ArticlePolymers2022
Design and Economic Assessment of Alternative Evaporation Processes for Poly-Lactic Acid Production.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this work, alternative evaporation processes for PLA production were designed with economic assessment. The suggested processes are the multiple-effect evaporation (MEE) process and thermal vapor recompression (TVR)-assisted evaporation process. First, the MEE process can efficiently reuse waste heat by additional column installation, thereby reducing the steam energy consumption. The proposed MEE process involves five columns, and after the evaporation in each column, the waste heat of the emitted vapor is reused to heat steam in the reboiler of the next column. Second, the suggested TVR-assisted evaporation process utilizes an additional steam ejector and recovers waste heat from the emitted vapor by increasing the pressure using high-pressure driving steam at the steam ejector. Each alternative process was modeled to predict the steam energy consumption, and to determine the cost-optimal process; the total annualized cost (TAC) of each alternative process was calculated as evaluation criteria. In the simulation results, the alternative processes using MEE and TVR reduced the steam consumption by 71.36% and 89.97%, respectively, compared to the conventional process. As a result of economic assessment, the cost-optimal process is the alternative process using TVR and the TAC can be decreased by approximately 90%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.