| Literature DB >> 35323787 |
Valeriia Rostovtseva1, Ilya Faykov1, Alexandra Pulyalina1.
Abstract
Ethylene glycol (EG) is an essential reagent in the chemical industry including polyester and antifreeze manufacture. In view of the constantly expanding field of EG applications, the search for and implementation of novel economical and environmentally friendly technologies for the separation of organic and aqueous-organic solutions remain an issue. Pervaporation is currently known to significantly reduce the energy and resource consumption of a manufacturer when obtaining high-purity components using automatic, easily scalable, and compact equipment. This review provides an overview of the current research and advances in the pervaporation of EG-containing mixtures (water/EG and methanol/EG), as well as a detailed analysis of the relationship of pervaporation performance with the membrane structure and properties of membrane materials. It is discussed that a controlled change in the structure and transport properties of a membrane is possible using modification methods such as treatment with organic solvents, introduction of nonvolatile additives, polymer blending, crosslinking, and heat treatment. The use of various modifiers is also described, and a particularly positive effect of membrane modification on the separation selectivity is highlighted. Among various polymers, hydrophilic PVA-based membranes stand out for optimal transport properties that they offer for EG dehydrating. Fabricating of TFC membranes with a microporous support layer appears to be a viable approach to the development of productivity without selectivity loss. Special attention is given to the recovery of methanol from EG, including extensive studies of the separation performance of polymer membranes. Membranes based on a CS/PVP blend with inorganic modifiers are specifically promising for methanol removal. With regard to polymer wettability properties, it is worth mentioning that membranes based on hydrophobic polymers (e.g., SPEEK, PBI/PEI, PEC, PPO) are capable of exhibiting much higher selectivity due to diffusion limitations.Entities:
Keywords: dehydration; ethylene glycol; membranes; methanol; pervaporation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35323787 PMCID: PMC8956067 DOI: 10.3390/membranes12030312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Mono-ethylene glycol market in 2019. Data obtained from Market Research Future.
Physical properties of EG [5,17].
| Property | |
|---|---|
| Molecular weight | 62 g/mol |
| Boiling point at 760 mmHg | 197.6 °C |
| Density at 40 °C | 1099 kg/m3 |
| Viscosity at 20 °C | 19.8 × 10−3 Pa·s |
| Normal freezing point | −13.0 °C |
| Vapor pressure at 20 °C | 7.5 Pa |
| Flash point, Cleveland open-cup method | 115.0 °C |
| Surface tension at 25 °C | 48.0 × 10−3 N/m |
| Water solubility at 20 °C | 100% |
| Critical specific volume | 19.1 × 10−2 L·mol/g |
Scheme 1Synthesis of PET.
Figure 2The solution-diffusion model (a) and schematic of a typical vacuum pervaporation process (b).
Performance of PVA-based membranes for the separation of water/EG.
| Polymer | EG in Feed, wt.% | T, °C | Membrane Performance | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Separation Factor | Total Flux, kg/m2·h | ||||
| PVA | 90 | 60 | - | 66.70 | [ |
| FIPN50 | 97.1 | 75 | 148 | 10.63 | [ |
| PAA/PVA = 30/70 | 90 | 30 | 103 | 0.90 | [ |
| CS–PVA2 | 90 | 25 | 659 | 0.12 | [ |
| PVA | 90 | 25 | 354 | 0.12 | [ |
| PVA(GA15) | 80 | 70 | 933 | 0.21 | [ |
| PVA–PES 0.2% | 80 | 45 | 3.5 | 6 m3 (stp)/m2·h | [ |
| PVA/PP | 80 | 60 | 1021 | 0.91 | [ |
| PVA/PES (0.5 wt.% borax) | 80 | 70 | 352 | 0.31 | [ |
| PVA–PES | 82.5 | 80 | 231 | 0.38 | [ |
| PVA4 (TMC) | 90 | 60 | 987 | 0.36 | [ |
| PVA/NaA (5%) | 80 | 70 | 1520 | 0.96 | [ |
| PVA/NaA | 90 | 60 | - | 0.35 | [ |
| PVA/PP/Zeolite 4A (5%) | 80 | 70 | 1972 | 2.65 | [ |
| PVAm–PVA on PSf support/ CNT (0.5) | 97 | 70 | 391 | 194.00 | [ |
| PVA/MPTMS 50 | 80 | 70 | 311 | 0.07 | [ |
| PVA–GPTMS/TEOS 1:1 | 80 | 70 | 714 | 0.06 | [ |
| PVA10 wt.% HBPE | 90 | 25 | 312 | 0.04 | [ |
| PVA (SO3H-MIL-101-Cr) | 90 | 70 | 2864 | 0.54 | [ |
Performance of chitosan-based membranes in EG dehydration.
