Role of Devolatilization in Polymer Manufacturing
Post-treatment separation in polymer production involves the removal of unreacted monomers, solvents, or other volatile components. This process is referred to as devolatilization.
Devolatilization represents one of the most energy-intensive stages in bulk polymer production, typically accounting for 60 to 70 percent of total process energy consumption. The effectiveness of this stage directly influences:
Residual monomer content
Product odor and safety compliance
Thermal stability
Mechanical performance
Regulatory conformity
In high-viscosity polymer systems, devolatilization performance becomes a primary determinant of final product quality and operating economics.
Common devolatilization equipment for high-viscosity systems includes:
Flash evaporators
Thin-film evaporators (falling film and agitated film)
Falling liquid column or droplet evaporators
Surface renewal evaporators
Extrusion-type devolatilizers (vented extruders)
From an economic standpoint:
Twin-screw vented extruders show the highest energy demand
Agitated film evaporators typically carry the highest capital cost
Falling strand devolatilizers (FSD) exhibit the lowest combined energy and equipment cost
Total installed and operating cost of FSD systems is typically approximately 40 percent lower than vented twin-screw or agitated film alternatives. As a result, most large-scale bulk polymerization plants adopt FSD as the primary post-treatment technology.
This article focuses on process fundamentals, structural design, and recent advancements in FSD technology.
1. Process Characteristics of Falling Strand Devolatilization (FSD)
In bulk polymerization systems, monomer conversion typically ranges from 50 to 80 percent, leaving 20 to 50 percent residual volatiles that must be removed downstream.
The polymer-monomer mixture entering the devolatilizer is a high-viscosity, multiphase system. Within the FSD chamber:
Heat transfer
Mass transfer
Phase equilibrium
Flow dynamics
are strongly coupled and continuously changing.
As devolatilization proceeds:
Volatile concentration decreases
Melt viscosity increases
Mass transfer resistance increases
Flow behavior becomes increasingly non-linear
Excessive temperature can cause:
Polymer degradation
Chain scission
Crosslinking
Carbonization
Operational instability may also arise from intermittent flow patterns.
Compared with polymerization reactors, mathematical modeling of FSD is more complex due to multiphase non-linear transport phenomena. Industrial design remains largely empirical, supported by pilot data and operating experience.
2. Process Characterization and Analytical Methods
Devolatilization performance is typically quantified by residual volatile concentration or devolatilization fraction.
Analytical methods include:
Gas chromatography
Ultraviolet spectrophotometry
Polarography
High-performance liquid chromatography
Characterization must account for:
Constant temperature uniform flow fields
Non-uniform temperature gradients
Variable pressure vacuum conditions
Accurate measurement of residual monomers is essential for regulatory compliance and product certification.
3. Structural Units and Industrial Designs of FSD Systems
FSD systems generally consist of two core components:
Heat exchanger or preheater
Flash chamber
Performance is strongly influenced by melt distribution, surface renewal, and heat transfer efficiency.
Below is a structured review of representative industrial approaches.
3.1 Preheater Design and Heat Exchange Optimization
Preheaters are central to FSD efficiency. Their purpose is to:
Rapidly and uniformly heat high-viscosity melt
Minimize local overheating
Promote controlled vapor generation
Common configurations include:
Tubular heat exchangers
Static mixer-equipped tubes
Radial narrow-slot channels
Horizontally stacked disc structures
Honeycomb internal exchangers
Advanced designs introduce:
Temperature gradient control
Optimized groove geometry
Improved melt distribution devices
Uniform heating reduces localized degradation and stabilizes downstream flashing.
3.2 Flash Chamber Configuration and Residence Time Control
Flash chambers operate under vacuum and may use:
Thermal oil jackets
Steam heating
Electric heating during startup
Critical operational parameters include:
Liquid level control
Residence time
Vacuum stability
Excessive residence time increases risk of degradation. However, in rubber-modified systems, moderate thermal exposure can stabilize dispersed rubber morphology and improve impact resistance.
Liquid level is typically controlled via automated pump speed regulation. Auxiliary heating coils may compensate for evaporative cooling but are only suitable for non-crosslinking systems.
