ABSTRACT

Gas absorption experiment gives the result of air pressure drop across the absorption column
where air flow rate are taken with different flow rates of water. The result obtained is to be
compared between theoretical value and experimental value. The experiment was conducted
three times with different flow rates which are 1.0 L/min, 2.0 L/min and 3.0 L/min. For every
water flow rate, it was run for different air flow rate of 20,40,60,80,100,120,140,160 and 180
L/min. Graph of pressure drop against the air flow rate was plotted and it shows the increasing
pattern. The flooding point was recorded during the water flow rate of 2.0 L/min at air flow rate
of 160 L/min while for water flow rate 3.0 L/min occur at air flow rate of 100 L/min. Basically,
the pressure drop is increasing when the air flow rate increased. The flooding happened when the
air pressure from the bottom is too high and pushed the water up. Comparison for flooding point
between experimental and theoretical value was also found at the end of the experiment.

1. INTRODUCTION

Gas absorption which is 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. This experiment was observed for
the absorption of air into water in packed column. The gas and liquid flow counter-current and
the gas absorption are designed to operate at atmospheric pressure in continuous operation.
Packed tower is the common apparatus. Packed towers are used in chemical industry to absorb a
gas from a mixture of gases or a volatile substance from a liquid. The gas-liquid components
work countercurrent in which gas flows upward and liquid downward. To provide large
interfacial area for mass transfer between gas and liquid, the columns are filled with packing.
Raschig Ring is the type of random packing used in the experiment. Design of the column
involves estimation of diameter of the column and height of the packing required for specified
separation. The diameter is determined from flooding characteristics of the column and the
height is from mass transfer characteristics of the packing and the gas-liquid system. Flooding
depends on pressure drop across the column. It is higher at the bottom and lower at the top to
allow the gas to flow upward. The pressure drop rises with an increasing flow of liquid because
liquid fills up the column and the space for gas flow is reduced. At the loading point, the pressure
drop rises rapidly with gas flow and the liquid hold up in the column also rises. Eventually, at the
flooding point, the pressure drop rises drastically and the liquid may splash back from the
column. The gas velocity corresponding to the flooding point is called flooding velocity. Tower
height is determined by packing characteristics which is the interfacial area, mass transfer
coefficient of the gas-liquid system and extent of separation.
2. OBJECTIVES

To examine the air pressure drop across the column as a function of air flow rate for different
water flow rates through the column.

3. THEORY

This experiment required to plot graph of pressure drop against air flow rate
in graph. The flow parameter shows the ratio of liquid kinetic energy to
vapour kinetic energy and parameter of K4 or y-axis needs and x-axis or FLV
can be calculated by using these formulae:

G2y F P 0.1x Gx
g c ( x y ) y G y y
x y

Gas absorption is a process where mixture of gas is in contact with liquid and
becomes dissolve. Therefore, there is mass transfer occurs in the component
that changes from gas phase to liquid phase. The solutes are absorbed by
liquid. Inside this experiment, only the mass transfer between air and liquid
are concerned. Gas absorption is widely use in industries to control the air
pollution and to separate acidic impurities out of mixed gas streams. The
pressure drop values are observed from the manometer. The graph of
pressure correlation for different flow rate of water is plotted in order to find
the relationship between K4 and FLV. The steps on how to obtaine K4 and FLV
is shown below:

Density of air, G = 1.175 kg/m3

Density of water, L = 996 kg/m3

Column diameter, Dc = 80 mm

2
A c= D
Area of packed diameter, 4

Packing Factor: Fp = 900 m-1

Water viscosity, water = 0.001 Ns/m2

Theoretical Flooding Point

1 Gy must be in m3/h
2 To calculate gas flow rate, GG (kg/m2s)

Gy
G G=
Ac

3 To calculate capacity parameter, K4,

0.1
L

K4=
2
13.1 ( GG ) F p
( )
L
G ( L G )

4 To calculate liquid flow rate, GL (kg/m2) (1 LPM, 2 LPM, 3 LPM)

G
GL =
Ac

5 To calculate flow parameter, FLV (1 LPM)

FLV =
GL
GG ( )
G
L

4. APPARATUS AND MATERIAL

1. SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column (Refer figure in Appendix)
2. Water

3. Air

5. PROCEDURE

General Start-Up Procedures

1. Ensure all valves were closed except the ventilation valve V13.
2. Check that all gas connections were properly fitted.
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was opened. The supply pressure was set by
turning the regulator knob clockwise to between 2 to 3 bar.
4. The shut-off valve was opened on the CO2 gas cylinder. The CO2 cylinder
pressure was checked as if it is sufficient. The cylinder was replaced if necessary.
5. The power for the control panel was turned on.
General Shut-Down Procedures
1. Pump P1 was switched off.
2. Valves V1, V2 and V12 were closed.
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was closed and the supply pressure was exhausted
by turning the regulator knob counterclockwise all the way.
4. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder was closed.
5. All liquid in the column K1 was drained by opening valve V4 and V5.
6. All liquid from the receiving vessels B1 and B2 were drained by opening valves V7 and V8.
7. All liquid from the pump P1 were drained by opening valve V10.
8. The power for the control panel was turned off.

