See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231393736

Design of Steam-Stripping Columns for Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds

from Water Using Random and Structured Packings

Article  in  Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · January 2000

DOI: 10.1021/ie990432m

CITATIONS READS

16 3,272

4 authors, including:

Jesus Raul Ortiz-del-Castillo Jacinto ; Lopez-Toledo

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Dow Chemical Company
4 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jesus Raul Ortiz-del-Castillo on 14 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 731-739 731

Design of Steam-Stripping Columns for Removal of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Water Using Random and Structured Packings
J. R. Ortiz-Del Castillo,† G. Guerrero-Medina,‡ J. Lopez-Toledo, and J. A. Rocha*
Departamento de Ingenierı́a Quı́mica, Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya, Mexico Av. Tecnológico y Garcia Cubas,
Celaya, Guanajuato, C.P. 38010, Mexico

Mass-transfer data at different feed and steam rates, using structured and random packings,
have been collected to develop a model for the design or analysis of packed columns for stripping
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from water. The steam-stripping experiments were
conducted in a stainless steel column of 0.245-m internal diameter, with 2.8 m of packed section.
The packings used were Sulzer BX gauze structured packing, Mellapak 250Y structured packing,
1-in. Flexirings, and 1-in. Fleximax random packing. The VOCs were chloroform (CH3Cl) and
toluene (C7H8). The model considers the simultaneous occurrence of mass transfer and hydraulic
phenomena with the same expressions for liquid and vapor mass-transfer coefficients and the
same expression for effective interfacial area with one constant for each packing. The average
deviation for the measured and calculated volumetric mass-transfer coefficient and effective
height of packing is 0.29 and 0.23, respectively.

