1 s2.0 S1226086X12001566 Main
1 s2.0 S1226086X12001566 Main
1 s2.0 S1226086X12001566 Main
H
2
g
(8)
N
H
2
l
k
l
a
l
C
H
2
l
C
H
2
l
(9)
N
H
2
s
k
s
a
s
C
H
2
l
C
H
2
s
(10)
When the gasliquid mixture reaches their balance at the phase
interface, following equation can be obtained according to Henrys
law:
C
H
2
g
HC
H
2
l
(11)
From literature, eAQ and H
4
eAQs hydrogenation reaction rates
are in rst order, the reaction rate can be written as (12) when
internal dispersion is considered:
R
eAQ
dC
eAQ
dt
hm
Pd
K
eAQ
C
H
2
s
(12)
According to the intrinsic reaction kinetics, (2) = (12), then:
K
eAQ
C
H
2
s
K
eAQ
P
H
2
(13)
Taken hydrogen acting as ideal gas and there is no external
dispersion resistance, the hydrogen concentration at catalyst
surface and eAQs reaction rate constant can be written as Eqs. (14)
and (15).
C
H
2
s
P
H
2
RT
(14)
K
eAQ
K
eAQ
RT (15)
The reactions rate should be equal for each step once the
process reaches their steady-state, Eqs. (8)(12) can be combined
and the following equations would be obtained:
R
eAQ
dC
eAQ
dt
K
0
C
H
2
g
(16)
1
K
0
a
s
1
k
g
a
l
H
k
l
a
l
H
k
s
a
s
H
hm
Pd
K
eAQ
(17)
According to Eqs. (15) and (17):
1
K
0
a
s
1
k
g
a
l
H
k
l
a
l
H
k
s
a
s
H
hm
Pd
K
eAQ
RT
(18)
K
0
is the macroreaction rate constant, whose reciprocal is the
process resistance. From Eq. (18), the process resistance is
composed by ve parts, four of which are mass transfer resistance,
and the other one is chemical reaction resistance.
1=k
g
a
l
is the gas-lm resistance, H=k
l
a
l
is the liquid-lm
resistance, H=k
s
a
s
is the liquid-lm resistance at liquidsolid
interface, H=hm
Pd
K
eAQ
RT is the chemical resistance and internal
dispersion resistance.
From the view of new catalysts development, the chemical
resistances contribution from Eq. (18) is really important. The
racshig-ring egg-shell catalyst can reduce the internal diffusion
resistance to a great extent, due to the signicant small catalyst
particles, especially when the particle size reduces to microake
which covers on the surface of the support, the Pds penetration
depth is only 0.2 mm for GXH-1.
Catalysts effective coefcient can be achieved by (19) for the
spherical particles, (20) for at ake particles and (21) for long
cylinder particles:
h
1
tanh3f
1
3f
(19)
Fig. 3. Comparison of catalysts activity.
H. Shang et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 18 (2012) 18511857 1854
h
tanh f
f
(20)
h
I
1
2f
fI
0
2f
(21)
f is the Thiele Module, which is dened as:
f V
p
=A
p
eAQ
=D
H
2
e
q
, the value of V
p
/A
p
represents the
equivalent length of catalyst particle. For different particle shapes,
the value of V
p
/A
p
is different, for example, for at plates, the value
is half thickness; for cylinder with ends sealed and sphere, the
value is the radius, whilst for long cylinder, the value is half radius.
The effective coefcient (h) for these three shape catalysts can be
found in Table 2 [15].
If taken the four-leaf clover catalyst as the cylinder, and the
Raschig ring as the at-plate particle, Table 2 clearly shows that the
shape of at-plate contributes to higher h than cylinder and sphere
catalysts; it is certied that GXH-1 catalyst developed by this work
can efciently reduce the internal diffusion resistance.
Due to the fact that the internal diffusion resistance is mainly
originated by particle pore distribution, the pore size distribution
of catalysts A, B and GXH-1 were analyzed through BET. Fig. 4
illustrates the pore size distributions based on BET desorption data.
From Fig. 4 and other BET results, most of the pores in catalyst A
have smaller diameter than those in catalysts B and GXH-1, since
large pore helps to reduce the mass transfer resistance.
Although catalyst B has the similar pore size distribution to
GXH-1, based on the Fick Law [16], the effective diffusion
coefcient D
H
2
e
can be expressed as (22):
D
H
2
e
e
t
D
b
(22)
From Table 1 catalyst GXH-1 has higher voidage than the other
two commercial catalysts, resulting higher effective diffusion
coefcient. Furthermore, the raschig ring catalyst particle has an
internal and external surface, which can signicantly enhance the
contact surface area for chemical reactions, thus reduce the
external diffusion.
