Home Physical Sciences Mathematical modeling and evaluation of permeation and membrane separation performance for Fischer–Tropsch products in a hydrophilic membrane reactor
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Mathematical modeling and evaluation of permeation and membrane separation performance for Fischer–Tropsch products in a hydrophilic membrane reactor

  • Dounia Alihellal ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Sabrina Hadjam and Lemnouer Chibane
Published/Copyright: November 29, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Chemical Product and Process Modeling
From the journal Chemical Product and Process Modeling Volume 19 Issue 3

Abstract

A mathematical model was constructed to estimate the performance of an MFI-membrane reactor used for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis to produce a mixture of liquid hydrocarbons. In order to accurately evaluate the reactor’s performance a parametric study was performed. Under certain operational conditions, such as the total initial pressure in the reaction zone (1–4 MPa) and the hydrogen/carbon monoxide ratio (H2/CO: 1 to 2) on the performance of the studied reactor. The selectivity (productivity) of the hydrocarbon products (S i ), the quantity of hydrocarbons permiated (θ i ) and the separation factors of each space (α i ) were predicted. With increasing pressure, it is observed that θ CO and θ H 2 are decreasing from 0.62 to 0.45 and from 0.55 to 0.49 respectively. However, as the H2/CO ratio rises, this measurement shows a slight increase. Aside from, the separation factors of the majority of the current species are unaffected by the H2/CO ratio increasing, while the separation factors of carbon monoxide and hydrogen are increasing. Similarly the selectivity of water, methane, carbon dioxide and ethane increases with increasing H2/CO ratio. Based on these findings it is revealed that the membrane can enable permeability for all species present in the products mixture with varying separation factors, and that the ability to separate species other than water from the reaction side is essentially non-existent.

Keywords: Fischer–Tropsch synthesis; membrane reactor; liquid hydrocarbons; hydrophilic membrane; separation factors; mathematical modeling
Corresponding author: Dounia Alihellal, Chemical Process Engineering Laboratory (LGPC), Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics, Ferhat Abbas University Setif 1, Setif, Algeria, E-mail:

Nomenclatures

A

cross section (m2)

C pg

specific heat transfer of the gas at constant pressure (J mol−1 K−1)

D

reactor diameter (m)

d p

particle diameter (m)

E j

activation energy for the reaction j (J mol−1)

F T

total molar flow rate (mol s−1)

F T 0

initial molar flow rate of each component (mol s−1)

F i p

permeation rate of permeated component i (mol s−1)

J i

permeation flux for each species (mol/m2 s)

K j

kinetic rate constant of the FT reaction (mol kg−1 s−1 MPa−1)

K WGS

kinetic rate constant of the WGS reaction (mol kg−1 s−1)

M

inlet molar flow ratio between hydrogen and carbon monoxide

P mi

permeability (mol m m−2 s−1 Pa−1)

Q

volumetric flow rate (m3 s−1)

R

water gas shift reaction rate (mol kg−1 s−1)

R i

production rate of component i from the model (mol kg−1 s−1)

R j

rate of reaction j (mol kg−1 s−1)

r

radius of the reaction zone (m)

S i

product selectivity (%)

T

temperature (K)

T sh

shell temperature (K)

U sh

overall heat transfer coefficient shell-fluid (W/m2 K)

v

gas velocity (m s−1)

X CO

carbon monoxide conversion in the reaction j

z

axial reactor coordinate

Greek letters

β i

permeance relative (mol s−1 m−2 Pa−1)

μ

gas viscosity (Pa s)

υ

stoichiometric coefficient

ε

bed porosity

ρ g

gas density (kg m−3)

ρ

catalyst density (kg m−3)

∆H

enthalpy of reaction (J mol−1)

δ

membrane thickness (m)

θ i

recovered species

α i

separation factors

Superscripts

g

gas phase

i

component i

j

reaction j

m

constant

n

constant

O

inlet conditions

sh

shell side

Abbreviations

FT

Fischer–Tropsch

FTS

Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis

WGS

Water–Gas-Shift reaction

  1. Research ethics: The local Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review. We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication.

  2. Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Research funding: None declared.

