGCC AGR IGCC AGR

CO2 4336 216.93 199.41 4234.74 4685.3 4119.06 4107.8

H2 S 0.4 0.04 0.00137 0.4 0.75794 0.36 0.37731
a
IGCC - Doctor et al. (1993) study results, AGR - Present study results.

calculating the difference between energy utilized and energy
released.
 trol Index (PHCI) and Inherent Safety Index (ISI), calculation of ISI
Total heat = (Qpumps + Qrecompressor + Qheaters − Qcoolers )
where Q is the total energy consumed in the utility units (pumps,
compressors, heaters and coolers) in kJ/h.
Maximization of sulfur removal is important for the process
to keep the sweet gas concentration within the limits set by
the regulations. Considering that the solvent has some affinity to
hydrocarbons, CH4 recovery needs to be maximized to make sure
large amounts of the CH4 does not leave with the solvent. Enhanc-
ing the ability of the solvent by changing process conditions will
improve sulfur removal but will also result in more CH4 leaving
with the solvent.
H2 S in sour gas − H2 S in sweet gas
% H2 S Removal = ∗ 100
H2 S in sour gas
CH4 in sweet gas
% CH4 Recovery = ∗ 100
CH4 in sour gas
where H2 S in sour gas and CH4 in sour gas are the content of H2 S and
CH4 in the feed (Sour Feed), H2 S in sweet gas and CH4 in sweet gas are
H2 S and CH4 content in the Sulfur Free Gas stream.
Gas processes dealing with high flow rates, temperatures and
pressures tend to be very accident prone. In cases like these, it is
important to have a mathematical formula to measure the degree
of damage that such accidents can cause. One such tool is the
Integrated Inherent Safety Index (I2SI) which considers potential
hazards and allows engineers to foresee possible effects of process
conditions. Although I2SI includes DI, Process and Hazard Con-
(1)
involves giving values to guidewords based on applicability and
PHCI requires ranking of parameters which is subjective to indi-
vidual safety experts (Khan and Abbasi, 2001; Sharma et al., 2013).
Hence, only DI is considered in this study and since, I2SI is inversely
proportional to DI, to maximize I2SI, DI is minimized in the simu-
lation. Sharma et al. (2013) provides a detailed calculation of DI
that includes Fire and Explosion Damage Index (FEDI) and Toxicity
Damage Index (TDI).
3.1. Decision variables and constraints
ProMax was used to run a sensitivity analysis in order to find
(2) the decision variables affecting this process. The analysis con-
cluded that the temperature, pressure and vapour volumetric flow
(3) rate of the feed gas, Sour Feed, (Tsourgas, Psourgas and Fsourgas
respectively) along with the temperature of the lean solvent, Tlean-
DEPG, and the semi lean solvent, TsemileanDEPG affected the outlet
stream concentrations. The objectives, decision variables and con-
straints of the acid gas removal process have been tabulated and
displayed in Table 2. Constraint of the H2 S fraction is set at 4 ppm
to meet government standards.
Four two-objective cases, one three-objective case and a four-
objective case have been identified and the optimization has been
carried out. The cases are:
 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
Table 2
Objectives, decision variables and constraints values used in present study
Objective Decision variables
275 K < Tsourgas < 303 K
Maximize %H2 S Removal 4300 kPa < Psourgas <10040 kPa
Maximize %CH4 Recovery 2.12 MSm3 /day < Fsourgas < 5.39
Minimize Total Heat MSm3 /day
Minimize DI 277 K < TleanDEPG < 311 K
277 K < TsemileanDEPG < 311 K
• Case 1: Maximization of %H2 S Removal and minimization of Total
heat
• Case 2: Maximization of %H2 S Removal and minimization of DI
• Case 3: Minimization of Total Heat and DI
• Case 4: Maximization of %CH4 Recovery and minimization of DI
• Case 5: Maximization of %H2 S Removal, and minimization of Total
Heat and DI
• Case 6: Maximization of %H2 S Removal and %CH4 Recovery and
minimization of Total Heat and DI
NSGA-II has been used to run the cases with a population size of
150 individuals and for 200 generations. The crossover and muta-
tion probabilities used are 0.9 and 0.02 respectively. The obtained
Pareto-optimal fronts and the effect of decision variables are dis-
cussed in the next section.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Two-objective optimization study
• Case 1: %H2 S Removal vs Total Heat
In an age where energy demands are rising, it becomes impor-
tant to make sure wastage is as low as possible. The goal in this
case is to maximize H2 S removal keeping the energy utilized in the
process minimum and the results are plotted in Fig. 2a. The effect of
the different decision variables on the objectives has been shown
in Fig. 2(b–k).
At first glance, the Pareto-optimal front in Fig. 2a gives a straight-
forward trend. The total process heat involved is seen to increase
on improving the sweet gas by removing more H2 S. In order to
decrease the concentration of H2 S in the sweet gas, the process
needs more DEPG and also higher operating pressure. In the case
