Page 312 - Pressure Swing Adsorption
P. 312

11
 288   PRESSURE SWING ADSORPTION
                                  CHAPTER
 _  C.  N.  Kenney,  m "Separation of Gases,"  Proceedings of the  ~tli  BOC Priestley  Conference,
 7
 h
 .
 B1rmmg  am   UK  (1984)  Roval  Societv.  of  Chemislry, Special  PuD.  No.  80,  PP·  273-86   8
 ,
 .  .
 (1990).
 _  R.  Y,tng,  Gas  Separatmn  by  Adsorption  Processes,  p.  263,  Butterworths,  Stoneham,  MA
 8
 (1987).
 9.  R.  L. Jones, G. E. Keller, and R. C. Wells, U.S.  Patent 4,194,892 (1980), to Union Carbide.   Membrane Processes:
 10.  a. E.  Keller and R. L.  Jones,  Am. Chem.  Soc.  Symp.  Ser.  135,275 (1980).   l,
                   Comparison with PSA
 l l.  R.  L. Jones and G. E.  Keller, J.  Sep.  Process  Technology  2(3), 17 (1981).
 12.  S.  J, Doong and R. T. Yang,  A/ChE Symp.  Ser.  84(264),  145 (1988).
 13.  E. A\pay, C.  N.  Kenney,  and D. M. Scott, Chem.  Eng. Sci.  m press.














         Although  pressure  swmg  adsorption  and  membrane· oerrneatton  processes
         operate  on  quite  different  prmc1ples,  they  offer  economically  competitive
         alternatives for many small- and medium-scale gas separations. The focus  of
         this  book 1s  on  pressure swing systems,  but 1t  seems appropriate to  mclude  a
         brief  mtroduction  to  membrane  processes  ro  orovide  the  reader  with  the
         background  needed  to  assess  the  comparative  merits  of  the  membrane
         alternative.  From  an overall  standoomt  pressure  swing  and  membrane  pro-
         cesses  are  similar  in  that  they  are  both  best  suited  to  producing  a  pure
         raffinate (retentate) product. Although either orocess can be adapted to yield
         a  pure  extract  (permeate)  product  this  cannot  be  accomolished  without  a
         significant  loss  of efficiency.  In  both  classes  of process- the  main  operating
         cost is  the power reautred to compress the feed  stream; so a first  estimate of
         comparative  performance  can  be  obtained simply  by  considenng  the  power
  ! ,    requirements.


         8.1  Permeability and Separation  Factor

         The  concept  of  a  membrane  orocess  1s  straightforward  (Figure  8.1).  The
         separation depends on  the  difference  m  permeation  rates  through  a  perm-
         selective  membrane,  and  the  process  efficiency  1s  largely dependent  on  the
         se!ect1v1ty and permeability of the membrane matcnai. The permeability ( ,r;),
         which  provides  a  quant1tat1ve  measure  of  the  ease  with  which  a  particular
   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317