Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

Foaming Prevention in Absorption Columns through Removal of

Contaminants from Amine-Based Solutions Using a Solvent Resistant
Nanoltration (SRNF) Membrane
Zahir Razzaz, Abdul Wahab Mohammad,* and Ebrahim Mahmoudi
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Malaysia

ABSTRACT: An environmentally friendly removal method based on a membrane process for the purication of aqueous amine
solution for use in carbon dioxide absorption was analyzed. Two kinds of commercial solvent resistant nanoltration (SRNF)
membranes (Desal-DL and SR100, polymeric) were chosen, and their capabilities in removing three common contaminants from
diethanolamine (DEA) solution were examined. These contaminants that caused foaming of DEA solution include sodium
chloride, sodium sulte, and acetic acid. From the two tested solvent resistant nanoltration (SRNF) membranes, it had been
found that Desal-DL membrane provided promising results and performance that can be an alternative to conventional
separation, including distillation, for purication of amine solution. Experiments were also conducted to test the foaming
tendency and stability of the untreated and treated amine solution. The untreated DEA with sodium sulte had the highest
foaming tendency. However, after NF treatment, there was substantial decrease of the foaming tendency. The results obtained
conrmed the potential of using SRNF-membranes to reduce foaming tendency and stability in DEA solution.

1. INTRODUCTION
The enhanced levels of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the
environment during the previous decades are one major
contributor to global warming.1 For the last several years,
aqueous amine solution treatments have the technology
intended for the removal of acid gas produced by the gas
sweetening industries. Therefore, they can be readily
implemented on large-scale in existing industries for the
capture of carbon dioxide.2 Aqueous diethanolamine (DEA)
solutions (usually 25 wt %) are referral solvents intended for
use in many processes.3 The industrial application of this
solution has encountered several environmental and technical
challenges. Signicant solvent losses take place during the
absorption and stripping processes. Amines are relatively
volatile solvents that can change phase from liquid to gas,
and subsequently react to yield hazardous compounds in the
atmosphere.4 Furthermore, one key problem in using amine
solutions is the accumulation of degradation products caused
by irreversible reactions in solvent during the process, as well as
the reduction in active DEA content.2 Surface active
degradation products could cause an increase in the foaming
problem.5
Foaming is widely encountered in gas sweetening industries
and typically contributes to critical consequences, including
decreased eciency and area of mass transfer, carryover of
solutions with high absorption further downstream in the plant,
loss (amine solution) of absorption upon increased operation
costs, and ooding before the proper time. Foaming takes place
during plant start-up and over operation in the absorption and
stripping processes.6,7 Foaming can be caused by numerous
chemical contaminants that enter the processing plants with gas
from feed, water in makeup, or a cooling water leak during the
amine solution degradation reactions. These contaminants were
dissolved in hydrocarbon and organic acid from solution-
oxidized fragments (e.g., acetic acid and formic acid), amine
degradation products, chemical additives, such as antifoaming
agents and a corrosion inhibitor, and some inorganic
compounds from water.8,9
Systematic studies indicating the foaming behavior of
aqueous amine solution have been published. Pauley reported
that organic acid and other contaminants increased the foaming
tendency and stability of DEA, monoethanolamine (MEA),
methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), and formulated methyldietha-
nol-amine in amine solution with all contaminants.10 McCarthy
et al.11 observed that organic acid, antifoam, corrosion
inhibitors, and other contaminants caused the foaming
tendency of the DEA solution to increase with increased
temperature and pressure. Thitakamol et al.7 systematically
studied using MDEA, MEA, 2-amino-2-methyl-propanol-1
(AMP), and their combinations to examine the results of
process parameters on their foaming tendency. Calculating the
foaminess coecient indicates the gas ow rate and solutions
volumes. The gas ow rate and the concentration of
contaminants used in this study were based on the
recommendations of Thitakamol et al.
