1.THEORY 1.

1 GAS ABSORPTION Gas absorption (also known as scrubbing) is an operation in which a gas mixture is contacted with a liquid for the purpose of preferentially dissolving one or more components of the gas mixture and to provide a solution of them in the liquid. Therefore we can see that there is a mass transfer of the component of the gas from the gas phase to the liquid phase. The solute so transferred is said to be absorbed by the liquid. In gas desorption (or stripping), the mass transfer is in the opposite direction, i.e. from the liquid phase to the gas phase. The principles for both systems are the same. We will focus on the analysis for gas absorption, for the simple case whereby only one component of the gas solute is being absorbed. The other components of the gas are assumed to be non-soluble in the liquid (i.e. the other gas components are inert components), and the liquid is non-volatile, which means that there is no transfer of molecules from the liquid to the gas phase. In addition, we assume there is no chemical reaction in the system and that it is operating at isothermal condition. The process of gas absorption thus involves the diffusion of solute from the gas phase through a stagnant or non-diffusing liquid. 1.1.1 Method of Operation Two methods of contacting the gas and liquid are possible: counter-current operation and cocurrent operation. See the Figure below. We will focus principally on the counter-current gas absorption, as it was widely used in the industry. The main differences between the two configurations will be highlighted. Note that for counter-current operation, the gas enters the column or tower from below as leaves at the top, while liquid enters from the top and flows in opposite direction and exits from the bottom. We will be concerned primarily with counter-current gas absorption. As shown in the Figure below, the gas flows upwards while the liquid flow downwards. Inside the column where there is vapour-liquid contact, mass transfer by absorption occurs, i.e. there is a transfer of solute(s) from the gas phase to the liquid phase.[1]

1.2 Absorption Equipment Gas absorption at an industrial scale is most commonly practiced in packed towers. A packed tower is essentially a piece of pipe set on its end and filled with inert material or "tower packing." Liquid poured into the top of the tower trickles down through the packing; gas pumped into the bottom of the tower flows countercurrently upward. The intimate contact between gas and liquid achieved in this way effects the gas absorpton. Analyzing a packed tower involves both mass transfer and fluid mechanics. The mass transfer, detailed in the following section, determines the height of the packed tower' This mass transfr i s described as molr flows, partly because of the chemical reactions that often occur. The fluid mechanics, described in this section, determines the cross-sectional area of the packed tower. The fluid mechanics is described as mass flows, a consequence of the physics that control the process. To describe the physics, we discuss the tower packing, the flows themselves, and the estimation of the tower's cross section.

Figure. 2. Sx types of random packing. These packings aim to resolve the conflictng goals of fast flow and large interfacial areas.[2] Most gas absorption aims at separation of acidic impurities from mixed gas streams. These acidic impurities include carbon dioxide (COz), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfur dioxide (SOz), and organic sulfur compounds. The most important of these are CO2 and H2S, which occur at concentrations of five to fifty percent. The organic sulfur compounds include carbonyl sulfide (COS) and merceptans, which are like alcohols with a sulfur atom in place of the oxygen. Merceptans stink: For example, butyl merceptan is responsible for the stench of skunks.

Other impurities vary widely. One common impurity is water, which can be removed by either absorption or adsorption. Another is ammonia (NH:), which is basic, rather than acidic. Sulfur trioxide (SOr), prussic acid (HCN), and nitrogen oxides (NO*) are of concem because of their high chemical reactivity. Oxygen must be removed from some reagent streams, and nitrogen can be absorbed to upgrade natural gas. [2] 1.3 Raoult's Law[3] When two substances whose molecules are very similar form a liquid solution, the vapor pressure of the mixture is very simply related to the vapor pressures of the pure substances. Suppose, for example, we mix 1 mol benzene with 1 mol tolene as shown in Fig. 1. The mole fraction of benzene, xb, and the mole fraction of toluene, xt, are both equal to 0.5. At 79.6C the measured vapor pressure of this mixture is 516 mmHg, slightly less than 517 mmHg, the average of the vapor pressures of pure benzene (744 mmHg) and of pure toluene (290 mmHg) at the same temperature. It is easy to explain this behavior if we assume that because benzene and toluene molecules are so nearly alike, they behave the same way in solution as they do in the pure liquids. Since there are only half as many benzene molecules in the mixture as in pure benzene, the rate at which benzene molecules escape from the surface of the solution will be half the rate at which they would escape from the pure liquid. In consequence the partial vapor pressure of benzene above the mixture will be one-half the vapor pressure of pure benzene. By a similar argument the partial vapor pressure of the toluene above the solution is also one-half that of pure toluene. Accordingly, we can write pb = Pb* and pt = Pt*

where pb and pt are the partial pressures of benzene and toluene vapors, respectively, and Pb* and Pt* are the vapor pressures of the pure liquids. The total vapor pressure of the solution is

