Why is membrane condensation more cost-effective than activated carbon and RTO?

What is the comparison of membrane condensationactivated charcoalandRTOMore cost-effective?

Many companies' first reaction when choosing VOC treatment equipment is that activated carbon is cheap, RTO is reliable, and they are not very familiar with membrane condensation. But after calculating long-term accounts, membrane condensation is often more cost-effective. Below, a comparison will be made in terms of investment, operating costs, maintenance expenses, and return on investment.

The pit of activated carbon adsorption lies in the later cost. A set of small activated carbon equipment may be available for one or two thousand yuan, but activated carbon saturation is extremely fast. Taking the treatment of exhaust gas with an air volume of 10000 cubic meters per hour and a concentration of 500 milligrams per cubic meter as an example, activated carbon may become saturated within one or two weeks. Every time we replace the charcoal and dispose of hazardous waste, it costs over 100000 yuan per year. Moreover, activated carbon adsorption only transfers pollutants from the gas phase to the solid phase, without truly eliminating them, and waste carbon ultimately needs to be treated with money. Calculating the three-year total, the actual expenditure on activated carbon is often several times the equipment purchase price.

The problem with RTO is that it consumes too much energy. A set of equipment starts at 600000 to 700000 yuan. When processing low concentration waste gas, it is necessary to continuously supplement natural gas to maintain a furnace temperature of 800 degrees Celsius. It is common to burn hundreds of cubic meters a day, and the annual gas cost can reach hundreds of thousands or even millions. Adding electricity and maintenance fees, the annual operating cost easily exceeds one million. The key is that RTO burned all the organic matter without any profit. For many businesses, this money is a painful expense.

The calculation of membrane condensation is different. The equipment investment ranges from 300000 to 800000 yuan, between activated carbon and RTO. Only electricity is used for operation, and the annual electricity cost is about 300000 to 400000 yuan under the same air volume, with no gas cost. The membrane components should be replaced every three to five years, and the annual maintenance cost should not be high. The most crucial thing is that membrane condensation can recover the solvents in the exhaust gas. Taking the treatment of ethyl acetate waste gas as an example, the annual value of recovered solvents often ranges from 80 to one million, with a net profit of several hundred thousand after deducting electricity bills. Equipment investment usually takes one to two years to recover, and then every year is a net profit.

The difference between the three processes is essentially the difference in processing logic. Activated carbon is a transfer, and there will be continuous spending in the later stage. RTO is destructive, high energy consuming, and has no profit. Membrane condensation is the process of recycling waste gases into products. So membrane condensation is more suitable for scenarios where the concentration of exhaust gas is not low and the solvent has recovery value. If your exhaust gas concentration is above one or two grams per cubic meter, membrane condensation is likely to be more cost-effective than activated carbon and RTO.

LuoyangWohong PetrochemicalEquipment Co., Ltd. specializes in membrane condensation recovery technology and provides free operating condition analysis and benefit calculation. The company is located in W2-1, Dongda Science and Technology Industrial Park, Luoxin Industrial Agglomeration Zone, Xin'an County, Luoyang City, with the website www.wohongshihua.com.