The current approaches used to overcome the foaming
phenomena include mechanical ltration, ion exchange,
electrodialysis, distillation (solution reclamation), and addition
of antifoaming agent.2 Filtration is normally performed through
a bed of activated carbon, which requires a large amount of
carbon for each ton of carbon dioxide. It also wastes a large
amount of the amine solution.1 The use of ion exchange is
suitable, since degradation product accumulation remains low,
Received: July 20, 2015
Revised: November 11, 2015
Accepted: November 16, 2015
Published: November 16, 2015

2015 American Chemical Society 12135 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Table 1. Solvent Resistant Nanoltration Membranes and Membrane Characteristics Used in the Experiments
Pore Size, MWCOa Membrane property (contact angle, Membrane
Membrane Manufacturer (Da) ) Type of polymer class
Desal-DL GE Osmonics 150300 Hydrophilic (42.8 2.24) Polyamide NF, Dense
TF (Thin Film)
TFC-SR100 Koch Membranes System 200 Hydrophilic (48.3 3.49) TF (Thin Film) composite NF, Dense
polyamide
a
Aqueous solutions.

with concentrations staying in the ppm range. Higher ow rates polarities on the separation performance of the STARMEM
and concentrations have increased the cost and scale of membrane. The membrane showed a rejection rate of about
equipment.12 The energy consumption of ion exchange is lower 72% for the separation of acetic acid. Yang et al.22 studied the
than that of electrodialysis. Numerous electrodialysis mem- stability and retention of organic solvents (Safranine O, Orange
branes have been created with pH values between 2 and 9, II) and aqueous solvents on Desal-DK and Desal-DL
which is problematic, since the normal pH of amine is between membranes, and they showed that retention in aqueous solvent
9 and 11.13 Ion exchange and electrodialysis cannot eliminate was higher than that in organic solvent. In this study, our goal
nonionic impurities and require activated carbon to remove was to analyze and select commercially available SRNF-
contaminants. More waste results from electrodialysis than membranes for the removal of three common contaminants
from distillation. One signicant drawback of distillation is that (organic and ionic) from an amine solution. The separation
a large amount of waste generated means that it is not performance associated with two SRNF-membranes has been
sustainable and is expensive.2 The addition of antifoam does evaluated to have potential for the purication of this solution.
not physically remove the contaminants and, therefore, does Furthermore, the acquired results were used to examine and
not permanently treat the foaming problem.10 compare the foaming tendency and foaming stability of treated
Treatment technologies for amine solutions are generally not and untreated amine solutions to further study the eect of
sustainable or economical. Therefore, there is potential for a foaming on capturing carbon dioxide.
membrane process to be an alternative to the conventional
method. A signicant decrease in energy consumption can be 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
achieved by using a properly selected membrane, while
2.1. Membrane and Chemicals. Laboratory grade DEA
simultaneously decreasing the waste volume through recovery
(99% purity, Sigma-Aldrich Inc., Malaysia) was used for all
of waste, ne particulates, and the nal product. Another
experiments. Acetic acid (99.7% purity, Sigma-Aldrich Inc.,
advantage of the membrane process is that it can be performed
Malaysia), sodium sulte (98% purity, Sigma-Aldrich Inc.,
at mild temperatures, where conditions should be generally
Malaysia), and sodium chloride (98% purity, Sigma-Aldrich
temperature mild, and the tendencies of acid gas and oxidative
Inc., Malaysia) were added in parts per million (ppm)
degradation paths to be scaled down to produce charged
concentrations to an aqueous DEA solution to simulate
particles,14 decreasing greenhouse gas emission and increasing
degraded DEA solutions. The aqueous amine solution was
safety in comparison to traditional separation processes,
prepared by DEA in deionized water followed by sparging of
including distillation.
99.99% CO2 into the solutions. Two kinds of polymeric SRNF-
The solvent resistant nanoltration (SRNF) membrane has
membranes (GE Osmonics and Kosh Manufactures) were
interesting potential for waste solution reduction, recovery from
tested. The related properties of both membranes supplied in
the solution during the process,15 environmental and economic
dried forms are listed in Table 1.
advantages, a wide pH range, and great separation perform-
2.2. Permeation Experimental Setup. Permeability
ance.16 Researchers have been successful in introducing new
experiments were done in a stirred cell (Sterlitech HP4750,
developments in and generation of a nanoltration (NF)
Sterlitech, USA) that containing a cylindrical stainless steel with
process, as well as improving the performance and stability of
detachable end plates (Figure 1). A membrane disk with a
NF membranes, which can be stable in the solvent throughout
diameter of 0.049 m was placed at the end of this cell,
membrane manufacturing, thus solving certain problems (e.g.,
supported by porous stainless steel. The active area of the
disintegration and dissolution of the membranes).17 Many
studies have concentrated on the development of modications
about the thin layers of SRNF-membranes in order to develop
and increase their morphology and performance. During the
polymerization, the most eective approaches to increase the
specic characteristics of the very thin layers would be to add
suitable various additives in the very thin layer matrix.18 These
membranes have numerous potentials for continuous oper-
ations during several months within renery plants.19 SRNF-
membranes have been developed and have various Molecular
Weight Cut-Os (MWCOs). For instance, Desal-DL and
Desal-DK are used in organic solvent separation. Othman et
al.20 reported the application of Desal-Dl, Desal-DK, and six
types of SRNF-membranes to separate biodiesels. Darvishma-
nesh et al.21 reported the eect of organic solvents (methanol,
acetic acid, acetone, n-hexane, and toluene) with dierent Figure 1. Dead-end ltration setup.