Introduction energy consumption indices. Another advantage cited

Reduction of chemical discharge to the environment
has become a major issue in the chemical and petroleum
industries. For the removal of volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) from water, several methods have been
proposed; oxidation techniques offer a degree of flex-
ibility in tailoring treatment to a specific water or
wastewater at reasonable cost. Chemical oxidation is
usually most effective as a complementary rather than
a self-sufficient process; however, especially in waste-
water applications, its use requires careful consideration
of the chemical and biological integrity of effluent
streams. One special type of chemical oxidation is the
oxidation of organic compounds in supercritical water.
At the moment this type of treatment is economically
attractive only for special compounds.
In the 1970s, adsorption by granular activated carbon
was the most thoroughly proven technology for many
organic pollution problems; further design and system
refinements were desirable to make it more attractive
economically and more practical operationally.
In the 1980s, air stripping had the chance to be better
economically than carbon adsorption1 for treatment of
VOCs, but in order to prove it, several experimental
studies of bench, pilot, and industrial scale2,3 needed to
be performed. The results confirmed that air stripping
was an economically better option to remove VOCs from
groundwater.
This decade steam stripping is being compared with
air stripping for the removal of VOCs.4-7 The argument
is that, because of the greater temperatures on steam
stripping compared with air stripping, the organic
contaminants will go easily with the vapor phase, using
lower column volume and providing a rational use to
many low-pressure steam streams, thus improving the
* Phone: (524) 611 7802 and 7575, ext. 150. Fax: (524) 611
7744. E-mail: rocha@itc.mx.
† Current address: Facultad de Ciencias Quı́mico Biológicas,
Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Sinaloa, Mexico.
‡ Current address: ITESO, Guadalajara, México.
10.1021/ie990432m CCC: $19.00 © 2000 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 01/25/2000
is the possible recovery of the VOC when this forms a
nonmiscible mixture with water, after condensing the
steam-VOC stream that leaves the top of the stripping
column.
While air stripping merely transfers the VOC from
water to air where it still must be dealt with, steam
stripping will produce in some cases a recoverable
phase, but as a minimum it concentrates the VOC in
the condensate so that it can be dealt with more
effectively.
Overall, steam stripping is economically a better
alternative than air stripping because of both capital
and operational cost. For capital cost, the volume of a
steam stripping column is in most cases lower than that
for air stripping, and air blowers or compressors are
expensive equipment. For operational cost, many plants
have steam streams of low pressure that may be used
as the stripping agent, improving the energy efficiency
of the plant.
Although absorption and stripping operation were
well developed for some uses in the chemical and
petrochemical industry, the low concentration ranges
of VOCs involved in water stream purification provide
uncertainty. The designers did not know if the design
methods used for air stripping and for gas absorption
would provide valid or confidence values. Again, experi-
mental studies were needed.
Experimental and Design Equations for Trays
Fractionation Research, Inc. (FRI), provides large-
scale experimental data for a sieve-tray steam-stripping
column of 1.22-m internal diameter and six perforated
trays. The FRI data are considered to be of the highest
quality and appeared first as a FRI Progress Report and
later as a technical paper.7
Fair and Harvey6 used FRI Progress Report data to
adapt equations from the Chan and Fair8 model for
point efficiency prediction. They predicted the number
of transfer units using the residence time for each phase
and the volumetric mass-transfer coefficients (kLae,
732 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000
Table 1. Characteristics of Column, Packing, and System for Steam Stripping of VOCs
column diameter ) 0.245 m; average height of packing ) 2.80 m; atmospheric pressure
structured packing (stainless steel)
Sulzer BX
superficial area ) 492 m2/m3
void fraction ) 0.90
characteristic length ) 0.0012 m
Mellapak 250Y
superficial area ) 250 m2/m3
void fraction ) 0.96
characteristic length ) 0.0010 m
Physical Properties of VOCs
VOC MW DL (m2/s)
chloroform CHCl3 119.4 4.43 × 10-9
toluene C6H5CH3 92.14 2.81 × 10-9
Physical Properties for Water and Steam
FL (kg/m3) FG (kg/m3)
H2O 958.3 0.596
Figure 1. Equipment setup for steam stripping.
kGae). From the individual number of transfer units, the
overall number of transfer units is calculated and used
to get the point efficiency; from this, tray and overall
column efficiencies are obtained.
Experimental Setup for the Stripping Column
Filled with Packings
At Instituto Tecnólogico de Celaya we tried to con-
tribute to the design or analysis of the stripping column
for the removal of VOCs from water streams. Guerrero-
Medina9 and Ortiz del Castillo10 first used a 0.10-m-
diameter plastic-stripping column with the air-water
system. Then a glass column with 0.076-m (3-in.)
internal diameter and 1.5-cm Raschig rings was used.
The final part of the experimental section was carried
out in a stainless steel stripping column of 0.245-m
internal diameter. The column was filled with struc-
tured packing Mellapak 250Y and Sulzer BX; the
random packings tested were 1-in. Pall rings and 1-in.
Fleximax rings. In the thesis of Ortiz del Castillo,
several runs with trays are also reported.
Figure 1 shows a scheme of the experimental setup
for the 0.254-m metallic stripping column. Table 1 shows
the characteristics of the column and the runs per-
formed. To permit comparison with the tray stripping
column, we used toluene as the VOC, but we also used
chloroform to try to involve different physical properties.
The experimental runs were performed at atmospheric
pressure.
random packing (stainless steel)
Flexirings
superficial area ) 215 m2/m3
void fraction ) 0.94
characteristic length ) 0.0017 m
Fleximax
superficial area ) 141 m2/m3
void fraction ) 0.98
characteristic length ) 0.0009 m
DG (m2/s) temp (°C) m at 100 °C
5.54 × 10-5 61.2 1795-1798
1.89 × 10-5 110.6 2098-2103
µL [kg/(m s)] µG [kg/(m s)] σ (N/m)
0.000 28 0.000 012 0.059
Figure 2. Analytical system.
Sample Analysis
For the sample analysis, gas chromatography analysis
was used with the method of purge and trap. The
analytical equipment consists of a purge and trap (O-
I-Analytical model 4560) and a gas chromatograph
Perkin-Elmer (Sigma 300), with an integrator (Perkin-
Elmer 1020). Figure 2 shows the analytical system.
Nitrogen was used as the carrier gas, while the makeup
gas was compressed air and hydrogen. Table 2 shows
the optimal operation parameters for the gas chromato-
graph and purge and trap equipment.
Model Development
For the design of stripping as well as distillation,
absorption, or extraction columns, there are two parts:
mass-transfer calculations that provide the effective
height and hydraulic calculations that provide the
diameter of the column. Traditionally these two steps
are considered separately, but because in the operation
inside the column the mass and momentum transport
occur simultaneously, we believe that a more mecha-
nistic modeling of these processes should involve the
simultaneous consideration of both phenomena.
In distillation operation the main resistance for mass
transfer lies on the gas phase. The opposite is true for
stripping operations, but the modeling of both processes
should be the same, with the recognition that the
stripping operation presents a lower efficiency or higher
height of an equivalent theoretical plate (HETP) than
distillation.
As suggested by Rocha et al.11,12 and Gualito et al.,13
the liquid holdup (hdyn) is the parameter that links
mass-transfer and momentum balances, through the use
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000 733

Table 2. Gas Chromatograph and Purge and Trap Table 3. Equations for Hydraulic Calculations in Packed
Operation Parameters Columns (Engel et al.14)
Gas Chromatograph 6(1 - )
dp ) (3)
capillary column 30 m × 1.0 µm × 0.32 mm ap
temperatures (°C)
FID 210 uGFGdp
ReG ) (4)
injection port 200 µG
oven 160
carrier gas C1 C2
chromatograph nitrogen ψ) + + C3 (5)
ReG Re 1/2
concentrator nitrogen G

make up gas air

hydrogen 1 FGuG2
∆Pdry ) ψap 4.65 (6)
gas flow (mL/min) 8 

( )( )( )
column 12
make up gas 18 uLap0.5 0.66
µLap1.5 0.25
σLap2 0.1
hdyn0 ) 3.6 (7)
Purge and Trap g0.5 FL g0.5 FL g

[ ( )]
sample volume (mL) 5 ∆ptot 2
temperature (°C) hdyn ) hdyn0 1 + 6 (8)
purge 20 FL g
desorption 180

x
valve 100 6σL
bake 180 dL ) CL (CL ) 0.4 for random packing;
∆Fg
time (min) CL ) 0.8 for structured packing) (9)
purge 11
desorption 4 6hdyn
bake 20 aL ) (10)
dL

