Discussion on the modification of the internal components in the acid sedimentation tank of the alkylation unit

The internal components of the acid deposition tank were modified, but the effect was not good. Without promotion, it’s not good; later on, with a more sophisticated system, there’s no need to add additional components. If a retrofit is desired from the rear side, there’s no need to add internal components; simply installing a coalescer will suffice.

Replacing the refining system with a deacidification coalescer directly costs around one million. Connected in parallel above. Three primary and secondary refining coagulators, costing over one million – this saves a great deal in unnecessary water treatment expenses! And this is the equipment used on Lumas; those capable of manufacturing it include Shanghai Sulzer and Jiangsu Hengtong Metal Wire Mesh Co., Ltd. Both of these companies can produce the components for the coalescer, while for the casing, any manufacturer of pressure vessels will do. The modified original DuPont version is tailored to meet customer requirements; the amount used cannot exceed the specified limit, as exceeding it will result in no acid-neutralizing effect! With the specified processing volume, the results are good. Avoid the sales approaches offered by design firms; go straight to those two companies instead – it saves money. Many design firms have many problems with their designs, and the kickbacks they demand are too high

Can an acid-deacidification coalescer be used directly to replace acid washing, alkali washing, and water washing? So, is a sedimentation tank necessary?

Settling is not necessary; just control the acid level properly

There are groups for alkylization technology upgrades, as well as groups for alkylization equipment exchanges; however, HaiChuan is still the best option, as it offers wealth points

What is the effect of the completion of the renovation on reducing acid consumption?

This is my idea; hehe, you can apply for a patent on it

It’s needed, but a coalescer is not required

Another advantage is that it helps save money by reducing the problem of water contamination in cyclobutane streams, as well as minimizing wastewater generation. A sedimentation tank or coalescer can also be used, and the effects are significant; though I’m not sure exactly how much. It’s a real solution, but I’ve had this idea for a while without many people believing it, after all, many have never seen the Lumas process

The people in charge of the internal components said that the acid consumption should be kept at 70, and I was able to keep it at 70 even without using any internal components. Now that the company has added internal components, the acid consumption is still at 100, which is a significant difference from the 70 they claimed; the performance is not satisfactory. The investment in internal components is high, and there’s no need to add more internal components later on. The addition of a coalescer mentioned upstairs is a very good approach; Haiyue and others follow the Rums process by doing just that. However, it has not yet been put into practice in the DuPont process; the principle remains the same – it is necessary to calculate the processing volume accurately, otherwise you will face restrictions when trying to increase the volume.