12136 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
membrane was 15.2 cm2. The maximum solution feed volume
to the cell was 0.3 L, and the maximum operating pressure was
69 bar. The solutions were stirred using a Teon-coated
magnetic bar placed 3 mm above the sheet membranes. These
membranes were pretreated/presoaked in the ltration solution
overnight prior to the separation experiments. All permeation
experiments were performed at ambient temperatures with
pressures ranging from 2 to 14 bar. This stirred cell was
pressurized by compressed N2 gas. The volume of the feed
solutions was 0.2 L, and the volumes of permeates were
measured using a graduated cylinder. The stirring speed was
maintained at 1000 rpm by a Teon-coated magnetic bar.
The solvent uxes were determined by measuring the
ltration time dierence t (in s) and collecting data on the
permeate volume V (in mL). The ux of solvent is given as22
v
J=
At
The eective area of the membrane is A (in m2). The SRNF-
membrane was used for all of the experiments, and
uncontaminated aqueous DEA solutions were used as the
base case. The aqueous DEA solution was also added with the
following contaminants: sodium chloride (1000 ppm), sodium
sulte (1000 ppm), and acetic acid (100 ppm). The permeate
samples were collected using a 200 mL measuring cylinder until
the ltration volume reached 100 mL. The permeates of the
solutions were used in the foaming experiments.
The concentrations of permeate and feed were analyzed by
ion chromatography. The performance of the SRNF-membrane
was reported as the rejection rate, which was calculated as
follows:23
C into the test solution, and the system thermal equilibrium was
R = 1 P 100 (%)
CF
where CF is the feed concentration and CP is the permeate
concentration. The standard deviation errors were up to 5% in
all cases.
2.3. Chemical Analysis and FESEM. The surface
morphologies and cross sections of the SRNF-membrane
samples were analyzed before and after ltration by eld
emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) using a
model Zeiss supra 55vp (Germany) at a voltage of 3 kV. The
cross sections of the nanoltration membrane were immersed
in liquid nitrogen to break the dry membranes.
The DEA solutions concentrations before and after ltration
in both membranes were measured by UV absorption with the
wavelength at 210 nm using UVvis spectroscopy (with a UV-
1650 PC, Shimadzu instrument). The DEA concentration
before ltration were 3.4775, and those after ltration were
3.4735 for the SR100 membrane and 3.4750 for the Desal-DL
membrane. Anion concentrations were measured by ion
chromatography (IC 850 Fessional, Metrohm) with a 1:50
dilution ratio and 0.2 mM NaOH, including formaldehyde (for
stabilization of the sulte). The acetic acid concentration was
determined by acidbase titration using the standard solution
(NaOH with phenolphthalein) as a reagent. Table 2 shows the
concentrations of the permeates and the feeds.
2.4. Foaming Experimental Setup. Foaming tests were
performed using a method modied from the standard ASTM
D892 protocol by Thitakamol. 7 Figure 2 shows the
experimental setup consisting of a 0.001 m3 graduated cylinder,
a temperature controller immersed in a water bath, a gas
12137
Article
Table 2. Concentration of Feed and Permeate
Sulte Chloride Acetic acid
(mg L1) (mg L1) (mg L1)
Feed 56.23 211 123
Desal-DL 9.01 55.24 70
(permeate)
SR100 (permeate) 18.14 132.5 22
Figure 2. Schematic representation of foaming experimental setup.
diuser (average pore diameter 80 m), a drying column, and a
gas ow meter. Commercial grade N2 was used instead of air as
a distributed N2 to bubble solution and to avoid oxidative
degradation that aects the foaming results.
