Polymer-grade propylene production through temperature swing adsorption: Molecular simulation and techno-economic analysis

[Display omitted] •Six pure silica zeolites (AFV, AST, AVL, IFR, LEV, and SWY) as propane selective adsorbents are investigated for the separation of the industrial mixture of 10 mol.% propane and 90 mol.% propylene.•Different parameters of adsorption separation are investigated through molecular simulation.•The three steps Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) cyclic process is simulated using Aspen Adsorption software.•Economic analysis of the TSA process is performed using the Aspen Capital Cost Estimator and Aspen Process Economic Analyzer and compared with the cost of the conventional distillation process. Producing polymer-grade propylene from the propylene-rich mixtures can be quite challenging since the most commonly employed technology, distillation, requires high-energy input and is expensive. Therefore, identifying less-costly, efficient, and environmentally friendly methods, such as the use of the adsorptive process, is highly desirable. In this regard, six pure silica zeolites (AFV, AST, AVL, IFR, LEV, and SWY) as propane selective adsorbents are investigated for the separation of 10 mol.% propane and 90 mol.% propylene mixture. Molecular simulation Monte Carlo (MC) is used to calculate framework structure parameters such as pore volume, surface area, and framework density of pure silica zeolites. Also, adsorption isotherms, propane selectivity, and working capacity are presented using MC calculations. The Langmuir-Freundlich isotherm model is utilized to calculate isotherm parameters. A system model is implemented in Aspen Adsorption software (version 11) and breakthrough curves are achieved. The Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) cycle is simulated and key performance parameters such as propylene purity, recovery, and productivity for all six silica zeolites are calculated. Finally, economic analysis of the TSA process is performed using the Aspen Capital Cost Estimator (version 11) and Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (version 11) and compared with the cost of the conventional distillation process. Results showed that the capital cost and operating cost of temperature swing adsorption are 42.3 % and 91.37 % less than those of distillation, respectively.