Department of Civil Engineering

CVG 3132

Physical and Chemical Unit Operations of Wastewater

Laboratory Study of Flow in Reactors

Lab Date: 26/06/2017

Report Date: 03/07/2017

Professor:

Summer 2017
Table of Contents
TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... ii
1.0 THEORY AND OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 MATERIALS .............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 CONTINUOUS FLOW STIRRED TANK REACTOR (CSTR) ........................................................................ 4
3.2 PLUG FLOW REACTOR (PFR)................................................................................................................ 6
4.0 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Calculation to determine the concentration of the standards ......................................................... 11
4.2 Absorbance to concentration conversion ......................................................................................... 11
4.3 Area under the curve using the trapezoidal rule .............................................................................. 11
4.4 Calculation to determine the mean residence time (avg)................................................................. 12
4.5 Calculation to determine the mass of tracer recovered ................................................................... 12
4.6 Plot of the F versus time curve ......................................................................................................... 12
5.0 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 16
7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 17

i
TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Concentration versus Absorbance Plot.......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Concentration versus Time Plot for CSTR ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: F(t) versus Time Plot for CSTR ........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Concentration versus Time for PFR................................................................................................ 9
Figure 5: F(t) versus time curve for PFR ........................................................................................................ 9
Figure 6: Continuous Flow Stirred-Tank Reactor ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 7: Plug Flow Reactor ........................................................................................................................ 14

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Tank volume and temperature ....................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Concentration and absorbance values for different standards ...................................................... 2
Table 3: Absorbance and concentration values corresponding with time readings for CSTR ...................... 4
Table 4: Absorbance and concentration values corresponding with time readings for the PFR ................. 6
Table 5: Area under the Curve .................................................................................................................... 10
Table 6: Mean Residence Time for Each Reactor ....................................................................................... 10
Table 7: Mass Recovered for Each Reactor................................................................................................. 10
Table 8: Theoretical Residence Time for Each Reactor............................................................................... 10

ii
1.0 THEORY AND OBJECTIVE
Reactors are an integral part of water and wastewater treatment. The three main types of reactors used
in this industry are completely mixed batch reactors, completely mixed flow reactors, and plug flow
reactors (Hashemi). The purpose of this experiment is to study the flow of reactors, and therefore a
completely mixed flow reactor (CMFR) and plug flow reactor (PFR) are used.

A completely mixed flow reactor, also commonly known as a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR),
operates as a large tank with an open inlet and outlet and a mixer inside. Calculations and general
theories for this reactor are based on the on the fact that the reactor is completely mixed inside the
tank, and therefore the concentration inside the tank is the same as, and can be measured by, the
effluent stream (Hashemi).

A plug flow reactor, or PFR, does not mix along the length of the tank. In the reactor, the substance acts
as an individual plug that moves along the length of the reactor. The concentration is not uniform
throughout the length of the reactor, but it is assumed to be uniform at any point perpendicular to the
flow (Hashemi).

To observe the flow in each reactor, a tracer, rhodamine, is used. Rhodamine is bright pink in color and
can be observed with the naked eye. It is also non-toxic, and has a similar density to water when diluted
(therefore not affecting the original flow dynamics of the reactor). It can be detected by a fluorometer in
very small concentrations (less than 1 g/L), and is therefore a commonly used substance in
environmental monitoring. In this experiment, concentrations of rhodamine are much higher than
1 g/L, and therefore a spectrophotometer can be used, which is easily used and generally less
expensive than a fluorometer (Hashemi).

A spectrophotometer uses a certain wavelength of light (in this case, 555nm) and records the
absorbance of a certain sample. According to the Beer-Lambert law, absorbance is directly proportional
to the concentration of the species and the distance which the light passes through the sample, and
therefore the concentration of rhodamine in each sample can be found using spectrophotometry
(Hashemi). Each samples concentration is determined using a calibration curve. To generate the
calibration curve, the absorbance several standards of water samples containing rhodamine are
recorded. The concentrations of the samples with unknown concentrations can therefore be plotted
against this calibration curve and the concentrations can be found (D'Aoust).

Tracer tests are useful in environmental engineering situations when observing how pollutants are
distributed. They can be done in gaseous form to observe how the atmosphere will be affected by a
release of airborne toxins, or they can be done in the liquid phase, as was done in this laboratory
experiment, to study the effects of currents of bodies of water, or in reactors. They can be used to
observe how a reactor functions and if it is effective, and can be improved on. For example, in a CSTR, a
tracer test could expose dead spots, or cavitation, which would mean that the reactor is not perfectly

1
mixed. In a PFR, a tracer test could be used to observe the residence time and if adjustment is necessary
(Peterson).

2.0 MATERIALS

Please refer to laboratory manual.

3.0 METHODS

Please refer to the laboratory manual.