( )
of the effective velocities. Equations 1a and 2a give the ∆ptot aL + ap  4.65
expressions used to calculate the effective velocities for ) (11)
∆pdry ap  - hdyn
random packings, and eqs 1b and 2b, those for struc-
tured packings. As observed, structured packings need
sin θ as a correction factor to take into account the
∆ptot,flood
)
x249hdyn0(xX - 60 - 558hdyn0 - 103dLap) (12)
FL g 2988hdyn0
channel inclination.
X ) 36002 + 186480hdyn0 + 32280dLap + 191844hdyn02 +
uG 95028dLaphdyn0 + 10609dL2ap2 (13)
For random packing uGe ) (1a)
(1 - hdyn)
Table 4. Equations for Mass-Transfer Calculations in
uL Packed Columns
For random packing uLe ) (2a)

[ ] [ ]
hdyn 0.1DG dp(µGe + µLe)FG 0.2405 µG 1/3
kG ) (14)
uG dp µG FGDG
For structured packing uGe )
[ ] [ ]
(1b)
(1 - hdyn) sin θ 0.3415DL dp(uGe + uLe)FL 0.2337 µL 1/2
kL ) (15)
dp µL FLDL
uL

[( )( )]
For structured packing uLe ) (2b) uL2FLdp uL2 0.5
hdyn sin θ
apdpC
ae σ gdp

[ ]
) (16)
Hydraulic operation and the mass-transfer process ap uLFLdp 0.2 0.6
 (1 - cos γ)
are simultaneously considered by using the Engel et µL
al.14 model for irrigated pressure drop and flooding. This
method is an extension of the Stichlmair et al.15 treat- constant C depends on the packing:
Sulzer BX Mellapak 250Y 1-in. Fleximax 1-in. Flexirings
ment for liquid holdup, irrigated, and flooding pressure 0.9772 0.7312 0.5005 0.6298
drop predictions and is valid for both structured and
random packings. Table 3 with eqs 3-13 provides the
correlations used for hydraulic parameter estimation.
1
)
1 1
+
[1
KLa ae kL mkG ] (17)

The use of the equations proposed in the Engel et al. uL

paper14 instead of the original paper of Stichlmair et HTU ) (18)
K La
al.15 is justified by the following: (1) The correlation for
holdup is based on more data. (2) Engel’s equations are HTU ln λ
easier to apply in analytical form. (3) Engel’s equations HETP ) (19)
λ-1

[( ]
are easier to apply in a computer program.
λ λ - 1 xin 1
For the mass-transfer process, the generalization
obtained for structured packing in distillation presented
NTU )
λ-1
ln
λ xout λ
+ ) (20)

by Gualito et al.13 was applied to the experimental data mG

obtained in the stripping studies reported in this paper. λ) (21)
L
The intent of providing a general method was successful
uL
in the sense that the individual mass-transfer coef-
ficients are the same for the four packings tested and
Z) ∫x*dx- x K a L e
) NTU × HTU ≈ Nt × HETP (22)
734 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000

Table 5. Experimental Data Obtained with Mellapak 250Y Structured Packing

xa (ppm) xb (ppm) % removal UGS (m/s) ULS (m/s) V/L λ NTU HTU (m) KLa (1/s)
Mellapak 250Y Structured Packing and Toluene
54.88 0.28 99.5 0.549 0.0019 0.171 358 5.38 0.52 0.003 72
20.29 0.12 99.4 0.549 0.0024 0.136 285 5.24 0.54 0.004 56
4.80 0.04 99.2 0.549 0.0029 0.113 237 4.90 0.57 0.005 13
81.14 0.32 99.6 0.794 0.0032 0.151 316 5.64 0.50 0.006 40
85.64 0.56 99.4 0.794 0.0025 0.193 406 5.15 0.54 0.004 56
27.41 0.29 99.0 0.794 0.0040 0.121 254 4.68 0.60 0.006 60
9.72 0.17 98.2 1.040 0.0030 0.212 446 4.13 0.70 0.004 36
Mellapak 250Y Structured Packing and Chloroform
25.74 0.50 98.0 0.549 0.0015 0.227 409 4.03 0.70 0.002 09
8.30 0.28 96.6 0.549 0.0019 0.170 305 3.48 0.80 0.002 42
31.56 2.20 93.0 0.549 0.0025 0.134 241 2.77 1.01 0.002 44
10.37 1.10 89.4 0.794 0.0024 0.196 352 2.34 1.20 0.002 05
41.57 1.34 96.8 0.794 0.0035 0.137 246 3.56 0.79 0.004 44
31.57 0.90 97.2 0.794 0.0040 0.120 216 3.69 0.76 0.005 24

the difference in performance lies on the effective
interfacial area provided for each packing.
Equations 14 and 15 proposed in this paper are
different to those from Gualito et al.13 in three aspects:
For the individual mass-transfer coefficient of the liquid
phase, Gualito uses the individual effective velocity,
whereas in this work, eq 15 uses the relative effective
velocity (UGe + ULe). For the same liquid mass-transfer
coefficient, Gualito et al. assume the Higbie expression
with only the Schmidt number, whereas in this paper,
Schmidt and Reynolds numbers are taken into account
in eq 15, and finally the coefficient and exponents are
different.
For estimation of the effective interfacial area, the Shi
and Mersmann16 correlation was proposed with the
same dimensionless Reynolds, Froude, and Weber num-
bers and exponents, except the fraction of wetted to
packed area was adjusted. The result is given by eq 16
correlations already have a safety factor included. If the
designers want to add an extra length of packing, the
additional length must not exceed the average deviation
for the effective height, which for this work is 0.23.
Results and Discussion
In the experimental section, a minimum of five runs
were performed for each packing-VOC combination,
and inlet and outlet concentrations were measured and
the volumetric flow rates for liquid and vapor were
recorded. From these data the parameters shown in
Tables 5-8 for structured and random packings were
obtained and saved for each combination of packing-
VOC.
With the equations for hydraulic and mass transfer
proposed, the values for the coefficients and exponents
in the expressions for mass-transfer coefficients were

