Zeolite-based molecular sieves are applied in industrial dehydration units for their high water uptake capacities and extremely low equilibrium pressure of water vapor. During their operational life, they tend to lose their water vapor adsorption capacity slowly. To optimize the usage of molecular sieves in dryer units, it is vital to understand the mechanism(s) leading to deactivation. In this work, the capacity loss was studied by exposing LTA- and FAU-type zeolites to methanol and heptane vapors under relatively harsh conditions using repetitive adsorption/regeneration cycles. A simple microflow unit was designed and used for the deactivation experiments. The water vapor adsorption capacity of the resulting samples was measured using a gravimetric analyzer. In addition, they were characterized by classic XRD, 13C NMR, and TGA techniques. The crystallinity of fresh and spent zeolite XRD patterns was not drastically affected even after exposure to the contaminants. It was found that methanol easily gave rise to a severe loss of water vapor adsorption capacity, much more so than heptane. Water vapor uptake in the methanol exposed samples is ∼50% lower than that for the fresh zeolites. This is attributed to nonvolatile, residual hydrocarbons.
Zeolite-based molecular sieves are applied in industrial dehydration units for their high water uptake capacities and extremely low equilibrium pressure of water vapor. During their operational life, they tend to lose their water vapor adsorption capacity slowly. To optimize the usage of molecular sieves in dryer units, it is vital to understand the mechanism(s) leading to deactivation. In this work, the capacity loss was studied by exposing LTA- and FAU-type zeolites to methanol and heptane vapors under relatively harsh conditions using repetitive adsorption/regeneration cycles. A simple microflow unit was designed and used for the deactivation experiments. The water vapor adsorption capacity of the resulting samples was measured using a gravimetric analyzer. In addition, they were characterized by classic XRD, 13C NMR, and TGA techniques. The crystallinity of fresh and spent zeolite XRD patterns was not drastically affected even after exposure to the contaminants. It was found that methanol easily gave rise to a severe loss of water vapor adsorption capacity, much more so than heptane. Water vapor uptake in the methanol exposed samples is ∼50% lower than that for the fresh zeolites. This is attributed to nonvolatile, residual hydrocarbons.
Dehydration
is a process widely applied in the natural gas processing
industry. Tight control over the water content of the product streams,
either gaseous or liquid, is essential to prevent operational problems
in the downstream sections.[1,2] In combination with
CO2, it leads to corrosion issues, and under high-pressure/low-temperature
conditions, it can form hydrates with methane, leading to blockages.
Also in the production of biofuels, often derived from materials rich
in oxygen,[3,4] water is an undesirable byproduct that needs
to be removed.Absorbents or adsorbents suitable for dehydration
are either hygroscopic
liquids (like glycerol) or porous solids.[5] Well-known and widely applied solid adsorbents include silica and
alumina pellets.[6,7] In addition, zeolites, especially
from the LTA and FAU families, are chosen when to meet more stringent
dehydration requirements. Water contents less than 0.1 ppmv (dew points
in the range of −80 to −100 °C)[8,9] are
reached in standard operation. For natural gas liquids, these conditions
are slightly relaxed. However, zeolites are still used there too.[10] High affinity for water has a reverse side though.
Previously adsorbed water will desorb only completely in the range
of 275–325 °C.[11] The zeolite
frameworks withstand these high-temperature process steps quite well
though. In practice, this implies cyclic operation: the reactors swing
from the adsorption stage to the regeneration stage and back.At the end of an adsorption cycle, the pellets are saturated with
water. Other components that were present in the feed may be adsorbed
as well. This depends on the feed composition and purity in terms
of the presence and nature of contaminants. Another condition to meet
is regeneration without the formation of liquid water in parts of
the packed bed. The presence of liquid water can happen if the design
heating protocol could not properly be followed.[3]Practice teaches that “molsieves” do
lose their adsorption
capacity over time. In this context, the term “molsieve”
refers to pellets (beads or extrudates) composed of a zeolite (LTA
or FAU) and a binder, usually a clay.[12−14] Two main classes of
performance degradation are commonly referred to as caking and coking.
