What is the typical air-to-nitrogen ratio in a standalone unit used to produce nitrogen with a purity of 99.9%?
Thread Content
For project construction, a nitrogen production unit with 99.9% purity will be put into operation. Some research has been done and several suppliers have been contacted; under full-load operating conditions, the air-to-nitrogen ratios vary significantly among different manufacturers. I would like to ask: which manufacturers currently do a good job in setting the air-to-nitrogen ratio, and what are the approximate values? Is the value of the air-to-nitrogen ratio roughly proportional to the cost of the equipment?
Most manufacturers still use the old processes, which is why the air-to-nitrogen ratio can be quite high. What we use at home is a new rapid gas supply and rapid pressure increase method, which allows for a ratio of 4 to 1. Generally speaking, the lower the air-to-nitrogen ratio, the higher the efficiency of air utilization; by using imported molecular sieves, such as those from Toyota in Japan, we can achieve a ratio of 3.6 to 1. Good adsorbents constitute an important foundation for the advancement of pressure swing adsorption technology in the future. Secondly, the process plays a role; within the same cycle, rapid pressure increase and the use of inequality-based methods during pressure equalization can both improve the purity of the product gas. Currently, our company is still exploring more scientific methods of air flow distribution. We hope to achieve further breakthroughs in our products next year. Additionally, to answer your question: the air-to-nitrogen ratio is low, resulting in low energy consumption. Generally, the price isn’t much higher, as the air compressors used have lower power ratings and thus relatively lower costs. The added technical value is another matter.
Some manufacturers claim that the nitrogen-to-air ratio can reach around 3.2; it’s not clear whether this is true or not. Additionally, what level of quality can domestic molecular sieves achieve? Are there domestic molecular sieves that are comparable to those from Japanese Takeda?
Takeda molecular sieves are over 20% more efficient than domestically produced ones. However, for the same reason, manufacturers tend to use less of them in production. The purity level you mentioned is relatively low, so it’s quite easy to achieve
Hello, I’d like to ask: when purchasing a domestically produced PSA nitrogen generator, what would be an appropriate specification for the air-to-nitrogen ratio? Some manufacturers provided a value of 2.8; others said they would not participate if the value was below 3.6, while still other manufacturers gave an industry range of 3.3–3.8. According to them, the industry standard is around 3.6; those with a nominal value of 3.2 will see their performance decline within a few months, and there are also manipulations involved in the amount of material filled in~~