3.0 DATA ANALYSIS

Table 1: Tank volume and temperature

Reactor type Volume (L) Influent Effluent Initial flow rate

temperature temperature (L/min)
(0C) (0C)
PFR 40.12 - - 1.3
CSTR 25.31 26 31 0.8

Table 2: Concentration and absorbance values for different standards

Standard Concentration (mg WT/L) Concentration (mL/L) Absorbance

Blank (Distilled water) 0 0 0
Standard 1 0.687936191 3 0.118
Standard 2 1.144278607 5 0.235
Standard 3 2.277227723 10 0.51
Standard 4 3.399014778 15 0.826
Standard 5 4.509803922 20 1.053

2
Based on the data values in table 2, a linear regression plot of concentration versus absorbance was
obtained as shown in Figure 1.

Concentration vs. Absorbance

1.2
y = 0.2418x - 0.0273
1 R = 0.9969

0.8
Absorbance

0.6 Concenteration vs.

Absorbance
0.4 Linear (Concenteration vs.
Absorbance)
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
Concenteration (mg/L)
`

Figure 1: Concentration versus Absorbance Plot

3
3.1 CONTINUOUS FLOW STIRRED TANK REACTOR (CSTR)

Table 3: Absorbance and concentration values corresponding with time readings for CSTR

Absorbance Concentration (mg WT/L) Time (minutes)

0 0 0
0.929 3.842018197 0.5
1.479 6.11662531 1
1.466 6.062861869 1.5
1.441 5.959470637 2
1.446 5.980148883 2.5
1.411 5.835401158 3
1.297 5.363937138 6
1.17 4.838709677 9
1.089 4.503722084 12
1.004 4.152191894 15
0.914 3.779983457 18
0.843 3.486352357 21
0.767 3.172043011 24
0.697 2.88254756 27
0.631 2.609594706 30
0.578 2.390405294 33
0.519 2.146401985 36
0.459 1.898263027 39
0.419 1.732837055 42
0.375 1.550868486 45
0.346 1.430934657 48
0.31 1.282051282 51
0.288 1.191066998 54
0.264 1.091811414 57
0.247 1.021505376 60

4
 Concentration vs. Time (CSTR)
7
Concenteration (mg WT/L)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (minutes)

Figure 2: Concentration versus Time Plot for CSTR

F(t) vs. Time (CSTR)

1.2

0.8
F(t)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (minutes)

Figure 3: F(t) versus Time Plot for CSTR

5
3.2 PLUG FLOW REACTOR (PFR)
Table 4: Absorbance and concentration values corresponding with time readings for the PFR

Absorbance Concentration (mg WT/L) Time (minutes)

0 0 0
0.18 0.744416873 3
0.414 1.712158809 6
0.445 1.840363937 6.5
0.437 1.807278743 7
0.608 2.514474773 7.5
0.896 3.70554177 8
2.356 9.743589744 8.5
2.51 10.38047974 9
2.735 11.31100083 9.5
2.908 12.02646816 10
3.006 12.43176179 10.5
2.973 12.29528536 11
2.875 11.88999173 11.5
2.736 11.31513648 12
2.642 10.92638544 12.5
2.57 10.62861869 13
2.513 10.39288668 13.5
2.481 10.26054591 14
2.455 10.15301902 14.5
2.444 10.10752688 15
2.441 10.09511993 15.5
2.433 10.06203474 16
2.42 10.0082713 16.5
2.403 9.937965261 17
2.377 9.830438379 17.5
2.374 9.818031431 18
2.344 9.693961952 18.5
2.315 9.574028122 19
2.285 9.449958644 19.5
2.253 9.317617866 20
2.219 9.17700579 20.5
2.207 9.127377998 21
2.133 8.82133995 21.5
2.073 8.573200993 22
2.009 8.308519438 22.5
1.982 8.196856907 23

6
1.931 7.985938792 23.5
1.913 7.911497105 24
1.863 7.70471464 24.5
1.845 7.630272953 25
1.825 7.547559967 26
1.802 7.452440033 26.5
1.79 7.402812242 27
1.772 7.328370554 27.5
1.729 7.150537634 28.5
1.691 6.993382961 29
1.663 6.877584781 29.5
1.641 6.786600496 30
1.64 6.782464847 30.5
1.594 6.592224979 31
1.593 6.58808933 31.5
1.567 6.480562448 32
1.541 6.373035567 32.5
1.511 6.248966088 33
1.515 6.265508685 33.5
1.478 6.112489661 34
1.451 6.00082713 34.5
1.436 5.93879239 35
1.398 5.781637717 35.5
1.372 5.674110835 36
1.36 5.624483044 36.5
1.332 5.508684864 37
1.312 5.425971878 37.5
1.291 5.339123242 38
1.271 5.256410256 38.5
1.247 5.157154673 39
1.211 5.008271299 39.5
1.21 5.004135649 40
1.209 5 40.5
1.191 4.925558313 41
1.191 4.925558313 41.5
1.178 4.871794872 42
1.173 4.851116625 42.5
1.188 4.913151365 43
1.171 4.842845327 43.5
1.17 4.838709677 44
1.176 4.863523573 44.5

