Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purification Technology

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

Exploration of gradient energy-saving separation processes for ethylene

glycol mixtures based on energy, exergy, environment, and
economic analyses
Shuguang Xiang , Lili Wang , Yinglong Wang , Rongshan Bi , Li Xia , Xiaoyan Sun *
College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, People’s Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy-saving separation processes for ethylene glycol (EG) were investigated. These processes were a basic
Exergy analysis separation process (BSP), a first-grade energy-saving process (FEP), and a secondary energy-saving process (SEP).
Environment and Economic analysis The optimal operating parameters for each process were determined through multiple indicator analysis-based
Ethylene Glycol
energy, exergy, environment, and economic performance. The energy analysis results indicated that the steam
Energy-saving process
Multiple indicator analysis
consumption of EG dehydration decreased from 12.21% to 0.64%, and the steam consumption of EG refined
(EGR) decreased from 20.89% to 3.20%. Furthermore, the total steam consumption for the SEP was 30.49%
lower than that of the BSP. The exergy analysis showed that the 50.69% exergy destruction and the 15.64%
exergy loss recorded for the SEP were lower than those for BSP, which were 43.42% and 9.50% lower than for
the FEP. Both the flow rate and cost of waste gas emissions for the SEP were reduced by 31.18%. The total annual
cost (TAC), operating cost (OC), and equipment cost for the SEP were 2.95 × 106 $/y, 3.47 × 106 $/y and 4.06 ×
106 $/y, respectively. The TAC and OC of the SEP process decreased by 11.20% and 13.16%, respectively,
compared to the benchmarked BSP process. The novel SEP process shows high energy efficiency, low economic
cost, and low exergy loss, and has great industrial application prospects compared to the benchmarked process.

purity EG products via azeotropic distillation, whereas Dhale et al.

1. Introduction
China has a high energy consumption according to the BP Statistical
Review of World Energy. The country is responsible for more than three-
quarters of the net increase in global energy consumption and 70% of
total energy consumption is due to industry [1]. In the past, the con­
struction of an ecological society and the low-carbon development of the
national economy have been restricted by energy shortages and envi­
ronmental pollution. Current research indicates that saving energy and
reducing consumption is an effective way to alleviate this dilemma
[2–5].
Ethylene glycol (EG) is an important chemical material that is used to
produce industrial products, such as used fiber, antifreeze, packaging
materials, and engineering plastics [6]. China is a major consumer of EG,
accounting for more than 50% of the world’s total consumption [7,8].
The crude EG mixture obtained from the synthetic process contains
many impurities and needs to be purified further. There have been some
previous studies on EG purification by azeotropic distillation and reac­
tive distillation. Lloyd et al. [9] designed a process for obtaining high-
[10] proposed a new approach for the recovery of propylene glycol (PG)
and EG from aqueous solution by acetalization with acetaldehyde,
which was performed in a reactive distillation. The above method
demonstrates the maximum separation performance, but the energy
consumption of the separation process cannot be ignored.
To save energy and reduce consumption during the separation pro­
cess, Chen et al. [11] designed an extractive distillation system using
triethylene glycol as the entrainer, which resulted in a significant
reduction of 38.3% in steam cost and 30.6% in total annual cost
compared to the regular column. Duan et al. [12] proposed a pressure
swing thermally coupled distillation process with heat integration, and
reported a reduction of 80.9% in energy consumption and 35.5% in total
annual cost compared to single-column distillation at 101.3 kPa. In
addition, multi-effect distillation and heat pump distillation have also
been proposed as energy saving methods [13-17]. According to the
above studies, the coupling of multiple technologies for EG purification
is an effective means of achieving significant reductions in energy and
consumption.
Analyses of energy, exergy, economics, and environment have been

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sxy@qust.edu.cn (X. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119787
Received 7 August 2021; Received in revised form 20 September 2021; Accepted 20 September 2021
Available online 24 September 2021
1383-5866/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Nomenclature T temperature of the heat source (℃)

ε exergy efficiency
D column diameter (m) Z gas emission cost ($/y)
H column height (m) M gas emission rate (t/y)
ms inlet mass flowrate of compressor (kg/s) Qstandard the calorific value of standard coal (kJ/kg)
po compressor outlet pressure (kPa) zi the mole fraction (%)
pi the compressor inlet pressure (kPa) ei chemical exergy of component i for an ideal mixture
CW cooling water price ($/kg)
ΔTw temperature difference between inlet and outlet of cooling Abbreviations
water (10℃) EG ethylene glycol
CP heat capacity of water (4.183 kJ/kg∙k) DEG diethylene glycol
QR heat duty of reboiler (kW) TEG triethylene glycol
λν heat of vaporization of steam (kJ/kg) PG propylene glycol
CS the price of steam ($/kg) BSP basic separation process
ṁ mass flowrate (kg/h) FEP first grade energy saving process
SEP secondary energy saving process
Ẇ power (kW)
MEE multi-effect evaporation
Q̇ heat duty (kW)
EGD EG dehydration
x the mass fraction of the key component
EGR EG refining
h the specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
DEGR DEG refining
Ė exergy (kW) TAC total annual cost
ch
Ė chemical exergy (kW) OC operating cost
ph
Ė physical exergy (kW) EC equipment cost
NT total number of stages
ĖxD exergy destruction (kW)
RRn reflux ratio of Column (n = 1,2,3…)
T0 ambient temperature (25℃)
NFn feed stages of Column (n = 1,2,3…)
P0 ambient pressure (101.325 kPa)

