On the effectiveness of the two methods for secondary condensation to recover exhaust gases
Thread Content
Recently, I have been working on the condensation and recovery of dichloromethane exhaust gases from vacuum pumps, using -25°C refrigerant for cooling. There are two approaches: 1) Use two storage tanks for staged condensation, with the first tank’s condenser located at the inlet of the tank and the second tank’s condenser at the gas outlet； 2. Construct a storage tank for condensation; install a condenser at each of the tank’s inlet and outlet ； All the aforementioned refrigerants use -25 as the cooling medium, and the receiver tanks are equipped with jackets filled with -25 as well. I’m not sure whether one of these methods yields a better condensation effect or if they produce the same result; I personally lean towards the first method, and I hope experts can provide some insights on this.
The first option costs an extra canister of money, providing an additional canister of refrigerant; if its performance is not even as good as that of the first option, then what’s the point of such a design? But as for how effective it is and whether it is cost-effective, it’s hard to say; for the condensation of dichloromethane, cryogenic methods should still be considered.