SPE 40034
Important Factors Affecting Carbon Dioxide Removal Efficiency By Using Extra-high
Concentrated Monoethanolamine Solutions and High-Capacity Packings
A. Aboudheir, D. deMontigny, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, and A. Chakma, Process Systems Laboratory, Faculty of Engineer-
ing, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S 0A2
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1518 March 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any posi-
tion of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for com-
mercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohib-
ited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Experimental work is presented for the absorption of carbon
dioxide (CO2) into extra-high concentrated monoethanolamine
solutions (MEA) using a pilot plant. The effect of a wide
range of operating conditions on the removal efficiency is
investigated. These operating conditions include ultra-high
solvent concentration, packing type, liquid flow rate, gas flow
rate, inlet gas composition, and solutions CO2 loading. It was
found that the absorption capacity of amine solutions is in-
creases as its concentration increases, but not as great as might
be expected, and a better removal efficiency of CO2 can be
achieved by using high-capacity packing.
Introduction
The removal of carbon dioxide from raw natural gas is an es-
sential step for meeting cleanup targets. The majority of raw
gases contain a significant amount of CO2 and often require
treating in order to achieve a CO2 cleanup target of less than
1% by volume (Astarita et al, 1983). Natural gas treating sys-
tems used to meet this target must have considerable flexibil-
ity in order to handle incoming fluctuations of raw gas rates
and compositions. To investigate the main factors that affect
CO2 removal efficiency, a pilot plant study was conducted. In
this experimental study, CO2 was absorbed into MEA, the
most commonly used chemical solvent in this field (Kohl and
Nielsen, 1997). Results from this work will assist designers in
tained in this work, the detailed experimental data are not pub-
To whom correspondence should be addressed
selecting the appropriate system in this field.
In general, about five normal (30wt%) MEA solutions
have been used as solvents for acid gas absorption (Strigle,
1987; and Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). On a pilot plant scale,
Tontiwachwuthikul et al., 1992 reported detailed absorption
data for a CO2-MEA system using up to 18wt% MEA concen-
tration. It is the aim of this paper to report, for the first time,
new absorption data for MEA systems at ultra-high concentra-
tion, up to 54.0wt%, from pilot plant experiments. In addition,
the other main factors affecting the absorption process were
investigated. These include the packing type, gas flow rate,
liquid flow rate, inlet gas composition, and solution CO2 load-
ing. The reported data and its analysis will be beneficial for
designing new columns, operating existing columns, as well as
for testing theoretical simulation models of gas absorption
units.
Experimental work
Absorption of CO2 from air into MEA was performed in a
pilot plant consisting of three identical absorption columns
(2.40 m high and 0.101 m inside diameter) and a regenerator.
The first and second columns were randomly packed with Pall
Rings-16mm and IMTP#15 respectively, while the third col-
umn was packed with A4-structured packing. The absorption
process was conducted in a counter-current mode at preset
operating conditions. At steady state operation the gas concen-
tration and the temperature profiles along the column were
measured and recorded. As well, the outlet liquid composition
was analyzed for its CO2 loading.
The total number of measured data points from 56 experi-
mental runs is 1078, which include 574 measured points of
CO2 gas concentration, 112 measured points of liquid compo-
sition, and 392 measured points of temperature. This data was
obtained under a wide range of operating conditions which
are: total MEA concentration from 3.0 to 9.0 kmol/m3, CO2
loading in the liquid feed from 0.0778 to 0.3526 mol CO2/mol
MEA, superficial liquid flow rate from 6.63 to 23.96 m3/m2 h,
superficial gas flow rate from 28.05 to 65.46 kmol/m2 h, feed
CO2 concentration from 4.96 to 20.3%, and three types of
packing materials. Due to the large number of data points ob-
2 A. ABOUDHEIR, D. DEMONTIGNY, P. TONTIWACHWUTHIKUL, AND A. CHAKMA
lished as part of this paper but are available in tabular form
and can be requested from the authors.
Results and Discussion
The choice of amine concentration for CO2 absorption is usu-
ally made on the basis of operating experience. Based on his-
torical corrosion-concerns in alkanolamine gas treating plants,
DuPart et al., 1993 recommend a maximum MEA concentra-
tion of 20wt%. However, higher amine concentrations can be
used when corrosion inhibitors are used in the solution and
when the CO2 is the only acid gas component to be treated.
Typical concentrations of MEA range from 12wt% to 32wt%
(Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). In this work, CO2 absorption into
MEA solutions has been investigated experimentally within
this typical range and into ultra-high concentrations, up to
54wt%, of MEA solutions.
By increasing the amine concentration, its capacity will be
enhanced as shown in Figure 1a. As a result, the required solu-
tion circulation will be reduced and, therefore, the plant oper-