(1)

Figure 1.1.Vapor-liquid equilibria for (a) pure toluene; (b) a mixture of equal amounts of toluene and benzene: and (c) pure benzene. In the solution (b) only half the molecules are benzene molecules, and so the concentration of benzene molecules in the vapor phase is only half as great as above pure benzene. Note also that although the initial amounts of benzene and toluene in the solution were equal, more benzene than toluene escapes to the gas phase because of benzenes higher vapor pressure. The vapor pressure of the mixture is equal to the mean of the vapor pressures of the two pure liquids. We can generalize the above argument to apply to a liquid solution of any composition involving any two substances A and B whose molecules are very similar. The partial vapor pressure of A above the liquid mixture, pA, will then be the vapor pressure of pure A, PA*, multiplied by the fraction of the molecules in the liquid which are of type A, that is, the mole fraction of A, xA. In equation form; pA = xAPA* Similarly for component B; pB = xBPB* Adding these two partial pressures, we obtain the total vapor pressure; P = pA + pB = xAPA* + xBPB* (4) (3) (2)

Liquid solutions which conform to Eqs. (2) and (3) are said to obey Raoults law and to be ideal mixtures or ideal solutions. In addition to its use in predicting the vapor pressure of a solution, Raoults law may be applied to the solubility of a gas in a liquid. Dividing both sides of Eq. (2) by PA* gives

(5) Since the vapor pressure of any substance has a specific value at a given temperature, Eq. (4) tells us that the mole fraction xA of a gaseous solute is proportional to the partial pressure pA of that gas above the solution. For an ideal solution the proportionality constant kA is the reciprocal of the vapor pressure of the pure solute at the temperature in question. Since vapor pressure increases as temperature increases, kA, which is 1/PA*, must decrease. Thus we expect the solubility of a gas in a liquid to increase as the partial pressure of gas above the solution increases, but to decrease as temperature increases. Equation (3) is known as Henrys law. It also applies to gaseous solutes which do not form ideal solutions, but in such cases the Henrys-law constant kA does not equal the reciprocal of the vapor pressure. In actual fact very few liquid mixtures obey Raoults law exactly. Even for molecules as similar as benzene and toluene, we noted a deviation of 517 mmHg 516 mmHg, or 1 mmHg at 79.6C. Much larger deviations occur if the molecules are not very similar. These deviations are of two kinds. The vapor pressure against the mole fraction of one component yields a straight line for an ideal solution. For nonideal mixtures the actual vapor pressure can be larger than the ideal value (positive deviation from Raoults law) or smaller (negative deviation). Negative deviations correspond to cases where attractions between unlike molecules are greater than those between like molecules.[3] 1.4 Henry's law[4] An equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid. An everyday example of Henry's law is given by carbonated soft drinks. Before the bottle or can of carbonated drink is opened, the gas above the drink is almost pure carbon dioxide at a pressure slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. The drink itself contains dissolved carbon dioxide. When the bottle or can is opened, some of this gas escapes, giving the characteristic hiss (or "pop" in the case of a sparkling wine bottle). Because the partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the liquid is now lower, some of the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution as bubbles. If a glass of the drink is left in the open, the concentration of carbon
5

dioxide in solution will come into equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the air, and the drink will go "flat". A slightly more exotic example of Henry's law is in the decompression and decompression sickness of underwater divers. Henry's law can be put into mathematical terms (at constant temperature) as

(6) where p is the partial pressure of the solute in the gas above the solution, c is the concentration of the solute and kH is a constant with the dimensions of pressure divided by concentration. The constant, known as the Henry's law constant, depends on the solute, the solvent and the temperature. Some values for kH for gases dissolved in water at 298 K include: oxygen (O2) : 769.2 Latm/mol carbon dioxide (CO2) : 29.41 Latm/mol hydrogen (H2) : 1282.1 Latm/mol There are various other forms of Henry's Law which define the constant kH differently and require different dimensional units. In particular, the "concentration" of the solute in solution may also be expressed as a mole fraction or as a molarity. [4] 1.5 Types pf Absorbers 1.5.1 Tray Tower Gas Absorbers[5] In the gas cooling/condensing/absorption operation, a vertical tower containing a number of trays is often used to contact the hot gas with cooling liquid. Water is the most commonly used liquid for cooling/condensing application. The trays provide the intimate contact between the gas and the liquid where the interphase energy and mass transfer take place. A certain type of tray, such as sieve, impingement or valve tray is selected to meet your performance requirements. The hot gas is cooled by the liquid and, usually, with the simultaneous condensation of its condensable component into the liquid.