Procedures:
1. The general start-up procedures were performed as described.
2. The receiving vessel B2 was filled with 50 L of water through the charge port by opening
valve V3 and V5.
4. Valve V3 was closed.
5. Valve V10 and valve V9 were opened slightly. The flow of water was observed from vessel B1
through pump P1.
6. Pump P1 was switched on, then slowly opened and valve V11 was adjusted to give a water
flow rate of around 1 L/min. The water was allowed to enter the top of column K1, flowed down
the column and accumulated at the bottom until it overflows back into vessel B1.
7. Valve V11 was opened and adjusted to give a water flow rate of 0.5 L/min into column K1.
8. Valve V1 was opened and adjusted to give an air flow rate of 40 L/min into column K1.
9. The liquid and gas flow were observed in the column K1, and the pressure drop across the
column was recorded at dPT-201.
10. Steps 6 to 7 were repeated with different values of air flow rate, each time increasing by 40
L/min while the water flow rate was maintaining the same.
11. Repeat steps 5 to 8 were repeated with different values of water flow rate, each time
increasing by 0.5 L/min by adjusting valve V11.
6. RESULTS

Flowrate Pressure drop

(L/min) (mm H2O)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water
1.0 1 2 5 8 13 17 25 31 50
2.0 5 8 12 17 23 29 57 F F
3.0 34 36 40 43 F F F F F
Table 1: Pressure drop for wet column
*F = Flooding

Pressure Drop against Air Flow Rate Graph

60
50
40 1.0 LPM
30 2.0 LPM
Pressure drop (mm H2O)
20 3.0 LPM
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Air flowrate (L/min)

Figure 1: Pressure drop against Air flow rate of three different flow rate graph

Flow rate Pressure drop

(L/min) (mm H2O)
Log
Air 1.3010 1.6021 1.7782 1.9031 2 2.0792 2.1461 2.2041 2.2553
Water
1.0 0 0.3010 0.6990 0.9031 1.1139 1.2304 1.3979 1.4914 1.6990

2.0 0.6990 0.9031 1.0792 1.2304 1.3617 1.4624 1.7559 - -

 3.0 1.5315 1.5563 1.6021 1.6335 - - - - -
Table 2: log Pressure drop and log Air flow rate

Log Pressure Drop against Log Air Flow Rate Graph

2

1.5
1.0 LPM
1 2.0 LPM
Log Pressure drop
3.0 LPM
0.5

0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Log Air flowrate

Figure 2: log Pressure drop against log Air flow rate graph

7. SAMPLE OF CALCULATION

Density of water = 996 kg/m3

Density of air = 1.175 kg/m3

D2
Area of packed column = 4 = 0.005027 m2

Packing factor, Fp = 900 m-1

Water viscosity = 0.001 Ns/m2

Theoretical flooding point:

20 L 1min 1.175 kg 1m 3
Gy Xp
GG, gas flow rate (kg/m2s) = = min 60 sec m3 1000 L = 0.0779 kg/m2s
A 2
0.005027 m
 G
0.1
L 0.1
2 2
13.1(0.0779) 900(
0.001
(G) Fp( ) )
Capacity parameter, y-axis = 13.1 L = 996 =
PG (P LPG ) 1.175(9961.175)

0.0154

GL X p
2
GL, liquid flow rate per unit column cross-sectional area (kg/m s) = A

1 L 1 min 996 kg 1 m3

= min 60 sec m3 1000 L = 3.3022 kg/m2s
2
0.005027 m

GL
Flow parameter, x-axis = GG (
PG
PL ) =
3.3022
0.0779 ( 1.175
996 ) = 1.4559

Based on the sample above, the calculated values obtained are:

Water flow rate (LPM) GL (kg/m2s)

1.0 3.3022
2.0 6.6043
3.0 9.9065
Table 3: Water flow rate and GL, liquid flow rate per unit column cross-sectional area

Air flow rate Capacity Flow parameter (x-axis)