ating cost. However, as shown in Figure 1b, the effect is not as
great as might be expected. As the MEA concentration is in-
creased from 18wt% to 30wt%, the CO2 removal efficiency
will be increased from about 91% to 96%, with 5% of en-
hancement achieved. Further increase in MEA concentration
from 30wt% to 54wt%, will increase the removal efficiency
from about 96% to 98%, with only 2% of enhancement
achieved, even though at a higher MEA concentration the net
CO2 absorption per mole of MEA is less. There are two main
reasons for this trend. First, the acid-gas vapor pressure is
higher over more concentrated solutions at equivalent acid-
gas/amine mole ratio (Kohl and Nielsen, 1997). Second, as
shown in Figure 2a, when the same quantity of CO2 is ab-
sorbed in a smaller volume of solution (In this case, the vol-
ume of solution is reduced from 15.25 m3/m2 h of 18wt%
MEA to 7.40 m3/m2 h of 54wt% MEA), the heat of reaction
results in a greater increase in temperature as shown in Figure
2b. This increase in temperature will increase the CO2 vapor
pressure over the solution.
Since packed columns for gas absorption can be packed ei-
ther randomly or with structure packing, three different type of
packings were tested experimentally for the CO2-MEA
absorption system. Figure 3 shows the effect of the packing
type on the absorption rate. The IMTP#15 proves to have a
higher absorption capacity than the Pall Rings-16mm packing
where the CO2 removal efficiency is enhanced from about
92% to 96% over the full-length of the column. Furthermore,
the complete removal of CO2 was achieved using A4-
structured packing. This type of packing was found to have a
superior absorption capacity with 100% removal efficiency
achieved in only three-quarter of the column height. Mainly,
the higher interfacial area available during the absorption
process can explain the high absorption capacity gained.
The effect of changing liquid flow rate, gas flow rate,
CO2% in the feed, and solution loading on the column per-
formance is shown in Figures 4 to 7. First, when the liquid
flow rate is increased gradually within the range from 6.63 to
16.95 m3/m2 h, the absorption rate and the absorption capacity
SPE 40034
of the column increase as shown in Figure 4. This is due to a
higher liquid mass transfer coefficient, effective interfacial
area, and concentrations of free absorbent. Second, by reduc-
ing the gas feed rate, the degree of CO2 removal will increase
as shown in Figure 5. This is directly related to the amount of
available CO2 in the gas stream. Third, the effect of CO2 con-
centration in the feed on the absorption rate is presented in
Figure 6. When the inlet CO2 concentration is raised gradually
from about 5% to 20%, the removal efficiency of CO2 falls
from approximately 100% to 79%. In this case, if high re-
moval efficiency is required, the liquid flow rate and/or amine
concentration should be increased and/or a higher packing-
capacity should be utilized. Finally, when the loading is re-
duced from 0.3526 to 0.1736 mol CO2/mol MEA, while keep-
ing all other conditions approximately the same, the CO2 re-
moval efficiency is increased from about 73.0 to 95.0%. The
increase is due to the availability of more free absorbent for
reaction with the absorbed carbon dioxide. From these results,
it can be concluded that the behavior of the stripping unit in
the gas processing plant has a significant effect on the ab-
sorber unit efficiency. The more efficient the stripping system,
the higher the removal efficiency in the absorber unit.
Conclusion
On a pilot plant scale, detailed experimental measurements for
concentration and temperature profiles were collected and
analyzed for the absorption of CO2 into ultra-high concen-
trated MEA solutions. The effect of the main operating condi-
tions on the absorption process was investigated. The main
findings are: (1) The absorption capacity of the amine is in-
creased as its concentration increases, but not as great as might
be expected because of the high acid-gas vapor pressure over
the solution which increases as the concentration and the tem-
perature of the solution increased. (2) A better removal effi-
ciency of CO2 can be achieved by using high-capacity pack-
ing. In addition, it was found that increasing the liquid flow
rate would enhance the CO2 removal efficiency. However,
increasing the CO2 loading, the inlet gas composition, and the
inlet gas flow rate hinders the removal efficiency.
The data and its analysis are useful for designing new col-
umns, operating existing columns, as well as for testing the
theoretical models for simulation of gas absorption units.
References
1. Astarita, G., Savage, D., and Bisio, A.: Gas Treating with Chemical
Solvents, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (1983) 7.
2.Kohl, A., and Nielsen, B.: Gas Purification, fifth edition, Gulf Pub-
lishing Company, Houston, Texas (1997).
3.Strigle, R. F.: Random Packings and Packed Towers: Design and
Applications, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas (1987)
76.
4.Tontiwachwuthikul, P., Meisen, A., and Lim, C. J.: CO2 Absorp-
tion by NaOH, Monoethanolamine and 2-Amino-2-Methyle-1-
Propanol Solutions in a Packed Column, Chem. Eng. Sci. (1992)
47, No. 2, 381.
5.DuPart, M. S., Bacon T. R., and Edwards D. J.: Understanding
Corrosion in Alkanolamine Gas Treating Plants, Hydrocarbon
Processing, Part 1 (April 1993) 75, and Part 2 (May 1993) 89.
SPE 40034 IMPORTANT FACTORS AFFECTING CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 3