of the sour gas temperature, simulation keeps it high, at 303 K,
till it approaches 100 % as seen in Fig. 2b. Higher temperatures
help in more energy release at coolers and a drop in temperature
after -1.5 × 106 kJ/h leads to a fall in the Total Heat in the pro-
cess (Fig. 2c). Solvent and semi lean solvent temperatures are fixed
at the minimum of 277 K to enhance the absorption capability of
DEPG. This improves H2 S removal but does not help with the pro-
cess heat as less energy released at the exchangers (Fig. 2(h, I, j and
k)). The major effect on the objective is caused by the pressure and
flow rate of the feed. From Fig. 2(d and f), it can be observed that
increasing the pressure to 7600 kPa while keeping flow rate high
at 5.38 MSm3 /day leads to the H2 S removal reaching 99.5 %. This
occurs because pressure aids absorption and as a result, higher H2 S
removal rates are achieved with rise in pressure. When the pressure
becomes constant at 7600 kPa, further increase in H2 S removal is
because of the decrease in the feed flow rate, which makes it easier
for the solvent to absorb the acid gases. The effect of similar changes
in process conditions on Total Heat is observed in Fig. 2(e and g).
The increase in pressure of the gas at constant flow rate adds to the
duty on the pumps which in turn increases the energy required.
Lowering the inlet flowrate as pressure becomes constant means
energy in the streams also drops, as a result of which energy is
released in the coolers and refrigeration falls. This leads to increase
89
Constraints
H2 S fraction in sulfur free gas <4 ppm
CO2 fraction in CO2 rich gas >60%
End Approach Temperature > 3 K
in the Total Heat involved in the process. With 4 ppm being max-
imum tolerable concentration of H2 S in the sweet gas, a removal
rate of 97.5 % is accepted. If energy recovery is highly desired, the
plot can be used by the design engineer to decide on the operating
point for the industry.
• Case 2: %H2 S Removal vsDI
Industrial processes require various indices to measure the con-
sequences of accidents at the plant. Couple of these, namely FEDI
and TDI are measured and combined to form DI. DI gives an idea of
how safe a process is at the given conditions. Here the goal is to find
solutions for the case involving the maximization of H2 S removal
while minimizing DI to make sure the process is as safe as possible.
Fig. 3a gives the Pareto optimal solutions for the given case and
a trade-off can be seen emerging. Major conditions which affect
DI are sour gas flow rate and pressure. High flow rates and pres-
sures, along with high temperatures generally make the process
more accident prone and can cause heavier damages. High sour gas
temperature of 303 K is seen is majority of the solutions (Fig. 3(b
and c)), but pressure and flow rate dominates DI and as a result no
defined pattern is observed. After 99.5 % H2 S removal rate, the tem-
perature falls to aid further absorption by the solvent and removal
rate approaches a maximum of 99.95 %. As in the case analyzed
before, lean solvent temperature has been fixed by the algorithm
at 277 K so as to have DEPG at maximum capacity (Fig. 3(h and
i)). Feed gas pressure and flow rate, and semi lean solvent temper-
ature, have a combined effect and this will be explained as such
(Fig. 3(d–g, j and k)). Up to H2 S removal of 99 %, the feed flow
rate and pressure remain constant at 2.94 MSm3 /day and 4300 kPa
respectively. Semi lean solvent temperature is around 302.59 K and
a steady rise in H2 S removal is noted. This occurs due to an increase
in solvent flow rate. Since the solvent is liquid, it does not affect DI
much and only a slight increase from 403 to 415 is observed in
that range. On passing the sharp change in the plot of Fig. 3a, feed
gas pressure and flow rate increases sharply to 9000 kPa and 3.35
MSm3 /day respectively, and semi lean solvent temperature drops
to 277 K. This improves H2 S removal beyond 99 % due to better
absorption owing to the pressure and solvent temperature. Also, a
sudden increase in DI, from 415 to 515 within 0.5 % of H2 S removal,
is observed. This is unsurprising since the calculation of DI deriva-
tives like FEDI and TDI is affected directly by the physical state of
the stream, its operating pressure and flow rate.
Although very pure sweet gas is preferable, it is not logical or
economical to reach that level of purity. Another factor that limits
the purity is the damage index. As seen from the right hand por-
tion of the plot in Fig. 3a, a 0.2 % increase from 99.7 % H2 S removal
increases the DI by 25 %. Such a high value of DI should be discour-
aged since very high flow rate of gases at high pressure could cause
serious damage to industrial property and the workforce.
• Case 3: Total Heat vsDI
In industry, the safest processes are the ones which have less
release of heat and this is corroborated in the Fig. 4a. In this case,
the objective was to minimize the Total Heat involved in the pro-
90 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