  5. Data availability: Not applicable.

References

1. Hannah, K, Ulrich, S, Peter, P, Roland, D. Power-to-fuel conversion based on reverse water-gas-shift, Fischer–Tropsch synthesis and hydrocracking: mathematical modeling and simulation in Matlab/Simulink. Chem Eng Sci 2020;227:115930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2020.115930.Search in Google Scholar

2. Szabina, T, Ferenc, L, József, V, Jenő, H. Fuel purpose hydrocracking of biomass based Fischer–Tropsch paraffin mixtures on bifunctional catalysts. Energy Convers Manag 2020;213:112775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112775.Search in Google Scholar

3. Apichaya, T, Chaiwat, P, Sabaithip, T, Phavanee, N, Thana, S, Lı´ney, A, et al.. Detailed microkinetic modelling of syngas to hydrocarbons via Fischer Tropsch synthesis over cobalt catalyst. Int J Hydrog Energy 2021;46:24721–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.135.Search in Google Scholar

4. Da, W, Lei, C, Guangci, L, Zhong, W, Xuebing, L, Bo, H. Cobalt-based Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: effect of the catalyst granule thermal conductivity on the catalytic performance. Mol Catal 2021;502:111395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcat.2021.111395.Search in Google Scholar

5. Wenping, M, Wilson, DS, Michela, M, Dennis, ES, Burtron, HD. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: using deuterium tracer coupled with kinetic approach to study the kinetic isotopic effects of iron, cobalt and ruthenium catalysts. Catal Today 2020;343:137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2019.01.059.Search in Google Scholar

6. Buchang, S, Jennifer, N, Mingsheng, L. Deuterium enrichments in hydrocarbons produced during ruthenium catalyzed Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 2022;397:350–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2021.08.015.Search in Google Scholar

7. Richard, YA, Mahbubur, MR, Vishwanath, GD, Debasish, K. Effect of titania support on Fischer–Tropsch synthesis using cobalt, iron, and ruthenium catalysts in silicon-microchannel microreactor. Mol Catal 2019;478:110566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcat.2019.110566.Search in Google Scholar

8. Venkat Ramana, RP, Wilson, DS, Gary, J, Burtron, HD. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: effect of solvent on the H2–D2 isotopic exchange rate over an activated nickel catalyst. Catal Today 2016;270:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2016.03.032.Search in Google Scholar

9. Pieter van, H, Frans, P, Jan-Albert, van dB, Bongani, X, Willem, E, Michael, C, et al.. Cobalt–nickel bimetallic Fischer–Tropsch catalysts: a combined theoretical and experimental approach. Catal Today 2020;342:88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2019.03.001.Search in Google Scholar

10. Zhen, Y, Dragomir, BB, Wayne, GD. Silica-supported rhodium-cobalt catalysts for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 2011;160:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2010.06.023.Search in Google Scholar

11. Laura, F, Gianpiero, G, Carlo, GV, Luca, L, Enrico, T. On the passivation of platinum promoted cobalt-based Fischer–Tropsch catalyst. Catal Today 2020;342:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2019.02.069.Search in Google Scholar

12. Héline, K, Pascal, F, Anne, G-C, Andrei, YK, Kai, H, Sander, VD. Intergranular and intragranular cobalt repartitions in alumina supported Fischer–Tropsch catalysts promoted with platinum. C R Chim 2009;12:668–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2008.09.028.Search in Google Scholar

13. Anderson, RB, Karn, FS, Shultz, JF. Physical chemistry of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis on iron catalyst. Bull, US: Bur Mines; 1964, vol 614:29–39 pp.Search in Google Scholar

14. Vannice, MA. The catalytic synthesis of hydrocarbons from H2/CO mixtures over the group VIII metals IV. The kinetic behavior of CO hydrogenation over Ni catalysts. J Catal 1976;44:152–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9517(76)90384-5.Search in Google Scholar

15. Yates, IC, Satterfield, CN. Intrinsic kinetics of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis on a cobalt catalyst. Energ Fuel 1991;5:168–73. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef00025a029.Search in Google Scholar

16. Van der Laan, GP, Beenackers, AACM. Intrinsic kinetics of the gas–solid Fischer–Tropsch and water gas shift reactions over a precipitated iron catalyst. Appl Catal A-Gen 2000;193:39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-860x(99)00412-3.Search in Google Scholar

17. Das, TK, Conner, WA, Li, J, Jacobs, G, Dry, ME, Davis, BH. Fischer-tropsch synthesis: kinetics and effect of water for a Co/SiO2. Catalyst Energ Fuel 2005;19:1430–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef049869j.Search in Google Scholar

18. Botes, FG, Breman, BB. Development and testing of a new macro kinetic expression for the iron-based low-temperature Fischer–Tropsch reaction. Ind Eng Chem Res 2006;45:7415–26. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie060491h.Search in Google Scholar

19. Botes, FG, Van Dyk, B, McGregor, C. The development of a macro kinetic model for a commercial Co/Pt/Al2O3 Fischer–Tropsch catalyst. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:10439–47. https://doi.org/10439-10447.10.1021/ie900119z.10.1021/ie900119zSearch in Google Scholar

