Employing sodium hydroxide in desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil: Theoretical optimization and experimental evaluation

Journal Pre-proof Employing sodium hydroxide in desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil: Theoretical optimization and experimental evaluation Yusra A. Abd Al-Khodor, Talib M. Albayati

PII:

S0957-5820(19)31672-6

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.036

Reference:

PSEP 2094

To appear in:

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Received Date:

25 August 2019

Revised Date:

18 January 2020

Accepted Date:

27 January 2020

Please cite this article as: Abd Al-Khodor YA, Albayati TM, Employing sodium hydroxide in desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil: Theoretical optimization and experimental evaluation, Process Safety and Environmental Protection (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.036

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2020 Published by Elsevier.

Employing sodium hydroxide in desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil: Theoretical optimization and experimental evaluation Yusra A. Abd Al-Khodor a, Talib M. Albayati b* a, b,

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Technology, 52 Alsinaa St.,

PO Box 35010, Baghdad, Iraq.

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

* Corresponding author: [email protected] /[email protected]

1

lP

re

-p

ro of

Graphical abstract

Highlights

Employing NaOH in desulfurization of actual heavy crude oil.



Desulfurization process was carried out for actual heavy crude oil with sulfur

na



content 5.8wt.%

Response surface method was applied to evaluate factors affecting the

ur



desulfurization process. A maximum of 56.89% sulfur reduction in actual heavy crude oil was

Jo



achieved by NaOH.



The characterization of actual heavy crude oil was not affected by the NaOH solution.

2

Abstract The desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil is one of the most important processes in petroleum industries due to the low quality of those types of oil and containing large amounts of sulfur compounds, high viscosity and density. In the present work, the desulfurization of the actual heavy crude oil with a sulfur content 5.8 wt. % from Al-Halfaya Oil Field in southern Iraq was studied using a sodium hydroxide-assisted process. Effects of the operating conditions such as: reaction time (30–60 min), temperature (30–50 °C), the amount of NaOH in its solution (10–30

ro of

gm), and mixing speed (300–500 rpm) were investigated. The desulfurization process was achieved in a batch reactor by implementation of the experimental design

technique. The objective function (response) was the sulfur content wt. % while a response surface method (RSM) was applied to define the significant factors that

affect the desulfurization process. It was found that effects of the four variables take

-p

the following sequence: mixing speed > weight of NaOH > time > temperature. The optimum conditions of the proposed model were obtained using optimization

re

techniques and found as follows: time=60min., temperature=40°C, NaOH solution=18gm and mixing speed=500rpm. The optimum conditions of the sulfur

lP

content were applied experimentally and theoretically was equal to 2.5 and 2.3 wt. %, respectively. It is concluded that the efficiency of the sulfur removal content for

na

actual heavy crude oil by this process was 56.89%.

Keywords: Desulfurization; Response surface methodology; Actual heavy crude oil;

Jo

ur

Environment; Optimization; Sodium hydroxide.

1. Introduction

Environmental pollution problems caused by exhaust emissions have received increasing attention worldwide with the development of society. Sulfur-containing compounds can be converted to sulfur oxides during the combustion process which cause serious damages to the environment. Many countries have adopted more stringent environmental regulations to restrict the sulfur level of fuels limiting the sulfur level to less than 10 ppm [1–3]. The quality of crude oil depends mainly on the 3

sulfur content and API gravity. The characteristics of crude oil vary according to the geographical location of the crude oil reservoir. The quality of crude oil produced worldwide suffers from high sulfur content which has encouraged many large studies by the industrial or academic world to try to reduce sulfur content [4–6]. Processing of crude oil with high sulfur concentration has become the research focus around the world because the equipment in oil refineries cannot handle high sulfur concentration crude oil through oil refining operations. Increasing sulfur compounds in the crude oil also leads to increase the sulfur compounds in its products. Therefore, reducing sulfur compounds from crude oil has become an urgent task to meet clean fuel production

ro of

needs. The study of the new sulfur removal technology and improvement of sulfur removal processes are key factors for greater profits for oil refineries [7–10]. Many components must be removed from the crude oil and its products before shipping to

the market. Sulfur compounds that form in oil and its products such as hydrogen sulfide are very corrosive and extremely toxic. So, many refineries worldwide are

-p

using a variety of methods to reduce the concentration of sulfur in crude oil [11–15]. It is known that several methods are applied to reduce the sulfur in crude oil, such as

re

Oxidative desulfurization, Adsorptive desulfurization, Desulfurization by extraction, Hydro desulfurization, Alkylation desulfurization, Bio desulfurization, Chlorinolysis-

lP

based desulfurization, Radiation desulfurization, Supercritical water desulfurization and caustic desulfurization (Sodium hydroxide process) [13]. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH solution) is one of the desulfurization processes used and able to remove most

na

H2S, light mercaptans and thiophenols from the sour crude oil [16]. This method continues to attract much attention due to low cost and easy to operate, but it is not able to remove heavy mercaptans and polycyclic sulfur compounds [8, 17].