Fig. 2. Case 1, maximization of %H2 S Removal and minimization of Total Heat of the process (a) The Pareto set at generation 200 for the process. (b–k) comparison of values
of decision variables for the process corresponding to the points on Pareto set in Fig. 2a.
 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99 91

Fig. 3. Case 2, maximization of H2 S removal and minimization of DI (a) The Pareto set at generation 200 for the process. (b–k) comparison of values of decision variables for
the process corresponding to the points on Pareto set in Fig. 3a.
92 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

Fig. 4. Case 3, minimization of Total Heat and DI (a) The Pareto set at generation 200 for the process. (b–k) comparison of values of decision variables for the process
corresponding to the points on Pareto set in Fig. 4a.
 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
cess and the DI simultaneously. Fig. 4a shows the Pareto-optimal
front for this problem while Fig. 4(b–k) has the dependence of these
objectives on the different decision variables affecting the outcome
of the process.
Closer inspection of Fig. 4a reveals that higher DI values at
obtained when more energy is released and here is the expected
trade-off. Since the aim is to have a process as safe as possible,
there arises a need to sacrifice on the amount of heat. Simulation
has fixed the feed gas temperature to 303 K (Fig. 4(b and c)). Sour
gas pressure is set at 4300 kPa since high pressures increase the
duty on pumps and increase heat requirements as well as mak-
ing the process more dangerous, increasing DI (Fig. 4(d and e)). As
seen in Fig. 4(h and i), TleanDEPG is fixed at the lowest tempera-
ture of 277 K to maximize absorption. The sour gas flow rate has
the biggest effect on both the objectives. Increasing the flow rate
from 3.05 MSm3 /day to 5.38 MSm3 /day, while increasing DI in the
process (Fig. 4g), reduces heat requirements as seen in Fig. 4f. More
flow rate can be equated as more energy in the system and since
the feed is at higher temperatures, more energy will be released
at the coolers and the refrigeration unit. DI calculations give the
highest weightage to flow rates and very high values lead to high
DI. This can also be inferred logically as higher flow rates would
make it harder to control the fluids and hence, more susceptible to
damages, like fires or toxic spread of gases. Low flow rates and high
semi lean solvent temperatures at the same time, reduces the heat
released at coolers and this leads to higher Total Heat in the pro-
cess (Fig. 4j). On the other hand, decreasing TsemileanDEPG from
294 K to 277 K will improve the ability of the solvent to absorb the
gases and this will lead to higher DI as more gases will be in the
exit streams after being flashed (Fig. 4k). As is always the case, the
operating point of the plant has to be decided depending on which
objective matters more for the process.
• Case 4: %CH4 Recovery vsDI
In a process where the primary objective is to remove sulfide,
methane recovery is also considered to make sure large amounts of
methane do not leave with the waste gas streams. DI is an objective
in this case so that the process is within limits and will not cause
extensive harm to equipment or personnel. Case 4 examines the
trade-off when %CH4 Recovery is maximized and DI is minimized
at the same time. The optimum solutions of the optimization are
seen in Fig. 5a while Fig. 5(b–k) have the individual dependence of
the objectives on the decision variables.
Initial analysis of Fig. 5a shows that increasing the %CH4 Recov-
ery leads to higher DI values which is gradual at first and then
rises sharply after 96 %. Very low temperatures lead to the sol-
vent absorption at very high capacity and a possibility of methane
being absorbed as well. Sour feed is kept constant at 303 K to avoid
the same (Fig. 5(b and c)). However, lean solvent temperatures are
kept at 277 K, as seen in Fig. 5(h and i) to aid the absorption and
also make sure DI isn’t very high. The effect of pressure and flow
rate of the sour feed on the objectives can be explained together.
Observing Fig. 5(d and f), %CH4 Recovery is directly influenced by
feed flow rate. As the flow rate increases from 3.26 MSm3 /day to
5.38 MSm3 /day, the recovery proportionally climbs from 93 % to
96 %, while the pressure is constant at 4300 kPa. High flow rates
at low pressures, makes sure that the amount of methane that is
absorbed by the solvent is not every high and this improves the