widely used to explore various novel industrial processes in previous
studies [18-21]. In these studies, an energy analysis was used to evaluate
the energy-saving effect of a novel process based on the amount of en­
ergy consumed [22,23]. However, there will always be situations where
high-quality energy changes to low-quality energy. An exergy analysis
considers not only the amount of energy being processed, but also the
qualities of the energy [23-27]. Environmental and economic analyses
are increasingly viewed as fundamental for the improvement of existing
processes. In this way, companies are better able to cope with increasing
requirements and expectations from regulations and stakeholders [28-
31]. These analysis benchmarks have also been shown to be an effective
way to judge the effect of a new process, and the development of new
research techniques has meant that a combination of multiple analytical
methods has attracted increasing attention from researchers [32-41].
There have been many studies on the purification of crude EG
products, but the research was mainly limited to the simple process
simulation stage. If a key unit energy saving and consumption reduction
analysis of an EG production process can be carried out in combination
with multiple indicators, such as energy, exergy, environment, and
economy, then the analysis will substantially improve the energy and
quality of the process.
In this study, we propose a novel energy-saving process for the pu­
rification of crude EG by ethylene oxide-catalyzed hydration, in which
the optimal process parameters were optimized using a sensitivity
analysis, and the influences of key component operational variables
were analyzed. The optimal operating process was determined and
designed based on multi-objective analysis-based energy, exergy, envi­
ronment, and economic performance.
water, and its formula is as follows:
C2 H4 O + H2 O→CH2 OH − CH2 OH(MEG) (1)
During the reaction, ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol react to
produce diethylene glycol (DEG) as a by-product. The equation is as
follows:
MEG + C2 H4 O→HOCH2 − CH2 − O − CH2 CH2 OH(DEG) (2)
Diethylene glycol reacts with ethylene glycol to produce very small
amounts of triethylene glycol (TEG). The equation is as follows:
DEG + C2 H4 O→HOCH2 CH2 − O − CH2 CH2 − OCH2 CH2 OH(TEG) (3)
The contents of each component in the crude EG solution obtained by
the above reactions are as follow (see Table 1).
In this work, SR-POLAR was selected as base property method is
shown in Fig. S1. Different unit have different property method for
obtaining an accurate separation result. The thermodynamic model was
established by judging the polarity of the mixture and verifying the
experimental data [42]. The sigma profile from Fig. S2 showed that EG
mixture is polar system. The comparison experimental data and simu­
lation results as shown in Table S1. The result demonstrated that SR-
POLAR is in good agreement with the experimental data for this system.
2.2. Process description
The separation processes for the EG mixture were established using
the Aspen Plus program. The basic separation process (BSP) can be

2. Process modeling and simulation Table 1

Information of the raw materials used in this study.

2.1. Materials Name Formula Weight Boiling Point(℃) Mass Fraction (wt%)

Water H2O 18.00 100.00 0.8847

The crude EG solution from the reaction section contained ethylene EG C2H6O2 62.07 197.50 0.1048
glycol (EG), diethylene glycol (DEG), triethylene glycol (TEG), and DEG C2H10O3 106.12 244.00 0.00956
TEG C6H14O4 150.17 289.40 0.00088
water. The EG was produced by the reaction between ethylene oxide and

2
S. Xiang et al.
divided into multi-effect evaporation (MEE), EG dehydration (EGD), EG
refining (EGR), and DEG refining (DEGR), as shown in Fig. 1. An EG
mixture containing 88.47% water was successively concentrated to trace
by the MEE and EGD processes, and water was produced by the C04 unit.
In this BSP, triple-effect evaporation was selected to save steam in the
evaporation section. The steam at the top of C01 was used as the heat
source for C02, and the steam at the top of C02 was used as the heat
source for C03. The excess steam generates 0.35 MPa saturated steam
from flash evaporation. The bottom solution from C04 entered the EGR
unit and a 99.9% EG product was obtained. The DEG and TEG products
were obtained from the DEGR. In the first-grade energy-saving process
(FEP), waste heat at the top of C03 can be recycled as the heat source for
C04. The rest of the process is based on the BSP and is shown in Fig. 2. In
the secondary energy-saving process (SEP), the temperature difference
between the top of C05 (153.15 ℃) and the bottom (160.68 ℃) is 7.53
℃, and the heat duty of the condenser is 2.00 MW. Heat pump distil­
lation during the SEP was adopted to achieve high-value energy recov­
ery, as shown in Fig. 3.
The influence of pressure variations upon distillation operation is
essential as has been reported in some literature [12,43-46]. In this
system, a mixture of H2O, EG, DEG, and TEG was fed into the evapo­
ration unit, which was operated under variable pressure. The operating
pressures for C01, C02, and C03 were set at 1105 kPa, 900 kPa, and 460
kPa, respectively, which is consistent with the experimental data in the
factory (Please see Fig. S3～S5, Table S2). SR-POLAR was selected as the
total thermodynamic physical property method. It considers the mixture
to be a polar system and operates at high pressure. The main units for
this research used in the Aspen Plus model are listed in Table 2. The
main assumptions for this model are summarized as follows [47,48]:
(1). All the physical and chemical changes in the process have
reached equilibrium states;
(2). All the raw materials and products are the ideal mixture
(3). In the process, the reference temperature t0 and the reference
pressure p0 are 25 ℃ and 101.325 kPa, respectively.
(4). The condition of the process is steady-state;
(5). The kinetic energy and potential energy in the process are
ignored.
3. Method analysis
In this study, three energy-saving processes for the separation of an
Fig. 1. The basic separation process.
3
Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787
EG mixture were established. The optimum parameters were determined
by considering the minimum total annual cost (TAC) as the object
function. The energy, exergy, economic, and environmental perfor­
mances of the different processes were analyzed.
3.1. Optimization of process parameters
It is considered that optimizing the operating variables is crucial
when attempting to improve separation efficiency. The sensitivity
analysis in Aspen Plus is a very useful tool for determining suitable
initial parameters. To determine the optimal process parameters more
accurately, the minimum TAC in this study was taken as the objective
function and the main operating variables in this study, such as oper­
ating pressure, total number of stages (NT), the reflux ratio (RR), and
feed stage (NF) were optimized. The sequence diagram of parameter
optimization is shown as Fig. S6. However, the corresponding energy,
economy, and environmental parameters will change as the process
improves, and qualitative and quantitative analyses are essential to
compare the differences among the different processes.
3.2. Energy analysis
The material balance is the basis of the energy balance and it is
essential to first calculate the material balance of the system [24,41].
The material and energy balance can be expressed as follows. An energy
analysis of any unit in the process can be carried out based on Eqs. (1),
(2), and (3), which are shown in Table 3.
∑ ∑
Massbalance : m˙in = ṁout (1)
∑ ∑
Materialbalance : xin m
˙ in = xout ṁout (2)
∑ ∑ ∑
Energybalance : Ẇ + m˙in hin = Q̇ + m˙out hout (3)
where ṁ is the mass flow rate, x is the mass fraction of the key
component, Q̇ is the heat duty, Ẇ is the power and h is the specific
enthalpy [49,50].
3.3. Exergy analysis
An exergy analysis is used to determine the amount of energy that
can be converted into work in different states. For a steady system,
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Fig. 2. The first-grade energy-saving process.

