The old topic of tail gas treatment for storage tanks
Thread Content
There are many troublesome issues related to exhaust gas treatment in storage tanks these days, and I believe everyone has encountered them. Regarding activated carbon adsorption, is it a universal adsorption method? Determining the activity of activated carbon is related to how the desorption interval should be managed in practice I’ve heard that activated carbon is a \"hotbed\" for problems; there have been reports about it causing explosions (related to the absorption of exhaust gases). How can we improve the safety of this adsorption process?
It can be said that activated carbon is certainly not a panacea. For some materials such as benzene, a condensation method yields better results.
Currently, a combination of various absorption methods is widely used to treat exhaust gases, such as exchange adsorption, membrane absorption, and activated carbon absorption. It works well!
We have discussed all these methods mentioned above; in my opinion, condensation combined with adsorption is the best approach, as it solves both the problem of the \"hotbed\" mentioned by the original poster and the issue of the need for large amounts of activated carbon. However, I haven’t seen any specific companies using it; many organizations have it installed but do not use it.
I forgot to mention that the switching of the activated carbon tower is done based on time.
Thank you. We are all industry professionals. Feel free to contact us via the welcome email. xhfeng@nbdxcs.com
Our aromatic tank farm is currently in use, utilizing condensation + membrane separation + activated carbon. The recovery efficiency is rather average; it’s not that the performance is poor, but rather the current internal floating roof storage tanks are quite airtight, so the gases emitted contain less oily benzene compounds. When we use this system, only a small amount of liquid is recovered per use (depending on the gas pressure above the internal floating roof tank), and the liquid level in the recovery tank rises by less than 1 mm as a result. Moreover, operating this equipment, especially the condensation process, requires a significant amount of energy. Just in terms of the value of the recovered media, it’s completely incomparable to the costs incurred. We never turned it on before; we only did so when the environmental protection agency or similar agencies came for inspections. It seems that something went wrong later on, which is why they ordered that it be kept running.