Urea dust and ammonia are known to be present in exhaust gases from urea plants, urea granulation towers, urea prilling towers and chemical fertilizer plants. Such plants in particular release waste air streams that contain dust and ammonia resulting from various process steps. This air stream must be purified before being passed into the environment or recycled back into the process. Such waste air stream result in particular from granulation, prilling and product cooling process steps.
JP9227493 describes a method for recovery of urea dust and ammonia from such a gas stream by contacting said gas stream with an aqueous sulphuric acid solution, thus forming an acid solution of ammonium sulphate and urea.
A disadvantage of the known process is, that the resulting product is a solution, which can hardly be used as a fertilizer due to its high transport costs.
As described in DE10133935 it is a desire to add sulphur to nitrogen containing fertilizers. It is a further desire to reduce pollution from industrial activities and in particular from fertilizer production plants.
Surprisingly it has been found that these two desire could be combined at an economically attractive scale by concentrating the acid solution to a melt, comprising less than 5 wt % of water, which melt is subsequently transferred into solid particles comprising urea and ammonium sulphate.
Another problem of the method described in JP9227493 is that the resulting solution is an acidic solution, which is not only a disadvantage for the soil wherein it is used as a fertilizer, but it results in corrosion in metal equipment used to concentrate, handle and transport the acidic solution, unless special, high cost, materials of construction are used for such metal equipment.
This problem can be solved, by adding ammonia to the acidic solution before the acidic solution is concentrated, thus forming a neutralized solution of ammonium sulphate and urea in water.
A further problem of the method described in JP9227493 is that the sulphur (S) to nitrogen (N) ratio in the produced liquid fertilizer is depending on the ammonia to urea ratio in the gas stream from which the urea and ammonia are recovered. This poses a problem since:
These two disadvantages can be overcome by adding an additional amount of ammonium sulphate to the concentrated melt, or to the solution to be concentrated, such that the S/N ratio in the produced fertilizer can be controlled to any desired value. By changing the amount of additional ammonium sulphate that is added as a function of the ammonia to urea ratio in the gas stream, this S/N ratio also can be controlled in a stable way over time and to the optimal S/N ratio from an agronomic point of view.
Preferably the neutralized solution is concentrated by vaporization of at least part of the water phase, thus forming water vapor and a melt comprising less than 5 wt % of water.
More preferably the vaporization is carried out in more than one step until the amount of water is less than 5 wt %. This allows reducing the amount of water in the melt to less than 1 wt %, and even to less than 0.3 wt %.
Subsequently, the melt is transferred into urea and ammonium sulphate comprising solid particles. This process can be carried out in a granulator, or prilling tower. However this would reintroduce (on a smaller scale) the problem of ammonia and dust loaded air. Therefore this process is preferably carried out in a pelletizer, comprising a feeding device, a solidification/cooling belt and a device to remove the formed pellets from the belt, by feeding a urea-comprising liquid to the feeding device from which droplets of the urea-comprising liquid are dosed to the belt, whereon the urea-comprising droplets solidify, where after the formed urea-comprising particles are removed from the belt. The belt is cooled from the other side, preferably by means of cooling water. The advantage of using said pelletizer instead of a granulator is twofold:
1. The scale wherein the method of the invention is generally performed generally allows for pelletizing to be more economical as compared to granulation or prilling.
2. Pelletizing using the above mentioned process does not produce a large dust/ammonia loaded air flow, which would reintroduce the original problem albeit on a smaller scale.
The invention will be explained in greater detail below, using the drawings.
A system for implementing the method of the invention is shown in
Scrubber (1) can be selected from any of the wet-type scrubbers well known in the industry. It may, for instance, be selected from the type of scrubbers as summarized in Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry and Chilton), fifth edition, page 20-94 to 20-103. Stream 11 usually has a relative high temperature (70-110° C.), and may be rather dry. As a result of this, quite some water may evaporate in the scrubber. In many cases it therefore will be required to add make-up water (15) to the scrubber in order to assure that the concentration of urea and ammonium sulphate in the liquid phase in the scrubber remains below the solubility limits. Depending on the type of scrubber selected, circulation of acidic urea/ammonium sulphate (UAS) solution over the scrubber (not shown in the figure) may be required for proper removal of ammonia and dust from the air stream.
The cleaned air leaves the scrubber via line 18.
The acidic solution of urea and ammonium sulphate is passed through line (21) to concentration unit (2), which may comprise at least one concentrator Water vapor leaves the concentration unit (2) via line (16). In the concentration unit (2), the acidic solution of urea and ammonia is concentrated to a melt, comprising less than 5 wt % of water. The concentration unit (2) may consist of one or more evaporators in parallel or in series. These evaporators may be selected from evaporators, as they are well known in the process industry. They may, for instance, be selected from the evaporators as summarized in Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry and Chilton), fifth edition, pages 11-27 to 11-38. Urea is vulnerable for decomposition (e.g. hydrolyses and biuret formation) at high temperatures and at long residence time. For this reason the evaporators are usually selected from the types ‘falling film’ or ‘Long tube vertical’ (refer to FIG. 11-16 in Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry and Chilton), fifth edition) since they offer low residence time. Also, in order to minimize urea decomposition, the evaporators preferably are operated under vacuum, in order to minimize the required temperature. The vacuum in the evaporators can be maintained using a system of vacuum condensers and steam-jet ejectors (not shown in the figure), or other systems, that are well known in the industry.
