Next Article in Journal
Mechanism of Acetyl Salicylic Acid (Aspirin) Degradation under Solar Light in Presence of a TiO2-Polymeric Film Photocatalyst
Previous Article in Journal
Measurable Disturbances Compensation: Analysis and Tuning of Feedforward Techniques for Dead-Time Processes
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Techno-Economic Comparison between Two Methanol-to-Propylene Processes
Correction

Correction: Sarah Jasper and Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi A Techno-Economic Comparison between Two Methanol-to-Propylene Processes Processes 2015, 3, 684–698

1
The Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitaetsstr. 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Bhavik Bakshi
Processes 2016, 4(2), 11; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr4020011
Received: 8 April 2016 / Accepted: 8 April 2016 / Published: 13 April 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Products and Processes)
The authors wish to correct Table A1 of the published paper in Processes [1]. Flow values were reported instead of temperature and pressure values. The correct version of Table A1 is given on the following page. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to readers of Processes by this change.
Table A1. The stream data for the methanol to olefins (MTO) process.
Table A1. The stream data for the methanol to olefins (MTO) process.
StreamMETH-INMETH-ETHMETH-PROETH-RXNPRO-RXNETHANEPROPANEPROD-MIXWATERPROD-QUE
Molar Flow of Components (kmol/h)
Methanol5558.1215558.1215558.1213779.5222334.411006113.9331716.8894397.044
Water0001778.5993223.71005002.3093350.6341651.675
Ethylene000889.2994000889.29940.0980242889.2013
Propylene00001074.57001074.570.19358191074.376
Propane00000041.8541.850.0045816941.84542
Ethane0000034.88034.880.0037299834.87627
Total Flow, kmol/h5558.1215558.1215558.1216447.426632.69134.8841.8513,156.845067.8238089.018
Temperature, K723.2723.2723.2723.2723.2723.2723.2723.2343.2343.2
Pressure, atm1.971.971.971.971.971.971.971.970.990.99
StreamPROD-C1PROD-H1DEETH-TODEETH-BTS9PROD-ETYSPL-ETHAPROD-PROSPL-PRPA
Molar Flow of Components (kmol/h)
Methanol4397.0444397.0442.6061E-154397.0444397.044000.02466684397.019
Water1651.6751651.6752.792E-111651.6751651.6755.2367E-392.792E-110.17822961651.497
Ethylene889.2013889.2013889.20134.44229E-094.44229E-09883.93275.2686184.44229E-091.4085E-29
Propylene1074.3761074.3760.91347681073.4631073.4636.8143E-130.91347681043.90929.55438
Propane41.8454241.845420.0089172841.836541.83651.0975E-160.0089172835.888485.948022
Ethane34.8762734.8762734.876276.3888E-086.3888E-086.06728228.808996.3888E-082.0243E-24
Total Flow, kmol/h8089.0188089.0189257164.0187164.0188903510806084.018
Temperature, K561.3283.2227.8275.3223.2226.9243.5299.5416.1
Pressure, atm11.8411.8411.8411.8411.8411.8411.840.9911.84

References

  1. Jasper, S.; El-Halwagi, M.M. A Techno-Economic Comparison between Two Methanol-to-Propylene Processes. Processes 2015, 3, 684–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Back to TopTop