Biofuel upgrading via catalytic deoxygenation in trickle bed reactor: Crucial issue in selection of pressure regulator type

dc.contributor.authorPongsiriyakul K.
dc.contributor.authorKiatkittipong W.
dc.contributor.authorLim J.W.
dc.contributor.authorNajdanovic-Visak V.
dc.contributor.authorWongsakulphasatch S.
dc.contributor.authorKiatkittipong K.
dc.contributor.authorSrifa A.
dc.contributor.authorEiad-ua A.
dc.contributor.authorBoonyasuwat S.
dc.contributor.authorAssabumrungrat S.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-11T18:01:11Z
dc.date.available2023-11-11T18:01:11Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-01
dc.description.abstractTrickle bed reactors (TBRs) are commonly used in various chemical and associated processes. The selection of a proper back pressure regulator (BPR) is crucial for maintaining the system's upstream pressure. In this study, we investigate the impact of BPR selection on deoxygenation reaction in a TBR with two typical types of BPR, including gas-phase type back pressure regulator (Gas-BPR) and multiphase type back pressure regulator (Multi-BPR). Notably, Gas-BPR introduces interruptions and pressure drops during the sampling step, impacting the hydrogen flow rate, while Multi-BPR ensures more consistent hydrogen flow. To examine the performance of BPR systems, hydrotreating experiments were conducted at 330 °C, 50 bar of hydrogen over Ni/γ-Al2O3 catalyst using crude Pongamia pinnata oil as a feedstock and refined palm olein as a benchmark. Insignificant difference in the reaction performance between Multi-BPR and Gas-BPR systems was observed when using refined palm olein. Interestingly, there was a significant difference between the two systems when feeding with crude Pongamia pinnata oil. The multi-BPR system demonstrated superior performance, achieving 100% conversion of the feedstock over a prolonged period compared to the interrupted hydrogen flow in the Gas-BPR system. Further characterization of fresh and spent catalysts using N2 sorption, XRD, SEM-EDS and TGA-DTG-DSC techniques revealed that a gum and coke formation was a reason for the rapid catalyst deactivation. Furthermore, the interrupted flow in the Gas-BPR system led to substantial gum production, ultimately causing a blockage in the reactor bed. Consequently, for feedstocks with high impurities, a robust continuous flow of hydrogen is essential. Thus, the study strongly recommends selecting Multi-BPR for continuous operation in TBRs to enhance efficiency and avoid catalyst deactivation.
dc.identifier.citationFuel Vol.355 (2024)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129456
dc.identifier.issn00162361
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85175562772
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/90993
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectChemical Engineering
dc.titleBiofuel upgrading via catalytic deoxygenation in trickle bed reactor: Crucial issue in selection of pressure regulator type
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85175562772&origin=inward
oaire.citation.titleFuel
oaire.citation.volume355
oairecerif.author.affiliationSaveetha School of Engineering
oairecerif.author.affiliationKing Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
oairecerif.author.affiliationChulalongkorn University
oairecerif.author.affiliationKing Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
oairecerif.author.affiliationSilpakorn University
oairecerif.author.affiliationAston University
oairecerif.author.affiliationMahidol University
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversiti Teknologi PETRONAS
oairecerif.author.affiliationLtd.

Files

Collections