The liquid enters the tower at the top and flows downward by gravity. On the way, it flows across each tray and through a downcomer to the tray below. The gas enters the tower near the bottom and is directed upwards through the openings of one sort or another in the tray. It bubbles through the liquid to form a froth (an intimate contacting zone), separates from the liquid, and moves onto the next tray above. Overall, this is a multiple-staged countercurrent contact of gas and liquid, although it is a cross-flow contact of the two on each tray. The cooled gas passes through a mist eliminator (typically a mesh pad or chevron type) to remove most of its entrained liquid droplets and exits the tower at the top. The cooling liquid, now becoming hot liquid, flows to the sump of the tower or an external tank. It can be discharged out of the system, or recycled back to the tower after it is cooled by a heat exchanger. For a condenser operating in a recycling mode, a slip stream is normally bled off the liquid loop to get rid of the condensate.[5] 1.5.2 Packed Bed Tower Gas Absorbers [5] They rely on the diffusion of the polluting gases or fumes through the carrier gas to reach the surface of the scrub liquor. State of the art packing media provides the required surface area for intimate contact to achieve the highest efficiency. Upon contacting the liquor, the pollutants are absorbed into the liquor. 1.5.3 Cross Flow Tower[5]

Figure 1.2. Cross flow tower [5] In a cross flow tower, the horizontal gas flow and the downward liquid flow are perpendicular to each other. This configuration is ideal when height restrictions exist. Its horizontal profile allows access from one level.[5]

1.6 Packing Characteristics[6] Packing materials must have the following characteristics: a large wetted surface area per unit volume of packed space (this allows a large interfacial area to exist), a large void volume (needed for low pressure drops), good wetting characteristics, corrosion resistance, low bulk density, and low cost. No one type of packing will possess all these characteristics.[6] 1.7 Contact between a liquid and gas[6] 1.7.1 Channeling Channeling often occurs in a packed tower. This phenomenon takes place when the fluid moving down the column moves towards the region of greatest void space; this occurs at the region near the wall where the packing is not tightly packed. Thus, liquid redistributors are used to redirect the fluid flow towards the column center. [6] 1.7.2.Flooding [7] Flooding arise when gas or liquid flow is increased beyond the capacity of a column. This limit the quantity of liquid and gas flow through a column and in counter current flow, it places an upper limit on the liquid and gas flow rates. Flooding in a counter current flow is the flow condition in which a normally down-flowing liquid reverse course and begins to flow upward due to the interaction between the two phases. An accumulation of liquid at the top of the packing is an indication of flooding. Flooding adversely impacts negative on absorption packed column and other packed column applications such as Distillation unit. Flooding effect rapidly on increase in pressure drop and affect the column operation. The accumulation of liquid on the column packing cause the pressure below the flooding point to increase. Flooding can be identified by changes in pressure difference of the column or temperature. Consequently, a differential pressure can be observed and the reboiled vapour blocked from rising, which the bottom columns temperature may increase. Many a common method is employed in combating flooding which, decreasing both or either the feed rate and reflux rate is significant. Moreover, the reduction in the 19amount of liquid in the column and decreasing vapour in the column by reduction of the reboiler steam is noteworthy.[7] 1.8 Correlation between Pressure drop and flooding velocity in Packed Column [7] Several common correlations exist for pressure drop and flooding velocity in Several common correlations exist for pressure drop and flooding velocity in packed column which most
8

depends on the use of log-log plot with h (Gx/Gy)(y/ x) 0.5 on the abscissa and a function containing G2y on the ordinate. Sherwood and Hollaway base their correlation of the flooding condition for various packing on the equation.[7]