[( )( )]
regressed. Also parameter C in eq 16 for the estimation
uL2FLdp uL2 0.15 of the effective interfacial area was regressed. The
apdpC regression calculation was done with the minimization
ae σ gdp

[ ]
) (16) solver tool of an Excel spreadsheet from Microsoft.
ap uLFLdp 0.2 0.6 When all of the coefficients, exponents, and constant
 (1 - cos γ)
µL value (C) for specific area were obtained, the volumetric
overall mass-transfer coefficient (KLa) given by eq 17
where ap is the packing area reported for each packing based on the liquid phase was calculated and compared
in Table 1, the exponent C is an adjustable parameter with the measured value.
reported in Table 4, and The term cos γ according to
Shi and Mersmann16 takes into account the wettability
of the packing surface.
For metallic packing
1
)
1 1
+
[1
KLa ae kL mkG ] (17)

The deviation between experimental and calculated

cos γ ) 0.90 for σ e 0.045N/m
cos γ ) 5.21 × 10-16.83σ for σ > 0.045
For ceramic and plastic, Gualito et al.13 provide
similar equations that were obtained from a plot in the
Shi and Mershman paper.16
The design or analysis of stripping columns with
random and structured packings for mass-transfer
calculation is modeled with the aid of eqs 14-22 shown
in Table 4. The height of a transfer unit (HTU) or the
HETP represents the efficiency of the packing for the
stripping operation. The lower the numerical value, the
more efficient the packing.
Equation 22 provides the effective height of packing
predicted. Some designers consider that a few extra
lengths of packing is a lot less expensive than a column
that fails to meet a regulatory requirement. Most of the
(23)
volumetric mass-transfer coefficients was defined with
(24) eq 25, and it provides a measure of the quality of the
model.
abs(KLaexp - KLacalc)
dev ) (25)
KLaexp
The average deviation for all combined 52 experimen-
tal points is 0.29, and although it is a relatively big
number, it presents a safety factor for a conservative
design or analysis of a packed column when used for
the removal of VOCs from water streams. Figures 3-6
show the measured versus the estimated values for the
overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficients for the four
packings tested, and Figure 7 shows a parity plot for
all of the data.
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000 735

Table 6. Experimental Data Obtained with Sulzer BX Structured Packing

xa (ppm) xb (ppm) % removal UGS (m/s) ULS (m/s) V/L λ NTU HTU (m) KLa (1/s)
Sulzer BX Structured Packing and Toluene
4.95 0.10 98.0 0.549 0.0025 0.133 280 4.02 0.70 0.003 55
81.77 0.10 99.9 0.549 0.0005 0.695 1459 6.78 0.41 0.001 15
79.60 1.80 97.7 0.549 0.0010 0.338 710 3.89 0.72 0.001 36
24.70 0.99 96.0 0.549 0.0015 0.225 474 3.32 0.85 0.001 74
13.27 0.05 99.6 0.794 0.0010 0.498 1047 5.66 0.50 0.001 94
2.95 0.08 97.3 0.794 0.0019 0.249 522 3.69 0.76 0.002 54
101.90 0.95 99.1 1.040 0.0035 0.180 378 4.79 0.58 0.005 96
346.84 1.76 99.5 1.040 0.0030 0.210 441 5.40 0.52 0.005 76
Sulzer BX Structured Packing and Chloroform
18.38 0.45 97.6 0.549 0.0025 0.133 239 3.83 0.73 0.003 40
18.71 1.1 94.1 0.549 0.0010 0.338 608 2.93 0.96 0.001 02
14.40 0.45 96.9 0.794 0.0025 0.191 343 3.59 0.78 0.003 22
14.91 0.1 99.3 0.794 0.0010 0.494 888 5.09 0.55 0.001 76
35.53 0.45 98.7 0.794 0.0035 0.139 249 4.49 0.62 0.005 53
24.66 0.45 98.2 1.040 0.0040 0.155 278 4.14 0.68 0.005 99
128.41 2.085 98.4 1.040 0.0050 0.125 225 4.25 0.66 0.007 62
56.52 1.34 97.6 1.040 0.0045 0.140 252 3.87 0.72 0.006 18