recovery. At constant flow of 5.38 MSm3 /day, a large increase in
pressure is required to raise the recovery from 96 % to 96.5 %. Sim-
ilarly, for DI, Fig. 5(e and g) shows the increase in DI to 420 as
the flow rate increases at constant pressure. A sudden rise is seen
because DI depends a lot on the flow rates involved in the process
and all flow rates depend on the feed flow rate. When flow rate
reaches maximum, the consequent increase in pressure increases
93
DI to very high values (nearly 500) as large amounts of vapour and
gas is present in the system, due to the large flow rate, at high pres-
sure. These conditions are dangerous to operate at and care must
be taken. The effect of pressure on DI is way more than on methane
recovery, hence the steep increase in slope after DI value of 420
in Fig. 5a. The effect of the semi lean solvent is interesting to note
(Fig. 5(j and k)). Initially, CH4 recovery increases despite the tem-
perature falling to 277 K due to the high flow rates. Then the rising
temperatures decrease the solvent’s absorption and hence recov-
ery increases further. Decreasing the temperature increases DI as
the lower temperatures improves the absorption leading to more
gases in the exit streams after flashing. Then as the solvent tem-
perature increases, DI increases as higher temperatures make the
process susceptible to fires.
Table 3 shows the values of the objectives and their respective
decision variables for the selected points. Note that A and E are the
points with the lowest and highest value of %CH4 Recovery and DI.
Point A has a recovery rate of 93.22 % and a DI value of 404.82 while
E has CH4 recovery of 96.30 % and its damage index is 497.03. All
other points will fall between these two extremes. For example,
point B’s values are 94.92 % and 411.53 which can also be observed
from the trend in Fig. 5a. Point C shows the point where the increase
in DI shifts from gradual to steep. This can be seen in the table
by observing pressure and flow rate of the feed for points D and
E. The reason for the increase in pressure and flow rate beyond
C was explained in the previous paragraph. A desired increase in
hydrocarbon recovery would automatically lead to an increase in
DI as observed while moving from point A to point E. A recovery
rate of about 96 % should be acceptable as further increase would
lead to massive hike in the DI but the final decision lies with the
process engineer.
4.2. Three-objective and four-objective optimization study
• Case 5: Total Heat vs %H2 S Removal vs DI
• Case 6:Total Heat vs %H2 S Removal vs DIvs %CH4 Recovery
Industries rarely operate with just two objectives. Most of the
time, the there are multiple objectives that need to be optimized
simultaneously. The 3 different objectives considered in the earlier
cases, viz. %H2 S Removal, Total Heat and DI, were pitted against
each other and the result is the Fig. 6a. The objectives in this case
were to maximize the %H2 S Removal while minimizing process
heat and DI at the same time. Fig. 6b represents the four-objective
case, where %CH4 Recovery maximization objective is added to the
three-objective case. Longer convergence times can be expected in
three-objective and four objective optimizing cases mainly because
of the influence of the third and fourth objective addition.
The following figures and tables compare this three- and
four-objective case with each of the two-objective cases. The
Pareto-optimal fronts of the figures that follow show that the indi-
vidual two-objective cases are basically the best solutions of the
three-objective case. In each figure, the two-objective front lies on
the periphery of the three-objective plot when considering the two
objectives alone. The presence of the third objective gives solutions
which are further away from this periphery, which is the same case
for the fourth objective.
The results of the two-objective (Case 1, maximization of %H2 S
Removal and minimization of Total Heat), three-objective (Case 5,
maximization of %H2 S Removal, and minimization of Total Heat
and DI) and four-objective (Case 6, maximization of %H2 S Removal
and %CH4 Recovery, and minimization of Total Heat and DI) opti-
mization comparison studies have been represented in Fig. 7. The
difference between both the cases has been analyzed and the
results for a few distinct %H2 S Removal values have been compiled
in Table 4. As is observed in the table, the points being compared are
94 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