3.3 Melt Discharge Pump Selection
Discharge pumps must:
Operate under vacuum
Accommodate high-viscosity melt
Provide large feed openings
Gear pumps and screw pumps are commonly used.
3.4 Condensation and Vacuum System Design
Efficient condensation enhances vacuum stability.
Typical systems include:
Superheated steam coolers
Tubular condensers
Multi-stage steam jet vacuum pumps
Mechanical vacuum pumps are less common in large-scale installations.
4. Methods to Enhance Devolatilization Efficiency
4.1 Operating Condition Optimization
Superheat degree (H₈ = Pi − Po) defines devolatilization driving force.
Where:
Pi = saturation vapor pressure of volatiles
Po = chamber pressure
Improvement strategies include:
Increasing melt temperature (within degradation limits)
Reducing evaporative temperature drop
Lowering vacuum pressure
Each approach is constrained by energy cost and polymer stability.
4.2 Addition of Low-Boiling Stripping Aids
Volatile removal may be enhanced by adding:
Water or steam
Methanol
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Low-boiling organic solvents
These reduce volatile partial pressure and increase concentration gradients.
Effective implementation requires high-performance inline mixing.
4.3 Advanced Enhancement Technologies
When volatile concentration becomes very low, bubble nucleation limits performance.
Emerging technologies include:
Ultrasonic cavitation
Supercritical fluid extraction
Microwave-assisted devolatilization
Supercritical extraction is particularly effective for high-boiling, heat-sensitive volatiles.
4.4 Multistage Devolatilization Systems
Single-stage systems are often insufficient for high devolatilization ratios.
Two-stage systems provide:
Improved energy distribution
Reduced condensation load
Lower vacuum system demand
Reduced thermal exposure time
For most industrial plants, two stages offer the best balance between capital investment and performance.
4.5 Surface Renewal Enhancement
For high-viscosity systems, increasing surface renewal inside the flash chamber improves:
Diffusion rates
Mass transfer coefficients
Overall devolatilization efficiency
5. DODGEN DSXL Devolatilization Technology
DODGEN DSXL devolatilization technology applies:
High-efficiency heat exchangers for viscous fluids
Controlled additive-assisted volatile release
Uniform melt dispersion within flash chamber
Optimized surface area exposure
Reduced interfacial mass transfer resistance
Depending on polymer characteristics, DODGEN designs:
Single-stage systems
Multi-stage devolatilization trains
Core equipment includes:
Mixing heat exchangers
Inline mixers
High-efficiency distributors
The objective is to achieve:
Lower residual monomer levels
Reduced energy consumption
Stable product quality
Lower operating cost
6. Industrial Adoption and Development Outlook
FSD systems are widely used in bulk styrene polymerization plants due to:
Lower capital cost
Operational simplicity
Diagnostic accessibility
Suitability for foaming devolatilization control
However, limitations include:
Longer average residence time
Reduced applicability for some highly sensitive polymer systems
Future development directions include:
Compact high-transfer preheater designs
Improved melt slot geometry
Advanced heating media circulation
Integration with thin-film or extrusion secondary devolatilizers
Supercritical and ultrasonic coupling
Digital simulation and process optimization
Energy reduction, improved heat and mass transfer efficiency, and modular equipment design will define the next stage of FSD evolution.
Conclusion
Falling strand devolatilization remains the dominant post-treatment technology in bulk polymerization plants due to its favorable balance of:
Energy efficiency
Equipment cost
Operational reliability
Continuous improvements in heat exchanger design, melt distribution, multistage configuration, and enhanced mass transfer technologies will further expand its industrial applicability.
As regulatory pressure on residual monomers increases and energy efficiency becomes a core strategic priority, optimized FSD systems are positioned to remain central in polymer post-treatment engineering.
[References]
[1]王凯，孙建中.工业聚合反应装置[M].北京：中国石化出版社，1997,271～280.
[2]潘勤敏，刘青.[J].合成橡胶工业，1998,21(4):198～202.
[3]谢建军，潘勤敏，潘祖仁.[J].合成橡胶工业，1998,21(3):135~141.
[4]Ramon JA.Polymer Devolatilization [C].New York:Academ-ic Press,1996.