Fig. 3. The secondary energy-saving process.

ExergyĖ can be divided into chemical and physical exergies [51]. ∑

n
ch ĖxD,tot = ĖxD,K
Chemical exergy Ė occurs when a material is exchanged with the k=1
ph
environment. Physical exergy Ė can be defined as the maximum work
when a certain physical change occurs, that is, when a system reaches ĖxQ = (1 −
T0
)Q̇ (9)
equilibrium at ambient temperature and pressure [52]. These processes T
can be expressed as Eqs. (4), (5), and (6):
where ĖF is the fuel exergy for each component, ĖP is the product exergy
Ė = Ė + Ė
ph ch
(4) for each component, the product represents the desired result produced
by the system, and the fuel represents the resources expended to
Ė
ph
= ṁ[(hi − h0 ) − T0 (si − s0 ) ] (5) generate the product [53]. ĖxQ is the exergy rate produced by heat
transfer, and T0 and T are the ambient temperature and temperature of
∑
Ė =
ch
zi ei (6) the heat source, respectively.
Exergy efficiency is another measure of exergy loss and can be ob­
where zi and ei are the standard mole part and chemical exergy of tained using the following equation:
component i, respectively, for an ideal mixture. ĖxP
In this process, the exergy destruction of each component(ĖxD ) and ε=
ĖxF
the total exergy destruction of the system (E
˙ )can be calculated using
xD,tot
Eqs. (7), (8), and (9): where ĖxP and ĖxF are the exergy rate of production and feed exergy rate
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ of each component, respectively [48,51-53].
ĖxD = ĖF − ĖP = Ėxin − Ėxout + ĖxQ + Ẇ (7) The exergy analysis results for the main units are listed in Table S3

4
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Table 2 Table 3
Types and descriptions of the units of EG refining process. Mass/Material/Energy equations for each components of the SEP.
Unit Type Description Unit Equations

C01 Distillation column Multi-level evaporation column 1 M01 ṁ30 +ṁ23 =ṁ24 ṁ30 x30 +ṁ23 x23 =ṁ24 x24
C02 Distillation column Multi-level evaporation column 2 P01 ẆP01 = ṁ19 h19 − ṁ18 h18
C03 Distillation column Multi-level evaporation column 3
P02 ẆP02 = ṁ30 h30 − ṁ29 h29
C04 Distillation column Dehydration column
C05 Distillation column Refinery column P03 Ẇp03 = ṁ23 h23 − ṁ20− 1 h20− 1
C06 Distillation column Cyclical column P04 ẆP04 = ṁ25 h25 − ṁ21 h21
C07 Distillation column Refinery column
P05 ẆP05 = ṁ31 h31 − ṁ27 h27
F01 Flash flash steam generator1
F02 Flash flash steam generator2 V1 ṁ8 h8 =ṁ11 h11
V1 Valve Throttle valve 1 V2 W1hW1 = ṁS4 hS4
V2 Valve Throttle valve 1
F01 ṁ6 + ṁ7 = ṁ8 + ṁ9
M01 Mixer Flow mixer
COMPR Compressor Gas compressor ṁ6 x6 +ṁ7 x7 =ṁ8 x8 + ṁ9 x9
E01 Multi-stream heat exchanger Dehydration column condenser Q̇F01 =ṁ6 h6 + ṁ7 h7 − ṁ8 h8 − ṁ9 h9
E02 Multi-stream heat exchanger Dehydration column condenser F02 ṁ10 + ṁ11 + ṁ15 = ṁ12 + ṁ13
E03 Multi-stream heat exchanger Dehydration column condenser
ṁ10 x10 + ṁ11 x11 + ṁ15 x15 = ṁ12 x12 + ṁ13 x13
E04 Multi-stream heat exchanger Stream heater
E05 Multi-stream heat exchanger Product condenser QF02 =ṁ10 h10 + ṁ11 h11 + ṁ15 h15 -ṁ12 h12 -ṁ13 h13
E06 Multi-stream heat exchanger Stream heater C01 ṁ1 + ṁH2 O− 1 = ṁ2 + ṁ3
E07 Multi-stream heat exchanger Stream heater ṁ1 x1 + ṁH2 O− 1 xH2 O− 1 =ṁ2 x2 + ṁ3 x3
E08 Multi-stream heat exchanger Product condenser
Q̇C01 =ṁ2 h2 + ṁ3 h3 − ṁ1 h1 − ṁH2 O− 1 hH2 O− 1
P01 Pump Feeding pump
P02 Pump Circulating pump C02 ṁ3 + ṁH2 O− 2 = ṁ4 + ṁ5
P03 Pump Circulating pump ṁ3 x3 + ṁH2 O− 2 xH2 O− 2 =ṁ4 x4 + ṁ5 x5
P04 Pump Discharge pump
Q̇C02 =ṁ4 h4 + ṁ5 h5 − ṁ3 h3 − ṁH2 O− 2 hH2 O− 2
P05 Pump Feeding pump
C03 ṁ5 + ṁH2 O− 3 = ṁ14 + ṁ16
S01 Splitter Splitter of stream W2
S02 Splitter Splitter of stream 22 ṁ5 x5 + ṁH2 O− 3 xH2 O− 3 =ṁ14 x14 + ṁ16 x16
Q̇C03 =ṁ14 h14 + ṁ16 h16 − ṁ5 h5 − ṁH2 O− 3 hH2 O− 3

C04 ṁ16 + ṁEG− 1 + ṁ24 = ṁ17 + ṁ18

and are based on the above information. The thermodynamic properties
ṁ16 x16 + ṁEG− 1 xEG− 1 + ṁ24 x24 =ṁ17 x17 + ṁ18 x18
of each type of stream are listed in Table S4.
Q̇C04 =ṁ17 h17 + ṁ18 h18 − ṁ16 h16 − ṁ24 h24 − ṁEG− 1 hEG− 1