Fig. 5. Case 4, maximization of CH4 Recovery and minimization of DI (a) The Pareto set at generation 200 for the process. (b–k) comparison of values of decision variables
for the process corresponding to the points on Pareto set in Fig. 5a.
 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99 95

Fig. 6. The Pareto set (a) three-objective optimizaton (Case 5) (b) four-objective optimization (Case 6) study at generation 200.
96 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
Table 3
Optimum values for operating conditions and objectives corresponding to points A, B, C, D and E shown in Fig. 5a.
Parameter A B
% CH4 Recovery 93.22 94.92
DI 404.82 411.53
Tsourgas (K) 302.01 302.01
Psourgas (kPa) 4302.48 4302.48
Fsourgas (MSm3 /day) 3.26 4.42
TleanDEPG (K) 279.13 277.82
TsemileanDEPG (K) 290.76 280.14
Fig. 7. Comparison of Pareto-optimal solutions for the two-objective (Case), three-
objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization study at generation 200
for the process.
selected such that the value of %H2 S Removal does not vary by more
than 0.01 %. In case 1, DI (calculated) is the damage index obtained
using the process conditions that generate the given %H2 S Removal
and Total Heat values while the same in case 5 is obtained by the
optimization itself. The table is arranged in ascending order of %H2 S
Removal and note that the increasing sulfur Removal leads to higher
values of Total Heat in both cases. Climbing energy requirements
as the sweet gas approaches very high purity is the reason for this.
However, the Total Heat values in both cases are not close. As is
expected, the two-objective case has the better (lower) values for
Total Heat at the same %H2 S Removal when compared with the
values in the three-objective study. This is observed as the three-
objective case needs to optimize an additional objective and this
leads to sacrifices in the other objectives. Moving on to DI, their
values also escalate as higher purity is targeted. This arises due to
the higher flow rates, temperatures and pressures present in the
process. Since, large volumes of high pressure gases are involved,
DI values increase progressively and may approach dangerous val-
ues if care is not taken. Notice how the DI values are way worse
in the case 1 compared to case 5. DI in case 1 has very high values
which are generally discouraged while on the other hand, DI for
case 5 are well within the acceptable ranges. This trend is observed
because DI is an objective which is optimized in case 5 while it
isn’t given any attention in case 1. So for the same %H2 S Removal
values, case 5 had lower DI but worse Total Heat values when com-
pared to case 1. In industry, multiple objectives are considered and
it is always better to go for multi-objective optimization over two-
objective optimization within time and processing constraints. For
case 6, where four objectives are considered, it can be seen that a
small improvement is noticed with DI objective function in com-
parison to case 1, while the Total Heat objective value increased in
case 6 compared to case 1 and 5 (see Table 4). The increase in the
C D E
95.90 96.03 96.30
418.33 449.38 497.03
301.93 302.04 301.93
4302.48 5065.12 7891.38
5.38 5.38 5.38
277.76 277.69 277.76
277.82 283.75 294.05
Fig. 8. Comparison of Pareto-optimal solutions for the two-objective (Case 2), three-
objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization study at generation 200
for the process.
Total Heat objective value in case 6 is also sensible from Fig. 7. In
general, DI values in case 5 are better compared to the other two
cases, while %CH4 Recovery objective function results are relatively
close to each other for all the cases. DI objective function reduces
as the %CH4 Recovery decreases as seen from the selected points
in Table 4 in case 6 (except for point F”). For the same case, Total
Heat value is increased with the increase in %H2 S Removal, which
is expected since more energy is needed for a higher pure gas.
Table 5 compares the two-objective (Case 2, maximization of
%H2 S Removal and minimization of DI), three-objective (Case 5,
maximization of %H2 S Removal, and minimization of Total Heat
and DI) and four-objective (Case 6, maximization of %H2 S Removal
and %CH4 Recovery, and minimization of Total Heat and DI) opti-
mization for selected values of %H2 S Removal. The Pareto fronts for
all the cases involving the two objectives (i.e. %H2 S Removal and DI)
are plotted in Fig. 8. It is noted that the set of two-objective Pareto-
optimal solutions lies on the edge of the three-objective solution
set. The points in the table are selected such that the %H2 S Removal
values in both cases are within 0.02 % of each other. This is done
to help study the difference between the objective values for both
the cases. Like it was observed in the analysis of the two-objective
case, DI values increase slowly till 415 and then a sharp rise is seen.
The sudden change is observed around 99.75 % H2 S Removal and
similar results are noted in case 5. High values of DI are observed
on approaching high levels of sweet gas purity since it requires
large flow rates, temperatures and pressures and these directly
contribute to DI. DI values in case 2 are better (lower) owing to
the need to optimize a third objective in case 5 and as a result some
sort of loss needs to be incurred by the other objectives. For similar
reasons however, the Total Heat is in case 5 is better than the two-
objective set. Since case 2 does not worry about the value of Total
Heat obtained, it can be expended in favor of improving the objec-
tives considered. Case 5 on the other hand, evaluates Total Heat as a
third objective and as a result its values are an improvement on the
Table 4
Comparison of the two-objective (Case 1), three-objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization results for a few selected values of %H2 S Removal.

Case 1: % H2 S Removal vs Total Heat Case 5: H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI Case 6: H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI vs %CH4 Recovery

% H2 S Total Heat DI %CH4 % H2 S Total Heat %CH4 % H2 S Total Heat %CH4

Recovery DI Recovery DI
Removal (kJ/h) (calculated) Removal (kJ/h) Removal (kJ/h) Recovery
(calculated) (calculated)
A 97.8 −4.40E+06 676.15 95.81 A’ 97.79 −4.24E+06 419.71 95.7 A” 97.82 −2.00E+06 663.16 93.96
B 98.6 −4.23E+06 705.14 95.75 B’ 98.6 −4.18E+06 432.45 95.6 B” 98.61 −2.22E+06 713.46 95.68

Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
C 98.97 −4.05E+06 728.52 95.75 C’ 98.98 −3.97E+06 453.37 95.6 C” 98.98 −3.22E+06 699.78 95.11
D 99.32 −3.81E+06 748.83 95.62 D’ 99.32 −3.72E+06 476.54 95.62 D” 99.33 −3.20E+06 756.65 95.26
E 99.85 −2.36E+06 817.88 94.4 E’ 99.85 −2.29E+06 508.83 94.34 E” 99.85 5.74E+06 780.69 93.65
F 99.95 4.82E+05 822.46 92.43 F’ 99.95 6.29E+05 514.69 92.39 F” 99.95 9.56E+06 827.87 92.32

Table 5
Comparison of the two-objective (Case 2), three-objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization results for a few selected values of %H2 S Removal.