ur

Shakirullah et al. investigated desulfurization of kerosene, heavy residue, commercial furnace oil and diesel oil with sodium hydroxide solution. The desulfurization

Jo

efficiency of the kerosene, diesel oil, heavy residue and commercial furnace oil reached to 60, 68, 70 and 71% respectively [18, 19]. Jeyajothi used NaOH solution to study the effect of desulfurization of the sour crude oil in the petrochemical industry. The sulfur content of crude oil was reduced from 700 ppm to less than 130 ppm [20]. Response Surface Method (RSM) is a highly significant application in Chemometrics (usage of mathematics or statistical methods with chemical data), since additional data were required about chemicals’ behavior through the processes or system [21]. Central Composite Design (CCD) was used for the design of the experiment to 4

identify the factors that affect the desulfurization process and find the optimum conditions that give the best sulfur removal from the actual heavy crude oil. The sodium hydroxide process was used to treat petroleum products but very few studies have assessed the performance of this method with the actual heavy crude oil. In the fact that most of the previous research refer to petroleum products rather than crude oil. Thus, the objective of this work is the treatment of actual heavy crude oil with high sulfur content from Al-Halfaya Oil Field in southern Iraq using a sodium hydroxideassisted process. Effects of the various operating conditions were investigated such

ro of

as: reaction time (30–60 min), reaction temperature (30–50 °C), weight of NaOH (10–30 gm), and mixing speed (300–500 rpm). The desulfurization process was performed in a batch auto cleave reactor by the application of the experimental technique while the optimization of the applied factors (variables) was adopted during

-p

the desulfurization process using CCD.

2. Materials and methods

re

2.1. Chemicals

In the experiments, the samples of crude oil were obtained from Al-Halfaya Oil Field

lP

in southern Iraq. The chemicals included sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 95% purity) and Toluene (C6H5CH3, 99.5% purity) which was used for the purpose of washing the glasses. All chemicals were purchased from Sigma Aldrich and used as received

na

without any treatment.

2.2. Analysis method

ur

The sulfur content of the treated and untreated heavy crude oil samples was measured by X-ray fluorescence analysis according to ASTM D-4294 made by Horiba

Jo

Company, USA. This device is equipped with a spectra membrane that typically supports the thin film of a frame-mounted material that acts as a carrier.

2.3. Experimental design The experiments were designed using Design-Expert 11 software where four factors were selected as investigated variables based on findings from the literatures. The desulfurization process was included the implementing sodium hydroxide solution with studied variables such as: time, temperature, weight of NaOH and mixing speed. 5

The batch desulfurization experiments were performed to remove sulfur content from actual heavy crude oil obtained from Al-Halfaya Oil Field in the south of Iraq. Then, the experiments were performed to investigate the performance of sodium hydroxide solution with the optimization of the experimental factors using CCD. The optimization study using response surface methodology (RSM) was used to determine the significant factors affecting the experiment and reducing the number of experiments. The illustration of the CCD is given in Table 1, which shows a low, central, and high level. Three levels factorial CCD (face centered) were used for the four factors with 25 non-center points, 5 center points and a total of 30 runs, as shown

ro of

in Table 2.

2.4. Desulfurization procedures

The experimental procedure as shown in Fig. 1 started by taking 50 ml from actual heavy crude oil in a first flask. The solution of NaOH was prepared in different

-p

molarities by taking 10, 20 and 30 gm from NaOH in the second flask, in order to make different concentration by adding a constant volume of water for each weight of

re

NaOH at 10, 20 and 30 gm. The two-flask solution was added into the third batch, the auto cleaves reactor flask, in a 1:1 mass ratio, and the reactor contents were stirred for

lP

30, 45 and 60 minutes to get a good contact between the phases. Temperatures of 30, 40 and 50 ºC and mixing speeds of 300, 400 and 500 rpm were set up using the hot plate stirrer. After mixing, a funnel was used to separate the solvent from the bulk of

na

actual heavy crude oil. The treated samples were measured by X-ray fluorescence

ur

according to ASTM D-4294 made by Horiba Company, USA.

Jo

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Heavy crude oil analysis The sample of actual heavy crude oil used in this experiment was tested in the laboratory of Al-Halfaya Oil Field. As shown in Table 3., the crude oil used was heavy crude oil because of its API = 22.8 and specific gravity (sp.gr.) = 0.91657 with high sulfur content = 5.8015 wt.% or 58,202 ppm.