C05 ṁ19 + ṁS2 + ṁS5 = ṁ20 + ṁ22

3.4. Economic analysis ṁ19 x19 + ṁS2 xS2 + ṁS5 xS5 =ṁ20 x20 + ṁ22 x22
Q̇C05 =ṁ20 h20 + ṁ22 h22 − ṁ19 h19 − ṁS2 hS2 − ṁS5 hS5
In this study, an economic analysis was conducted to measure the C06 ṁ22− 1 = ṁ28 + ṁ27
economic costs of the BSP, FEP, and SEP by taking the TAC as the ṁ22− 1 x22− 1 =ṁ28 x28 + ṁ27 x27
objective function [54-56]. This can be depicted as follows: Q̇C06 =ṁ28 h28 + ṁ27 h27 − ṁ22− 1 h22− 1

equipmentcost C07 ṁ31 = ṁ32 + ṁ33

TAC = + operatingcost (11)
paybackperiod ṁ31 x31 =ṁ32 x32 + ṁ33 x33
Q̇C07 =ṁ32 h32 + ṁ33 h33 − ṁ31 h31
operating cost(OC) = annual steam cost(ASC) + annual cooling cost(ACC) E01 ṁ2 h2 = ṁ6 h6
(12) E02 ṁ4 h4 = ṁ7 h7
E03 ṁ14 h14 = ṁ15 h15
column cost(CCO ) = column body cost(Cbc ) + column tray cost(Ctc ) E04 ṁ9 h9 = ṁ10 h10
(13) E05 ṁW1 hW1 = ṁW2 hW2
E06 ṁS1 hS1 = ṁS2 hS2
In this process, the main equipment to be considered includes a
E07 ṁ28 h28 = ṁ29 h29
distillation column (including internal components of the tower),
E08 ṁ25 h25 = ṁ26 h26
separator, reboiler and condenser, compressor, and pump. Costs for
COMPR ṁ20 h20 = ṁS3 hS3
return tanks, valves, and pipes were ignored. The total heat transfer
S01 ṁW2 = ṁS5 +ṁ20− 1 ṁW2 xW2 = ṁS5 xS5 +ṁ20− 1 x20−
coefficients of the condenser and reboiler were 0.852 kW/(K⋅m2) and 1

S02 ṁ22 = ṁS1 +ṁ22− 1 ṁ22 x22 = ṁS1 xS1 +ṁ22− 1 x22−
0.568 kW/K··m2, respectively [56]. The equipment materials were 1

assumed to be carbon steel, the payback period was set to 5 years, and
the annual operating time was 8000 h. A value of 1468.6 for M&S has
environmental performance of different heating methods. The calcula­
been reported in some papers [57-59]. The plate efficiency was set at
tion formula is as follows [62]:
0.75 and the plate spacing was 0.61 m. Where Wpump is the power con­
sumption of the pump, then Cpump is 0.25 when Wpump is in the range 0.02 MGAS = aGAS ∙MCoal (14)
~ 0.3 kW, 0.45 when Wpump is in the range 0.3 ~ 20 kW, and 0.84 when
Wpump is in the range 20 ~ 200 kW. The cost calculation formulas for MCoal =
(QR + QPR )N
each piece of equipment are listed in Table 4. Qstandard ηcoal,trans

3.5. Environmental analysis
Environmental performance analyses of systems are also important
because increasing attention is being paid to environmental protection.
Emissions of CO2, SO2, and NOx are considered indicators of the
where aGAS is the emission conversion factor for standard coal, MCoal is
the mass of the standard coal, ηcoal,trans is the coal transfer efficiency and
is assumed to be the isentropic efficiency, and Qstandard is the calorific
value of standard coal, which is equal to 29307.6 kJ/kg [62].
The cost of exhaust gas emissionZGAS is calculated by the following

5
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Table 4
the cost calculation formula of each equipment.
Unit Equations Reference

column Cco =Cbc +Ctc [55-60]

Cbc =
( )
M&S
∙937.636∙D1.066 H0.802 ∙(2.18 +FC )Ctc =
280
( ) ( )
M&S N
∙97.243∙D1.55 H∙FC H= − 3 ∙0.61 + 6
280 ( ) 0.75
condenser M&S [55-60]
Ccon = ∙474.668∙Ac 0.65 ∙(2.29 + FC )
( 280 )
reboiler M&S [55-60]
Creb = ∙474.668∙AR 0.65 ∙(2.29 + FC )
280 ( )
steam cost CS QR [55-60]
ASC = ∙ ∙8000∙3600
453.515
( λν )
cooling water QC [55-60]
ACC = CW ∙8000∙3600
cost ΔTw ∙CP∙1000
( )( )
compressor po ηcom [49,61]
Ccom = 7364ms
pi 1 − ηcom
pump Cpump = 308.9Wpump
Cpump [49,61]

formula [62].
Fig. 4. T-x-y of DEG/TEG mixture.
ZGAS = MGAS ∙cGAS (16)

where cGAS refers to the unit damage emission cost. The aGAS and cGAS
constants for CO2, SO2, and NOx are listed in Table 5.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Determination of the process parameters

The separation process for the EG mixture was established using

Aspen Plus. Energy consumption and refining difficulty increase when
the mixture is an azeotrope and contains large amounts of water. In this
system, DEG and TEG are azeotropic at atmospheric pressure, and Fig. 4
shows that the azeotropic composition deviated with the change in
pressure, which is a characteristic that can be used to purify the mixture.
The 88.47% water content in the feed meant that dehydration was
the first key process used to obtain EG. Taking the water content in C03
as the target variable, the optimal parameters for MEE and EGD were
determined and the effects on steam consumption and the optimal water
content in C03 were investigated. Fig. 5 shows that the total steam
consumption for the entire system significantly rises as the water in­ Fig. 5. Relationship between mass flow rate of evaporated water, total steam
creases at the bottom of C03. When the feed remained the same in C01, consumption, and water content at the bottom of C03.
the water content at the bottom of C03 decreased when the water
evaporation due to MEE increased, but both the heat duty of the MEE
reboiler and the total steam consumption decreased. The water content
at the bottom of C03 decreased from 45.65 wt% to 22.30 wt%, which
saved 1.41 t/h of total steam. An increase in the evaporation rate led to a
rise in the heat duty value for C01, and there was a relationship between
evaporation and water content at the bottom of C03. The water content
at the bottom of C03 was optimized based on the minimum TAC. The
results shown in Fig. 6 indicate that TAC first decreases and then in­
creases as the water content at the bottom of C03 bottom rises. The
inflection point occurred when the water content was 25%, which was
when the minimum TAC was obtained, it may indicate that the increase
in equipment costs is balanced by the decrease in energy costs.
The high boiling point of the mixture and the energy savings due to
the devices mean that it is necessary to determine the optimal operating
pressure. The pressure range is determined based on the feasibility of