Case 4: % H2 S Removal vs DI Case 5: % H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI Case 6: % H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI vs %CH4 Recovery

% H2 S Removal DI Total Heat %CH4 % H2 S DI Total Heat %CH4 % H2 S DI Total Heat (kJ/h) %CH4
(kJ/h) Recovery Removal (kJ/h) Recovery Removal Recovery
(calculated) (calculated) (calculated)

A 97.59 404.02 −1.62E+06 92.77 A’ 97.6 407.21 −2.61E+06 92.86 A” 97.61 671.92 −4.12E+06 95.78
B 98.14 404.9 −1.72E+06 92.75 B’ 98.15 408.1 −2.58E+06 92.87 B” 98.18 682.49 −3.79E+06 95.52
C 99.42 410.23 −1.93E+06 92.65 C’ 99.4 411.81 −1.96E+06 92.85 C” 99.43 760.92 −3.37E+06 95.57
D 99.6 412.27 −2.00E+06 92.6 D’ 99.59 414.71 −2.36E+06 92.77 D” 99.6 797.68 7.92E+06 95.26
E 99.91 482.7 2.10E+06 92.36 E’ 99.91 484.74 1.09E+06 92.38 E” 99.91 804.17 1.49E+05 92.69
F 99.93 503.46 −1.19E+06 92.46 F’ 99.93 505.75 −1.23E+06 92.49 F” 99.94 809.02 3.88E+06 92.49

97
98 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99

%CH4 Recovery
Case 6: % H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI vs %CH4 Recovery

95.85
95.89
95.78
95.91

96.04
95.6
% H2 S Removal

96.87
97.34
97.61
97.26
99.56
97.91
682.39
671.92
686.82

759.36
681.07

806.92
DI
Total Heat (kJ/h)

−4.15E+06
−4.12E+06

−2.62E+06
−2.53E+06
−4.20E+06

−4.04E+06
Fig. 9. Comparison of Pareto-optimal solutions for the two-objective (Case 3), three-
objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization study at generation 200

D”
A”
B”
C”

E”
F”
for the process.

Comparison of the two-objective (Case 3), three-objective (Case 5) and four-objective (Case 6) optimization results for a few selected values of Total Heat.
ones derived from case 2. No pattern was observed in the difference

%CH4 Recovery
in objective values between the two cases. This again is an example

(calculated)
of why three-objective optimization is better than using two objec-

95.77
95.76
95.78
95.38
92.86
92.87
tives, and is a more practical approach. For the four-objective case,
DI are much higher compared Case 4 and 5, as it varies from 661
to 829 (Fig. 8). This high increase in the DI is a result of adding the
fourth objective (maximization of %CH4 Recovery). As it can be seen

% H2 S Removal
from Table 5, point A” has a higher %CH4 Recovery value compared
to as that of point A, but at the same time, DI increased from 404.02

Case 5: % H2 S Removal vs Total Heat vs DI

for point A to 671.92 for A”. The increase in % H2 S Removal in case

97.44
97.83
97.79
97.93

98.15
97.6
6 resulted in an increase in values of DI and Total Heat objective
functions, which can be noticed as going from point A” to F”. On the

419.35
419.99
419.71
417.11
407.21
408.1
contrary, a reverse behavior in exhibited by %CH4 Recovery.
DI

Fig. 9 shows the Pareto-optimal solutions of the two-objective

(Case 3, minimization of Total Heat and DI), three-objective (Case
Total Heat (kJ/h)

5, maximization of %H2 S Removal, and minimization of Total Heat

and DI) and four-objective (Case 6, maximization of %H2 S Removal
−4.41E+06
−4.31E+06
−4.24E+06
−3.97E+06
−2.61E+06
−2.58E+06
and %CH4 Recovery, and minimization of Total Heat and DI) opti-
mization studies carried out. Few of these solutions are compared
in Table 6 using selected values of Total Heat of the process. Total
Heat values selected for comparison are always within 0.05 % of
D’
A’
B’
C’

E’
F’

each other for easy analysis. As was observed in the analysis of the
two-objective case, higher values of DI are obtained when more
%CH4 Recovery

energy is released, i.e. at very low Total Heat values. This is mainly
(calculated)

due to the high values of feed flow rate, temperature and pressure
existing in the process which may lead to accidents and hence have
95.79
95.69
95.62
95.26
92.76
92.78

high DI. The case 3 plot is very narrow and is only defined between
DI values of 404–420 and the process will be quite safe in these
conditions. Owing to this short range the difference between DI
% H2 S Removal

values of case 3 and case 5 is quite small but a trend does exist.
(calculated)