| Polymer | EG in Feed, wt.% | T, °C | Membrane Performance | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Separation Factor | Total Flux, kg/m2·h | ||||
| CS | 90 | 30 | 129.5 | 0.15 | [ |
| M-CA/CS | 96.8 | 30 | 302 | 0.08 | [ |
| Surface crosslinked CS/PES | 80 | 80 | 796 | 1.13 | [ |
| PECM60/40 | 80 | 70 | 105 | 0.22 | [ |
| Chitosan–poly(acrylic acid) polyelectrolyte complex/mordenite | 80 | 70 | 258 | 0.16 | [ |
| Chitosan-coated zeolite-filled cellulose membrane | 95 | 30 | 76 | 0.4 | [ |
Figure 3The synthesis of heteroarm star (HAS), where DPE is 1,1-diphenylethylene, THF is tetrahydrofuran, and TBMA is tert-butyl methacrylate [76].
Performance of mixed matrix membranes in EG dehydration.
| Polymer | EG in Feed, wt.% | T, °C | Membrane Performance | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Separation Factor | Total Flux, kg/m2·h | ||||
| CMS-3 | 95 | 30 | 2419 | 0.02 | [ |
| cPIM–1 (CD = 0.69) | 80 | 30 | 69 | 11.73 | [ |
| SPEEK | 90 | 32 | 2300 | 0.03 | [ |
| SPEEK | 90 | 30 | 2991 | 0.10 | [ |
| PBI | 50 | 25 | 6 | 1.23 | [ |
| PBI/PEI | 80 | 50 | 1925 | 0.70 | [ |
| PEBAX-2533 | 94.7 | 30 | 978 | 0.05 | [ |
| PEI–PAA 3 bilayers | 97 | 40 | 340 | 0.40 | [ |
| (PEI/PAA)7 | 95 | 22 | 450 | 0.01 | [ |
| PDMAEMA/PSF | 99.7 | 30 | 32,901 | 1 mol/(m2·h) | [ |
| PES–PD/PA/PD | 89.5 | 38 | 220 | 0.25 | [ |
| PEC NPM/GO (3%) | 90 | 60 | 1191 | 0.96 | [ |
| (PEI/GO) 15 LbL | 95 | 35 | 205 | 0.10 | [ |
| PPO/ HAS (5%) | 90 | 50 | 11,240 | 0.02 | [ |
Figure 4Comparison of the transport characteristics in the separation of water/EG mixture for the known membranes.
Performance of the membranes for methanol/EG pervaporation.
| Polymer | EG in Feed, wt.% | T, °C | Membrane Performance | Ref | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Separation Factor | Total Flux, kg/m2·h | ||||
| CS/PVP (9.09%) | 94 | 25 | 1410 | 0.05 | [ |
| PIM-1 | 71.5 | 30 | 24.2 | 10.40 | [ |
| Cellophane CEG-30 | 85 | 30 | 67 | 2.00 | [ |
| PPO-TC | 90 | 30 | 100 | 0.05 | [ |
| PANHEMA | 50 | 30 | 14.74 | 0.11 | [ |
| PPO/HSM (5%) | 95 | 50 | 930 | 0.095 | [ |
| PPO/FPS (5%) | 95 | 50 | 500 | 0.10 | [ |
| CS/PVP−silica hybrid membrane with 10.4% BTEE | 94 | 60 | 6129 | 0.06 | [ |
| CS/PVP–TEOS (7.77–14.52%) | 94 | 60 | 1899 | 0.12 | [ |
Figure 5Comparison of the transport characteristics in the separation of methanol/EG mixture for the known membranes.