Table 5 Fig. 6. Variations in water content at the bottom of C03 and TAC.
aGAS and cGAS of CO2, SO2 and NOx.
Name aGAS (kg/kg) cGAS taking into account utilities and operations, it can be seen from Fig. S7
and Fig. S8. When the water content at the bottom of C03 is fixed, the
CO2 2.493 5.209 steam consumption of the C01 reboiler can be lowered by reducing the
SO2 0.075 0.373
NOX 0.0375 0.745
operating pressure of the evaporators. As can be seen from Fig. 7, the

6
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Fig. 7. PC01 relationship with the temperature of C01, C02, and C03, and mass flow rate of the total steam at different PC01 values.

C01 pressure decreased from 1580 kPa to 1105 kPa and the pressure at with the sensitivity analysis. The specific process parameters were
the top of C02 decreased from 1100 kPa to 900 kPa, which meant that optimized and determined as shown in Table 6.
1.14 t/h of total steam consumption was saved. In this study, PC01 and
PC02 were 1105 kPa and 900 kPa, respectively. 4.2. Energy analysis results
In the above analysis, the optimum parameters were determined by
taking the minimum TAC as the object function. It was then combined The energy analysis in this study can be used as an important guide
for determining the efficiency of the energy-saving process. Energy
consumption by the different processes was analyzed and the results
Table 6 from Fig. 8 showed that the total steam consumption of the SEP was
Main operating parameters of different processes.
12.81 t/h, which was 30.49% lower than that of the BSP. According to
Unit BSP FEP SEP the steam consumption values for each piece of equipment in the BSP,
F(kg/h) 39,05038384 39,05038384 39,05038384 the steam consumption by MEE, EGD, and EGR, the key components of
NT1 5 5 5 the energy saving process, reached 95.60%. Therefore, there is great
NT2 5 5 5 potentiality of energy conservation in EGD and EGR. After imple­
NT3 18 18 18
NT4 21 21 21
mentation of the energy-saving process, energy consumption by EGD
NT5 21 21 21 and EGR in the SEP was reduced to 0.64% and 3.20%, respectively. It
NT6 5 5 5 can be seen from the changing process for the energy-saving effect that
NT7 34 34 34 the SEP can save substantial amounts of energy, heat pump for SEP can
RR1 0.1497 0.1497 0.1497
get better energy saving effect.
RR2 0.1546 0.1546 0.1545
RR3 0.1395 0.1395 0.1395
RR4 0.0653 0.1283 0.1285 4.3. Exergy analysis results
RR5 8.2959 8.2959 0.9218
RR6 1.1525 1.1688 1.1549
Exergy analysis is an effective way to evaluate the potential for en­
RR7 0.3298 0.3302 0.3285
QR1(kW) 6022.95 6022.95 6022.95 ergy savings. Many researchers have used this method to optimize the
QR4(kW) 1218.08 63.40 44.45 energy utilization efficiency of a process, which can provide a reference
QR5(kW) 2080.07 2079.90 219.78 for energy-saving processes [63-67]. The exergy destruction and loss
QR6(kW) 321.82 325.14 353.12 values for the different processes were compared in this study. The
QR7(kW) 79.77 79.77 80.05
exergy analysis shown in Fig. 9 indicates that the exergy destruction

7
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Fig. 8. Energy analysis for BSP, FEP, SEP.

values for the BSP, FEP, and SEP were 2460.56 kW, 2144.50 kW, and
1213.38 kW, and the exergy losses were 4652.2 kW, 4336.18 kW, and
3924.46 kW, respectively. The exergy destruction and losses for the SEP
and BSP were 50.69% and 15.64%, respectively. The above results
suggest that the SEP is superior to the BSP and FEP, and that the
available energy from EGD and EGR for the SEP were recycled effi­
ciently. This conclusion is reflected in the exergy flow diagram shown in
Fig. 10.

4.4. Environmental analysis results

The urgent need for environmental protection means that it is very

important to analyze the environmental performance of technological
processes [68,69]. The CO2, NOx, and SO2 emissions and the emission
Fig. 9. Exergy destruction and exergy loss analysis of BSP, FEP, SEP. cost are important indicators of environmental performance. Fig. 11
shows a comparison of the emissions and emission costs for the different

Fig. 10. Exergy flow diagram of SEP.

8
S. Xiang et al. Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787

Fig. 13. Gas emission cost analysis when the SEP is operated for different
lengths of time.
Fig. 11. Gas emission and emission cost of different processes.

