[1] Introduction

Diffusion is the process by which molecules, ions, or other small particles

spontaneously mix, moving from the regions of relatively high concentration into regions
of lower concentration. This process can be analyzed in two ways. First, it can be
described with Ficks law and a diffusion coefficient, a fundamental and scientific
description used in the first two parts of this book. econd, it can be explained in terms of
a mass transfer coefficient, an approximate engineering idea that often gives a simpler
description. !nalyzing diffusion with mass transfer coefficient re"uires assuming that
changes in concentration are limited to that small part of the systems volume near its
boundaries. For example, in the absorption of one gas into a li"uid, it is assumed that
gases and li"uids are well mixed, except near the gas#li"uid interface. uch an analysis is
sometimes called a $lumped#parameter model% to distinguish it from the% distributed#
parameter model% using diffusion coefficients. &oth models are much simpler for dilute
solutions 'Cussler, ())*+.
The definition of mass transfer is based on empirical arguments like those used in
developing Ficks law. ,magine we are interested in the transfer of mass from some
interface into a well#mixed solution. The mass transfer flux is proportional to the
concentration difference,
-
.
/k'C
.i
-C
.
+ 0.1
where k is called the mass transfer coefficient, ! is the area of the interface, -
.
is the flux
at the interface, C
.i
and

C
.
are the concentration at the interface and the bulk solution,
respectively. The flux -
.
includes both diffusion and convection. The concentration 2
.
is
at the interface but in the same fluid as the bulk concentration 2
.
. ,t is often in
e"uilibrium with the concentration across the interface in a second, ad3acent phase. The
physical meaning of the mass transfer coefficient is clear4 it is the rate constant for
moving one species from the boundary into the bulk of the phase. ! large value of k
implies fast mass transfer coefficient, and a small one means slow mass transfer 'Cussler,
())*+.
5as absorption is a unit operation in which soluble components of a gas mixture are
dissolved in a li"uid 'Perry, et al, .66*+. 7ost gas absorption aims at separation of acidic
1
impurities from mixed gas streams. These acidic impurities include carbon dioxide '28
(
+,
hydrogen sulfide '9
(
+, sulfur dioxide '8
(
+, and organic sulfur compounds. The most
important of these are 28
(
and 9
(
, which occur at concentration of five to fifty percent.
5as absorption at an industrial scale is most commonly practiced in packed towers. !
packed tower is essentially a piece of pipe set on its end and filled with inert material or
$tower packing.% :i"uid poured into the top of the tower trickles down through the
packing; gas pumped into the bottom of the tower flows counter currently upward. The
intimate contact between gas and li"uid achieved in this way effects the gas absorption.
,n the absorption of dilute gases in a packed tower, the important e"uations relating
the characteristics of the packed tower 'i.e. tower height, diameter, etc.+ and the overall
mass transfer coefficient of the li"uid phase, <
y
and of the gas phase, <
x
are4
Ky=Gza11-mGL lny1-mx1y2-mx2
0(1
Kx=Lza11-LmGlnx1-y1mx2-y2m 0=1
where the subscripts . and ( refer to the bottom and top of the tower, respectively; G and
L are the molar flux of the gas and li"uid phase, respectively; z is the height of the packed
tower, a is the specific area of the packing material, x and y are the mole fractions of
li"uid and gas, respectively and m is the 9enrys law constant divided by the total
pressure 'Cussler, 2007).
The mass transfer is dominated by either the li"uid phase overall#mass transfer
coefficient, <
x
or the gas phase overall#mass transfer coefficient, <
y
whichever of the two
has the greater value.
[2] Objectives of the experiment
To determine the mass transfer coefficient for the absorption of 28
(
in the water
in a packed column
To carry out a mass balance over the packed absorption column
2
[3] Methodology
[3.1]Materials