The DI values of case 3 are lower than that of case 5 understand-

ably, as case 5 needs to optimize three different objectives and so
97.43
97.64
97.53
97.49
97.58
97.59

some amount of each objective needs to be compromised for each

other. The calculated %H2 S Removal values for case 3 hover around
418.72

417.38
414.58
406.21
406.19

97 % as the constraint for sulfur content in the sweet gas is set at 4

418.3

ppm. Higher removal rates are observed in the three-objective case

DI

as it is optimized along with Total Heat and DI. In case 6, it can be

Case 3: Total Heat vs DI

Total Heat (kJ/h)

noticed that the Pareto front values for Total Heat objective function
are higher than the other two cases, because the first three points
−4.39E+06
−4.31E+06
−4.25E+06
−3.98E+06
−2.62E+06
−2.60E+06

(A”, B” and C”) are higher compared to the corresponding points in

case 3 and 5. The higher DI values are also observed in case 6 as it
is shown in Fig. 9. While a slight improvement is noticed in %CH4
Table 6

Recovery value in case 6 with approximately close %H2 S Removal

D
A
B
C

E
F

values when compared to case 3 and 5. Overall, as the Total Heat

 Z. Al Ani et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 140 (2020) 86–99
increases, both of %H2 S Removal and %CH4 Recovery values rise,
but, as a consequence, DI increase as well.
5. Conclusions
Energy consumption and safety of the process were the main
objectives in this study along with sulfur removal and hydro-
carbon recovery. Multi-objective optimization was carried out on
the six different cases using NSGA-II. Five decision variables were
considered. Of the six cases, four were two-objective, one was a
three-objective study and a four-objective case. The results were
analyzed in the previous section and the following conclusions
were drawn.
• Temperature of the feed only affected the sulfur removal rate.
Low temperatures improved removal of acid gases.
• Pressure improves absorption by the solvent and hence, improves
the removal rate. However, high pressures can compromise the
safety of equipment and will also add to the energy consumed.
• High values of feed flow rate negatively affect sulfur removal
but improve methane recovery. When flow rate increases from
3.26 MSm3 /day to 5.38 MSm3 /day in case 4, the recovery pro-
portionally increased from 93 % to 96 %. It also reduces energy
requirements in the system but makes the process more danger-
ous and will increase DI, especially since gases are involved.
• Solvent temperatures are generally low to favor the removal
of sulfur because DEPG works better at low temperatures. For
example, in case 1, solvent and semi lean solvent temperatures
converged to the minimum of 277 K to enhance the absorption
capability of DEPG. DI values are low as well as less probability
of accidents. However, Total Heat will be more since less energy
will be released at coolers.
• Two-objective optimization cases resulted in better solutions for
the objectives, but three-objective and four-ojective optimiza-
tion results are also important because the industry is usually
interested in more than two objective optimization studies.
• Four-objective optimization case was carried out, which took
longer time compared to other cases. Adding a fourth objective,
which is %CH4 Recovery, slightly improved the added objective,
but it led to highly increasing the DI values. The four objective
optimization case refers close to real world operations cases. The
decision maker (based on their accepted criteria) may decide
whether the improvement in some objectives on the cost with
much higher DI values are worth or not.
The qualitative analysis carried out in this study can be referred
by decision makers based on the objectives involved.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.03.
023.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Adeyemo, J., Stretch, D., 2018. Review of hybrid evolutionary algorithms for opti-
mizing a reservoir. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 25, 22–31.
99
Astaria, G., Savage, D.W., Bisio, A., 1983. Gas Treating with Chemical Solvents.
Bosoaga, A., Masek, O., Oakey, J.E., 2009. CO2 capture technologies for cement indus-
try. Energy Procedia 1, 133–140.
Burr, B., Lyddon, L., 2008. A Comparison of Physical Solvents for Acid Gas Removal,
Gas Processors’ Association Convention. Grapevine, TX.
Deb, K., 2002. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John
Wiley & Sons, England.
Deb, K., 2014. Multi-Objective Optimization, Search Methodologies. Springer, pp.
403–449.
Doctor, R., Molburg, J.C., Thimmapuram, P., Berry, G., Livengood, C.D., Johnson, R.,
1993. Gasification combined cycle: carbon dioxide recovery, transport, and dis-
posal. Energy Convers. Manage. 34, 1113–1120.
Dulebenets, M.A., 2019. An adaptive island evolutionary algorithm for the berth
scheduling problem. Memet. Comput., 1–22.
Dyment, J., Watanasiri, S., 2015. Acid Gas Cleaning Using DEPG Physical Solvents:
Validation With Experimental and Plant Data. Aspen Technology Inc., The USA.
Gatti, M., Martelli, E., Maréchal, F., Consonni, S., 2015. Multi-objective optimization
of a selexol® process for the selective removal of CO2 and H2 S from coal-derived
syngas. ECOS 2015–28th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost, Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact
Energy Syst., International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simu-
lation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems.
George, G., Bhoria, N., AlHallaq, S., Abdala, A., Mittal, V., 2016. Polymer membranes
for acid gas removal from natural gas. Sep. Purif. Technol. 158, 333–356.
Gong, D., Sun, J., Ji, X., 2013. Evolutionary algorithms with preference polyhedron
for interval multi-objective optimization problems. Inf. Sci. 233, 141–161.
Gong, D., Ji, X., Sun, J., Sun, X., 2014. Interactive evolutionary algorithms with
decision-maker’s preferences for solving interval multi-objective optimization
problems. Neurocomputing 137, 241–251.
Gong, D., Liu, Y., Yen, G.G., 2018a. A meta-objective approach for many-objective
evolutionary optimization. Evol. Comput. 28, 1–25.
Gong, D., Sun, J., Miao, Z., 2018b. A set-based genetic algorithm for interval many-
objective optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 22, 47–60.
Gujarathi, A.M., Babu, B., 2009. Optimization of adiabatic styrene reactor: a hybrid
multiobjective differential evolution (H-MODE) approach. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
48, 11115–11132.
Hafyan, R.H., Bhullar, L., Putra, Z.A., Bilad, M.R., Wirzal, M.D.H., Nordin, N.A.H.M.,
2020. Multi-objective sustainability assessment of levulinic acid production
from empty fruit bunch. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 4, 37–50.
Im, D., Roh, K., Kim, J., Eom, Y., Lee, J.H., 2015. Economic assessment and optimiza-
tion of the Selexol process with novel additives. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 42,
109–116.
Ivanov, S.Y., Ray, A.K., 2014. Multiobjective optimization of industrial petroleum
processing units using Genetic algorithms. Procedia Chem. 10, 7–14.
Kapetaki, Z., Brandani, P., Brandani, S., Ahn, H., 2015. Process simulation of a
dual-stage Selexol process for 95% carbon capture efficiency at an integrated
gasification combined cycle power plant. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 39, 17–26.
Kawabata, M., Kurata, O., Iki, N., Tsutsumi, A., Furutani, H., 2013. System modeling
of exergy recuperated IGCC system with pre-and post-combustion CO2 capture.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 54, 310–318.
Khan, F., Abbasi, S., 2001. SWEHI a new user-friendly tool for swift yet compre-
hensive hazard identification and safety evaluation. Trans. IChemE (UK) 79,
65–80.
Kohl, A.L., Nielsen, R., 1997. Gas Purification. Elsevier.
Korens, N., Simbeck, D.R., Wilhelm, D.J., 2002. Process Screening Analysis of Alterna-
tive Gas Treating and Sulfur Removal for Gasification. SFA Pacific, Inc., Mountain
View, CA, Report.
Liu, Y., Gong, D., Sun, X., Zhang, Y., 2017. Many-objective evolutionary optimization
based on reference points. Appl. Soft Comput. 50, 344–355.
Maier, H.R., Razavi, S., Kapelan, Z., Matott, L.S., Kasprzyk, J., Tolson, B.A., 2019.
Introductory overview: optimization using evolutionary algorithms and other
metaheuristics. Environ. Model. Softw. 114, 195–213.
Monsef, H., Naghashzadegan, M., Jamali, A., Farmani, R., 2019. Comparison of evo-
lutionary multi objective optimization algorithms in optimum design of water
distribution network. Ain Shams Eng. J. 10, 103–111.
Nassar, V.L., Bullin, J.A., Lyddon, L.G., 2000. Solubility of Hydrocarbons in Physical
Solvents. Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc., pp. 1–15.
Ochieng, R., Berrouk, A.S., Elkamel, A., 2013. Multiobjective optimization of a Benfield
HiPure gas sweetening unit. J. Ind. Math. 2013.
Palmer, B.R., 2012. An overview of carbon capture technology. Sustain. Technol. Syst.
Policies 1.
ProMaxv4.0, 2018. Acid Gas Removal with DEPG. Bryan Research & Engineering.
Ramteke, M., Gupta, S.K., 2008. Multiobjective optimization of an industrial nylon-6
semi batch reactor using the a-jumping gene adaptations of genetic algorithm
and simulated annealing. Polym. Eng. Sci. 48, 2198–2215.
Sharma, S., Chao Lim, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., 2013. Process design for economic, envi-
ronmental and safety objectives with an application to the cumene process.
Multi-Objective Optim. Chem. Eng.: Dev. Appl., 449–477.
Stephens, J.C., 2005. Coupling CO2 Capture and Storage with Coal Gasification: Defin-
ing “Sequestration-Ready” IGCC. Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Yavini, T.D., Ali, M.-D.I., Muhammad, W.S., 2015. Economic evaluation of
Selexol–based CO2 capture process for a cement plant using post–combustion
technology. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Technol. 1, 194–203.