2.5. Foaming Study. 2.5.1. Foaming Experimental
Procedure. A 0.001 m3 graduated cylinder containing 0.0001
m3 of the test solution was placed in a water bath and heated to
40 C prior to each experiment. The diuser was submerged
permitted to be attained for approximately 20 min. The initial
volume of the solution prior to each test was recorded. Before
entering into the ow meter (xed ow rate of 2 103 m/s),
the N2 gas was dried to remove wetting by the drying-column.
This gas entered the graduated cylinder and traveled through
the gas diuser. The duration of bubbling was measured with a
stopwatch. pH was determined before and after each
experiment, as was the conductivity due to the alkanolamine
degradation that changes the constituents of the solution.
The interface between the foam and liquid was dicult to
measure for the majority of the test solution cases during the
foaming test. The volumes of the liquid and the foam, instead
of just the foam volume, in the cylinder were measured every
minute. Each foaming experiment was run for 25 min. A stable
state after almost 5 min was reached in most foaming tests.
Therefore, the data reading was reported as a steady state value.
An uncontaminated amine solution was operated at a
baseline prior to the foaming test of the contaminated amine
solution. Considering that the result for uncontaminated
solutions cannot be found to be similar each time, normalized
foaminess was reported for comparing before and after SRNF
ltration and also for dierent contaminants.
2.5.2. Data Analysis. The foaminess was calculated by
subtracting the initial volume of the liquid from the total
volume of the graduated cylinder that yields the volume of the
total gas involved in the foam and dividing by supercial gas
velocity (in m2s):23,24
Vg
Vt Vi
F= =
G G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
where Vt is the total steady-state foam and liquid volume (in
m3), Vi is the initial volume of liquid (in m3), Vg is the total
steady-state foam volume (in m3), and G is the supercial gas
velocity (in m/s). Dividing F by the foaminess of the
uncontaminated amine solution (Fi) was calculated as the
normalized foaminess (F*). It should be noted that the
normalized foaminess of the uncontaminated amine solution
for each step of the foaming experiment was dierent in this
study, which implies that, after ltration to calculate F*, the
ltered DEA solution with each contaminant was divided by the
unltered neat DEA solution.
F
F* =
Fi
The foam stability was estimated by break time (t, in sec). The
time period in which foam breaks completely following the stop
ow of gas was dened as the break time for this material. The
standard deviation errors were up to 5% in all cases.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Membrane Experiments. 3.1.1. Permeability of the
Uncontaminated Amine Solution. Preliminary permeation
experiments for purication and separation were performed
with an uncontaminated aqueous amine solution (uncontami-
nated 25 wt % DEA) and contaminated aqueous DEA solution
(1000 ppm sodium chloride, 1000 ppm sodium sulte, and 100
ppm acetic acid) for both membranes. Table 1 lists the
hydrophilic membranes examined in this experiment. The eect
of pressure on the ux of the uncontaminated aqueous amine
solution was examined between 2 and 14 bar at ambient
temperature (28 C) in Desal-DL and SR100 membranes.
Figure 3 shows the result obtained from the permeation
Figure 3. Flux of water versus dierent pressures for both membranes
at ambient temperature. The standard deviation errors were up to 5%
in all cases.
experiment for the water permeation ux, in which the ux of
the water increased linearly upon increasing the applied
pressure. This behavior can explain with the HagenPoiseuille
equation in liquid and solvent cases.25,17 The result obtained
indicates a behavior which was tted by this equation. The
highest water permeate ux was obtained for the Desal-DL
membrane.
The uncontaminated aqueous amine solution permeability
experiment showed nonlinear behavior (as asymptotic action)
on both membranes upon increased applied pressure at
ambient temperature. Figure 4 shows the permeation ux of
12138
Article
Figure 4. Flux of DEA solution versus applied pressure for the Desal-
DL and SR100 membranes at ambient temperature.
the DEA solution, in which the ux of the solution was
enhanced by increasing the operating pressure. Based on Figure
4, the Desal-DL membrane presented the higher ux of the
permeate in the uncontaminated aqueous DEA solution when
compared with the SR100 membrane. The permeate uxes of
DEA were signicantly higher for Desal-DL than for the SR100
membrane, thus indicating that SR100 was the less hydrophilic
membrane and the hydrophilic membrane behavior can be
described using the theory of hydrogen-bonding.22 Also, the
variation of osmotic pressure and concentration polarization
has a signicant eect on the permeate ux. The feasible
formation of a concentration polarization layer enhanced the
osmotic pressure and the transport of retained compounds.