Table 7. Experimental Data Obtained with Pall Ring Random Packing

xa (ppm) xb (ppm) % removal UGS (m/s) ULS (m/s) V/L λ NTU HTU (m) KLa (1/s)
Pall Ring Random Packing and Toluene
16.29 2.30 0.859 0.5507 0.0019 0.172 361 1.960 0.765 0.002 48
8.56 1.50 0.825 0.5507 0.0023 0.142 299 1.744 0.859 0.002 67
4.35 0.70 0.839 0.7972 0.0027 0.176 369 1.829 0.819 0.003 29
1.52 0.23 0.849 0.7972 0.0032 0.151 317 1.891 0.792 0.004 03
1.52 0.18 0.882 1.0437 0.0036 0.173 364 2.136 0.701 0.005 12
Pall Ring Random Packing and Chloroform
12.71 2.00 0.843 0.5507 0.0014 0.238 428 1.851 0.810 0.001 72
11.04 2.10 0.810 0.5507 0.0019 0.171 307 1.662 0.902 0.002 10
40.47 5.60 0.862 0.7972 0.0022 0.213 383 1.980 0.757 0.002 90
19.68 4.00 0.797 0.5507 0.0019 0.171 307 1.595 0.939 0.002 02
27.16 4.50 0.834 0.7972 0.0022 0.213 383 1.800 0.833 0.002 64
5.68 0.60 0.894 1.0437 0.0028 0.223 401 2.251 0.666 0.004 20
37.55 5.00 0.867 1.0437 0.0037 0.168 303 2.020 0.742 0.004 98

Table 8. Experimental Data Obtained with Fleximax Random Packing

xa (ppm) xb (ppm) % removal UGS (m/s) ULS (m/s) V/L λ NTU HTU (m) KLa (1/s)
Fleximax Random Packing and Toluene
36.58 0.46 0.987 0.5507 0.0019 0.173 364 4.385 0.342 0.005 54
16.17 0.06 0.996 0.5507 0.0024 0.136 286 5.612 0.267 0.008 98
8.75 0.07 0.992 0.7972 0.0027 0.176 369 4.838 0.309 0.008 71
4.34 0.16 0.963 0.7972 0.0032 0.15 315 3.307 0.453 0.007 06
1.53 0.11 0.928 1.0437 0.0041 0.154 324 2.637 0.568 0.007 21
Fleximax Random Packing and Chloroform
55.06 0.82 0.985 0.5507 0.0023 0.142 255 4.219 0.355 0.006 47
12.3 0.5 0.959 0.7972 0.0024 0.201 361 3.208 0.467 0.005 13
40.47 1.57 0.961 0.7972 0.0028 0.171 307 3.256 0.460 0.006 08
19.68 1.35 0.931 1.2902 0.0032 0.245 440 2.683 0.558 0.005 72
27.16 0.72 0.973 0.5507 0.0015 0.219 394 3.637 0.412 0.003 64
5.68 0.56 0.901 0.7972 0.0019 0.251 451 2.319 0.646 0.002 94

It may be observed that the fit is not as good as we
would like it to be. Probably, if we set specific coeffi-
cients, exponents, and C constants for each packing, we
could get a lower averaged deviation. However, in that
case we could lose the generalization we are looking for.
In the four plots of Figures 3-6, it seems to be an
effect of the operating conditions at KLa < 0.004 (1/s)
for the method to overpredict, while at higher values
the method underpredicts the measured values for the
volumetric mass-transfer coefficient.
Also, a system effect is observed because the points
for toluene and chloroform tend to group in different
parts of the plots.
When the predicted value for KLa is used to predict
the effective height of packing to get the desired outlet
concentration, the deviation between calculated versus
experimental packing height is calculated with eq 26.
abs(Zexp - Zcalc)
dev ) (26)
Zexp
The averaged deviation is about 0.23. This number
is lower than the one obtained for the volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient, because the denominator Zexp is
bigger than KLa,exp.
Although cool liquid at 25 °C and live steam at 110
°C were used and the energy balance showed that the
saturation temperature is reached in less than 1 cm of
the packing, a uniform temperature of 100 °C was
assumed over the entire length of the column.
736 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000
Figure 3. Experimental versus predicted volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient for Sulzer BX, using toluene (O) and chloroform
(×) as VOCs.
Figure 4. Experimental versus predicted volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient for Mellapak 250Y, using toluene (O) and
chloroform (×) as VOCs.
Figure 5. Experimental versus predicted volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient for 1-in. Fleximax, using toluene (O) and
chloroform (×) as VOCs.
Application of the Developed Equations
The obtained correlations have been implemented in
a computer program presented by Lopez-Toledo et al.17
Figure 6. Experimental versus predicted volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient for 1-in. Pall rings, using toluene (O) and
chloroform (×) as VOCs.
Figure 7. Experimental versus predicted volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient for all packings, using toluene (O) and chlo-
roform (×) as VOCs.
to design three stripping columns for the removal of
VOCs from aqueous streams using steam as the strip-
ping agent. In the three cases, the original removal of
VOC was performed using air stripping. The comparison
of air stripping versus steam stripping indicates that
steam stripping effectively provides for the same size
of stripping column, a higher capacity mainly due to the
higher value in the equilibrium constant.
However, for steam stripping, metallic packing is
required, and this is more expensive than the standard
plastic packing used for air stripping. As in many other
cases, the higher capital cost involved is only a small
fraction of the total (capital + operational) cost. The
capital cost of the packing must be paid only a few times
for replacement, but the operational cost or better the
capacity increase will be a continuous advantage for
steam stripping. Also, the use of steam stripping may
provide a good use for streams of low-pressure steam
that may be available at the plants, improving the
rational use of the energy.
The application of the complete set of equations to
one of the steam stripping columns covered by Lopez-
Toledo et al.17 is included in this work as Appendix A.