Caking relates to the loss of mechanical integrity of the pellets,
while coking refers to the buildup of carbonaceous residue inside
the pellets.[15,16]On an industrial scale,
dehydration of gas or natural gas liquids
(NGL) is done using multiple (2–4) parallel vessels loaded
with molsieves. The feed gas enters the vessels from the top. For
a “four-vessel” dryer train, one vessel will always
be in the regeneration mode. Part of the dried gas from the other
three is heated to the regeneration temperature. This hot gas (275–325
°C) is fed to the bottom section of the fourth vessel being regenerated.
Once all adsorbed components are desorbed, the vessel is cooled and
lined up for dehydration duty again. Then, the next vessel is put
up for regeneration and so on. Regeneration is repeated every 24–36
h. Over the total operational life of the molsieves, usually 3–5
years, this implies hundreds of heating/cooling cycles. Deactivation
leads to ever shorter runs. When the run time before breakthrough
becomes shorter than the time needed for regeneration, the plant is
due for a molsieve change-out.[17−20]This study focuses on the effect of contaminants
on the water adsorption
capacity of molsieves. Practical molsieve pellets for water removal
are based on 4A and 5A zeolites. Large pore zeolites like 13X are
often used in combination with A zeolites for the removal of larger-size
contaminants such as mercaptans. However, 13X also has a significant
capacity for water adsorption.We report on the impact of methanol
and heptane injected into a
stream of inert gas, in this case, nitrogen. In industrial gas dehydration
operation, methanol is occasionally injected. This prevents the formation
of hydrates that can form with methane at high pressures and low temperatures
during start-up or process upsets.[21,22] Solid hydrates
inevitably lead to operational problems resulting from blockages.While deactivation by coke deposition during the conversion of
methanol to hydrocarbons over commercial acid zeolite catalysts, such
as HZSM-5[23−25] and SAPO-34,[26,27] has been widely studied,
a few studies are reported in the literature on the deactivation by
coke deposition on industrial zeolite adsorbents. Coke formation due
to propene exposure on a pure 5A zeolite and an industrial adsorbent
(80 wt % 5A zeolite and 20 wt % kaolinite as a binder) was investigated
by Misk et al. in a flow reactor.[28] They
found that coking at 623 K on the material with binder was more pronounced
than on the 5A powder. Coke was present as heavy polyaromatics. Sun
et al.[29] investigated the deactivation
of 5A zeolite in a fixed-bed adsorber during 1-hexene adsorption and
studied the effects of binder and operating conditions on coke formation.
Again, it was found that the binder accelerates coke formation. Uguina
et al.[30] studied deactivation by coke formation
on 5A molecular sieves by carrying out 10 adsorption–desorption
cycles of a mixture of n-decane and iso-octane in a fixed-bed apparatus. The previously published literature
on the adsorption of different hydrocarbons on 5A molecular sieves
has shown that the loss of catalyst adsorption capacity is a result
of coke formation in the zeolite leading to site coverage and pore
blockages. In natural gas liquids, hydrocarbons this heavy do not
occur.To the best of our knowledge, the deactivation of industrial
molecular
sieves (4A, 5A, and 13X zeolites) due to coke formation because of
the presence of methanol during dehydration has not been explored
yet.Heptane is a natural component of NGL’s and many
gas streams,
be it in (very) low concentrations. It was selected as it is the smallest
linear alkane that cracks relatively easily compared to hexane and
pentane. Cracking reactions imply the generation of olefins, which
in turn can lead to the formation of carbonaceous residues. This is
particularly the case in the absence of hydrogen and a hydrogenation
function. The effect of other contaminants such as amines or corrosion
inhibitors will be reported separately. The deactivation of acidic
catalysts as a result of cracking reactions is an extensively researched
area. The main criterion to prevent deactivation is the presence of
high-pressure hydrogen (∼30 bar) and a hydrogenating function
like Pt. Heptane cracking without hydrogen leads to the formation
of olefinic intermediates, which quickly give rise to coke. For adsorbents,
which are nonacidic, this is less well described. A recent publication
addresses this issue though.[31] The authors
studied in cycled operation the water adsorption capacity loss of
zeolite 13X in the presence of water, CO2, and methane.