Consequently, permeate ux is reduced substantially.17,26,27
The relaxation of polymer chains is caused by plasticization
within organic solutions, which leads to swelling upon
subsequent pore size reduction and decreased ux.27
Dijkstra et al.28 observed the nonlinear behavior of the ux of
alcohol permeations through the laboratory-made dense SRNF-
membranes (PDMS) with high pressure, which aected the
solutions permeability due to the swelling of the structure of
the membrane. Machado et al.29,30 reported the nonlinear
behavior of the ux of alcohol permeations using the
commercial polydimethylsiloxane membranes MPF60 and
MPF50. Darvishmanesh et al.31 studied solvent uxes using
commercial SRNF-membranes (DuraMem150 and Star-
Mem122) and reported a nonlinear behavior of the alcohol
ux. Othman et al.20 showed the application of SRNF-
membranes to produce biodiesel using eight commercial
SRNF-membranes, including four hydrophilic and four hydro-
phobic SRNF-membranes, and they explained the nonlinear
behavior of ux permeations. The ux permeate-pressure graph
showed an increasing behavior that becomes more prominent
with increasing hydrophilic membranes for a polar solvent.
3.1.2. Permeability Experiment on the Amine Solution
with a Contaminant. The uxes of aqueous DEA solution
with sodium chloride, sodium sulte, and acetic acid through
the SR100 membrane as a function of time are shown in Figure
5a. The initial ux of the DEA solution with each contaminant
obeys the following order: DEA with acetic acid (5.23 L/m2 h),
DEA with sodium chloride (5.21 L/m2 h), DEA with sodium
sulte (4.02 L/m2 h). The DEA with sodium sulte had the
highest ux reduction when compared with the other solutions.
In this case, the compaction factor was dened as the amount
of time it takes for solution ux to become stable within a
membrane during the hours of DEA solution permeation for
dierent solutions. Dividing the nal membrane permeability
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 5. Flux of three contaminants in DEA solution versus time through (a) SR100 membrane or (b) Desal-DL membrane.

Figure 6. FESEM micrographs of the surface morphologies and cross section of the two membranes: (a) before Desal-DL ltration, (a,c) after
Desal-DL ltration, (b) before SR100 ltration, (b,d) after SR100 ltration.

(Lf inal) by the initial permeability (Linitial) yielded the up to 1, and the membrane has compaction factor closest to 1.
compaction factor (); values of the compaction factor are 0 It is the highest level of resistance for the operating pressure.32
12139 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Lfinal membrane has acceptable properties and performance to

= separate ionic and organic contaminants in amine solutions.
Linitial
3.2. Foaming. 3.2.1. Sodium Chloride. Makeup water or
The respective membrane compaction factors for DEA with leakage of cooling water are the main cause whereby sodium
sodium sulte, sodium chloride, and acetic acid were 0.57, 0.81, chloride enters into the amine solution system.2 Therefore, the
and 0.87. eects of sodium chloride or chloride ion on foaming tendency
Figure 5b shows the DEA solution with dierent need to be examined.6 As is presented in Figure 8, the eect of
contaminants varied through the Desal-DL membrane. The
initial ux decline has been reported previously.22 One
explanation for the decreasing ux could include concentration
polarization.33 The membrane compaction factor was 0.83,
0.91, and 0.99 for DEA with acetic acid, sodium chloride, and
sodium sulphite, respectively. The DEA solution with sodium
chloride had the highest initial ux, and the DEA with acetic
acid acquired the highest ux falling. The molecular weights of
contaminants are 58.44 g mol1 for sodium chloride, 60.05 g
mol1 for acetic acid, and 126.043 g mol1 for sodium sulte.
As is shown in Figure 5b, the increasing molecular weights of
the contaminants in DEA were directly proportional to the
increasing ux of each related contaminant solution. In real
membrane process applications, the shown uxes of the Figure 8. Eect of membrane separation of sodium chloride from
permeate and rejections are those following compaction.19 DEA solution on break time and foaminess at 40 C.
Figure 6 shows FESEM micrographs of the surface
morphologies and cross sections of the two commercial this contaminant within the aqueous DEA solution both before
membranes before and after ltration of DEA solution with and after Desal-DL and SR100 membranes on foaming
sodium sulte. Desal-DL and SR100 membranes have rigorous tendency was investigated with a 25 wt % DEA solution and
dense constructions that decrease upon membrane compac- 1000 ppm sodium chloride at 40 C. Foaminess was
tion.28 signicantly reduced after the Desal-DL membrane, and
3.1.3. Separation Performance of the Membranes. The normalized foaminess (F*) became 1 after the Desal-DL
rejection of the amine solution for purication of each related membrane. The normalized foaminess became <1, which
contaminant is shown in Figure 7. The rejection of sodium means this contaminant no longer contributed to the foaming
tendency in the amine solution system23 (Table 3).