3.2. Interpretation of regression analysis 6

The experiments carried out using Design-Expert are shown in Table 4. These indicated a decrease in the sulfur content with increases in the contact time, temperature, NaOH concentration and mixing speed. The final equation in terms of coded factors was as follows: R = 4.58 − (0.36 ∗ A) − (0.068 ∗ B) − (0.427 ∗ C) − (0.64 ∗ D) + (0.14 ∗ A ∗ B) − (0.19 ∗ A ∗ C) − (0.086 ∗ A ∗ D) + (0.010 ∗ B ∗ C) + (0.089 ∗ B ∗ D) + (0.24 ∗ C ∗ D) − (1.15 ∗ 𝐴2 ) + (0.33 ∗ 𝐵2 ) + (0.43 ∗ 𝐶 2 ) − (0.16 ∗ 𝐷2 ) Where:

ro of

R = sulfur content (wt. %); A = Time (min.); B = Temperature (ºC); C = Weight of NaOH (gm); D = Speed (rpm).

Two variables indicate an interaction effect, while a 2nd order term of a variable denotes the square effect.

-p

3.3. ANOVA

An ANOVA test was used to define the importance of each variable in the designed

re

experimental research. The ANOVA is checked from the user’s point of the view with a focus on assessing the model’s construction and suppositions underlying the

lP

method. It is recommended to use graphic means to envisage the ANOVA model as well as to analyze data. The main models of ANOVA have been expanding in some detail, involving one-factor ANOVA, cross-design, interaction designs, repeated

na

ANOVA measures, and estimation of variance components [22, 23]. The comparison is made by the value of F, which is the ratio of the average form the box and the remaining error. The value of F should be greater than the one specified for

ur

distribution F if the model is to be considered as an ideal indicator of the results of the pilot program. As shown in Table 5, the value of model F of 23.17 indicates that the

Jo

model is important. The P value is used in order to assess whether the F distribution is statistically significant, when P is less than 0.05. The "Lack of Fit F-value" of 1.92 implies the Lack of Fit is significant. The R-square and R-square (adj.) provides information on whether the program is accurate in the resulting predictions. Here, 0.9558 and 0.9145 were obtained for Square R and Square R (adj.) respectively (Table 6), indicating an acceptable level of suitability (goodness-of-fit). The coefficient of determination (R2) presented in Table 6 was used to check the fit of the

7

models. The value of R2 was high (close to 1), qualified and reasonable with the quadratic model of empirical data. It is proposed that the predicted R2 must be less than 0.80 for the model to be considered to have a good fit [24]. In this case, the value of the selection coefficient (R2) for sulfur content was 0.9558. The higher value of the adjusted-R2, as explained by the model, adjusts the contrast ratio around the center, while the predicted-R2 is a measure of the model’s ability to predict the value of the response, which was close to R2. The difference between R2-pred. and R2-adjust. should be lower than 0.20 to ensure that the data or model are significant [25]. In our model, the fact that the R2 is close to R2-adjust. Indicates that the model is significant.

ro of

The low standard deviation showed that the quadratic (square) model is the best option. The coefficient of variance (CV) can be defined as the standard error ratio with respect to the mean value of the intercepted response, known as the

reproducibility of the model. A relatively low value of the CV signals good accuracy and reliability of the model [26]. Checking the normal distribution of data is generally

-p

used as the normal probability [27]. The summary of the ANOVA is displayed in

Table 7. The results showed how well the model was satisfied with the assumptions

re

of ANOVA.

lP

3.4. Interpreting the graphs of the process

One way to test the normality of distribution is to measure the proximity of the points in the normal prospect scheme in a linear plot. The experimental design gives the

na

normal prospect plot (as observed in Fig. 2). It is clear from this that the data are distributed normally. In analysis of data, the difference between empirical value and expected one is a significant component in the model interpretation. For a perfect

ur

model, the residuals must be distributed randomly and naturally. In Fig. 2, internally residuals the predicted values provided vs. residuals do not offer any particular

Jo

pattern and are approximately normally distributed. The final graph of the residual run is balancing and centering near to zero with no clear boundaries in the run number.

3.5. Effect of variables Graphical interpretation of the model was carried out by 3-dimensional response surface and 2-dimention contour plots. The 3-dimensionsal response surface plots sulfur content, as the dependent variables were plotted against two independent 8

variables, while keeping the other variables constant. In addition, the 2-dimensional contour plots are similar to the 3-dimensionsal response surface plots, and can explain the effect of independent variables on the response. The 2D contour plots show the type of the interaction between independent variables. If the shape is circular or a parallel plane, it suggests the absence of interaction between the variables, and an elliptical or curved shape indicates the presence of an interaction between the variables [28, 29].