It was observed that both in the presence and absence of heptane,
capacity was lost but to a comparable degree. This is attributed to
a change in the textural properties of the material. Yet in the presence
of heptane at the end of the 10-cycle experiment, more than 2% w carbon
was deposited, but that did not have a significant effect on the adsorption
capacity under these conditions. In our studies, different zeolites
were tested with pure components rather than mixtures.The final
purpose is to come to a ranking of contaminants in terms
of their impact on the adsorption capacity over time. In addition,
this work provides information on the resilience of various materials
to the deactivation protocol (short duration and high intensity) applied.
The samples were analyzed by a variety of methods as described in
the following sections, both before and after the deactivation experiments.
Results and Discussion
For desiccants in operation,
the water adsorption capacity is the
key property. Consequently, it is the first property determined after
the termination of aging runs.
Water Vapor Adsorption
Capacity
The
water vapor adsorption capacity is expressed as milligrams (mg) of
adsorbed water per gram dry desiccant. In the case of various zeolites
type A, this leads to small differences in equilibrium values. If
the zeolite framework is considered as a large anion, the corresponding
cations can vary. For 3A, 4A, and 5A, this is potassium, sodium, and
calcium, respectively. This implies that a gram of 3A contains less
molsieve anion than, for example, a gram of 4A. This will lead to
an apparent difference in adsorption capacity on a mass basis. When
comparing 4A and 5A zeolites, this is not much of an issue. Although
calcium has a higher atomic weight than sodium, only half the amount
is needed as it has double the valency. Apart from this, the adsorption
capacities can still be different due to, for example, the available
space and affinity of water molecules for the different cations.The isotherms in Figures –4 demonstrate that even at
the lowest pressure achievable in our equipment (1 mbar), the materials
have an adsorption capacity close to the maximum. In materials with
a binder, there is also pore volume outside the zeolite crystals,
but still inside the pellets. These will only fill if conditions for
capillary condensation are met or if liquid water is present. These
conditions cannot be exploited in the microbalances for the risk of
condensation in an uncontrolled way.
Figure 1
Water vapor adsorption isotherms at 30
°C on 4A powder, fresh
and exposed to MeOH for one and three cycles.
Figure 4
Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on crushed 13X pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH for one and three cycles.
Water vapor adsorption isotherms at 30
°C on 4A powder, fresh
and exposed to MeOH for one and three cycles.In practice, for gas dehydration operation, the feed is usually
saturated with water vapor pressure depending on the pretreatment
facilities upstream of the dryers. While passing through the adsorber
bed, the water vapor partial pressure drops in the mass transfer zone
to almost zero. Upon usage of the bed, the total adsorption capacity
will slowly decrease over time. The equilibrium pressure over a fresh
or spent molsieve for that matter, in the initial stages of adsorption,
is extremely low (μbar range) and beyond our experimental abilities.
For the final part, that is, to attain at 0.1 ppmv water, from 10
ppmv (which would not be acceptable in the product stream), only a
very small amount of molsieve is needed. Therefore, the effect of
capacity loss is not seen as an increase of the humidity level in
the product stream but rather as a reduced cycle time.Figure shows the
effect of methanol treatment on the water adsorption capacity of 4A
powder. Even at the highest pressure (29 mbar; ∼70% of the
dewpoint pressure) at 30 °C, the zeolite does not saturate. For
the base 4A powder, a water uptake of 278–282 mg/g was observed.
For mutual comparison, it is often sufficient to select just one standard
condition: 30 °C, ≈29 mbar in our case.The water
vapor adsorption capacity for fresh 4A pellets at 28
mbar is 208 mg/g, shown in Figure . The difference with the powder results mainly from
the weight of the binder material. The total pore volume of these
pellets was found to be 0.371 mL/g, which means that there is an interstitial
pore volume present corresponding to 0.163 mL/g.
Figure 2
Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on 4A crushed pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH and heptane for three cycles.
Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on 4A crushed pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH and heptane for three cycles.In Figures and 2, the impact of exposure to methanol
vapor on the
adsorption capacity of 4A powder and pellets is demonstrated. Figure also shows results
for exposure to heptane for 4A pellets. The impact of methanol under
these specific sets of conditions is significant. For the powder sample,
a reduction of 11% capacity (from 282 to 251 mg/g at 29 mbar) is seen
after a three-cycle treatment with methanol. For the pelletized material,
the effect is significantly more pronounced. A capacity loss of 70%
(from 208 to 64 mg/g at 29 mbar) was found after three-cycle treatment
with methanol. This is in contrast to the exposure to heptane for
which hardly any performance loss was noted even after the three-cycle
treatment.The same experiments were done using 5A-based molsieve
pellets.
The isotherms are presented in Figure . Again, the impact of methanol exposure is larger
than that of heptane. After three cycles of heptane treatment, a reduction
of only 8% resulted (from 210 to 194 mg/g at 29 mbar), while for methanol
treatment, the loss in water adsorption capacity was 62% (from 210
to 80 mg/g at 29 mbar).
Figure 3
Water vapor adsorption isotherms at 30 °C
on crushed 5A pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH or heptane for one and three cycles.
Water vapor adsorption isotherms at 30 °C
on crushed 5A pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH or heptane for one and three cycles.The results for the same experiment performed on
13X pellets are
presented in Figure . Again, methanol exposure leads to momentous
capacity losses. Even after one treatment cycle, capacity tumbles
from 263 to 126 mg/g at 29 mbar, and after three treatment cycles,
it drops to 64 mg/g (a loss of 76% capacity).Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on crushed 13X pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH for one and three cycles.The question of whether this capacity loss is permanent or
temporary
was addressed for a sample of 5A pellets. Results are shown in Figure . The water vapor
adsorption isotherms were determined at 30 °C for fresh material
and the same after exposure to three heating/cooling cycles in methanol.
Again, a significant loss in adsorption capacity was observed. As
described in Section , prior to the start of the adsorption run, the samples are heated
to 350 °C in vacuum for 6 h. Any volatile materials residing
inside the structure are expected to have desorbed under these conditions.
Still, the uptake capacity suffered a loss. Calcination in the air
at 450 °C for 3 h was shown to restore the adsorption capacity
almost to the full. Clearly, the material deposited inside the pores
is combustible and could be removed by a fairly straightforward treatment.
In the laboratory, this is no issue, but in a full-sized gas dryer,
this will not be a feasible operation.
Figure 5
Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on crushed 5A pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH for three cycles and the same calcined at
450 °C in the air for 3 h.
Water vapor adsorption
isotherms at 30 °C on crushed 5A pellets,
fresh and exposed to MeOH for three cycles and the same calcined at
450 °C in the air for 3 h.
XRD
Figures and 7 show the [200]
peaks of the 4A and 5A pelletized molsieves, both fresh and after
exposure to methanol or heptane. For 4A and 5A, the powders are also
shown. The position of the [200] peak for the 4A powder after calcination
in the air for 6 h at 350 °C (to remove any residuals from the
synthesis) was 2θ = 7.19°. For the calcined 5A powder,
the peak was found at 2θ = 7.16°. Under the conditions
of the measurements, the samples can be considered as hydrated. The
IZA database[33] gives the [200] peak maximum
at 2θ = 7.18° for hydrated 4A. The [200] peak maxima for
the fresh and spent pellets were all found at the expected position
(2θ ≈ 7.2°) for the 4A and 5A samples. The full-range
(2θ 5–45°) XRD patterns are provided in the Supporting
Information (Figures S1–S3). The
deactivation experiments do not result in significant changes in the
XRD patterns of pelletized 4A, except for some variation in intensity.
Figure 6
XRD [200]
reflections of 4A powder and pellets: as such (fresh),
after exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH), and after exposure
to three cycles of heptane.
Figure 7
XRD [200]
reflections of 5A powder and pellets: as such (fresh),
after exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH), and after exposure
to three cycles of heptane.
