Compressed solvents for the extraction of fermentation products within a hollow fiber membrane

GEOFFREY D. BOTHUN; BARBARA L. KNUTSON; HERBERT J. STROBEL; SUE E. NOKES; ESTEBAN A. BRIGNOLE; MARIA SOLEDAD DIAZ

JOURNAL OF SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV

Lugar: Amsterdam; Año: 2003 vol. 25 p. 119 - 134

0896-8446

The feasibility of extracting aqueous ethanol and acetone within a hollow fiber membrane contactor (HFC) has been examined using compressed CO2 (69 bar), ethane (69 bar), and propane (34.5 bar) at ambient temperature. Ethanol and acetone were chosen as ‘model’ fermentation products to further examine the potential for extractive fermentation with compressed fluids. Aqueous and compressed solvent streams were contacted within a single hydrophobic isotactic polypropylene membrane fiber (0.6 mm ID; 106.7 cm in length; 75% porosity), providing a porous barrier between the two immiscible phases. The amount of solute extracted was determined as a function of the aqueous flowrate (tubeside) and molar solvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluid2 (69 bar), ethane (69 bar), and propane (34.5 bar) at ambient temperature. Ethanol and acetone were chosen as ‘model’ fermentation products to further examine the potential for extractive fermentation with compressed fluids. Aqueous and compressed solvent streams were contacted within a single hydrophobic isotactic polypropylene membrane fiber (0.6 mm ID; 106.7 cm in length; 75% porosity), providing a porous barrier between the two immiscible phases. The amount of solute extracted was determined as a function of the aqueous flowrate (tubeside) and molar solvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidve fermentation with compressed fluids. Aqueous and compressed solvent streams were contacted within a single hydrophobic isotactic polypropylene membrane fiber (0.6 mm ID; 106.7 cm in length; 75% porosity), providing a porous barrier between the two immiscible phases. The amount of solute extracted was determined as a function of the aqueous flowrate (tubeside) and molar solvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvent streams were contacted within a single hydrophobic isotactic polypropylene membrane fiber (0.6 mm ID; 106.7 cm in length; 75% porosity), providing a porous barrier between the two immiscible phases. The amount of solute extracted was determined as a function of the aqueous flowrate (tubeside) and molar solvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidviding a porous barrier between the two immiscible phases. The amount of solute extracted was determined as a function of the aqueous flowrate (tubeside) and molar solvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvent to feed ratio. The amount of aqueous ethanol (10 wt.%) and acetone (10 wt.%) extracted from binary feed solutions with compressed propane ranged from 6.4 to 14.3% and 21.8 to 90.6%, respectively, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvely, as a function of the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 2 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvent to feed ratio (S/F/1 to 10). Comparatively, ethanol extraction with compressed CO2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluid2 ranged from 4.7 to 31.9% with similar variations in the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) and molar solvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvent to feed ratio (3 and 10). Acetone extracted with CO2 ranged from 67.9 to 96.1% when varying the aqueous flowrate (0.1 to 1 ml/min) at a molar solvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluidvent to feed ratio of 3. Ternary ethanol/acetone/water mixtures were also examined to determine the effect of multi-solute aqueous solutions. The effect of aqueous and compressed fluid flows on extraction are interpreted based on the equilibrium distributions of the solutes between water and the compressed fluid (estimated using a group contribution association equation of state (GCA/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluid/EOS)) and the mass transfer characteristics of the compressed fluid