Table 3. Eect of Membrane Separation Removal of

Dierent Contaminants on Foaminess and Break Time
Using 25 wt % DEA at 40 C
Contaminants Foaminess Normalized
Amine (ppm) Membrane (103m2s) foaminess F*
DEA None 2.30
DEA sodium Before 10.46 4.6
chloride membrane
DEA sodium After 2.30 1
chloride Desal-DL
DEA sodium After SR100 2.65 1.15
Figure 7. Rejection versus molecular weight of dierent contaminants chloride
in DEA solution (ambient temperature). The standard deviation errors DEA sodium sulte Before 6.73 2.92
were up to 5% in all cases. membrane
DEA sodium sulte After Desal- 2.30 1
DL
sulte in DEA solution was about 70% by SR100, while the DEA sodium sulte After SR100 3.01 1.3
rejection of sodium chloride and acetic acid in DEA solution by DEA acetic acid Before 5.5 2.38
SR100 was less than 50%. The ux of the DEA solution was membrane
lower than other membranes. This could possibly be due to the DEA acetic acid After Desal- 2.32 1
DL
hydrophilic properties of the SR100 membrane, interaction
DEA acetic acid After SR100 2.74 1.19
between the solvent and membrane, and small solute size
(MWCO is reported to be 200 Da by the manufacturer).
Overall, the performance of the Desal-DL membrane was better 3.2.2. Sodium Sulte. Prior research has suggested that
than the SR100 membrane. The rejection of contaminants in sodium sulte is an essential cause of the foaming tendency
DEA solution by the Desal-DL membrane was more than 80%, observed in several plants. It is also a common chemical
except for sodium chloride, which was about 75%. The compound added to an alkoamine solution to act as a corrosion
compaction factor of this membrane indicated that it is a inhibitor.34,7,35 In the absorbed H2S and CO2, the sulfur dioxide
high resistance membrane due to the high degree of cross- that is really a comparatively powerful acid reacts irreversibly
linking from the polymer top layer. According to these and quickly with DEA solution to create sulphite.25 Figure 9
observations, it could be concluded that the Desal-DL shows the result on foaminess of the aqueous DEA solution
12140 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 9. Eect of membrane separation of sodium sulte from DEA
solution on break time and foaminess at 40 C.
with sodium sulte before and after two SRNF-membrane
ltrations using a 25 wt % DEA solution with sodium sulte at
40 C. It can be observed that the foaminess and break time of
DEA with sodium sulte after both SRNF-membranes declined
dramatically to almost 80%. Thitakamol et al.8 showed that the
foaming tendency of sodium sulte in amine solution was high
as a result of the anionic surfactants formation in the form of
sulfonate (SO3).
3.2.3. Acetic Acid. Acetic acid is an organic acid that was
examined to determine its foaming tendency in an amine
solution system that was suggested by previous studies for some
plants.10,36,7 Figure 10 shows the results of acetic acid on the
Figure 10. Eect of membrane separation of acetic acid from DEA
solution on break time and foaminess at 40 C.
foaming tendency of the DEA solution. Table 3 shows that
normalized foaminess (F*) was determined to be 1 after the
Desal-DL membrane. The foaming tendency and foaming
stability of this acid were observed to be less than the other
contaminants in the amine solution, in agreement with the
study by Thitakamol et al.7 However, the foaming tendency and
stability were reduced upon ltration through two SRNF-
membranes.
4. CONCLUSION
Contaminants in an amine solution are major problems that
lead to foaming and reduced eciency in CO2 absorption. The
removal of these contaminants from the amine solutions could
be one solution to reduce the occurrence of foaming by using
SRNF-membranes, which could be a suitable alternative to
conventional separation. SRNF is operated at a wider pH range
and under dierent conditions when compared to typical
membranes.