3.5.1. Effect of reaction time and temperature

ro of

Fig. 3 shows the interactive effect of the reaction time and temperature at a constant weight of NaOH and mixing speed on sulfur content wt.% which is the percentage of sulfur in the product oil. As can be seen, the elliptical nature of the contour plots

indicates an interaction between reaction time and temperature. It can be observed

that the sulfur content decreased as the reaction time was changed from 30 to 60 min.

-p

This behavior occurs because increasing the mixing time increases the contact time

between the unreacted sulfur and NaOH solution. Similar findings were reported by

re

[17]. We observed that the sulfur content decreased when subjected to treatment at 40 ºC. This behavior is due to the fact that the composition of the compounds is sensitive

lP

to temperature, as they degrade at relatively high degrees. This shows that there is a

na

preferred temperature, depending on the nature of the material [30].

3.5.2. Effect of reaction time and weight of sodium hydroxide Fig. 4 illustrates the interaction between the reaction time and weight of sodium

ur

hydroxide, with temperature and mixing speed held constant. An increase in the reaction time from 30 to 60 min and an increase in the weight of NaOH from 10 to 20

Jo

gm together cause a decrease in the sulfur content of the oil. A further increase in the weight of sodium used, from 20 to 30 gm, led to increase the sulfur content, because the reaction is exothermic, so heat will be emitted. It is known that NaOH is a strong base, therefore, it completely and fully disassociates in aqueous solution. The heat emitted as a result of mixing solid NaOH with H2O is responsible for the increasing temperature, due to the decomposition of NaOH to Na+ and OH– ions. This phenomenon is very important, as NaOH crystals act as a strong drying agent because

9

they absorb moisture from the air easily [31]. As mentioned previously, the increase in heat causes the degradation (dissociation) of the material.

3.5.3. Effect of reaction time and mixing speed Fig. 5 shows that the sulfur content decreased as reaction time and mixing speed were increased within the experimental range, while temperature and weight of NaOH were held constant. It can be observed that increasing the reaction time is known to increase the mixing speed from 300 to 500 rpm. This is mainly due to increased disturbance that improves prevalence which leads to more chance to diffuse the

in actual heavy crude oil [32].

3.5.4. Effect of temperature and weight of NaOH

ro of

sodium hydroxide inside the actual heavy crude oil to reach sulfur compounds found

Fig. 6 illustrates the combined effect of adjustments to the temperature and weight of

-p

NaOH on the removal of sulfur content, with reaction time and mixing speed held

constant. The figure illustrates that temperature and weight of sodium hydroxide show

re

an inverse relationship in their combined effects. In practical experiments, the best removal results were due to low temperatures and increased weight of sodium

lP

hydroxide: temperature at 30 °C and weight of sodium hydroxide at 30 gm resulted in a decrease in sulfur content to 2.6 wt. %. This was the lowest sulfur content achieved during this process. Similarly, increasing temperatures to 50 °C and decreasing the

na

weight of sodium hydroxide to 10 gm resulted in a reduction of the sulfur content to 2.7 wt.%. Therefore, low temperatures with much sodium hydroxide, or high temperatures with little sodium hydroxide, provide a good distribution of heat in the

ur

reaction because increasing the weight of sodium hydroxide increases the heat of reaction. NaOH is, a strong base, reacted at a very high speed in an exothermic

Jo

reaction leading to an increase reaction rate which leads to change decomposition of sodium hydroxide and then cannot remove the sulfur compounds; therefore, cannot reduce sulfur content when increasing the reaction temperatures with an increase in weight of sodium hydroxide [31].

3.5.5. Effect of temperature and mixing speed Fig. 7 shows that the sulfur content decreased with increases in the temperature and mixing speed at the reaction time and weight of NaOH constant. The sulfur content 10

decreased with an increase of temperature to 40 ºC and an increase in the mixing speed from 300–500 rpm. The elliptical nature of the contour plots indicates an interaction between temperatures and mixing speed. Increasing mixing speed to 500 led to the improvement of the removal process and similar results have been reported by [20].

3.5.6. Effect weight of NaOH and mixing speed Fig. 8 indicates that the sulfur content (wt.%) is the percentage of sulfur in the product oil which decreased with increases in the weight of NaOH and mixing speed,

ro of

while reaction time and temperature were held constant. The sulfur content decreased with an increase of the weight of NaOH to 20 gm and an increase in mixing speed

from 300–500 rpm. The speed increase was the most influential factor in this process, according to the ANOVA analysis of the results as shown in the Table 5 and the

-p

value of the final equation constants in terms of coded factors.