20. Ojeda, M, Nabar, R, Nilekar, AU, Ishikawa, A, Mavrikakis, M, Iglesia, E. CO activation pathways and the mechanism of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. J Catal 2010;272:287–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2010.04.012.Search in Google Scholar

21. Ma, W, Jacobs, G, Sparks, DE, Klettlinger, JLS, Yen, CH, Davis, BH. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis and water gas shift kinetics for a precipitated iron catalyst. Catal Today 2016;275:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2016.01.006.Search in Google Scholar

22. Rao, VUS, Stiegel, GJ, Cinquegrane, GJ, Srivastava, RD. Iron-based catalysts for slurry-phase Fischer–Tropsch process: technology review. Fuel Process Technol 1992;30:83–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3820(92)90077-4.Search in Google Scholar

23. Fu, T, Li, Z. Review of recent development in Co-based catalysts supported on carbon materials for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Chem Eng Sci 2015;135:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2015.03.007.Search in Google Scholar

24. Jager, B, Espinoza, R. Advances in low temperature Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 1995;23:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-5861(94)00136-P.Search in Google Scholar

25. César, I, Méndez, JA. Kinetic models for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis for the production of clean fuels. Catal Today 2020;353:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2020.02.012.Search in Google Scholar

26. Lox, ES, Froment, GF. Kinetics of the Fischer–Tropsch reaction on a precipitated promoted iron catalyst. 2. Kinetic modeling. Ind Eng Chem Res 1993;32:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie00013a011.Search in Google Scholar

27. Shen, WJ, Zhou, JL, Zhang, BJ. Kinetics of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis over precipitated iron catalyst. J Nat Gas Chem 1994;4:385–400.Search in Google Scholar

28. Bayat, M, Rahimpour, MR, Moghtaderi, B. Genetic algorithm strategy (GA) for optimization of a novel dual-stage slurry bubble column membrane configuration for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in gas to liquid (GTL) technology. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2011;3:555–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2011.06.004.Search in Google Scholar

29. Rahimpour, MR, Mirvakili, A, Paymooni, K. A novel water perm-selective membrane dual-type reactor concept for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis of GTL (gas to liquid) technology. Energy 2011;36:1223–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.11.023.Search in Google Scholar

30. Rohde, MP, Unruh, D, Schaub, G. Membrane application in Fischer–Tropsch synthesis reactors – overview of concepts. Catal Today 2005;106:143–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2005.07.124.Search in Google Scholar

31. Espinoza, RL, Toit, ED, Santamaria, J, Menendez, M, Coronas, J, Irusta, S. Use of membranes in Fischer–Tropsch reactors. Stud Surf Sci Catal 2000;130:389–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2991(00)80988-X.Search in Google Scholar

32. Alihellal, D, Chibane, L. Comparative study of the performance of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in conventional packed bed and in membrane reactor over iron and cobalt based catalysts. Arab J Sci Eng 2016;4:357–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1836-1.Search in Google Scholar

33. Alihellal, D, Chibane, L. Simulation study of the effect of water removal from Fischer–Tropsch products on the process performance using a hydrophilic membrane reactor. Reac. Kinet Mech Cat 2016;117:605–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11144-015-0961-x.Search in Google Scholar

34. Zhu, W, Gora, L, Van Den Berg, AWC, Kapteijn, F, Jansen, JC, Moulijn, JA. Water vapour separation from permanent gases by a zeolite-4A membrane. J Membr Sci 2005;235:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.12.039.Search in Google Scholar

35. Rohde, MP, Schaub, G, Khajavi, S, Jansen, JC, Kapteijn, F. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis with in situ H2O removal-directions of membrane development. Micropor Mesopor Mat 2008;115:123–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2007.10.052.Search in Google Scholar

36. Algieri, C, Comite, A, Capannelli, G. Zeolite membrane reactors. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2013.10.1533/9780857097330.2.245Search in Google Scholar

37. Mazzone, LCA, Fernandes, FAN. Modeling of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in a tubular reactor. Latin Am Appl Res 2006;36:141–8.Search in Google Scholar

38. Fogler, HS. Elements of chemical reaction engineering. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

39. Rahimpour, MR, Jokar, SM, Jamshidnejad, Z. A novel slurry bubble column membrane reactor concept for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in GTL technology. Chem Eng Res Des 2012;90:383–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.07.014.Search in Google Scholar

40. Rahmati, M, Mehdi, M, Soleiman, MB. Rate equations for the Fischer–Tropsch reaction on a promoted iron catalyst. Can J Chem Eng 2001;79:800–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450790515.Search in Google Scholar