12141
Article
In this work, two commercial SRNF-membranes were
examined for their abilities to separate contaminants from an
aqueous DEA solution. These membranes were examined for
permeation associated with three widespread contaminants and
an amine solution. The Desal-DL membrane had great and
stable performance for purication of all contaminants in the
amine solution, whereas the SR100 membrane exhibited less
stability in contact with the amine solution, and had a suitable
rejection only with sodium sulte. The rejection results also
veried the capability of the Desal-DL membrane.
The foaming test using a standard method was performed to
examine the foaming tendency and stability of treated and
untreated amine solutions. Signicant foaming reduction after
purication of the amine solution via an SRNF-membrane was
conrmed. SRNF could oer the potential to purify amine
solutions and yield greener processes instead of using
conventional equipment.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Tel.: +60 3 89216410. Fax: +60 3 89216148. E-mail:
wahabm@eng.ukm.my.
Notes
The authors declare no competing nancial interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
through grant number UKM-KK-2013-023.
REFERENCES
(1) Houghton, J. T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D. J.; Noguer, M.; van der
Linden, P. J.; Dai, X.; Maskel, K.; Johnson, C. A. CLIMATE CHANGE
2001:The Scientic Basis; Cambridge Univ. Press: 2001.
(2) Kohl, A.; Nielsen, R. Gas Purication, 5th ed.; Gulf Publishing
Company: Houston, 1997.
(3) Thitakamol, B.; Veawab, A.; Aroonwilas, A. Environmental
Impacts of Absorption-Based CO2 Capture Unit for Post-Combustion
Treatment of Flue Gas from Coal-Fired Power Plant. Int. J. Greenhouse
Gas Control 2007, 1 (3), 318.
(4) Nguyen, T.; Hilliard, M.; Rochelle, G. Volatility of Aqueous
Amines in CO2 Capture. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 1624.
(5) Dumee, L.; Scholes, C.; Stevens, G.; Kentish, S. Purification of
Aqueous Amine Solvents Used in Post Combustion CO2 capture:A
Review. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2012, 10, 443.
(6) Abdi, M. A.; Golkar, M. M.; Meisen, A. Improve Contaminant
Control in Amine Systems. Hydrocarb. Process. 2001, 80 (10), 102C.
(7) Thitakamol, B.; Veawab, A. Foaming Behavior in CO 2
Absorption Process Using Aqueous Solutions of Single and Blended
Alkanolamines Hich Kodom Taghir Nakard. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008,
47, 216.
(8) Penttila, A.; Uusi-Kyyny, P.; Salminen, A.; Seppala, J.; Alopaeus,
V. A Comprehensive Thermodynamic Study of Heat Stable Acetic
Acid Salt of Monoethanolamine. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2014,
22, 1313.
(9) Chi, S.; Rochelle, G. T. Oxidative Degradation of Monoethanol-
amine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41 (1998), 4178.
(10) Pauley, C. R.; Hashemi, R.; Caothien, S. Ways to Control Amine
Unit Foaming Offered. Oil Gas J. 1989, 87 (50), 67.
(11) McCarthy, J.; Trebble, M. A. An Experimental Investigation into
the Foaming Tendency of Diethanolamine Gas Sweetening Solutions.
Chem. Eng. Commun. 1996, 144, 159.
(12) Kentish, S. E.; Stevens, G. W. Innovations in Separations
Technology for the Recycling and Re-Use of Liquid Waste Streams.
Chem. Eng. J. 2001, 84, 149.
(13) Cummings, A. L.; Smith, G. D.; Nelsen, D. K. Advances in
Amine Reclaiming Why Theres No Excuse to Operate a Dirty
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Amine System. Laurence Reid Gas Cond. Conf., Dickinson, TX, 2007, (35) Thitakamol, B.; Veawab, A.; Aroonwilas, A. Energy Procedia
4750. Foaming in Amine-Based CO2 Capture Process: Experiment,
(14) Wang, M.; Lawal, A.; Stephenson, P.; Sidders, J.; Ramshaw, C. Modeling and Simulation. Energy Procedia 2009, 1 (1), 1381.
Post-Combustion CO2 Capture with Chemical Absorption: A State- (36) Rooney, P.; DuPart, M.; Bacon, T. Oxygens Role in
of-the-Art Review. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2011, 89 (9), 1609. Alkanolamine Degradation. Hydrocarb. Process. 1998, 77, 109.
(15) Schafer, A.; Fane, A.; Waite, T. Nanoltration: Principles and
Applications; Elsevier Advanced Technology: Oxford, U.K., 2005.