3.6. Optimum condition

re

In order to obtain the optimum operating condition, the aggregate results of the total sulfur content for each variable are shown in Fig. 9. The decrease in the sulfur content

lP

with time is shown in Fig. 9a. Total de-sulfurization is relatively slow at low contact times of 30 to 45 min., and then the removal is clearly increased when the time is increased to 60 min. A closer examination of Fig. 9b shows that a temperature of 40

na

ºC seems appropriate from an economical and technical perspective. Furthermore, 40 ºC is quite suitable in terms of safety. Fig. 9c clearly shows that the total efficacy of caustic process desulfurization does not vary significantly with increases in the

ur

weight of NaOH from 10 to 30 gm. In terms of the scientific considerations, 20 gm of NaOH solution is more convenient than higher weights. The total sulfur content

Jo

decreases with an increase in mixing speed from 300 to 500 rpm, as shown in Fig. 9d Similar results have been reported by [17]. The experimental results show that the mixing speed is the key variable in the caustic process desulfurization. On the other hand, time, weight of NaOH and temperature had negligible effects on the overall desulfurization performance. Optimization of conditions that help to determine the optimal factors will lead to an optimal response. In this study, the four factors were evaluated in order to obtain values that give minimum sulfur content. The essential objective is to discover the 11

best operating conditions (in terms of time, temperature, weight of NaOH and mixing speed) that give the lowest value of sulfur content as a result of the sodium hydroxide desulfurization process. Obtained optimum operating conditions as shown in Fig. 10, in which 60 min, 40 ºC, 18 gm weight of NaOH and 500 rpm were the best conditions and are considered economically and practically beneficial, when compared with other studies. The total sulfur content before and after treatment is shown in Fig. 11.

3.7. Comparative study This study sought to evaluate and verify a process developed to decrease the sulfur

ro of

content in the actual heavy crude oil from an initial value of 5.8 wt. % to less than 2.6 wt. %. This implies substantial reduction in the sulfur content, of about 58,202–

26,083 ppm. In addition, the process has the advantages of simplicity, ease of operation and low cost effectiveness. This provides clear benefits to the process

considered in this study compared to those of other ones (as shown in Table 8), which

-p

use expensive chemicals and equipment, difficult, and time-consuming processes. Sulfur dioxide is a weak acid while it is known that the reaction of a weak acid with a

re

strong base is rapid, so the NaOH is a strong base and is a good solvent to remove

lP

sulfur dioxide.

4. Conclusion

The efficiency of desulfurization increases with increasing reaction time and mixing

na

speed, and with the application of moderate conditions for reaction temperature and concentration of alkaline compounds. In addition, it was found that the sulfur content resulting from the process was dependent on time, temperature, weight of NaOH and

ur

mixing speed in the following sequence: mixing speed > weight of NaOH > time > temperature. Optimum conditions of the studied variables were obtained as follows:

Jo

time = 60 min., temperature = 40° C, NaOH solution = 18 gm and mixing speed = 500 rpm while ones of the sulfur content were applied experimentally and theoretically, where sulfur content was equal to 2.5 and 2.3 wt. %, respectively. The efficiency of the sulfur removal content for actual heavy crude oil by this process was 56.89%.

Declaration of interests

12

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq and Al-Halfaya Oil Field in southern Iraq for the partial support of this study.

References

ro of

[1]. Eßer, J., Wasserscheid, P., & Jess, A. Deep desulfurization of oil refinery streams by extraction with ionic liquids. Green chemistry 2004; 6(7), 316-322.

[2]. Stanislaus, A., Marafi, A., & Rana, M. S. Recent advances in the science and

technology of ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) production. Catalysis today 2010; 153(1-

-p

2), 1-68.

re

[3]. Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, P., Feng, C., & Xue, G. Catalytic Oxidative/Extractive Desulfurization of Model Oil using Transition Metal Substituted Phosphomolybdates-

lP

Based Ionic Liquids. Catalysts 2018; 8(12), 639.

[4]. Bridge, G. Global production networks and the extractive sector: governing

na

resource-based development. Journal of Economic Geography 2008; 8(3), 389-419.

[5]. Talib M. Albayati and Khairi R. Kalash, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

ur

adsorption from wastewater using different types of prepared mesoporous materials MCM-41in batch and fixed bed column. Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Jo

133 (2020) 124–136.

[6]. Chong, C., Ni, W., Ma, L., Liu, P., & Li, Z. The use of energy in Malaysia: Tracing energy flows from primary source to end use. Energies 2015; 8(4), 28282866. [7]. Babich, I. V., & Moulijn, J. A. Science and technology of novel processes for deep desulfurization of oil refinery streams: a review☆. Fuel 2003; 82(6), 607-631.