XRD [200]
reflections of 4A powder and pellets: as such (fresh),
after exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH), and after exposure
to three cycles of heptane.XRD [200]
reflections of 5A powder and pellets: as such (fresh),
after exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH), and after exposure
to three cycles of heptane.Figure shows that
the [111] reflection for the fresh 13X pellets (in the hydrated state,
the theoretical maximum is at 2θ = 6.16°) was found at
2θ = 6.07°. After exposure to three methanol deactivation
cycles, the peak shifted slightly to 2θ = 6.11°. The intensities
vary, but no conclusions are drawn from that. These results show that
the spent samples did not change their crystalline phase significantly
but possibly to a small extent.
Figure 8
XRD [111] reflections of 13X pellets:
as such (fresh) and after
exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH).
XRD [111] reflections of 13X pellets:
as such (fresh) and after
exposure to three cycles of methanol (MeOH).
13C CP MAS NMR
The nature
of carbon-containing residue formed on the 4A and 5A samples after
methanol and heptane treatment was analyzed by 13C CP MAS
NMR experiments. Figure shows the spectra of both the three-cycle methanol and the three-cycle
heptane runs. In all spectra, carbon-related features were observed.
For the 13X sample, only the methanol test was analyzed.
Figure 9
13C CP MAS NMR spectra of 4A, 5A, and 13X beads: (a)
full spectra and (b) enlarged spectra.
13C CP MAS NMR spectra of 4A, 5A, and 13X beads: (a)
full spectra and (b) enlarged spectra.The spectrum of the heptane-treated 5A sample shows chemical shifts
corresponding to −CH3 groups at 15 ppm. The two
broad peaks with multiplets centered at 21 and 29 ppm are attributed
to −CH2 and −CH groups of aliphatic carbons,
respectively. The peak with a chemical at 165 ppm indicates carbon
bound to a heteroatom.[34,35] The same was seen in the FTIR
spectra. This remains unexplained.The chemical shifts that
appear for the heptane-treated 4A sample
were completely different from the 5A sample. Four sharp peaks appeared
at 14, 22, 27, and 31 ppm. These are attributed to the CH3, CH2 (2,6), CH2 (4), and CH2 (3,5)
groups of the heptane molecule. This indicates that heptane got trapped
inside the 4A zeolite pores but it did not suffer any chemical changes
visible by NMR during the three-cycle test. Heptane molecules that
moved into the 5A zeolite pores underwent chemical conversion steps
generating other compounds than heptane. Heptane that passed through
the 4A zeolite pores remained intact but got trapped inside the zeolite
pores. This suggests that “coke” formation could occur
in the absence of steric hindrance. Because of the larger pores of
5A samples, the steric hindrance is less significant. Hence, a higher
rate of “coke” formation is observed in 5A zeolite in
comparison to that in the smaller pore 4A zeolite. Another explanation
could be that 5A is slightly more acidic than 4A, although LTA zeolites
are nonacidic in nature.All methanol-treated samples showed
two separate well-distinguished
peaks at 52 and 64 ppm. The former one is attributed to unreacted
methanol, and the latter one is contributed from dimethyl ether (DME)
groups.[36] It is reported that the resonance
at 64 ppm can also be contributed to from the CH3O–
groups attached to the surface produced by acidic sites with methanol.[34] Unreacted methanol peak at 52 ppm is more prominent
for 13X sample, and its contribution on the 4A sample was very low
and on the 5A sample, it is almost negligible. The chemical shift
at 64 ppm is apparent for the 13X and 4A samples, and it appeared
as a small hump in the 5A sample. The methanol-treated 4A and 13X
samples showed a different behavior compared to the methanol-treated
5A sample. Chemical shifts of both aliphatic and aromatic carbons
were absent for 4A and 13X samples.The sharp peak at 19 ppm
for the methanol-treated 5A sample was
attributed to −CH2 groups, and the shoulder peaks
between 10–15 and 20–40 ppm were attributed to −CH3 and −CH groups of aliphatic molecules, respectively.[34,35] Aromatic or olefinic carbon was observed as a small peak at a chemical
shift of 130 ppm.These results indicate that the 5A sample
is involved in the conversion
of methanol into aliphatic and aromatic components. This process was
not observed in 4A and 13X samples. For the latter two samples, methanol
is seen to form methoxy species, probably with surface hydroxyl groups.