characteristics of the BSP, FEP, and SEP, along with other processes,
processes. It can be seen that the SEP decreases these factors by 31.18%
were comprehensively analyzed based on energy, exergy, environment,
compared to the BSP when the annual operating time is the same. The
and economy. The results are as follows:
analyzed results demonstrate the superior performance of the SEP with
regards to emissions and emission costs. The emissions and emission
(1) The multi-objective analysis indicated that the variations in
costs of the SEP at different operating times were also studied in order to evaporated water, water content, and top temperature of the
observe the change relationship between operating time and environ­
column are key components of the variable analysis. In this study,
mental factors more intuitively during the most successful process. the optimal parameters were determined by the minimum TAC.
Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show that reducing the operating cycle gradually
(2) The energy analysis showed that the total steam consumption of
decreases the emissions and emission costs. In summary, the SEP has a the BSP, FEP, and SEP were 18.43 t/h, 16.25 t/h, and 12.81 t/h,
better environmental performance than the other processes because
and total steam consumption by the SEP was 30.49% lower than
CO2, NOx, and SO2 emissions are linked to energy consumption. that of the BSP. The energy consumption proportion due to EGD
and EGR in the SEP decreased to 0.64% and 3.20%, respectively.
4.5. Economic analysis results (3) The exergy analysis showed that the exergy destruction values for
the BSP, FEP, and SEP were 2460.56 kW, 2144.50 kW, and
An economic analysis is an important method that is often used to 1213.38 kW, and the exergy losses were 4652.2 kW, 4336.18 kW,
evaluate the economic performance of processes [70,71]. In this study, and 3924.46 kW, respectively. The exergy destruction and exergy
the TAC for different processes was calculated using the Douglas model losses of 50.69% and 15.64% for the SEP were lower than those
and the results are shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15. The TACs of the BSP, for the BSP, respectively, which were 43.42% and 9.50% lower
FEP, and SEP were 4.57 × 106 $/y, 4.36 × 106 $/y, and 4.06 × 106 $/y, than those for the FEP.
respectively. The analysis of equipment investment showed that the SEP (4) The environment analysis showed that compared to the bench­
had the highest cost at 2.95 × 106 $/y because of the newly added marked BSP, the emissions and emission costs of the novel SEP
compression system. However, the operating cost was significantly were significantly reduced by approximately 31.18%.
lower. The TAC of the SEP was 4.06 × 106 $/y, which was equivalent to (5) The results of the economic analysis showed that the TAC of the
88.80% of the BSP and was 6.57% lower than that of the FEP. The results novel SEP process was 11.20% and 6.57% lower than that of the
above demonstrate that the economic performance of the SEP was su­ benchmarked BSP and FEP, respectively. As an important energy-
perior to the other processes. saving technology, the commercial promotion and application of
this novel SEP process has strong development prospects.
5. Conclusion
6. Notes
In this study, the separation process for an EG mixture was studied,
and the efficient purification of EG, TEG, and DEG was realized. The The authors declare no competing financial interest.
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with
other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our
work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or
kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as
influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript
entitled.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Shuguang Xiang: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Software.

Lili Wang: Visualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review
& editing. Yinglong Wang: Validation, Formal analysis. Rongshan Bi:
Methodology, Conceptualization. Li Xia: Supervision, Writing – review
& editing. Xiaoyan Sun: Methodology, Writing – original draft,
Investigation.

Fig. 12. Gas emission rate analysis when the SEP is operated for different
lengths of time.