(7) Where U = Superficial gas velocity at flooding. ft. /sec. a = Total area of packing, sq. ft. /cu. ft. Packing Fd = Fractional voids in dry packing, cu. ft. /cu. ft. Tower volume G = gas rate, lb. / (hr.) (sq. ft.) g = 32.2 (lb. Mass) (ft.) / (lb. Force) L = Liquid rate, lb. / (hr.) (sq. ft.) v and L = gas and liquid densities, lb./cu. ft. = viscosity of liquid, centipoises However, there is no perfect correlation for pressure drop that is applicable to all packing. McCabe et al (2005, 372-373) gave a commonly used generalized correlation for pressure drop estimation in dumped packing indicated in graph 8 below with recent studies showing flooding line at pressure drops of 0.7 to 1.5 in. H2O/ft of packing for 2- or 3-in.; Pflood = 0.115* Fp*0.7 is given as the empirical equation for limiting pressure drop. Pflood = Pressure drop at flooding, in. H2O/ft of packing. Fp = Packing factor Strigle proposed an alternative correlation for pressure drop in packed column but with a capacity factor on the ordinate equal where o and v are the superficial velocity in ft/sec and kinematic viscosity of liquid in centistokes respectively. (8)

Figure 1.3. Generalized correlation for pressure drop in packed Columns [7]

Figure 1.4. Alternative generalized pressure drop correlation [7] 1.9 Two film theory[8] Consider a phase interface (between gas and liquid) at steady state. Industrial contactors use mass transfer across such interfaces as the basis for numerous rate-controlled (nonequilibrium) separations, such as absorption and stripping. Using an overall mass transfer coefficient K the flux of species 1 across the interface is 1

(9) The flux in the gas phase is

(10)
10

The flux in the liquid phase is (11) At steady state the fluxes are equal;

(12) We cannot determine the interfacial compositions (p1,i and c 1,i), so such a representation may not be useful. Instead, the bulk driving force can be used: i.e., the composition in the gas phase in equilibrium with the bulk concentration in the liquid phase or gas liquid flux the liquid composition in equilibrium with the composition of the bulk gas phase:

(13) Equilibrium is assumed to exist across the interface, so

(14) with H a partition constant (here in cm3-atm/mol). The pseudo partial pressure, *p1 , is the partial pressure in equilibrium with the bulk concentration and is given by

(15) The pseudo concentration, c1*, is the concentration in equilibrium with the bulk gas partial pressure and is given by

(16) From the definitions of the Overall Mass Transfer Coefficients above, the overall liquid-side mass transfer coefficient is

11

(17) The overall gas-side mass transfer coefficient is

(18) There are two limiting cases of interest[8] 1. a highly soluble gas (H<<1):

2. a sparingly soluble gas (H>>1):

12

2. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD 2.1 Aim of the Experiment The purpose of that experiment was to study the pressure drop and mass transfer characteristics required for design calculations of packed tower absorber. In this experiment absorption of gas CO2 from air into the water was evaluated. The main purpose of that experiment was to learn how the mass transfer rate is affected by gas flow rate and observing the loading and flooding points. 2.2 Description of Apparatus

Figure 2.1 . Gas-liquid absorption column[8]

13

2.3 Experimental Procedure In the first part of the experiment, column was filled only with air, it was Dry Column. The flow rate of the air was set to 10 L/min by adjusting the valve and for this flow rate, pressure difference was read from the U-tube manometer. Then flow rates were 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100; the same procedure was applied for dry column. In the second part of the experiment, water was also sent to column with air, it was Wet column. For this, water flow rate to 1 L/min and air flow rate were setted and pressure difference was read. Then, the flow rate of air was increased 10 by 10 until water flow rate was fixed to 100 L/min. Pressure differences was read for each increament. The same procedure was repeated until their flooding points for 3, 5, 7 and 9 L/min. The last part of the experiment was Gas Absorption part. At that part, CO2 was also passed through the column with air and water. The flow rates of air, water and CO 2 are fixed to 20, 5 and 6 L/min, respectively. Then it was waited until the system becoming stable. After 15 minutes, by taking the CO2 slowly with the syringe as a result of this situation, the volume of CO2 that was given the system was determined. In addition, two samples were taken from the tank and exit to the column. Samples volumes were 20 mL and phenolphthalein was added to both of them. Then they were titrated with NaOH. After the equivalence point, the volume of NaOH was used. The same procedure was applied for the 15 minutes interval for 15, 30, 45 minutes.