. pc. (: plastic graduated cylinder

( pcs. .))m: graduated cylinder
).)(6- -a89
..)- -a89
)..- -a928
=
>henolphthalein indicator
? pcs. @rlenmeyer flasks
top watch
&ase burette
[3.1]!uipment and apparatus
>acked absorption column
28
(
5as cylinder
[3.1]"rocedure
>reliminary preparation
&efore the start of the first part of the experiment, the air and 28
(
flow
control valves and the sampling cocks were closed. The sump tank was then
filled with about (A#=): of distilled water and the temperature of distilled
water in the sump tank was measured. The absorption globe in the 9@7>:
apparatus which was used in the analysis of the mole fraction of the 28
(
present in the air stream was filled with .- -a89. Three gas samples were
analyzed, using the 9@7>: apparatus, before the experiment started to take
into the account the 28
(
initially present in air. The analyses of 28
(
absorbed
3
in the water stream were done through titration of the li"uid samples with
).)(6- -a89. To visualize clearly the endpoint of titration, a reference
sample was made by mixing .))m: -a928
=
with = drops of phenolphthalein.
This was done with ( trials. Three .))m: samples of the li"uid in a sump tank
were taken before the experiment started and were titrated each with ).)(6-
-a89 with phenolphthalein as the endpoint indicator and the result gave the
concentration of 28
(
that was initially present in the sump tank.
!bsorption of 28
(
in water 'part .+
The air compressor and water pump switches were turned on and their flow
rates were set to =):Bmin and =:Bmin, respectively. The working pressure of
the 28
(
cylinder was ad3usted to . bar and then the flow controller of the 28
(
gas were then ad3usted to ..A:Bmin. The time when the 28
(
was ad3usted to its
specified flow rate was the start time of the experiment.
.))m: samples of the li"uid were collected at A minute intervals
alternately from the sump tank and from the down coming tube for A) minutes.
The amount of 28
(
absorbed in the water was analyzed by titrating each of the
samples with ).)(6- -a89. The gas samples were also taken simultaneously
with the li"uid samples at A minute intervals for A) minutes and the 28
(
absorbed in the gas was analyzed in the 9@7>: apparatus.
!fter A) minutes, the 28
(
flow controller was closed and the air and
water flow rate were ad3usted to =) and A :Bmin, respectively. This was done
for () minutes to remove most of the 28
(
absorbed in the water in the first part
of the experiment.
!bsorption of 28( in water 'part (+
The sump tank was added with C: of distilled water. !fterwards, three
li"uid samples were taken and were analyzed to determine the initial
concentration of the 28
(
in the sump tank. The air and water flow rates were
then set to =) and A :Bmin, respectively. The 28
(
flow was then set to ..A
4
:Bmin and this marked the start time of the second experiment, air and water
samples were taken simultaneously at A minute intervals for A) minutes. The
.))m: water samples were taken alternately from the sump tank and from the
down coming tube every A minutes. The concentration of 28
(
absorbed in the
water was analyzed by titration of each sample with ).)(6- -a89. The 28
(
in
the air stream was analyzed using 9@7>: apparatus.
!fter A) minutes, the 28
(
flow rate was set to zero and the 28
(
gas
cylinder was closed#the working pressure is set back to zero. Then the air and
water flow rates were set back to zero and air compressor and the pump are
switched off. :astly, the distilled water in the sump tank was drained.
5
[#$] %esults and &iscussions
'igure 1$ "lot of the outlet air stream mole fraction of (O
2
)ith respect to time
*+
air
,3-./min0 +
(O2
,1$1./min and +
22O
,3./min3
'igure 2$ "lot of the inlet *x
2
3 and outlet *x
1
3 li!uid stream mole fraction of (O
2
)ith
respect to time *+
air
,3-./min0 +
(O2
,1$1./min and +
22O
,3./min3
,n the experiment, the mole fractions of the outgoing gas phase and incoming 'sump
tank+ and outgoing li"uid phase 'downcoming tube+ were measured with respect to time.
This was done in order to obtain a steady state value in which we could base our
calculations for the overall mass transfer coefficients.
The mole fractions of 28
(
in the outlet gas stream were analyzed in the 9@7>:
apparatus. The 9@7>: apparatus made use of !magats law which states that the
volume fraction of 28
(
in the gas mixture is e"ual to the mole fraction of the 28
(
in that
mixture. The mole fractions of 28
(
in the inlet and outlet streams were measured by
taking water samples in the sump tank