Prior to the NMR recording, the samples are exposed to water vapor.
This may induce hydrolysis, and free methanol is formed again. For
both zeolites, no indications were found for the formation of aliphatic
or aromatic compounds.Similarly, heptane 5A is active for the
conversion of the alkane
into coke-like molecules. But nothing happened to the heptane molecules
that were trapped inside the 4A zeolites. Based on these observations,
it appears that 5A is more reactive to both methanol and heptane conversion
than the 4A and 13X counterparts.
TGA
Figures –12 show the TGA thermographs of
fresh and spent (“coked”)
zeolites. The overall weight loss of all samples ranged from 12% wt
to 22% wt. Initial loss occurs at a temperature below 200 °C.
This is due to the water desorption from the zeolite pores.[37] These numbers vary as the degree of hydration
was not the same for the samples. The second weight loss occurs between
200 and 450 °C.
Figure 10
TGA profiles of fresh and spent (MeOH and heptane) 4A
pellets.
Figure 12
TGA profiles of fresh
and spent (MeOH) 13X pellets.
TGA profiles of fresh and spent (MeOH and heptane) 4A
pellets.TGA profiles of fresh and spent (MeOH
and heptane) 5A pellets.TGA profiles of fresh
and spent (MeOH) 13X pellets.The fresh zeolite 4A sample shows an initial weight loss of 8%
wt, which is related to water desorption. The second weight loss,
only 3% wt, is probably due to water formed by dihydroxylation and
water loss from the interparticle voids.[38] The spent 4A zeolites from methanol and heptane deactivation cycles
show almost 15% wt initial weight loss for both samples corresponding
to the desorption of water. A second weight loss of 4% wt around 350
°C occurs for the heptane-treated samples. This is due to trapped
heptane combusting. For the methanol-treated sample, no such weight
loss was seen.The 5A sample showed different behavior. There
is no trapped heptane,
and both the fresh and spent samples show the same weight loss of
19% wt. At about 300 °C, a very small difference is seen between
the fresh and heptane-treated samples. The 5A methanol-treated sample
shows a 6% wt initial weight loss of water desorbing and a second
weight loss of 14% wt at about 400 °C. This is thought to be
the result of residing carbon materials combusting. This is not seen
for 4A and is consistent with the NMR results.The 13X fresh
sample shows a 15% wt loss due to the desorption
of water. The initial gain of weight is due to the adsorption of residual
water vapor in the TGA voids. The 13X methanol sample shows an initial
loss of 17% wt due to water desorption, but no other features other
than a very small shoulder at about 350–400 °C. This may
be due to a small amount of methoxy groups residing in the structure.
This is comparable to the 5A findings.
Methanol
Adsorption
Examples of adsorption
isotherms for methanol[39,40] are shown in Figure S4. For comparison, adsorption on 3A zeolite is also
shown. As the pore diameter of the latter (3 Å) is smaller than
the kinetic diameter of methanol (3.6 Å), the adsorption capacity
is low. Zeolites 4A and 5A adsorb roughly the same amount at 247 mbar;
157 vs 167 mg/g, respectively. The shape of the isotherms is classic
Langmuir-like, type I.In Figures S5 and S6, methanol and water adsorption isotherms are compared. The
uptake capacity is expressed as mL/g rather than mg/g. For the conversion
from mg to mL, simply the liquid densities were used at the given
temperature. At the nanoscale of the pores sizes, this is presumably
a too simplistic approach. Yet the results are remarkable. For both
the 4A and 5A zeolites, the volume of the adsorbed material at saturation
is almost the same for methanol and water. The entire pore structure
is filled with the adsorbent.
Conclusions
At this point, it is obvious that the impact of methanol bigger
than that of heptane. It may be clear that in an industrial plant,
these particular conditions do not occur. Still, the message is clear.