(16) Livingston, A.; Peeva, L.; Han, S.; Nair, D.; Luthra, S. s.; White,
L. s.; Freitas dos santos, L. m. Membrane Separation in Green
Chemical Processing: Solvent Nanofiltration in Liquid Phase Organic
Synthesis Reactions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2003, 984, 123.
(17) Vandezande, P.; Gevers, E. M.; Vankelecom, I. F. J. Solvent
Resistant Nanofiltration: Separating on a Molecular Level. Chem. Soc.
Rev. 2008, 37 (2), 365.
(18) Hermans, S.; Marien, H.; Van Goethem, C.; Vankelecom, I. F.
Recent Developments in Thin Film (nano)composite Membranes for
Solvent Resistant Nanofiltration. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015, 8, 45.
(19) Gibbins, E.; Antoniol, M. D.; Nair, D.; White, L. S.; Freitas, L.
M.; Vankelecom, I. F. J.; Livingston, A. G. Observations on Solvent
Flux and Solute Rejection across Solvent Resistant Nanofiltration
Membranes. Desalination 2002, 147, 307.
(20) Othman, R.; Wahab, A.; Ismail, M.; Salimon, J. Application of
Polymeric Solvent Resistant Nanofiltration Membranes for Biodiesel
Production. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 348, 287.
(21) Darvishmanesh, S.; Degre, J.; van der Bruggen, B. Performance
of Solvent-Pretreated Polyimide Nanofiltration Membranes for
Separation of Dissolved Dyes from Toluene. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2010, 49, 9330.
(22) Yang, X. J.; Livingston, A. G.; Freitas Dos Santos, L.
Experimental Observations of Nanofiltration with Organic Solvents.
J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 190, 45.
(23) Chen, X.; Freeman, S. A.; Rochelle, G. T. Foaming of Aqueous
Piperazine and Monoethanolamine for CO 2 Capture. Int. J.
Greenhouse Gas Control 2011, 5 (2), 381.
(24) Bikerman, J. J. Foams; Applied Physics and Engineering;
Springer: 1973.
(25) Robinson, J. P.; Tarleton, E. S.; Millington, C. R.; Nijmeijer, A.
Solvent Flux through Dense Polymeric Nanofiltration Membranes. J.
Membr. Sci. 2004, 230 (1), 29.
(26) Peeva, L. G.; Gibbins, E.; Luthra, S. S.; White, L. S.; Stateva, R.
P.; Livingston, A. G. Effect of Concentration Polarisation and Osmotic
Pressure on Flux in Organic Solvent Nanofiltration. J. Membr. Sci.
2004, 236 (12), 121.
(27) Geens, J.; Van der Bruggen, B.; Vandecasteele, C. Character-
isation of the Solvent Stability of Polymeric Nanofiltration Membranes
by Measurement of Contact Angles and Swelling. Chem. Eng. Sci.
2004, 59 (5), 1161.
(28) Dijkstra, M. F. J.; Bach, S.; Ebert, K. A Transport Model for
Organophilic Nanofiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 286 (April), 60.
(29) Machado, D. R.; Hasson, D.; Semiat, R. Effect of Solvent
Properties on Permeate Flow through Nanofiltration Membranes. Part
I: Investigation of Parameters Affecting Solvent Flux. J. Membr. Sci.
1999, 163, 93.
(30) Machado, D. R.; Hasson, D.; Semiat, R. Effect of Solvent
Properties on Permeate Flow through Nanofiltration Membranes Part
II. Transport Model. J. Membr. Sci. 2000, 166, 63.
(31) Darvishmanesh, S.; Firoozpour, L.; Vanneste, J.; Luis, P.; Degr,
J.; Van der Bruggen, B. Performance of Solvent Resistant Nano-
filtration Membranes for Purification of Residual Solvent in the
Pharmaceutical Industry: Experiments and Simulation. Green Chem.
2011, 13, 3476.
(32) Darvishmanesh, S.; Robberecht, T.; Luis, P.; Degre, J.; Van der
Bruggen, B. Performance of Nanofiltration Membranes for Solvent
Purification in the Oil Industry. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2011, 88, 1255.
(33) Strathmann, H. Introduction to Membrane Science and
Technology; Wiley-VCH: 2011.
(34) Hansen, B. B.; Kiil, S.; Johnsson, J. E.; Snder, K. B. Foaming in
Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Plants: The Influence of Particles,
Electrolytes, and Buffers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 3239.

12142 DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02642

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 1213512142