Ratio of Liquid to Total Resistance
Using the individual mass-transfer coefficients, the
resistance of the liquid phase with respect to the total
may be calculated with eq 27.
( )
RL kL -1
) 1+ (27)
RT mkG
The application of this equation to the data obtained
in this study confirms that the stripping operation is
clearly liquid-phase-controlled. The average value for
the 52 runs was 0.97, with lowest and highest values
of 0.88 and 0.99, respectively.
Recovery of VOC at the Top of the Column
The vapor that leaves the top of the column is
condensed and stored in a tank for possible phase
separation. It was found that the two-phase formation
and then the recovery of the VOC were not found for
all of the runs performed.
Because the solubility varies with temperature, to
predict the two-phase region, some stoichiometric and
solubility calculations need to be performed at different
temperatures.
Conclusions
Steam stripping is a good alternative for the removal
of VOCs from groundwater to get concentrations of
VOCs required by environmental regulations. Tray
columns may be designed or analyzed using the papers
of Fair and Harvey6 and Kunesh et al.7
The mass-transfer and hydraulic performances of
steam stripping with structured and random packings
are identical and may be modeled with the same mass-
transfer coefficients but a different effective interfacial
area for each packing. The application of the combined
hydraulic and mass-transfer correlations approximately
explains the difference in VOC removal.
The mass-transfer coefficients and the interfacial area
obtained in this work allow the design or analysis of
steam-stripping columns for the removal of VOCs from
water streams, with an approximation of 29% for the
overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficients based on
the liquid phase.
When the predicted overall volumetric mass transfer
is used to calculate the effective height of the packing
and this is compared with the experimental value used,
the average deviation is 23%.
The comparison of calculated and experimental volu-
metric mass-transfer coefficients shows a slight system
effect that gives a higher calculated KLa for chloroform
than for toluene. Both systems show that the stripping
operation is liquid-phase-controlled with an average
value of 0.97.
The assumed recovery of the VOC using a decantor
after the condensation of the VOC-steam vapors was
possible only for a few runs; then this removal assump-
tion needs additional study.
Acknowledgment
The kind support of COSNET, CONACYT, Kock-
Glitsth, The Separations Research Program at the
University of Texas at Austin, and Sulzer Chemtech is
appreciated. Also the help of Don Lupe Jimenez, J.
Carlos Cardenas-Rivera, Silvia G. Guerra-Velazquez,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000 737
and J. Carlos Cardenas-Guerra is truly appreciated for
the experimental runs performed at the chemical engi-
neering laboratory of Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya,
Celaya, Mexico.
Nomenclature
ae ) effective specific area for packing, m2/m3
aL ) specific liquid surface area, m2/m3
ap ) specific surface area, m2/m3
C ) constant for effective specific area
CL ) constant for particle diameter calculation: 0.4 for
random packing and 0.8 for structured packing
C1, C2, C3 ) Stichlmair constants
dL ) diameter of liquid particles, m
DG ) vapor molecular diffusion coefficient, m2/s
DL ) liquid molecular diffusion coefficient, m2/s
dp ) characteristic diameter, m
∆pdry ) specific dry pressure drop, Pa/m
∆ptot ) specific pressure drop, Pa/m
∆ptot,flood ) specific pressure drop at flooding conditions,
Pa/m
g ) gravity acceleration, m/s2
G ) molar flow rate of the gas phase, kmol/s
G′ ) mass flow rate of the gas phase, kg/s
HTU ) height of the transfer unit, m
HETP ) height equivalent to a theoretical plate, m
hdyn0 ) dynamic holdup below the loading point
hdyn ) dynamic holdup
KL ) overall mass-transfer coefficient, m/s
KLa ) overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient, 1/s
kG ) gas-phase mass-transfer coefficient, m/s
kL ) liquid-phase mass-transfer coefficient, m/s
L ) molar flow rate for the liquid, kmol/s
L′ ) mass flow rate for the liquid, kg/s
m ) equilibrium ratio, mole fraction/mole fraction
MW ) molecular weight, kg/kmol
Nt ) number of theoretical stages or plates
NTU ) number of transfer units
uG ) superficial gas velocity, m/s
uGe ) effective gas velocity, m/s
uL ) superficial liquid velocity, m/s
uLe ) effective liquid velocity, m/s
QG ) volumetric flow rate for the gas phase, m3/s
QL ) volumetric flow rate for the liquid phase, m3/s
R ) resistance for mass transfer, s/m or 1/s
Re ) Reynolds number
X ) coefficient for calculation of the flooding pressure drop
x ) concentration of VOC in the liquid phase, mole fraction
xin ) inlet concentration, mole fraction, or other consistent
unit
xout ) outlet concentration, mole fraction, or other consis-
tent unit
Vc ) volume of the column, m3
Z ) height of the column, m
Greek Symbols
γ ) contact angle between the liquid and solid, deg
 ) packing void fraction
FG ) gas density, kg/m3
FL ) liquid density, kg/m3
σ ) surface tension, N/m
µG ) vapor viscosity, kg/(m s)
µL ) liquid viscosity, kg/(m s)
λ ) stripping factor ) mG/L
ψ ) friction factor
738 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000