Exposure to methanol is to be avoided if possible. But methanol exposure
is incidental, while heptane may be of continuous presence leading
to tiny amounts of coke building up over time.This implies
that if methanol is present in the feed, it may cause
problems. Alternatively, methanol can be selected as a probe molecule
to test for differences between various (commercial) materials. Conversion
reactions of methanol over zeolites were studied exhaustively. This
led to commercial processes like MTG and MTO. Catalysts for these
reactions are based on ZSM-5, an acidic low-alumina material. This
is quite unlike molsieves from the LTA family.The impact of
two contaminants (methanol and heptane) on the water
adsorption capacity of zeolites 4A, 5A, and 13X was assessed. For
all combinations, a reduction of water adsorption capacity was observed.
Under the given conditions, the effect of methanol was more significant
than that of heptane. In some experiments, about half of the adsorption
capacity was lost.The XRD patterns clearly show that fresh,
methanol-, and heptane-exposed
zeolite patterns were not changed drastically. The TGA profile shows
the gradual decreases in mass due to the burning out of carbonaceous
materials at high temperatures.13C CP MAS-NMR spectra
showed the presence of different
carbonaceous materials in the spent samples. On 5A, both heptane and
methanol underwent conversion reactions. On 4A, heptane got trapped
inside the structure, but no evidence was found for any reaction.
Both 4A and 13X methanol led to the formation of methoxy groups and
after hydrolysis seemed to produce methanol. This leads to a very
significant loss of adsorption capacity, but likely not a permanent
one. For 5A, this is different though.
Experimental
Section
Materials
Zeolites (3A, 4A, 5A, and
13X), both powders and pellets, were obtained from commercial vendors
such as Sigma-Aldrich, Alfa Aesar, and Chemiewerk Bad, Germany. The
pellets (beads or extrudates) contain about 80% w zeolite and 20%
w binder material. The nature of the binder material is not specified.
Methanol (>99.9%) and heptane (>99%) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.
Nitrogen gas (99.999% purity) was provided by Air Products.
Methods
Deactivation Cycles
It may be clear
from the introduction that mirroring the dehydration operation in
the field to the laboratory is not possible. Experiments cannot last
for years. The approach chosen was to expose the desiccants to a series
of high-temperature cycles in the presence of a volatile contaminant.
The effect on water adsorption capacity on these samples could be
mapped to desiccants samples obtained from the plants after unloading.The deactivation of molecular sieves using methanol and heptane
was carried out in a home-built microflow fixed-bed reactor operating
at atmospheric pressure as shown in Figure . The setup consists of two sections: a
feed section and a reaction section. In the feed section, nitrogen
at a constant flow rate carries the chosen hydrocarbon into the reaction
section. The flow rate of nitrogen is controlled using a mass flow
controller (Cole-Parmer: EW-32907-63), and the hydrocarbon is introduced
into the nitrogen stream using a syringe pump (KD Scientific-Legato
210 Dual syringe) operating at a constant infusion rate. The pump
holds two parallel 50 mL syringes that infuse at the same rate simultaneously.
The line that introduces the hydrocarbon into the nitrogen stream
and the line that delivers the feed mixture into the reaction zone
are both heated to a temperature of 20 °C above the boiling point
of the hydrocarbon to evaporate the liquid and avoid condensation
in the lines. In the reaction section, the mixture is fed to a reactor,
a horizontal stainless steel pipe (1/4 in.) that contains a molecular
sieve bed. The molecular sieve bed is preceded by 10 cm of small stainless
steel rings to bring the feed to the reaction temperature. The reactor
is fixed inside a tubular furnace that incorporates a temperature
controller. The exhaust stream from the reactor is vented.
Figure 13
Simplified
flow diagram of the microflow unit used for deactivation
cycles.