14

3. RESULTS&DISCUSSION 3.1.PART 1 : DRY COLUMN Table 3.1.1 : Mass Flux of Air And Pressure Drop Values For Dry Column Fair(L/min) P(mm H2O) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2,0 2,0 3,0 3,5 5,0 6,0 9,0 11,0 14,0 16,0 0,000167 0,000333 0,000500 0,000667 0,000833 0,001000 0,001167 0,001333 0,001500 0,001667 19,613 19,613 29,420 34,323 49,033 58,840 88,260 107,873 137,293 156,906 Fair (m3/s) P (Pa) Gair (kg/m2s) 0,036 0,073 0,109 0,146 0,182 0,219 0,255 0,292 0,328 0,365 P/Hc (Pa/m) 16,344 16,344 24,517 28,603 40,861 49,033 73,550 89,894 114,411 130,755

As seen in table above, a pressure drop occurs between the initial and final points of air in packed column for the flow rates changing between 10 and 100 L/min. Because increasing of flow rates cause friction or resistance respect to Ergun equation. Hence, this occuring pressure drop increases with increasing gas flow rate since there will be much more fluid that will contact with the packings. In the obtained data, the results show that there is a direct relationship between pressure drop and gas flow rate as expected. It is also obvious that mass flux of air increases with increasing flow rate and hence pressure drop increases with increasing mass flux too.

15

2,500 2,000 log(P/Hc) 1,500 1,000 0,500 0,000 -0,200 0,000

-1,600

-1,400

-1,200

-1,000

-0,800 log(Gair)

-0,600

-0,400

Figure 3.1.1 : Gas pressure drop vs mass flux In the figure, the change of pressure drop with mass flow rate appears to be inversely proportional since this notation is in logarithmic form. But, 0<Gair<1 and hence its logarithmic value is negative. As a consequence, the pressure drop of air increases with increasing air flow rate through the constant column area 3.2. PART 2 : WET COLUMN Table 3.2.1 : Mass Flux of Air And Pressure Drop Values For Wet Column Fwater Lw
2

Gair
2

Fair
3

P (mmH2O)

P (Pa)

P/Hc (Pa/m)

(L/min) (kg/m .s) (kg/m .s) (m /s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 3,327 9,98 0,036 0,073 0,109 0,146 0,182 0,219 0,255 0,292 0,328 0,365 0,036

0,000167 1 0,000333 2 0,000500 3 0,000667 5 0,000833 8 0,001000 11 0,001167 17 0,001333 24 0,001500 30 0,001667 36 0,000167 2

9,807 19,613 29,420 49,033 78,453 107,873 166,713 235,360 294,200 353,039 19,613

8,172 16,344 24,517 40,861 65,378 89,894 138,928 196,133 245,166 294,200 16,344

16

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9

9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 9,98 16,63 16,63 16,63 16,63 16,63 16,63 16,63 16,63 23,29 23,29 23,29 23,29 23,29 29,94 29,94 29,94

0,073 0,109 0,146 0,182 0,219 0,255 0,292 0,328 0,365 0,036 0,073 0,109 0,146 0,182 0,219 0,255 0,292 0,036 0,073 0,109 0,146 0,182 0,036 0,073 0,109

0,000333 4 0,000500 5 0,000667 10 0,000833 16 0,001000 24 0,001167 34 0,001333 46 0,001500 60 0,001667 71 0,000167 3 0,000333 6 0,000500 12 0,000667 25 0,000833 54 0,001000 114 0,001167 195 0,001333 280 0,000167 5 0,000333 22 0,000500 68 0,000667 160 0,000833 227 0,000167 30 0,000333 105 0,000500 225

39,227 49,033 98,067 156,906 235,360 333,426 451,106 588,399 696,272 29,420 58,840 117,680 245,166 529,559

32,689 40,861 81,722 130,755 196,133 277,855 375,922 490,333 580,227 24,517 49,033 98,067 204,305 441,299

1117,958 931,632 1912,297 1593,581 2745,862 2288,218 49,033 215,746 666,852 40,861 179,789 555,710

1569,064 1307,553 2226,110 1855,091 294,200 245,166

1029,698 858,082 2206,496 1838,747

17

4 3,5 3 log(P/Hc) 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 -1,6 -1,4 -1,2 -1 -0,8 log(Gair) -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 1 3 5 7 9