[5]Gordon R E,McNeill G A.Falling Strand Devolatilizer Using One Preheater with Two Flash Chambers [P].US:3853672, 1974—12—10.
[6]Hagberg C G.Falling Strand Devolatilization Technique [P].US:3928399,1975-12-23.
[7]Newman R E.Falling Strand Devolatilizer [P].US:4294652,1981—10—13.
[8]Bir WG,Novack J.Recovery of Alkenyl-aromatic Monomers by Falling Strand Devolatilization [P].US:3884766,1975-05 —20.
[9]Bir WG,Novack J.Recovery of Alkenyl-aromatic Monomers by Falling Strand Devolatilization [P].US:3886049,1975—05 —27.
[10]Eugene R.M,Robert A H.Method for the Devolatilization of Thermoplastic Materials [P].US:4952672,1988—08-11.
[11]Eugen 万 方 数 据el T E.Apparatus and Process for De- volatilization of High Viscosity Polymers[P].US:4954303,1990—09—04.
[12]Cummings C K,Meister B J.Polymer Devolatilizer [P].US:5453158,1995—09—26.
[13]Weller JP,Wilson L D.Polymer Devolatilization [P].US:5861474,1999—01—19.
[14]Fujimoto S.Devolatilization of Alkenyl Aromatic Polymers[P].US:3987235,1976-10-19.
[15]Aneja VP,Skibeck JP.Method for Devolatilizing Polymer Solutions [P].US:4808262,1989—02-28.
[16]Farrar J Ralph C,Hartsock D L,et al.Reduction of Residual Volatiles in Styrene Polymers [P].US 5185400,1990—0209.
[17]Aboul N,OsmanT.Distributor for a Devolatilizer [P].US:4934433,1991—12—03.
[18]Aboul N,Osman T.Devolatilization [P].US:4934433,1990—06—19.
[19]Morita T,Shimazu K,FuruKawa M.Devolatilization of Liq- uid Composition Containing Polymer and Volatile Con- stituents [P].US:5024728,1991—06—18.
[20]Mattiussi A,Buonerba C,balestriF,et al.Process for the De- volatilization for Polymer Solutions [P].US:5084134,1992— 01—28.
[21]Nauman E B,Szabo T T,Klosek FP,et al.Devolatilization of Liquid PolymerCompositions [P].US 3668161,1972—0606.
[22]McCurdy JL,Jarvis M A.Apparatus for the Multiple Stage Devolatilization of Mass Processable Polymers [P].US:4383972,1983—05—17.
[23]McCurdy JL,Jarvis M A.Multiple Stage Devolatilization Process for Mass Processable Polymer [P].US:4439601,1984—03—27.
[24]Reffert R W,Hambrecht J,Jung R H,et al.Treatment of Copolymers to Remove Residual Monomers [P].US:1985— 03—05.
[25]Fink P,Wild H,Zizlsperger J,et al.Process and Apparatus for Removing Vaporizable Constituents from Viscous Solu- tions or Melts of Thermoplastics [P].US:4153501,1979-05 —08.
[26] Skibeck J P.Fluid Assisted Devolatilization [P].US:5350813,1994—09—27.
[27]Krupinski S M,Desroches D.Devolatilizer Tray Array [P].US:5874525,1999—02-23.
[28] Skibeck J P.Water Assisted Devolatilization [P].US:5380822,1995—01—10.
[29]Krupinski S M.Devolatilization [P].US:5691445,1997-11—25.
[30]Sosa JM,Scates RM,Weguespack JN,et al.Method for Re- ducing Volatiles in Polymerized Styrene [P].US:5540813,1996—07—30.
[31]Metzinger L,Gotschalk A.Process for the Removal of Volatiles from Polymer Solutions [P].US:3865672,1975— 09—26.
[32]Kimoto K,Yamagisawa Y.Process and Apparatus for Re-moving Volatile Substances from Viscous Compositions [P].US:3694535,1972—09-26.
[33] 岳传龙，陈光银，朱文炫.[J]. 塑料工业，1990(5):18-19.
[34] 魏丹毅，蒋春跃.[J]. 化学工程，1999,27(3):5-7.
[35] 蒋春跃，潘勤敏，潘祖仁.[J ].合成橡胶工业，1996,19(5):303.