From the above discussions, together with Table 1, GXH-1 has
several signicant advantages over the other two commercial
catalysts: 20% higher in surface area, about 30% higher in porosity,
3040% lighter in bulk density, and the Pd penetration depth was
smaller than the commercial catalyst, making its corresponding
hydrogenation efciency better and competitive in industrializing
the AO process.
3.2. Effects of operating parameters on the hydrogenation efciency
Material feeding method such as gasliquid up-ow and down-
ow would inuence the materials residence time in the reactor
and thus affect the reaction. Downstream of working solution and
hydrogen and upstream together with operating conditions were
fully investigated in this section. Two different concentrations
working solution of active anthraquinones were employed for this
research, both of which were sampled from the industry
equipment sideline. One named No. 1 working solution has eAQ
of 239.6 mol/m
3
and H
4
eAQ 366.7 mol/m
3
, the other named No. 2
consists eAQ of 93.4 mol/m
3
and H
4
eAQ of 484.9 mol/m
3
.
3.2.1. Effects of temperature on the hydrogenation efciency
Inuence of temperature together with feeding method on
GXH-1 hydrogenation efciency is shown in Fig. 5, the experi-
ments were carried out with hydrogen pressure of 0.2 MPa, LHSV
of 15 L/h and hydrogen ow rate of 120 L/h.
Fig. 5 indicates that the hydrogenation efciency increases with
temperature increment for both No. 1 and No. 2 solutions,
especially at above 80 8C. The inuence of temperature on the
hydrogenation efciency of No.1 sample is higher than that of No.
2, indicating that the hydrogenations of eAQ and H
4
eAQ occur at
the same time, only because the active energy of H
4
eAQ is lower
than eAQ, the conversion at low temperature is higher, whereas,
eAQs hydrogenation gives the most contribution at higher
temperature. Fig. 4 also clearly indicates that at the same
temperature the hydrogenation efciency from upstream method
is signicant higher than downstream method.
Table 2
Effective coefcient for various shapes of catalysts.
f Internal effective coefcient (h)
Flat-plate Cylinder Sphere
0.1 0.997 0.995 0.994
0.2 0.987 0.981 0.977
0.5 0.924 0.892 0.876
1 0.762 0.698 0.672
2 0.482 0.432 0.416
5 0.200 0.197 0.187
10 0.100 0.100 0.097
Fig. 4. Pore size distributions of catalysts A, B and GXH-1.
Fig. 5. Effects of temperature on the hydrogenation efciency for down and up
stream feeding methods.
H. Shang et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 18 (2012) 18511857 1855
3.2.2. Effects of pressure on hydrogenation efciency
The inuence of pressure is shown in Fig. 6. Experiments were
carried out at a temperature of 60 8C, LHSV of 15 L/h and hydrogen
ow rate of 120 L/h using catalyst GXH-1 and No. 2 sample. Fig. 6
shows that hydrogenation efciency goes higher with the pressure
increasing, which is thought due to the fact that high pressure
benets to the gas molecular numbers reduced reaction, therefore
the equilibriums shift to the production direction.
3.2.3. Effects of LHSV on the hydrogenation efciency
The effects of LHSV on the hydrogenation efciency and output
capacity are shown in Fig. 7. The tests were employed at a
temperature of 60 8C, pressure of 0.4 MPa, and hydrogen ow rate
of 2 L/min. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the hydrogenation
efciency slightly decreases with LHSV increasing, which means
that the contact time may be not enough for eAQs hydrogenation.
Both Figs. 5 and 6 clearly show that at the same temperature the
hydrogenation efciency from upstream method is signicant
higher than downstream method, which may be complained by
the following theory.
Based on Eq. (18), it is obvious that the research to reduce
1=k
g
a
l
, H=k
l
a
l
and H=k
s
a
s
is the key matter.
For downstream process:
The surface area of gasliquid interface increases with gas and
liquid ow rate, a
l
is much higher than the catalysts surface area a
s
.
For trickle area, a
l
can be calculated as (23):
a
l
a
s
0:81
Dp
Dl
lg
e
a
s
!
1:2
(23)
Mass transfer on the trickle bed is high due to the high surface
area of gasliquid interface, not because of the mass transfer
coefcient.
(1) Gas-lm resistance, 1=k
g
a
l
The gas-lm resistance can be ignored if the gas substitutes are
composed by pure gas and liquid components and reactant
production are of non-volatile materials. Therefore, the gas-lm
resistance can be neglected by using the high purity grade
hydrogen (99.99%).
(2) Liquid-lm resistance, H=k
l
a
l
E
t
expresses the energy consumption of liquid:
E
t
D p=Dl
lg
u
0l
. When 0.4 < E
t
< 10 kg/m
2
s:
k
l
a
l
0:0011E
t
D
H
2
l
2:4 10
9
(24)
D
H
2
l
is the molecular diffusion coefcient of hydrogen from gas
phase to liquid phase. When 5 < E
t
< 1000 kg/m
2
s:
k
l
a
l
0:017E
0:5
t
(25)
From (24) and (25) it can be seen that the liquid-lm resistance
can be efciently reduced by improving the liquid ow rate and
raising bed pressure drop, since upstream process has higher bed
pressure drop than down stream process, contributing to reduce
the liquid-lm resistance.