θ ) angle (with horizontal) of channels in a structured

[ ( )] ∆ptot 2
packing hdyn ) hdyn0 1 + 6 )
FLg
Appendix A 0.111764 + 0.000000045∆Ptot2
Example Calculation. Take as a base case the (f) Diameter of liquid particles and specific liquid
removal of trichloroethene (TCE) from water reported surface:
by Hand et al.3 Use steam (instead of air) stripping to
calculate liquid holdup, pressure drop, mass-transfer

x x
coefficients, the interfacial area for a steam stripping 6σL 6 × 0.065
dL ) CL ) 0.4 )
column, HTU and NTU values, and the TCE concentra- ∆Fg (958 - 0.605) × 9.81
tion at the bottom of the stripper column. 0.002577
As reported by Lopez-Toledo et al.,17 the liquid capac-
ity of the column using steam is increased 40% with 6hdyn 6(0.111764 + 0.000000045∆Ptot2)
respect to the air stripper. This corresponds to 456 277 aL ) ) )
dL 0.002577
kg/h of groundwater at ambient temperature; 11 000
kg/h of steam are used as the stripping agent. 260.161571 + 0.000104749∆Ptot2
The column has 2.44-m internal diameter and 7.47-m
height. For steam stripping the packing will be metallic (g) Total pressure drop:
Pall rings of 25 mm. The inlet concentration of TCE

( )
needs to be reduced from 72 to 3 µg/L. ∆ptot aL + ap  4.65
Solution. From Table 1 of Stichlmair et al.,15 ap ) ) )
79.047 ap  - hdyn
215 m2/m3;  ) 0.94; C1 ) 0.05, C2 ) 1.0, and C3 ) 3.0.
The physical properties and some operational param-
260.161 + 0.000104∆Ptot2 + 215
eters for the system are as follows: ×
215

( )
L′ m
and G′ u F µ D σ (m.f./ 0.94 4.65
(kg/h) (m/s) (kg/m3) [kg/(m s)] (m2/s) (N/m) m.f.)
0.94 - 0.111764 - 0.000000045∆Ptot2
liquid 456 277 0.028 293 958 0.000 29 4.16 × 0.065 8765
(H2O) 10-9
vapor 11 000 1.080 09 0.605 0.000 017 1.24 × Solving this equation for the total pressure drop, ∆Ptot
(steam) 10-5 ) 331.52 Pa/m.
(h) Holdup above the loading point:
1. Hydraulic parameters.

[ ( )]
(a) Equivalent diameter or characteristic length of the ∆ptot 2
packing with eq 3: hdyn ) hdyn0 1 + 6 )
FLg
6(1 - ) 6(1 - 0.94) 0.111764 + 0.000000045∆Ptot2 ) 0.1167
dp ) ) ) 0.001674 m
ap 215
(i) With this value for liquid holdup we may go to the
mass-transfer calculations, but before doing that, we
(b) Friction factor with eqs 4 and 5: will calculate the pressure drop at flooding with eqs 12
and 13:
uGFGdp 1.08009 × 0.605 × 0.001674
ReG ) ) )
µG 0.000017 X ) 36002 + 186480hdyn0 + 32280dLap +
64.362 191844hdyn02 + 95028dLaphdyn0 + 10609dL2ap2
C1 C2 0.05 1.0
ψ) + + C3 ) + + 3.0 ) X ) 51128.26473
ReG Re 1/2 64.362 x64.362
G ∆ptot,flood
3.125 )
FL g
(c) Dry pressure drop:
x249hdyn0(xX - 60 - 558hdyn0 - 103dLap) )
FGuG2 1 2988hdyn0
1
∆Pdry ) ψap 4.65 ) × 3.125 × 215 × 1052.587 Pa/m
8  8
0.605 × 1.080092 With this value the approach to flooding may be
) 79.047 Pa/m calculated; the result is 70%.
0.944.65 2. Mass-transfer parameters.
(j) Effective velocities, from eqs 1a and 2a:
(d) Holdup below the loading point:

( )( )( )
uG 1.08009
uLap0.5 0.66
µLap1.5 0.25
σLap2 0.1 uGe ) ) )
hdyn0 ) 3.6 ) (1 - hdyn) 0.94(1 - 0.11671)
g0.5 FLg0.5 FL g 1.300854 m/s
3.6 × 0.263367 × 0.132118 × 0.892227 ) 0.111764 uL 0.028293
uLe ) ) ) 0.257895 m/s
(e) Holdup above the loading point: hdyn 0.94 × 0.11671
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 39, No. 3, 2000 739

(k) Individual mass-transfer coefficients with eqs 14 (2) Byers, W. D.; Morton, C. M. Removing VOC from Ground-
and 15: water; Pilot, Scale-up, and Operating Experience. Environ. Prog.