13

[8]. Lin, L., Hong, L., Jianhua, Q., & Jinjuan, X. Progress in the technology for desulfurization of crude oil. China Petrol. Process. Petrochem. Technol 2010; 12, 1-6.

[9]. Srikanth, S., Kumar, M., & Puri, S. K. Bio-electrochemical system (BES) as an innovative approach for sustainable waste management in petroleum industry. Bioresource technology 2018; 265, 506-518.

[10]. Ugal, J. R., Jima'a, R. B., Al-Jubori, W. M. K., Abbas, B. F., & Al-Jubori, N. M.

ro of

Oxidative Desulfurization of Hydrotreated Gas Oil using Fe2O3 and Pd Loaded over Activated Carbon as Catalysts. Oriental Journal of Chemistry 2018; 34(2), 10911097.

[11]. Breysse, M., Djega-Mariadassou, G., Pessayre, S., Geantet, C., Vrinat, M.,

Pérot, G., & Lemaire, M. Deep desulfurization: reactions, catalysts and technological

-p

challenges. Catalysis Today 2003; 84(3-4), 129-138.

re

[12]. Song, C. An overview of new approaches to deep desulfurization for ultra-clean

lP

gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel. Catalysis today 2003; 86(1-4), 211-263.

[13]. Javadli, R., & De Klerk, A. Desulfurization of heavy oil. Applied Petrochemical

na

Research 2012; 1(1-4), 3-19.

[14]. Speight, J. G. Handbook of petroleum product analysis (Vol. 182). John Wiley

ur

& Sons 2015.

[15]. Lee, K. X., & Valla, J. A. Investigation of metal-exchanged mesoporous Y

Jo

zeolites for the adsorptive desulfurization of liquid fuels. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2017; 201, 359-369.

[16]. Manihe, A.A., Ghorayeb, N., September. How to design a caustic wash. Hyrocarbon Process 1981; 143-144. [17]. Moaseri, E.

Mostaghisi, O. Shahsavand, A. Bazubandi, B. Karimi, M. &

Ahmadi, J. Experimental study and techno-economical evaluation of Khangiran sour

14

natural gas condensate desulfurization process, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2013; 12, 34-42.

[18]. Shakirullah, M., Ahmad, I., Ahmad, W., & Ishaq, M. Desulphurization study of petroleum products through extraction with aqueous ionic liquids. Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society 2010; 55(2), 179-183.

[19]. Sharma, A. K., Prasad, D. S. N., Acharya, S., & Sharma, R. Utility and Application of FGD System (Flue Gas Desulphurization) in Chemical and

ro of

Environmental Engineering. International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications 2012; 3(2), 129.

[20]. Jeyajothi, K. Study on Effect of Desulfurization of Sour Crude Oil in Petro

University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India 2015.

-p

Chemical Industry, Department of Chemical Engineering, Periyar Maniammai

re

[21]. Ali M. Alkafajy, Talib M. Albayati, High performance of magnetic mesoporous modification for loading and release of meloxicam in drug delivery implementation.

lP

Materials Today Communications 23 (2020) 100890.

[22]. Zarei, M., Niaei, A., Salari, D., & Khataee, A. Application of response surface

na

methodology for optimization of peroxi-coagulation of textile dye solution using carbon nanotube–PTFE cathode. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2010; 173(1-3), 544551.

ur

[23]. Khataee, A. R., Fathinia, M., Aber, S., & Zarei, M. Optimization of photocatalytic treatment of dye solution on supported TiO2 nanoparticles by central

Jo

composite design: intermediates identification. Journal of hazardous materials 2010; 181(1-3), 886-897.

[24]. Ölmez, T. The optimization of Cr (VI) reduction and removal by electrocoagulation using response surface methodology. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009; 162(2-3), 1371-1378. [25]. Mook, W. T., Aroua, M. K., Chakrabarti, M. H., Low, C. T. J., Aravind, P. V., & Brandon, N. P. The application of nano-crystalline PbO2 as an anode for the 15

simultaneous bio-electrochemical denitrification and organic matter removal in an upflow undivided reactor. Electrochimica Acta 2016; 94, 327-335 . [26]. Kuehl, RO, & Kuehl, RO Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis 2000.

[27]. Montgomery, D. C. Design and Analysis of experiments. 6th Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc 2005.

ro of

[28]. Anupam, K., Dutta, S., Bhattacharjee, C., & Datta, S. Adsorptive removal of chromium (VI) from aqueous solution over powdered activated carbon: Optimisation

through response surface methodology. Chemical Engineering Journal 2011; 173(1), 135-143.