The concentrated UAS melt leaves the concentration unit via line (22) to mixer (3). Solid ammonium sulphate is also introduced into the mixer (3), in order to increase the ammonium sulphate to urea ratio to the desired value. The dosing of ammonium sulphate to mixer (3) is controlled in such a way that a stable ammonium sulphate to urea ratio is obtained in the final product (17). Mixer (3) may be selected from any of the solid/liquid mixers well known in the industry. It may e.g. be selected from the mixers as summarized in Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry and Chilton), fifth edition, pages 19-3 to 19-25. Selection of the mixer mainly is depending on the required ammonium sulphate to urea ratio. In case low concentrations of ammonium sulphate are required, then the solid concentration in slurry (23) will be low. In that case it will be sufficient to select the mixer from the class of ‘agitating mixers’. In case higher concentrations of ammonium sulphate are required, then the mixer more effectively can be selected of the class of ‘paste and viscous material mixing’ equipment. From the mixer slurry of solid ammonium sulphate in a urea/ammonium sulphate (UAS)+ melt is transported via line (23) to the solid shaping step (4).
The solid shaping step (4) may consist of granulation, prilling or pelletizing. It is of special advantage to select pelletizing as solid shaping process, since such a pelletizing process does not result in dust and ammonia loaden off-gas as is the case with prilling and granulation processes. An example of such a pelletizing process is described in WO 2006/111331 A1. The final product, a solid mixture of urea and ammonium sulphate, leaves the process via line (17).
All other elements shown in
In the same way as described for
As compared to the process as described under
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
09170447 | Sep 2009 | EP | regional |
This application is a continuation of copending U.S. Ser. No. 14/098,496 filed 5 Dec. 2013, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,556,077 on 31 Jan. 2017, which is a continuation of copending U.S. Ser. No. 13/496,192 having an international filing date of 10 Aug. 2010, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,464,009 on 11 Oct. 2016, which is the national phase of PCT application PCT/EP2010/061588 having an international filing date of 10 Aug. 2010, which claims benefit of European application No. 09170447.8 filed 16 Sep. 2009. The contents of the above patent applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2056283 | Lawrence et al. | Oct 1936 | A |
2902342 | Kerley | Sep 1959 | A |
3619160 | Gabrielson et al. | Nov 1971 | A |
3691729 | De Rooy et al. | Sep 1972 | A |
3734707 | Seymour | May 1973 | A |
3928015 | Siegel et al. | Dec 1975 | A |
4134750 | Norton et al. | Jan 1979 | A |
T101803 | Jones et al. | May 1982 | I4 |
5135561 | Boles | Aug 1992 | A |
5527961 | Granelli et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
20070039469 | Niehues et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20080092614 | Ingels et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080128291 | Meessen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080145283 | Ledoux et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090084149 | Van Der Werf | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20110064635 | Niehues et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
204054 | Jun 1959 | AT |
369 443 | May 1963 | CH |
100 01 082 | Aug 2001 | DE |
101 33 935 | Jan 2003 | DE |
1318105 | Jun 2003 | EP |
2 192 099 | Jun 2010 | EP |
795820 | May 1958 | GB |
844 294 | Aug 1960 | GB |
1217219 | Dec 1970 | GB |
2116159 | Sep 1983 | GB |
H-09227493 | Feb 1997 | JP |
2000-1466 | Jan 2000 | JP |
2000-279736 | Oct 2000 | JP |
WO-0151429 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO-03099721 | Dec 2003 | WO |
WO -06111331 | Oct 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
EP-1318105-A1 English Translation (Year: 2003). |
Database WPI, accession No. 1997-486394 (1997). |
International Search Report for PCT/EP2010/061588, dated Sep. 6, 2010, 3 pages. |
Translation of Patent DE 10133935 (Jan. 30, 2003), Horst et al. |
Translation of Patent JP 9227493 (Feb. 9, 1997), Hidetsugu et al. |
IFC, “Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Nitrogenous Fertilizer Production,” Apr. 30, 2007. |
Translation of patent DE 10133935A1 (Jan. 30, 2003) Horst et al. |
Translation of patent JP 9227493A (Feb. 9, 1997) Hidetsugu et al. |
Potthoff, “Innovative ammonia emission reductions,” Nitrogen Syngas, Jul.-Aug. 2008, pp. 39-41. |
Kluwer Academic Publishers, “Fertilizer Manual,” Published in Dec. 1979. |
Wikipedia, “UAN” dated Sep. 16, 2017. Retrieved on Apr. 26, 2018 and Retrieved on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAN. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170137330 A1 | May 2017 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14098496 | Dec 2013 | US |
Child | 15421265 | US | |
Parent | 13496192 | US | |
Child | 14098496 | US |