9
S. Xiang et al.
Fig. 14. Economic costs analysis of different processes.
Fig. 15. Equipment investment costs analysis of different processes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No.2217081917).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119787.
References
[1] BP. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. London. June. 2020.
[2] G.P. Thiel, A.K. Stark, To decarbonize industry, we must decarbonize heat, Joule 5
(3) (2021) 531–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.007.
[3] A. Anton, Kiss, Robin Smith, Rethinking energy use in distillation processes for a
more sustainable chemical industry, Energy 203 (2020), 117788, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2020.117788.
[4] Yudong Li, Qing Ye, Naigen Wang, et al., Energy-efficient extractive distillation
combined with heat-integrated and intermediate reboilers for separating
acetonitrile/isopropanol/water mixture, Sep. Purif. Technol. 262 (2021), 118343,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118343.
10
Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787
[5] Shoutao Ma, Xianyong Shang, Lumin Li, et al., Energy-saving thermally coupled
ternary extractive distillation process using ionic liquids as entrainer for separating
ethyl acetate-ethanol-water ternary mixture, Sep. Purif. Technol. 226 (2019)
337–349, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.05.103.
[6] Supreet Kaur, Shobhna, K. Kashyap. Hemant, Insights gained from refined force-
field for pure and aqueous ethylene glycol through molecular dynamics
simulations, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 123 (30) (2019) 6543–6553,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b03950.
[7] Rui Wang, Xingang Li, Jian Na, et al., Reversible reaction-assisted intensification
process for separating ethanediol and 1, 2-butanediol: Competitive kinetics study
and conceptual design, Sep. Purif. Technol. 237 (2020), 116323, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seppur.2019.116323.
[8] Bor-YihYu, I-LungChien. Design and optimization of dimethyl oxalate (DMO)
hydrogenation process to produce ethylene glycol (EG), Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 121 (2017) 173–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cherd.2017.03.012.
[9] Lloyd Berg. Separation of propylene glycol from ethylene glycol by azeotropic
distillation. US, 5425853 [P], 1995.
[10] Atul D. Dhale, Laurie K. Myrant, S.P. Chopade, et al., Propylene glycol and ethylene
glycol recovery from aqueous solution via reactive distillation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59
(14) (2004) 2881–2890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2004.02.018.
[11] Yi-Chun Chen, Shih-Kai Hung, Hao-Yeh Lee, et al., Energy-saving designs for
separation of a close-boiling 1,2-propanediol and ethylene glycol mixture, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 54 (15) (2015) 3828–3843, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie503922f.
[12] Cong Duan, Chunli Li, Hao Li, Separation of a close-boiling 1,2-propanediol and
ethylene glycol mixture using pressure-related distillation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59
(7) (2020) 3173–3181, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b05863.
[13] Teh Ping Chiang, W.L. Luyben, Comparison of the dynamic performances of three
heat-integrated distillation configurations, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 27 (1) (1988)
99–104, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00073a019.
[14] Juntao Zhang, Shengrong Liang, Xiao Feng, A novel multi-effect methanol
distillation process, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 49 (10) (2010)
1031–1037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2010.07.003.
S. Xiang et al.
[15] Chengtian Cui, Zhijun Xi, Siyao Liu, et al., An enumeration-based synthesis
framework for multi-effect distillation processes, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 144 (2019)
216–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2019.02.018.
[16] Hong Li, Haifeng Cong, Xuan Li, et al., Systematic design of the integrating heat
pump into heat integrated distillation column for recovering energy, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 105 (2016) 93–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.141.
[17] Yinggui Xu, Jinlong Li, Qing Ye, et al., Design and optimization for the separation
of tetrahydrofuran/isopropanol/water using heat pump assisted heat-integrated
extractive distillation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 277 (2021), 119498, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seppur.2021.119498.
[18] Yudong Li, Tianyi Sun, Qing Ye, et al., Economic and environmental assessment for
purification of acetonitrile and isopropanol by reactive coupling extractive
distillation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 275 (2021), 119133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seppur.2021.119133.
[19] Jiajia Yuan, Chuang Wu, Xiaoxiao Xu, et al., Proposal and thermoeconomic
analysis of a novel combined cooling and power system using carbon dioxide as the
working fluid, Energy Convers. Manage. 227 (2021), 113566, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113566.
[20] Guoxuan Li, Shuai Wang, Jiangang Zhao, et al., Life cycle assessment and techno-
economic analysis of biomass-tohydrogen production with methane tri-reforming,
Energy 199 (2020), 117488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117488.
[21] Yinglong Wang, Zhengrun Chen, Yuanyuan Shen, et al., Advanced exergy and
exergoeconomic analysis of an integrated system combining CO2 capture-storage
and waste heat utilization processes, Energy 219 (2021), 119600, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2020.119600.
[22] Soheil Mohtaram, Yonghui Sun, Mohammad Omidi, et al., Energy-exergy
efficiencies analyses of a waste-to-power generation system combined with an
ammonia-water dilution Rankine cycle, Case Studies Therm. Eng.. 25 (2021),
100909, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100909.
[23] A.N. Vilarinho, J.B.L.M. Campos, C. Pinho, Energy and exergy analysis of an
aromatics plant, Case Studies Therm. Eng. 8 (2016) 115–127, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.csite.2016.06.003.
[24] Changxin Liu, Zhihui Xie, Fengrui Sun, et al., Exergy analysis and optimization of
coking process, Energy. 139 (2017) 694–705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.08.006.
[25] Yuping Li, Ying Li, Xinghua Zhang, et al., Exergy analysis of renewable light olefin
production system via biomass gasification and methanol synthesis, Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 46 (5) (2021) 3669–3683, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2020.10.213.
[26] Qiyu Meng, Jiemiao Yu, Liangrong Yang, et al., Efficient recovery of bio-based
1,2,4-butanetriol by using boronic acid anionic reactive extraction, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 255 (2021), 117728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2020.117728.
[27] V.A.F. Costa, ENERGY-EXERGY diagrams for states and energy and exergy balance
equations representation, Energy 218 (2021), 119506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.119506.
[28] Sheng Yang, Jianeng Liang, Siyu Yang, et al., A novel cascade refrigeration process
using waste heat and its application to coal-to-SNG, Energy 115 (2016) 486–497,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.039.
[29] A. Ahmadi, D.H. Jamali, M.A. Ehyaei, et al., Energy, exergy, economic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of gas and air bottoming cycles for production of
electricity and hydrogen with gas reformer, J. Cleaner Prod. 259 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120915.
[30] Fei Zhao, Xiao Yang, Guoxuan Li, et al., Batch-to-continuous process design and
economic, energy, exergy, and environmental analyses of Claisen ester
condensation based on diethyl 2-ethyl-2-phenylmalonate synthesis, J. Cleaner
Prod. 251 (2020), 119619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119619.
[31] Rui Wang, Jian Na, Xingang Li, et al., Techno-economic and environmental
evaluation of aldehyde-assisted chemical looping separation technology in coal-
based and biomass-based ethylene glycol purification, J. Cleaner Prod. 313 (2021),
127675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127675.
[32] Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Anjana Gupta, Comparative energy,
exergy and economic analysis of a cascade refrigeration system incorporated with
flash tank (HTC) and a flash intercooler with indirect subcooler (LTC) using natural
refrigerant couples, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 39 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2020.100716.
[33] Lixia Kang, Jianping Tang, Yongzhong Liu, Optimal Design of Organic Rankine
Cycle System for Multi-source Waste Heat Recovery involving Multi-period
Operation, Energy. 235 (2021), 121379, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.121379.
[34] S. Khalilzadeh, A. Hossein Nezhad, Utilization of waste heat of a high-capacity
wind turbine in multi effect distillation desalination: Energy, exergy and
thermoeconomic analysis, Desalination 439 (2018) 119–137, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2018.04.010.
[35] Cheng Xu, Tuantuan Xin, Gang Xu, et al., Thermodynamic analysis of a novel solar-
hybrid system for low-rank coal upgrading and power generation, Energy 141
(2017) 1737–1749, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.046.
[36] Amiya K. Jana, Debadrita Maiti, Assessment of the implementation of vapor