-p

[29]. Noorimotlagh, Z., Soltani, R. D. C., Khataee, A. R., Shahriyar, S., & Nourmoradi, H. Adsorption of a textile dye in aqueous phase using mesoporous

re

activated carbon prepared from Iranian milk vetch. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of

lP

Chemical Engineers 2014; 45(4), 1783-1791.

[30]. Alaya, M. N., Kinetics of chemical reactions. Faculty of Science, University of

na

Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria 2012.

[31]. Mason, P. E., Uhlig, F., Vaněk, V., Buttersack, T., Bauerecker, S., & Jungwirth, P. Coulomb explosion during the early stages of the reaction of alkali metals with

ur

water. Nature chemistry 2015; 7(3), 250.

Jo

[32]. Jabbar, S. M. Desulfurization of AL-Ahdab Crude Oil using Oxidative Processes. Journal of Engineering 2015; 21(7), 102-112.

16

ro of

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Fig. 2. Residual plots for the desulfurization by NaOH.

17

ro of

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Fig.3. Effect of the reaction time and temperature on sulfur wt.%.

Fig.4. Effect of the reaction time and weight of NaOH on sulfur wt.%.

18

ro of

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Fig.5. Effect of the reaction time and the mixing speed on sulfur wt.%.

Fig.6. Effect of the reaction temperature and weight of NaOH on sulfur wt.%.

19

ro of

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Fig.7. Effect of the reaction temperature and the mixing speed on sulfur wt.%.

Fig.8. Effect of weight of NaOH and the mixing speed on sulfur wt.%.

20

ro of -p re

Jo

ur

na

lP

Fig.9. Variation of total sulfur content of caustic process a) time b) temperature c) weight d) speed.

Fig. 10. Optimization condition for the desulfurization by sodium hydroxide.

21

7

Caustic desulfurization

Sulfur content

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 After treatment

ro of

Before treatment

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

Fig. 11. Effect NaOH on the final sulfur content for actual heavy crude oil.

22

Table 1 Factors used in the CCD and their levels. Factors Range and levels Low Level

Central Level

High Level

Time (min)

30

45

60

Temperature (ºC )

30

40

50

Concentration of NaOH (gm)

10

20

30

Mixing speed (rpm)

300

400

500

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

Table 2 Experiments of four variables central composite design (CCD). Run No. Operating parameter Time Temperature (ºC) Weight (gm) Speed (rpm) ( min) 45 40 20 300 1. 60 50 30 300 2. 45 40 20 500 3. 30 30 10 500 4. 30 30 30 500 5. 45 40 20 400 6. 30 40 20 400 7. 60 30 30 500 8. 60 50 30 500 9. 30 50 30 300 10. 60 50 10 300 11. 45 40 10 400 12. 60 50 10 500 13. 45 40 20 400 14. 60 30 10 300 15. 45 40 20 400 16. 30 50 30 500 17. 30 50 10 300 18. 45 40 20 400 19. 45 50 20 400 20. 30 50 10 500 21. 60 30 10 500 22. 45 40 30 400 23. 30 30 10 300 24. 60 30 30 300 25. 45 40 20 400 26. 45 30 20 400 27. 60 40 20 400 28. 45 40 20 400 29. 30 30 30 300 30. 23

Table 3 Results test of actual crude oil. Unit

Results

Test method

1.

Density @ 20/20

gm./cm3

0.91566

ASTM D 5002

2.

Specific gravity

-----

0.91657

ASTM D 5002

3.

API

-----

22.88

ASTM D 5002

4.

Salt

ppm

17.20

ASTM D

5.

Water cut

ppm

0.1

ASTM D 4006

6.

Sediment

ppm

0.00

ASTM D 4006

7.

Water cut & Sediment

ppm

0.1

ASTM D 4006

8.

Sulfur

ppm

58202

ASTM D 4294

9.

Sulfur

%

5.8015

ASTM D 4294

10.

Pour point

ºC

-37

ASTM D 97

11.

Freezing point

ºC

-42

ASTM D 97

12.

DI Hydrogen sulfide H2S

ppm

400

-----

(vapor)

14.

Fire point

15.

Dynamic viscosity @ 28ºC

16.

Dynamic viscosity @ 50ºC

17.

Asphaltene

ºC

120

ASTM D 93

ºC

140

ASTM D 93

CP

94.8

ASTM D 7042

CP

24.65

ASTM D 7042

ppm

5.7681

ASTM D 3279 ASTM D 6560 IP 143

re

Flash point

Jo

ur

na

lP

13.

ro of

Test

-p

No.

24

Table 4 The experiments of four variables central composite design (CCD) with response (Total sulfur content).