16.00
14.00
Liquid flow rate = 15.25 m3/m2 h

CO2 Concentration, %
12.00 of 18.0 w t% MEA (B-008)
10.00 Liquid flow rate = 7.40 m3/m2 h
8.00 of 54.0 w t% MEA (B-031)

6.00
4.00
18.0 2.00
16.0 18 w t% MEA (B-007) 0.00
CO2 Concentration, %

14.0 30 w t% MEA (B-015) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
12.0 54 w t% MEA (B-031) Distance from the bottom, m
(A)
10.0
8.0
6.0 55
Liquid flow rate = 15.25 m3/m2 h
4.0 50 of 18.0 w t% MEA (B-008)
2.0 Liquid flow rate = 7.40 m3/m2 h of

Temperature, 0C
45
0.0 54.0 w t% MEA (B-031)
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 40
(A) Distance from the bottom, m 35

30

0.25 100.0 25
2/mol MEA

20
CO2 Removal Efficiency, %

0.20 98.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

(B) Distance from the bottom, m
Net loading, mol CO

0.15 96.0

Figure 2. The effect of absorbing the same quantity of CO2 in a

0.10 94.0 smaller volume of solution on the temperature profile. Runs num-
ber: B-008 and B-031.
0.05 92.0

0.00 90.0 16.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 Pall Rings-16mm packing (A-001)
14.00
(B) IMTP#15 packing (B-026)
CO2 Concentration, %

w t%, MEA
12.00 A4-structured packing (C-016)
10.00
8.00
Figure. 1 Effect of absorbent concentration within the range of 18 6.00
to 54 wt%. Runs number are: B-007, B014, B015, B-026, B-029,
and B-031. 4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Distance from the bottom, m

Figure 3. Effect of packing type on the removal efficiency of CO2.

Runs number: A-001, B-026, and C-016.
4 A. ABOUDHEIR, D. DEMONTIGNY, P. TONTIWACHWUTHIKUL, AND A. CHAKMA SPE 40034

25.00
Liquid rate = 6.63 m3/m2 h (B-016)
Liquid rate = 9.47 m3/m2 h (B-017)
20.00 Liquid rate = 12.05 m3/m2 h (B-018) 25.00
5% CO2 in feed (B-012)
CO2 concentration, %

Liquid rate = 14.23 m3/m2 h (B-019)

Liquid rate = 16.95 m3/m2 h (B-020) 20.00 10% CO2 in feed (B-010)

CO2 concentration, %
15.00 15% CO2 in feed (B-007)
20% CO2 in feed (B-011)
15.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Distance from the bottom, m
Distance from the bottom, m

Figure 4. Effect of liquid flow rate on CO2 absorption into MEA Figure 6. Effect of gas CO2 concentration on the absorption rate.
solutions.

18.00
gas flow rate = 31.79 kmol/m2 h (B-031)
16.00 gas flow rate = 37.41 kmol/m2 h (B-032)
gas flow rate = 46.76 kmol/m2 h (B-033)
14.00 gas flow rate = 56.11 kmol/m2 h (B-034)
gas flow rate = 65.46 kmol/m2 h (B-035)
CO2 concentration, %

25.00
12.00
Loading, 0.1736 mol CO2/mol MEA (B-001)
10.00 20.00
CO2 concentration, %

Loading, 0.3526 mol CO2/mol MEA B(004)

8.00
15.00
6.00
10.00
4.00

2.00 5.00

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Distance from the bottom, m
Distance from bottom, m

Figure 5. Effect of gas flow rate on the CO2 absorption

Figure 7. Effect of CO2 loading on the absorption process