Simplified
flow diagram of the microflow unit used for deactivation
cycles.The fresh molecular sieves, about
5 g, were loaded as a packed
bed in the middle of the stainless steel reactor tube. The ratio of
the length of the bed to its diameter was set at 10:1. Therefore,
the lengths of molecular sieve beds in all experiments were fixed
at 5 cm. Occasionally, powders were tested. These were spatulated
in small ceramic “boats” in a thin layer. Prior to each
experiment, the lines were heated at 120 °C and flushed with
nitrogen bypassing the reactor. Subsequently, the molecular sieves
were pretreated for more than 3 h by heating the bed at 350 °C
inside the tubular furnace while flushing it with a nitrogen stream
preheated at 120 °C. The bed temperature was then reduced to
40 °C, and the temperature of the lines was fixed at 20 °C
above the hydrocarbon boiling point to start the molecular sieve deactivation
experiment. During the experiment, the nitrogen flow rate was fixed
at 50 mL/min and the syringe pump dosage rate was fixed at 5 mL/h,
which corresponds to a total of 10 mL/h hydrocarbon infusion rate
for 10 h. As the hydrocarbon dosing was initiated, the molecular sieve
bed was heated from 40 to 325 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min for
around 1 h and then maintained at 325 °C for 9 h. After 10 h
of exposure, the hydrocarbon stream was terminated and the bed was
allowed to cool down to room temperature. Depending on the experiment,
this step was repeated several times. The deactivated molecular sieves
were then characterized to study their physicochemical properties.
Water Adsorption
The water vapor
adsorption capacities of the samples were measured as a function of
temperature and pressure using a gravimetric sorption analyzer (STATIC)
from Rubotherm, Germany. The latter is a so-called magnetic suspension
balance (MSB), type Isosorp.[32] The equipment
can be operated in a temperature range of 20–150 °C using
a liquid circulator or 50–350 °C using an electrical heater
at pressures up to 50 bars. To prevent any risk of unwanted condensation,
maximum partial vapor pressures were limited to 70% of the dewpoint
pressure. Prior to each measurement, the samples were pretreated under
vacuum at 350 °C for 6 h. After pretreatment, the samples were
cooled to, usually 30 °C, to measure the adsorption isotherm.
The three positions of MSB allow us to measure the zero point (position
1), the sample weight plus the sample holder (position 2), and in
position 3, a titanium sinker, with a known volume, is added to the
weight. By means of the weight change of the sinker, the density of
the gas can be measured in situ. With this density, and the known
volume of the sample, a buoyancy correction was applied to the sample
weight.
Characterization Methods
Wide-angle
X-ray diffraction (WAXRD) analysis of the fresh and spent zeolites
was performed on an analytical powder diffractometer (Panalytical
X’Pert PRO) using Cu Kα radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å)
in reflection mode. The fresh and spent zeolites were subjected to
thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) using a Waters-SDT Q600 (TA Instruments).
The temperature was increased from room temperature to 900 °C
with a ramping rate of 10 °C/min under dry airflow (20 mL/min).Solid-state 13C NMR was carried out in a Bruker 400
AVANCE III spectrometer (9.40 T) under magic angle spinning (MAS).
This technique provides details about the chemical nature of coke
formed and the state of the inorganic matrix of the samples. Coke
formed on zeolites was analyzed by 13C CP MAS measurements
at a resonance frequency of 100.628 MHz with a spinning rate of 8
kHz. Cross-polarization measurements on 13C were conducted
using a 90° pulse for protons of 2.30 μs, 2.0 ms of contact
time, and 5 s of recycling delay. Before the analysis, zeolite samples
were powdered and kept in a humidity chamber for over 10 h at 25 °C
and 90% humidity for water saturation. Samples of approximately 100
mg were packed into a 4 mm diameter cylindrical zirconia rotor for
the NMR analysis.
Authors: Suraj Adebayo Opatokun; Azhagapillai Prabhu; Ahmed Al Shoaibi; C Srinivasakannan; Vladimir Strezov Journal: Chemosphere Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 7.086
Authors: B Liu; D R Slocombe; J Wang; A Aldawsari; S Gonzalez-Cortes; J Arden; V L Kuznetsov; H AlMegren; M AlKinany; T Xiao; P P Edwards Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 14.919