Figure 3.2.1: Variation of mass flux of air and pressure drop for different flow rates The figures above are plotted to show the relation between pressure drop with gas flow rate in the presence of liquid water in the packed column. Also, the y axis that is the pressure drop becomes dimensionless dividing it by Hc. 0<Gair<1 and hence its logarithmic value is negative. The figures show a similar relation to that of dry column. That is, the pressure drop of gas stream increases with increasing gas flow rate. There is a resistance in the system respect to the water flow rate. Respect to the Ergun equation increasing of flow rate cause increasing of the pressure drop. Table 3.2.2: Experimental, theoretical and optimum mass flux of air Lw
2

Gair,fl,exp (P/Hc)fl,exp Gair,fl,cal (P/Hc)fl,cal Gair,opt

2

(P/Hc)opt

Fair(L/min) (kg/m .s) (kg/m .s)

(Pa/m)

(kg/m .s)

(Pa/m)

(kg/m .s) (Pa/m)

5 7 9

16,63 23,29 29,94

0,292 0,182 0,109

2288,218 1855,091 1838,747

0,125393 0,067025 0,061185

143,84 165,46 659,2

0,175 0,109 0,065

394,92 555,71 725,46

The optimum mass flux of air is calculated by using the gas flow rates that are actually the flooding points. The reason why the flooding velocity is used is that the flooding velocity is a
18

characteristic of the packed tower since it is an upper limit to the gas flow. Above flooding velocity, the tower can not operate. And the optimum pressure drops can not be calculated since after at the flooding points . As seen in table the experimental and calculated mass fluxes of air arent close to each other. This shows that the measurements werent done nearly correctly.Reason of this can be floodings at the system. 3.3. PART 3: GAS ABSORPTION Table 3.3.1. Molar flow rates of CO2 absorbed into water
t(s) 0 900 1800 2700 3600 Yi 0,230769 0,230769 0,230769 0,230769 0,230769 Yo 0,0100 0,0300 0,0375 0,0450 0,0600 Fa(m3/s) 9,6633E-05 8,96907E-05 8,7013E-05 8,42932E-05 7,87234E-05 Ga (kmol/s) 1,54E-07 1,43E-07 1,39E-07 1,34E-07 1,25E-07

As it is seen from table volume fraction of outlet values are increasing while volume fraction of inlet values are constant. Because CO2 absorbed into the water from air . Flow rate of CO2 absorbed into water are increasing. Because of circultion of water in the system, system driving force(diffusivity) will be decreased step by step during the experiment.Fa values are decreasing during the experiment so Ga values are decreasing for this reason. Table 3.3.2. Concentrations of CO2 at the exit of column and tank exit t(s) 0 900 1800 2700 3600 Ctank(kmol/m3) Cexit(kmol/m3) R abs (kmol/s) 0,0023545 0,0029085 0,0029085 0,0026315 0,0020775 0,0030470 0,0045705 0,0041550 0,0040165 0,0049860 5,77083E-08 1,385E-07 1,03875E-07 1,15417E-07 2,42375E-07

C tank values means that inlet of the column and molarity values are decreasing because C02 values are decreasing when you compare with exit molarity.Because of CO2 absorption, it can be clearly seen that molarity of exit will increase. Table 3.3.3. Diffusivities and mass transfer coefficients

19

DL(m2/s)

DG(m2/s)

K La

K Ga

1,9x10-9

16x10-6

0,0023500

0,0000799

The overall mass transfer coefficients are calculated by using the empirical equations. For this calculations, the molecular diffusivities of CO2 in water and air are used in the empirical formulas. The obtained results are close to the their values at literature and hence these values are acceptable and implies the experiment is acceptable Table 3.3.4. Experimental overall mass transfer coefficients for liquid yi yo Cexit (kmol/m3) C*exit (kmol/m3) Ctank (kmol/m3) C*tank (kmol/m3) log C KLa

0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308

0,010 0,030 0,038 0,045 0,060

0,00305 0,00457 0,00416 0,00402 0,00499

0,768 0,768 0,768 0,768 0,768

0,00235 0,00291 0,00291 0,00263 0,00208

0,0399 0,1198 0,1498 0,1798 0,2397

0,5560 4,32E-06 0,7936 7,27E-06 0,8618 5,02E-06 0,9246 5,2E-06 1,0371 9,74E-06

Table 3.3.5 Experimental overall mass transfer coefficients for gas. Yi 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 Yo 0,010 0,030 0,038 0,045 0,060 Pi 22,593 22,593 22,593 22,593 22,593 pi* 0,0896 0,1344 0,1222 0,1181 0,1466 Po 1,1748 3,5245 4,4057 5,2868 7,0491 po* 0,0692 0,0855 0,0855 0,0774 0,0611 logP 16,35 23,34 25,35 27,19 30,50 K Ga 1,47E-07 2,47E-07 1,71E-07 1,77E-07 3,31E-07

