Chemical Engineering Science, 1968, Vol. 23, pp. 948-950. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain.

Plate efficiency- the effect of bubble size distribution on the liquid

phase efficiency
(First received 24 November 1967; in revisedform 6 February 1968)

THE EXPEIUMENTALresults of Porter et al.{11 indicate the where

feasibility of predicting the liquid phase efficiency by a simple
M = 24(+). (39
model, such as proposed by West et ~I.[21 The liquid phase
efficiency ElrLmay be predicted by the method of West if the
fraction of gas hold up (e), the bubble size (4, and the mass Consider a swarm of bubbles rising without recirculation.
transfer area per unit volume of foam (a) are known. Only The velocity of rise of a bubble consists of the superficial
two of the three quantities need to be specified, since they gas velocity (V.) and a component due to buoyancy (v,)[31
are related by
v = v*+v,.
d=$. (1)
v,, may vary with bubble size for bubbles rising in a swarm.
First the velocity of rise of the bubbles (v) is calculated from At gas rates usually encountered in plate columns v consists
mostly of V,, and therefore the variation in v is small. M may
then be considered constant for all bubble sizes at a constant
v = 5 (continuity equation). (2)
c V..
Bubble size distribution of the foam on plates has not been
The liquid phase mass transfer coefficient may then be esti- determined Three size distributions are therefore considered:
mated using Higbie’s equation the first is a simple distribution consisting of two sizes, and
the other two are size distributions which have been used in
k/. = 243 (3)
liquid-liquid dispersions.
(1) Consider the bubbles to consist of two sizes d, and dz
(4 > d,), having a mean surface volume diameter (Sauter
where mean diameter) dap.
The total interfacial area consists of the interfacial area of
t, = i.
V bubbles of size dt and the interfacial area of bubbles of size
d2, and from Eq. (1)
The number of liquid phase transfer units is

N=kv4
1,
L
and since
and the local liquid Murphree efficiency (E,.) is given by

EuL may be calculated by taking into account the liquid mix-

ing on the plate.
In deriving the above equations it has been assumed that
the bubbles are of uniform size, and hence rise at a uniform properties were also approximately equal at boiling point:
velocity. Analysis shows that the surface volume mean dia- density 710 and 700 kg/n?, kinematic viscosity of liquid
meter may be used in the expression for the mass transfer
coefficient to represent the average mass transfer coefficient
from bubbles of distributed sizes.
(7)
THE EFFECT OF BUBBLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION viscosity of
ON THE LIQUID PHASE MASS TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT
Equation (3) for bubbles of sized may be written as

k,. = Md-“= (3a)

948
In terms of (cl/g) and (dJd,) The function has two parameters b and d,,

A = M j-l- dw*f(d) dd

‘ I,d”@f(d) dd

Table 1 shows the quantity C as a function of (e&) and (9)

(d&J. If (d&j,) is not greater than 3, C does not differ more where
than 10 per cent from unity, and the average mass transfer
coefficient 4 may be predicted by substituting d,, into Eq. (3) “*+yexp(k) erfc(&r
c,= (&r +%Y
Table 1. Values of C
I+_+ s’p
( md
El/E2 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0
4l4
\ \ For $ = 1 C’ = 1.08
( _>
1.0 1.oo 1.oo 1.00 2.00 5.00
1.5 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 = 1.67 = 1.06
2.0 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 =2 = 1.04.
3.0 1.11 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04
4.0 1.18 1.18 1.13 1.09 1.05 The use of dw to calculate i,_ using Eq. (3) therefore involves
an error of less than IO per cent for (b/d,,,,.) > 1.
with an error of less than 10 per cent. We will still have an
error of less than 10 per cent for (d,/d,) greater than 3 if(&) DISCUSSION
is greater than unity. The limits of integration of Eq. (8) are rather unrealistic.
2. Consider the size distribution proposed by Bayens[4] This is not serious, however, since the cumulative volume
fraction with 0.15 < d/d, s 2.2 covers 0.006 to 0999. Similar
f(d) = $-d’
L
exp(-(&~*“d2) remarks apply to the integration limits of Eq. (9). Here
1.33 G d s 5(= d-) covers 0.01 to 1.00 for (b/d,,,& = 1.67
and da2= 3.12. Figure 1 shows some of the distribution
wheref(d is the fraction of bubbles having sizes between functions.
d and d+ Ad. The distribution function has one parameter It has been assumed that Eq. (3) is valid for all bubble
only, d,, the volume average diameter. The average mass sizes. Experimental results of Hammerton and Gamer[6]
transfer coefficient is given by Show that this is so for bubble diameters greater than about
3 mm..
In the above distribution functions d,, < da*,hence the use
of dm in Eq. (3) to estimate 4 involves larger errors.

CONCLUSION
M I,” d31zf(d) dd The average liquid film mass transfer coefficient from
6 = bubbles with a size distribution may be estimated with an
dzf(d)dd acceptably small error by substituting the average surface
lo” volume mean diameter d&= &/a) in the expression for mass
transfer coefficient for uniform bubbles.

= (W
0*872d&
and since d,, = 0.872d,, for the above distribution
AeknowIedgment-This work is part of a continuing project in
the prediction of plate efficiency. The support of Ampol
Refineries Ltd., in the form of a scholarship to G. E. H., is
gratefully acknowledged.

I?~= l*04Mdj;“2. W) Chemical Engineering Department G. E. HO

University of Queensland R. G. H. PRINCE
The error in using da9 to predict the average mass transfer Brisbane 4067, Australia
coefficient using Eq. (3) is therefore less than 5 per cent.
3. The size distribution proposed by Schwarz and Beze-
mer[S] is NOTATION
mass transfer area per unit volume of froth, ft*/ft?
f(d) = qexp(-&-s) total mass transfer area, ft*
defined by Eq. (7)
0 < d < d,,,-. defined by Eq. (9)
 Shorter Communications

0.6

f Cd)

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 1. Size distribution: -- - Bayens; - Schwarz and Bezemer.

bubble diameter, ft M defined by Eq. (3b)

Sauter mean diameter (q n,d,YT n,d,2), ft number of bubbles of size d,
volume average diameter (?I n,d,YF Q)~‘~, ft ;; number of liquid phase transfer units
t, defined by Eq. (4)
maximum bubble diameter, ft velocity of rise of bubbles, ftlsec
liquid phase diffusivity, ft*/hr V”, superficial velocity of gas, ftlsec
local liquid Murphree efficiency l fraction of gas hold up; volume of all bubbles divided
plate liquid Murphree efficiency by volume of foam.
liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, ft/hr li volume of bubbles of size di divided by volume of foam
liquid flow rate, fP/hr

REFERENCES
111 PORTER K. E., KING M. B. and VARSHNEY K. C., Trans. Instn Chem. Engrs 1966 44 274.
I21 WEST F. B., GILBERT W. D. and SHIMIZU T., Ind. Engng Chem. 1952 44 2470.
[31 NICKLIN D. J., Chem. Engng Sci. 1962 17 693.
[41 GAL-OR B. and HOELSCHER H. E.,A.I.Ch.EJI 1966 12 499.
151 SCHWARZ N. and BEZEMER C., KolloidZeitschrift 1965 146 139.
[61 HAMMERTON D. and GARNER F. H., Trans. Insrn Chem. Engrs 1954 32 18s.

950