recompression technique in batch distillation, Sep. Purif. Technol. 107 (2013)
1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.01.018.
[37] Mengying Wang, Chun Deng, Yufei Wang, et al., Exergoeconomic performance
comparison, selection and integration of industrial heat pumps for low grade waste
heat recovery, Energy Convers. Manage. 207 (2020), 112532, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112532.
[38] Huan Xi, Honghu Zhang, Yaling He, et al., Sensitivity analysis of operation
parameters on the system performance of organic rankine cycle system using
11
Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787
orthogonal experiment, Energy 172 (2019) 435–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.01.072.
[39] Liang Zhao, Jiulei Zhang, Xiu Wang, et al., Dynamic exergy analysis of a novel LNG
cold energy utilization system combined with cold, heat and power, Energy 212
(2020), 118649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118649.
[40] Wei Chen, Chenbin Xu, Haibo Wu, et al., Energy and exergy analyses of a novel
hybrid system consisting of a phosphoric acid fuel cell and a triple-effect
compression–absorption refrigerator with [mmim]DMP/CH3OH as working fluid,
Energy 195 (2020), 116951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.116951.
[41] Chenglin Chang, Xiaolu Chen, Yufei Wang, et al., Simultaneous Optimization of
Multi-plant Heat Integration Using Intermediate Fluid Circles, Energy 12 (2016)
116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.116.
[42] Hanee F. Hizaddin, Anantharaj Ramalingam, Mohd Ali Hashim, et al., Evaluating
the Performance of Deep Eutectic Solvents for Use in Extractive Denitrification of
Liquid Fuels by the Conductor-like Screening Model for Real Solvents, J. Chem.
Eng. Data 59 (11) (2014) 3470–3487, https://doi.org/10.1021/je5004302.
[43] L.L. William, Dynamic simulation of multi-effect evaporators, Chem. Eng.
Processing - Process Intensificat. 131 (2018) 106–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cep.2018.07.005.
[44] Yinglong Wang, Guangle Bu, Xueli Geng, et al., Design optimization and operating
pressure effects in the separation of acetonitrile/methanol/water mixture by
ternary extractive distillation, J. Cleaner Prod. 218 (2019) 212–224, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.324.
[45] Hong Wen Li, Torben Ravn Andersen, Rafiqul Gani, et al., Operating Pressure
Sensitivity of Distillation Control Structure Consequences, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45
(25) (2006) 8310–8318, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie060009v.
[46] Chengtian Cui, Siyao Liu, Jinsheng Sun, Optimal selection of operating pressure for
distillation columns, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 137 (2018) 291–307, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cherd.2018.07.028.
[47] Zhaoyou Zhu, Guoxuan Li, Jingwei Yang, et al., Improving the energy efficiency
and production performance of the cyclohexanone ammoximation process via
thermodynamics, kinetics, dynamics, and economic analyses, Energy Convers.
Manage. 192 (2019) 100–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.037.
[48] Yinglong Wang, Yigang Liu, Xiaobin Liu, et al., Advanced exergy and
exergoeconomic analyses of a cascade absorption heat transformer for the recovery
of low grade waste heat, Energy Convers. Manage. 205 (2020), 112392, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112392.
[49] Esfahani Iman Janghorban, Kang Yong Tae, Yoo ChangKyoo, A high efficient
combined multi-effect evaporation-absorption heat pump and vapor-compression
refrigeration part 1: Energy and economic modeling and analysis, Energy. 75
(2014) 312–326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.081.
[50] Xiao Yang, Shuai Wang, Guoxuan Li, et al., Process Design and Comprehensive
Analysis of the Ethanol Amination Process to Improve Acetonitrile Production, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (11) (2020) 5047–5055, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
iecr.9b06405.
[51] Hadi Ghaebi, Behzad Farhang, Hadi Rostamzadeh, et al., Energy, exergy, economic
and environmental (4E) analysis of using city gate station (CGS) heater waste for
power and hydrogen production: A comparative study, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43
(3) (2018) 1855–1874, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.11.093.
[52] Hemal Chowdhury, Tamal Chowdhury, M. Thirugnanasambandam, et al., A study
on exergetic efficiency vis-à-vis sustainability of industrial sector in Bangladesh,
Journal of Cleaner Production 231 (2019) 297–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.05.174.
[53] Yongping Yang, Ligang Wang, Changqing Dong, et al., Comprehensive exergy-
based evaluation and parametric study of a coal-fired ultra-supercritical power
plant, Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 1087–1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.12.063.
[54] M.F. Malone, Conceptual Design of Distillation Systems, McGraw Hill, 2001.
[55] .L.L. William, Design and control of a fully heat-integrated pressure-swing
azeotropic distillation system, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (8) (2008) 2681–2695,
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie071366o.
[56] J.M, Douglas. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes. 1988.
[57] Hossein Shahandeh, Mina Jafari, Norollah Kasiri, et al., Economic optimization of
heat pump assisted distillation columns in methanol-water separation, Energy. 80
(2015) 496–508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.006.
[58] Ao Yang, Yang Su, Weifeng Shen, et al., Multi-objective optimization of organic
Rankine cycle system for the waste heat recovery in the heat pump assisted
reactive dividing wall column, Energy Convers. Manage. 199 (2019), 112041,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112041.
[59] Xiaoxin Gao, Gu. Qiang, Jiangquan Ma, et al., MVR heat pump distillation coupled
with ORC process for separating a benzene-toluene mixture, Energy. 143 (2018)
658–665, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.041.
[60] Zhaoyou Zhu, Dongfang Xu, Xingzhen Liu, et al., Separation of acetonitrile/
methanol/benzene ternary azeotrope via triple column pressure-swing distillation,
Sep. Purif. Technol. 169 (2016) 66–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seppur.2016.06.009.
[61] H. Sayyaadi, M. Nejatolahi, Multi-objective optimization of a cooling tower
assisted vapor compression refrigeration system, Int. J. Refrig. 34 (1) (2011)
243–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.07.026.
[62] Xiaoqiong Li, Yufeng Zhang, Lei Fang, et al., Energy, exergy, economic, and
environmental analysis of an integrated system of high-temperature heat pump and
gas separation unit, Energy Convers. Manage. 198 (2019), 111911, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111911.
[63] A. Ustaoglu, Parametric study of absorption refrigeration with vapor compression
refrigeration cycle using wet, isentropic and azeotropic working fluids:
S. Xiang et al.
conventional and advanced exergy approach, Energy. 117491 (2020), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117491.
[64] M. Shaygan, M.A. Ehyaei, A. Ahmadi, Energy, exergy, advanced exergy and
economic analyses of hybrid polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell and
photovoltaic cells to produce hydrogen and electricity, J. Cleaner Prod. 234 (2019)
1082–1093, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.298.
[65] A. Khosravi, R.N.N. Koury, L. Machado, et al., Energy, exergy and economic
analysis of a hybrid renewable energy with hydrogen storage system, Energy. 148
(2018) 1087–1102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.008.
[66] Bahram Ghorbani, Gholamreza Salehi, Armin Ebrahimi, et al., Energy, exergy and
pinch analyses of a novel energy storage structure using post-combustion CO2
separation unit, dual pressure Linde-Hampson liquefaction system, two-stage
organic Rankine cycle and geothermal energy, Energy. 233 (2021), 121051,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121051.
[67] Mengxiao Yu, Zhengrun Chen, Dong Yao, Energy, exergy, economy analysis and
multi-objective optimization of a novel cascade absorption heat transformer driven
12
Separation and Purification Technology 279 (2021) 119787
by low-level waste heat, Energy Convers. Manage. 221 (2020), 113162, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113162.
[68] Baomin Dai, Haifeng Qi, Shengchun Liu, et al., Environmental and economical
analyses of transcritical CO2 heat pump combined with direct dedicated
mechanical subcooling (DMS) for space heating in China, Energy Convers. Manage.
198 (2019), 111317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.01.119.
[69] George Tsatsaronis, Tatiana Morosuk, Understanding the formation of costs and
environmental impacts using exergy-based methods, Energy Security Develop.
(2015) 271–291, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2065-7_18.
[70] Hu. Xiao, Heng Zhang, Dongwen Cheng, et al., Multi-objective planning for
integrated energy systems considering both exergy efficiency and economy,
Energy. 197 (2020), 117155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117155.
[71] Shukun Wang, Chao Liu, Jie Li, et al., Exergoeconomic analysis of a novel
trigeneration system containing supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle, organic Rankine
cycle and absorption refrigeration cycle for gas turbine waste heat recovery,
Energy Convers. Manage. 221 (2020), 113064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.113064.