(3) Liquid-lm resistance on the liquidsolid interface H=k
s
a
s
The mass transfer coefcient between liquid phase and
catalysts surface is k
s
a
s
, the correlation is:
esh
0:8
h
t
Re
1=2
l
Sc
1=3
l
(26)
When Re
l
> 10, the mass transfer coefcient on liquidsolid
interface is:
sh 48Re
1=4
g
(27)
Re
l
u
l
d
b
r
l
=em
l
, Schmidt number Sc
l
m
l
=r
l
D
H
2
l
,
Sh k
s
d
b
=D
H
2
l
, the effective diameter of catalyst particle is d
b
,
d
b
ed
p
=1:51 e.
From (24)(27) it can be seen that at the same operating
conditions, gas and liquid velocity has more effects on mass
transfer in a bubble column.
Further discussion was focused on the reactants residence time
on the catalyst bed for both upstream and downstream. The tests
for this propose were conducted on a xed bed column with the
diameter of 80 mm and height of 1585 mm by using water as the
mobile phase at 60 8C. The residence time of catalysts A and GXH-1
were investigated, and the results are shown in Fig. 8. It was found
that the residence times of upstream process for both GXH-1 and
industrial catalyst A are signicantly higher than those of
downstream process, beneting to the hydrogenation perfor-
mance. The experiments also indicate that the residence time from
using catalyst GXH-1 is obviously higher than that from A, which is
Fig. 6. Effects of pressure on the hydrogenation efciency.
Fig. 7. Effects of LHSV on the hydrogenation efciency and output capacity.
H. Shang et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 18 (2012) 18511857 1856
thought due to the catalysts shape effects. Therefore, according to
the above discussions, GXH-1 catalyst developed by this research
has excellent hydrogenation performance due to its character-
istics.
4. Conclusion
From above sections, the new catalyst GXH-1, developed
according to kinetic data and mass transfer model, has higher
hydrogenation activity compared to the other two industrial
catalysts.
Temperature, pressure, LHSV as well as material feeding
method have great impact on hydrogenation efciency. The effect
of temperature on hydrogenation efciency is relative small at the
temperature below 80 8C, whereas above 80 8C hydrogenation
efciency increase rapidly with temperature rising. It was also
found that the hydrogenation efciency was enhanced by higher
pressure, the materials feeding methods have markedly inuenced
on the hydrogenation efciency; up-ow feeding method helps
reduce mass transfer resistance, enhancing reactants contact time.
At the hydrogen pressure of 0.2 MPa and the same temperature,
the hydrogenation efciency of up-ow process can be enhanced
30% than that of down-ow process.
References
[1] R. Halder, A. Lawal, Catalysis Today 125 (2007) 48.
[2] R. Aksela, J. Paloniemi, Hydrogenation of a working solution in a hydrogen
peroxide production process, EP: 1245534 A2 (2002).
[3] G. Goor, E. Staab, J. Glenneberg, Process for the preparation of hydrogen peroxide
by the anthraquinone cyclic process, USP: 7238335 (2007).
[4] Q. Chen, Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 708.
[5] E. Santacesaria, M. Di Serio, A. Russo, U. Leone, R. Velotte, Chemical Engineering
Science 54 (1999) 2799.
[6] T. Berglin, N.H. Sho o n, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and
Development 20 (1981) 615.
[7] E. Santacesaria, P. Wilkinson, P. Babini, S. Carrii, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 27 (1988) 780.
[8] E. Santacesaria, D.M. Serio, R. Velotti, U. Leone, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 33 (1994) 277.
[9] A. Drelinkiewicz, A. Waksmundzka, Journal of Molecular Catalysis A: Chemical
258 (2006) 1.
[10] Q. Chen, Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (2008) 787.
[11] Q. Chen, Inorganic Chemical Industry 33 (2001) 20.
[12] G.Z. Liu, Z.T. Mi, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 12 (2004) 372.
[13] S.-F. Li, Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Engineering, Chemical Industry Press,
Beijing, 1986 (in Chinese).
[14] S. Authayanun, W. Pothong, D. Saebea, Y. Patcharavorachot, A. Arpornwichanop,
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 14 (2008) 771.
[15] R. Aris, Chemical Engineering Science 50 (1995) 3899.
[16] J.J. Carberry, A. Varma, Chemical Reaction and Reactor Engineering, Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York, 1987.
Fig. 8. Residence time passing through the catalysts bed.
H. Shang et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 18 (2012) 18511857 1857