GG (kg/m2s)
(L/min) parameter (y-axis) 1.0 LPM 2.0 LPM 3.0 LPM
20 0.0779 0.0154 1.4559 2.9119 4.3679
40 0.1558 0.0615 0.7280 1.4560 2.1840
60 0.2337 0.1384 0.4853 0.9706 1.4560
80 0.3117 0.2463 0.3639 0.7277 1.0916
100 0.3896 0.3847 0.2911 0.5822 0.8734
120 0.4675 0.5539 0.2426 0.4852 0.7278
140 0.5454 0.7539 0.2080 0.4159 0.6239
160 0.6233 0.9847 0.1820 0.3639 0.5459
180 0.7012 1.2462 0.1618 0.3235 0.4853
Table 4: Air flow rate, Gas flow rate, Capacity parameter and Flow parameter
 Generalised Experimental Pressure Drop Correlation Chart for Random Packing
5

3 1.0 LPM
Capacity Parameter 2 2.0 LPM
3.0 LPM
1

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Flow Parameter

Figure 3: Experimental Pressure Drop Correlation Chart for Random Packing

Water flow rate

Theoretical Experimental Error (%)
(LPM)
1.0 180 180 0
2.0 140 160 -14.3
3.0 100 100 0
Table 5: Comparison between theoretical and experimental flooding point

8. DISCUSSION

As what can be observed from the result above, the data was tabulated based on the formula
given. The graph of pressure drop against air flow rate with three different water flow rate was
plotted in figure 1 which shows that as the flow rate of air increase, the pressure drop values are
also increased. The pressure drop will increase because of the drag force against the packing and
the falling water. It can be seen clearly how the pattern of the pressure drop increased
proportionally with air flow rate correspond to each of the water flow rate where it starts from
1.0 LPM, 2.0 LPM and 3.0 LPM. The flooding point at each of the flow rate was identified. As
for 1.0 LPM, there is no flooding occur because the flooding point was not reached for this water
flow rate because it was observed that the height of the water almost reached the topmost part of
the column therefore no further readings were made. Flooding starts to occur when the water
flow rate is 2.0 LPM and 3.0 LPM correspond to the air flow rate of 160 and 100 , respectively.
This condition is obviously because flooding effect rapidly on increase in pressure drop and
affect the column operation became difficult to carry out. The accumulation of liquid on the
column packing cause the pressure below the flooding point to increase. Air starts to hinder the
liquid down flow and local accumulation or pools of liquid starts to appear in the packing. As the
air flow rate increased, the liquid hold up increases. A graph of log pressure drop against log air
flow rate was also plotted as in figure 2. Based on the graphical method, there is a graph plotted
where the Y-axis represents the capacity parameter and the X-axis is the flow parameter. The
flow parameter corresponds to the liquid-to-gas kinetic energy ratio while the capacity parameter
is a function of the square of the actual gas velocity. There is also error calculated for the
experiment as what can be seen from table 5. At water flow rate of 2 LPM, we found that the
flooding point has exceeds the air flow rate for theoretical value which gives -14.3% error.

9. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the objective of the experiment was achieved. Absorption is a unit

operation that contacts two phases, usually a gas and a liquid where the more gas soluble solute
is absorbed from the liquid. To increase contact between the two and increase efficiency as a
consequence, packed beds are used. The presence of the packed beds requires greater pressure
for the gas to flow past it and this result in pressure loss. One major problem that has to be given
attention when it comes to absorption is that of flooding. Flooding is the point at which the liquid
overflows the column as a result of a high air flow rate. The prelude to this point is the loading
point which can be observed as the start of accumulation of the liquid in the packing. From the
findings of the experiment, it shows a great correlation between pressure drop and flooding that
column pressure drop increases with flooding and vice versa. The pressure difference increased
when the air flow and water flow increased. The flooding point decreases as the air flow
increases where the high water flow the gives less flooding point. Flooding is accompanied by a
dramatic increase in pressure, resulting inefficient in gas absorption operation.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

There are few ways to improve the experiment. Firstly, it is recommend to use structured packing
rather than random packing which can operate at low pressured drop. It has a large void space
per unit column volume which will minimize the resistance for gas up flow. It also has more
surface area which allows vapour-liquid contact area to have a good efficiency. Always checked
on any leaking which may occur to the equipment and fully understand the operating instructions
before the experiment was conducted. Next, the apparatus in the experiment was set up on
opened air laboratory or good air ventilation area.

11. REFERENCES

1. Absorption. (n.d.). Retrieved from Separation Process:

http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp03.htm

2. Christie J.Geankoplis, (Transport Process and Unit Operation), 4rd edition.

University of Minnesota, 2003 by person Education, "Publishing as Prentice
Hall Professional Technical Reference

3. Treybal, R.E., "Mass Transfer Operations," Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book

Company, New York, 1980.

4. McCabe, W., L., Smith, J., C. and Harriott, P. 2005. Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering. (7th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, USA