For the experimental determination of overall mass transfer coefficients, K La and KGa, the initial and final concentrations of CO2 in water and initial and final partial pressures of CO2 in air are calculated by using the mole fractions of CO2. Overall mass transfer coefficient for gas phase is slower and also the rate of absorption of CO2 becomes slower. Also the water is saturated after a while and no CO2 is required. So instead of transfer to water, the amount of CO2 in air increases and hence partial pressure

20

of CO2 increases in air. Although, the rate of absorption gets slower, there is stil the transfer of CO 2 to water and hence the concentration of CO2 increases in water until saturation. Table 3.3.6. Comparison of overall mass transfer coefficients for gas and liquid systems KLa KLa(calc) 0,0000102 KGa (calc) 0,0000003 av) 0,0000063 (exp, KGa av) 0,0000002 (exp

The values are almost close to each other. These results shows that that the experiment isnt done with proper requirements but it can be accepted enough accuracy.The reason of this difference may be channeling that became at the system and desorption of CO2 from water during the titration. Table 3.3.7. Column Performance Yi 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 0,2308 Yo 0,010 0,030 0,038 0,045 0,060 Pi 22,593 22,593 22,593 22,593 22,593 Fa(m3/s) 9,66E-05 8,97E-05 8,70E-05 8,42E-05 7,87E-05 %CP 95,7 87,0 83,7 80,5 74,0

21

CONCLUSION The main reason of this experiment is that observation of channeling in the absorption column,flooding and understand affect of flow rate to the absorption. There is three part in the experiment.During the experiment ; in the column which has a 1,2m rashing rings, water is sent from top of the column and gas is sent from at the bottom of the column. First part of experiment ; at the constant water flow, affect of air flow on the pressure drop was investigated. As it was expected; increasing of water flow rate created energy lost in the system and it was seen as an pressure drop. Second part of experiment; both air and water flow rate was increased. When water flow rate increased, there was not only flooding but also channeling at the system. Reason of channeling in the system; when the flow rates increased, water particles combined together. Increases of water flow rates caused decreasing of void fraction in the column hence, it was difficult to flow of air and increased pressure drop.After air flow rate passed reference point there was flooding point at the column . Third part of experiment; concentration of inlet and outlet point was calculated by titration. Because of circulation of water at the system(included CO2) ,CO2 amount which absorbed from air was decreased during the experiment. The reason of this; concentration difference which caused molecular diffusion was decreased. In addition to this mass transfer diffusion coefficient was calculated.There was no extreamly differences between theoretical and experimental values.Reason of small differences between these values could be desorption of CO2 to the water. As a result; It is necessary to choose optimum flow rates prevent system from channaling and flooding.

22

NOMENCLATURE CA: H: PA: PA*: PA0: XA: Xi: Yi: PAG: CAL: Concentration of dissolved gas, kmol/m3 Henrys law constant, Pa.m3/kmol Partial pressure Partial pressure of solute gas, Pa Vapor pressure of solute gas, Pa Mole fraction of solute in liquid Mole fraction of solute in liquid film Mole fraction of solute in gas film Partial pressure of solute A in the gas, Pa concentration of solute A in the liquid, kmol/m3

23

5. REFERENCES 1. http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp04a.htm 2. http://158.110.32.35/CLASS/IMP-CHIM/C9-Cussler.pdf 3. http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/Ideal-SolutionsRaoult-s-Law-850.html 4. Francis L. Smith and Allan H. Harvey (September 2007). "Avoid Common Pitfalls When Using Henry's Law". CEP (Chemical Engineering Progress). 5. http://www.cgscgs.com/ga.htm 6. http://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/20671/Balogun_Kamorudeen .pdf?sequence=1 7. http://www.engineering-resource.com/Files/lect%207.ppt 8. http://www-unix.ecs.umass.edu/~jmdavis/che334/Overall_MTC1.pdf 9. http://www.uic.edu/depts/chme/UnitOps/che382-2005f-frame.html 10. Transport prosesses and seperation proseses,Jeankoplis.Appendix A,B 11. Engineering data(1996) .J.W.Kelvin

24

6.APPENDIX

25