'Dthe tank is assumed to be ideally mixed+ and the
downcoming tube, respectively.
Figure . shows the variation of the mole fraction of 28
(
in the outlet gas stream with
volumetric flowrate of =):Bmin of air, ..A of 28
(
, and =:Bmin of water flowrate,
respectively. !s shown in figure ., the mole fraction of 28
(
in the outlet gas stream
increased from time zero to about =) minutes from the start of the experiment and
reached a constant value at about ?) minutes. The water in the sump tank is initially
unsaturated with 28
(
. !s more 28
(
is being absorbed in the li"uid phase, the capacity of
6
water to dissolve 28
(
decreases and it eventually becomes saturated. Thus, the graph in
figure . reaches a constant value of the 28
(
mole fraction at time e"ual to ?) minutes.
Figure ( shows the mole fractions of 28
(
in the inlet and outlet water streams as a
function of time. ,t shows that the mole fraction of 28
(
in the inlet and outlet li"uid
streams increases at the start of the absorption of 28
(
and approaches a steady state value
when the li"uid is already saturated with 28
(
.
'igure 3$ "lot of the outlet air stream mole fraction of (O
2
)ith respect to time
*+
air
,3-./min0 +
(O2
,1$1./min and +
22O
,1./min3
'igure #$ "lot of the inlet *x
2
3 and outlet *x
1
3 li!uid stream mole fraction of (O
2
)ith
respect to time *+
air
,3-./min0 +
(O2
,1$1./min and +
22O
,1./min3
!s shown in Figure =, the steady state mole fraction of 28
(
in the second part of the
experiment is slightly greater than the first part of the experiment 'also see Table (+. This
indicates that the removal of 28
(
prior to the start of part ( of the experiment was not
effective. There is no significant difference in the mole fraction of 28
(
that is absorbed in
the li"uid in part . 'E
9(8
/=:Bmin+ and part ( 'E
9(8
/A:Bmin+ of the experiment 'see Table
(+.
7
4able 1$ 4he volumetric flo) rates of )ater0 air0 and (O
2
and their corresponding
%eynold5s number in a pac6ed bed absorption column$
Flowrates L/min m
3
/s Nre=D
p
v'/(1-)

H2O
3 0.00005 85066
5 8.33E-05 141777

CO2
+
a!
31.5 0.000525 4"071
4able 2$ 4he calculated overall mass transfer coefficients for the absorption of (O
2
in a pac6ed column$
overall mass transfer
coefficient
!perim
ent !1 !" #1 #" $! $#
1
0.0001
"
0.0001
5
0.0485
3 0.025
0.00028"
5 -0.00000016""
2
0.0001
"
0.0001
5
0.0485
3 0.026
0.000576
3 -0.0000003382
-ote4 @xpt . *E9(8/=:Bmin, E28(/..A:Bmin, Eair/=):Bmin+; @xpt ( *E9(8/A:Bmin, E28(/..A:Bmin,
Eair/=):Bmin+
,n calculating for the overall mass transfer coefficients, we used e"uations ( and = for
the absorption of dilute vapour in the li"uid phase since the concentration of 28
(
in the
incoming gas stream is relatively dilute 'see Table (+. The e"uation also makes use of the
moles of 28
(
in the gas phase at e"uilibrium aside from the actual number of moles of
28
(
in the gas phase. ,n finding the number of moles of 28
(
at e"uilibrium, 9enrys
constant is used 'H/.FC( atm, m/.*)?.(C at . bar and (*#2+.
The flow of water becomes even more turbulent when the flow rate was increased
from = to A :Bmin as shown in Table .. Table ( shows that the li"uid#side overall mass
transfer coefficient, <
x
is relatively greater than the gas phase overall mass transfer
coefficient, <
y
. This indicates that the absorption of 28
(
in water is dominated by the
li"uid#side resistance. Table ( also shows that the overall mass transfer coefficients, <
x
and <
y
, increase when the flow rate of water is increased because the thickness of the
8
boundary layer is decreased in the process of increasing the turbulence of the flow of
water. The mass transfer of 28
(
across the boundary layer between the gas and li"uid
phase increases when the thickness of the boundary layer decreases. !s a conse"uence,
the moles of 28
(
in the li"uid phase increases about twice as much when the water flow
rate is increases from E
9(8
/=:Bmin to E
9(8
/A:Bmin keeping both flow rates of air and
28
(
constant 'see Table