-p

300 300 500 500 500 400 400 500 500 300 300 400 500 400 300 400 500 300 400 400 500 500 400 300 300 400 400 400 400 300

25

Total sulfur content (actual) 5.1136 4.1122 3.8662 3.6886 4.5360 4.8460 3.7724 2.6542 3.0611 4.5350 5.0143 4.9927 2.7589 4.4430 4.4642 4.3618 4.1480 5.1580 4.4655 4.7600 3.0007 3.2022 5.1560 5.0750 3.9113 4.3811 5.1939 3.2305 4.5520 5.0687

Total sulfur content (predicted) 5.060 4.125 3.781 3.727 4.551 4.578 3.796 2.987 2.970 4.788 4.983 5.013 2.875 4.578 4.684 4.578 3.979 4.876 4.578 4.839 3.113 2.933 4.996 5.132 3.784 4.578 4.976 3.068 4.578 5.003

ro of

Speed (rpm)

re

20 30 20 10 30 20 20 30 30 30 10 10 10 20 10 20 30 10 20 20 10 10 30 10 30 20 20 20 20 30

lP

40 50 40 30 30 40 40 30 50 50 50 40 50 40 30 40 50 50 40 50 50 30 40 30 30 40 30 40 40 30

na

45 60 45 30 30 45 30 60 60 30 60 45 60 45 60 45 30 30 45 45 30 60 45 30 60 45 45 60 45 30

Operating parameter Temperature Weight (ºC) (gm.)

Jo

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Time ( min)

ur

Run No.

Table 5 ANOVA for the sulfur content of desulfurization by Sodium hydroxide Process.

5 29

0.032

F-value 23.17 46.33 1.63 0.026 143.06 6.00 11.54 2.31 0.033 2.48 17.66 66.01 5.47 9.18 1.24

p-value Prob > F >0.0001 >0.0001 0.2215 0.8748 >0.0001 0.0271 0.0040 0.1491 0.8575 0.1361 0.0008 >0.0001 0.0336 0.0084 0.2824

1.92

Significant

ro of

0.16 17.48

14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 10

Mean Square 1.19 2.39 0.084 1.324E-003 7.37 0.31 0.59 0.12 1.720E-003 0.13 0.91 3.40 0.28 0.47 0.064 0.052 0.061

-p

*DF

0.2445

lP

Model A-A B-B C-C D-D AB AC AD BC BD CD A² B² C² D2 Residual Lack of Fit Pure Error Cor Total

Sum of Squares 16.71 2.39 0.084 1.324E-003 7.37 0.31 0.59 0.12 1.720E-003 0.13 0.91 3.40 0.28 0.47 0.064 0.77 0.61

not significant

re

Source

na

Table 6 Coefficient of Determination (R2) for the sulfur content of desulfurization by Sodium hydroxide Process. Parameters R2 Adjusted-R2 Predicted-R2 Std. Dev. C.V.%

Jo

ur

0.9558 0.9145 0.7323 0.23 5.34

26

Table 7Actual total sulfur content wt.% and predicted total sulfur content wt.%. Total sulfur content (actual)

Total sulfur content (predicted)

wt.%

wt.%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

5.1136 4.1122 3.8662 3.6886 4.5360 4.8460 3.7724 2.6542 3.0611 4.5350 5.0143 4.9927 2.7589 4.4430 4.4642 4.3618 4.1480 5.1580 4.4655 4.7600 3.0007 3.2022 5.1560 5.0750 3.9113 4.3811 5.1939 3.2305 4.5520 5.0687

5.060 4.125 3.781 3.727 4.551 4.578 3.796 2.987 2.970 4.788 4.983 5.013 2.875 4.578 4.684 4.578 3.979 4.876 4.578 4.839 3.113 2.933 4.996 5.132 3.784 4.578 4.976 3.068 4.578 5.003

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

Run No.

27

Table 8 Comparison between this study and other studies No.

Method

Feed with sulfur %

Sulfur reduction

Reference

1

Oxidation desulfurization with ultrasound and ionic liquid Oxidation extraction desulphurization

Heavy Oil and diesel, 3.85 wt.%

95% and 65%

Houda et al., 2018

Heavy crude oil, sample A 0.87wt% and sample B 0.32wt% Heavy oil and bitumen Heavy crude oil and diesel, 4.53 wt % Actual heavy crude oil, 5.8

Sample A (29%) and sample B (73%) 60%

Haruna et al., 2018

3 4

Caustic desulfurization process

76.1%

56.89%

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

5

Supercritical water Desulfurization Bio-desulfurization

28

Demirbas, 2016 Adlakha et al., 2016 This study

ro of

2