41. Marvast, A, Sohrabi, M, Zarrinpashneh, S, Gh, B. Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: modeling and performance study for Fe-HZSM5 bifunctional catalyst. Chem Eng Technol 2005;28:78–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200407013.Search in Google Scholar

42. Wang, YN, Xu, YY, Xiang, HW, Li, YW, Zhang, BJ. Modeling of catalyst pellets for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Ind Eng Chem Res 2001;40:4324–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie010080v.Search in Google Scholar

43. Rohde, MP. In-situ H2O removal via hydrophilic membranes during Fischer–Tropsch and other fuel-related synthesis reactions. Karlsruher: KIT Scientific Publishing; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

44. Feng, C, Khulbe, KC, Matsuura, T, Farnood, R, Ismail, AF. Récent progress in zeolite/zeotype membranes. J Membr Sci Res 2015;1:49–72. https://doi.org/10.22079/JMSR.2015.13530.Search in Google Scholar

45. Gîjiu, CL, Sanchez, J, Isopescu, R, Dima, R, Muntean, O. L’étude expérimentale de la perméation des gaz à travers les membranes zéolithes. UPB Sci Bull 2006;68:3–12.Search in Google Scholar

46. Chau, C, Sicard, M, Terrasse, P, Le dred, R. Highly selective MFI zeolite membranes for hydrocarbon separations. Fuel Chem Div Prepr 2003;48:436–7.Search in Google Scholar

47. Kumar, S, Gaba, T, Kumar, S. Simulation of catalytic dehydrogenation of cyclohexane in zeolite membrane reactor. Int J Chem React Eng 2009;7. Article A13. https://doi.org/10.2202/1542-6580.1797.Search in Google Scholar

48. XU, XC, Mojie, C, Weishen, Y, Liwu, L. Synthesis and gas permeation properties of silicalite-1 zeolite membrane. Sci China, Ser B: Chem 1998;41:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879715.Search in Google Scholar

49. Fernandes, FAN, Teles, UM. Modeling and optimization of Fischer–Tropsch products hydrocracking. Fuel Process Technol 2007;88:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

50. Bayat, M, Rahimpour, MR. Simultaneous hydrogen injection and in-situ H2O removal in a novel thermally coupled two-membrane reactor concept for Fischer–Tropsch synthesis in GTL technology. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2012;9:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2012.05.008.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-02-07
Accepted: 2023-11-12
Published Online: 2023-11-29

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Numerical investigation of liquid mass fraction and condensation shock of wet-steam flow through convergence-divergence nozzle using strategic water droplets injection
  4. Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental analysis of natural gas sweetening process using lean vapor compression: a comparison study
  5. Enhancing heat transfer in tube heat exchanger containing water/Cu nanofluid by using turbulator
  6. Development of a superstructure optimization framework with heat integration for the production of biodiesel
  7. Smith predictor based fractional order controller design for improved performance and robustness of unstable FOPTD processes
  8. Kinetic studies and dynamic modeling of sophorolipids production by Candida catenulata using different carbon sources
  9. Modeling of reaction–desorption process by core–shell particles dispersed in continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
  10. Mathematical modeling and evaluation of permeation and membrane separation performance for Fischer–Tropsch products in a hydrophilic membrane reactor
  11. Hydrodynamic simulation-informed compartment modelling of an annular centrifugal contactor
  12. Short Communication
  13. Simulation of single-effect and triple-effect evaporator for fruit juice concentration using Aspen HYSYS
https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2023-0016
Keywords for this article
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis; membrane reactor; liquid hydrocarbons; hydrophilic membrane; separation factors; mathematical modeling

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Numerical investigation of liquid mass fraction and condensation shock of wet-steam flow through convergence-divergence nozzle using strategic water droplets injection
  4. Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental analysis of natural gas sweetening process using lean vapor compression: a comparison study
  5. Enhancing heat transfer in tube heat exchanger containing water/Cu nanofluid by using turbulator
  6. Development of a superstructure optimization framework with heat integration for the production of biodiesel
  7. Smith predictor based fractional order controller design for improved performance and robustness of unstable FOPTD processes
  8. Kinetic studies and dynamic modeling of sophorolipids production by Candida catenulata using different carbon sources
  9. Modeling of reaction–desorption process by core–shell particles dispersed in continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
  10. Mathematical modeling and evaluation of permeation and membrane separation performance for Fischer–Tropsch products in a hydrophilic membrane reactor
  11. Hydrodynamic simulation-informed compartment modelling of an annular centrifugal contactor
  12. Short Communication
  13. Simulation of single-effect and triple-effect evaporator for fruit juice concentration using Aspen HYSYS
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 31.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cppm-2023-0016/pdf?lang=en
Scroll to top button