=+.
7ost of the values of mass transfer coefficient in literature have positive values but
our data in <
y
has a negative value which is "uite strange. <y is calculated using e"uation
(.
4able 3$ 4he mass balance over the pac6ed column$
%verall &ass 'alance
!perim
ent
moles of (%" lost in
t)e *as stream
moles of (%" a+sor+e,
+# water
-
,iffere
nce
1 0.07152 0.02613 63.46
2 0.06848 0.04626 32.44
The mass balance is taken over the whole packed column. &ecause the concentration
of 28
(
in the inlet air stream is relatively dilute, the molar flux of the air and the molar
flux of water are constant over the length of the column. &y taking a solute mole balance
on both li"uid and gas, we arrived at this e"uation4
L(x
1
-x
2
) = G(y
1
-y
2
) 0?1
The subscripts . and ( refer to the bottom and top portion of the absorption column.
@"uation ? means that the amount of 28
(
lost in the gas phase must be e"ual to the
amount of 28
(
absorbed by the li"uid phase.
Table = shows that the mole fraction of the 28
(
absorbed in water does not e"ual with
the moles of 28
(
lost from the gas stream. The G difference of the moles of 28
(
lost in
the gas stream and absorbed in the li"uid of both experiments . and ( are relatively high.
"
The ine"uality of the moles of 28
(
lost in the gas phase and the moles of 28
(
absorbed in
the li"uid phase is attributed to the .)G accuracy inherent to the method of analysis in
the determination of the concentration of 28
(
in the li"uid phase.
[1] (onclusion
The li"uid phase and gas phase mass transfer coefficients for the absorption of
28
(
in water are <
x
/ ).(C6A molBm
(
.s, <
y
/ #..FF6 x .)
#?
molBm
(
.s, respectively at
H
9(8/
=:Bmin, H
28(
/..A:Bmin, H
air
/=):Bmin and <
x
/ ).A*F= molBm
(
.s and <
y
/ #=.=C( x
.)
#?
molBm
(
.s, respectively at H
9(8
/A:Bmin, H
28(
/..A:Bmin, H
air
/=):Bmin.
The number of moles of 28
(
absorbed in the li"uid phase is not e"ual to the
number of moles of 28
(
lost in the li"uid phase due to the .)G accuracy inherent of the
method of analysis of 28
(
in the li"uid phase.
[7] %eferences
5eankoplis, 2.I. '())=+ Transport >rocesses and Jnit 8perations, ?
th
@dition,
>rentice 9all, -ew Iersey.
2ussler, @.:. '())*+ Diffusion4 7ass Transfer in Fluid ystems, =
rd
@dition,
2ambridge Jniversity >ress, -ew Kork.
>erry, L.9.et !l. '.66*+ >errys 2hemical @ngineers 9andbook, *
th
@dition,
7c5raw 9ill, ,nc.,-ew Kork.
[8$] 9ppendices
10
'>lease see attached pages+

11