[ ] [ ]
1885, 4 (2), 112.
0.1DG dp(uGe + uLe)FG 0.2405 µG 1/3 (3) Hand, D. W.; Crittenden, J. C.; Gehin, L. G.; Lykins, B. W.,
kG ) ) Jr. Design and Evaluation of an Air-Stripping Tower for Removing
dp µG FGDG VOC’s From Groundwater. J.sAm. Water Works Assoc. 1986, 78
0.000740 × 2.968096 × 1.313481 ) 0.002887 m/s (9), 87.
(4) Hwang, Y. L.; Olson, J. D.; Keller, G. E. Steam Stripping

[ ] [ ]
for Removal of Organic Pollutants from Water. 1. Stripping
0.3415DL dp(uGe + uLe)FL 0.2337 µL 1/2 Effectiveness and Stripper Design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1992,
kL ) )
dp µL F L DL 31 (7), 1753-1759.
(5) Hwang, Y. L.; Olson, J. D.; Keller, G. E. Steam Stripping
0.000000847 × 8.312395 × 8.530403 ) for Removal of Organic Pollutants from Water. 2. Vapor-Liquid
0.000060 m/s Equilibrium Data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1992, 31 (7), 1759-
1768.
(l) Effective interfacial area: (6) Fair, J. R.; Harvey, R. L. Modeling of Tray-Type Steam

[( )( )]
Stripping Columns. AIChE Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Spring 1994.
uL2FLdp uL2 0.15 (7) Kunesh, G. J.; Ognisty, T. P.; Sakata, M.; Chen, G. X.
apdPC Sieve Tray Performances for Steam Stripping Toluene from
ae σ gdp 1.354001

[ ]
) ) ) 0.881 Water in a 4-ft Diameter Column. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35,
ap uLFLdp 0.2 0.6 1.536891 2660.
 (1 - cos γ) (8) Chan, H.; Fair, J. R. Prediction of Point Efficiencies on Sieve
µL Trays. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1984, 23, 814.
(9) Guerrero-Medina, G. Desorción con Vapor de Agua de COV
ae ) 0.881ap ) 0.881 × 215 ) 189.415 m2/m3 (Steam Stripping of VOC). Reporte Final de Proyecto de Maestria
en Ciencias (Final Report of Masters in Science), Instituto Tec-
(m) Global volumetric mass-transfer coefficient for the nológico de Celaya, Celaya, México, June, 1997.
liquid phase with eq 17: (10) Ortiz del Castillo, J. R. Desorción de Compuestos Orgánicos
Volátiles de Corrientes de agua con Vapor, empleando Columnas

[ ]
1 1 1 1 Empacadas y de Platos (Steam Stripping of VOC Using Packed
) + ) and Tray Columns). Tesis de Maestrı́a M.S. Thesis, Instituto
KLa ae kL mkG Tecnológico de Celaya, Celaya, Mexico, May, 1998.
0.005279(16646.41353 + 0.039517) ) 87.88345 s (11) Rocha, J. A.; Bravo, J. L.; Fair, J. R. Distillation Columns
Containing Structured Packings: A Comprehensive Model for
KLa ) 0.011378 (1/s) Their Performance. 1. Hydraulic Models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1993, 32, 641.
(n) Height of a transfer unit, with eq 18: (12) Rocha, J. A.; Bravo, J. L.; Fair, J. R. Distillation Columns
Containing Structured Packings: A Comprehensive Model for
uL 0.028293 Their Performance. 2. Mass-Transfer Model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
HTU ) ) ) 2.486 m 1996, 35, 1660.
KLa 0.011378 (13) Gualito, J. J.; Cerino, F. J.; Cardenas, J. C.; Rocha, J. A.
Design Method for Distillation Columns Filled with Metallic,
(o) Number of transfer units, from eq 22, and the Ceramic, or Plastic Structured Packings. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
packing height equal to 7.47 m: 1997, 36, 1747.
(14) Engel, V.; Stichlmair, J.; Geipel, W. A New Correlation
Z 7.47 for Pressure Drop, Flooding and Holdup in Packed Columns.
NTU ) ) ) 3.004 AIChE Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, Oct, 1998; Paper 132f.
HTU 2.486
(15) Stichlmair, J.; Bravo, J. L.; Fair, J. R. General Model
(p) Recovery of the VOC or concentration of TCE at Generalization for Prediction of Pressure Drop and Capacity of
Countercurrent Gas/Liquid Packed Columns. Gas Sep. Purif. 1989,
the outlet of the liquid stream, using eqs 20 and 21: 3, 19.
(16) Shi, M.; Mersmann, G. Effective Interfacial areas in Packed
mG 5558 × 11000
λ) ) ) 133.993 Columns. Ger. Chem. Eng. 1985, 8, 87.
L 456277 (17) Lopez-Toledo, J.; Ortiz del Castillo, Rocha J. R.; J. A. A
Computer Program for Steam Stripping Columns for VOC’s
xin 1 λ
xout [
) e[(λ-1)/λ]NTU -
λλ-1 ]
) 19.863 Removal. Distillation Horizon for the Next Millenium; Proceedings
at the Spring AIChE Meeting, Houston, TX, Mar 14-18, 1999;
Paper 1d.
72 µg
xout ) ) 3.62
19.863 l Received for review June 11, 1999
Revised manuscript received September 30, 1999
Literature Cited Accepted October 13, 1999
(1) Gross, R. L.; Termaath, S. G. Packed Tower Aeration Strips
Trichloroethylene from Groundwater. Environ. Prog. 1985, 4, 119. IE990432M

View publication stats