7
1.181 4.88420182 45
1.187 4.909015715 45.5
1.183 4.892473118 46
1.169 4.834574028 46.5
1.189 4.917287014 47
1.165 4.818031431 47.5
1.17 4.838709677 48
1.173 4.851116625 48.5
1.179 4.875930521 49
1.176 4.863523573 49.5
1.185 4.900744417 50
1.157 4.784946237 50.5
1.184 4.896608768 51
1.2 4.962779156 51.5
1.195 4.94210091 52
1.189 4.917287014 52.5
1.194 4.937965261 53
1.202 4.971050455 53.5
1.2 4.962779156 54
1.212 5.012406948 54.5
1.205 4.983457403 55
1.198 4.954507858 55.5
1.197 4.950372208 56
1.203 4.975186104 56.5
1.206 4.987593052 57
1.186 4.904880066 57.5
1.191 4.925558313 58
1.186 4.904880066 58.5
1.161 4.801488834 59
1.163 4.809760132 59.5
1.154 4.772539289 60

8
 Concentration vs. Time (PFR)
14

12
Concenteration (mg WT/L)

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (minutes)

Figure 4: Concentration versus Time for PFR

F(t) vs. Time (PFR)

1.2

0.8
F(t)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (minutes)

Figure 5: F(t) versus time curve for PFR

9
Table 5: Area under the Curve

Reactor
Area under curve, A ( )

CSTR 174.2
PFR 369.3

Table 6: Mean Residence Time for Each Reactor

Reactor Mean residence time, avg (minutes)

CSTR 21.5

PFR 29.2

Table 7: Mass Recovered for Each Reactor

Reactor Mass recovered, Mrec (mg)

CSTR 139.4

PFR 480.0

Table 8: Theoretical Residence Time for Each Reactor

Reactor Theoretical residence time, (minutes)

CSTR 31.6

PFR 30.9

10
4.0 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

4.1 Calculation to determine the concentration of the standards

For standard 1(table 2): 3.00 mL stock solution diluted in 1L of distilled water:
C1V1 = C2V2
0.230 / 3.00 = 2 1003
C2 = 0.6879 mg WT/L

4.2 Absorbance to concentration conversion

The slope of the absorbance vs concentration curve obtained from the linear
regression as shown in figure 1 is 0.2418.

For CSTR at time = 0.5 mins (table 4)

C = Absorbance/slope
C = 0.929/0.2418 = 3.842 mg WT/L

4.3 Area under the curve using the trapezoidal rule

For CSTR(table 4)

0+3.84 6.11+3.84 4.77+4.8

=( ) ( 0.5 0) + ( ) ( 1 0.5) + + ( )(60 59.5)
2 2 2

A = 174.2

11
4.4 Calculation to determine the mean residence time (avg)

The mean residence time for the CSTR was calculated using the formula below

1 0.5+0 0+3.84 60+59.5 4.77+4.8

= (174.2) [( )( ) ( 0.5 0) + + ( )( ) (60 59.5)]
2 2 2 2
= 21.5mins

4.5 Calculation to determine the mass of tracer recovered

For the CSTR,

Mrec = A * Qavg

= 174.2 0.8
= 139.4 mg WT

4.6 Plot of the F versus time curve

For the CSTR,

1 1
= = 174.2

1 0+3.84
(0.5) = 174.2 [( ) ( 0.5 0)] = 0.0055
2

12
5.0 DISCUSSION
In this laboratory session, the characteristics of a completely mixed flow reactor, also known as a
continuous flow stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), and a plug flow reactor (PFR) were studied by analyzing the
flow patterns and the hydraulic retention time of the injected tracer in each reactor. A pulse injection
was used for both reactors in this experiment.

The first reactor, the CSTR, was a circular tank which rapidly mixes the tracer. It was observed that the
tracer was instantaneously mixed upon the injection of the dye and present in the effluent just seconds
after mixing. Due to the rapid mixing of the CSTR, the tracer was evenly distributed throughout the tank.
The complete mix conditions in the reactor can be seen in figure 6. This reactor also had a shorter
average retention time of 21.5 minutes.

Figure 6: Continuous Flow Stirred-Tank Reactor

The PFR consisted of three channels with two baffles at each corner, causing fluid to flow in a serpentine
manner, hence the name serpentine flow chlorination basin. The baffles not only prevent short
circuiting in the reactor, but also contain meticulously spaced holes that spread the influent evenly
inside the tank. The baffles also prevent the formation of dead zones due to the even dispersion of the
influent since they tend to form in corners. Dead zones form in regions where there is little to no flow in

13
the system, accumulating patches of dye. The dead zones can be clearly seen below in figure 7. It was
observed that after the dye was injected into the reactor, it did not travel completely together, some of
the dye escaped ahead of the bulk, demonstrating non-ideal flow because the dye that is ahead of the
bulk will exit the reactor before the rest. This was due to the manual injection of the tracer using a
syringe, causing a non-instantaneous injection. The average retention time of the PFR was found to be
longer than the CSTR at 29.2 minutes. This is expected as it is a longer, serpentine tank.

In the lecture slides, it is mentioned that in an ideal plug flow reactor, the influent enters the reactor
and exits the reactor all together as a whole. This will never be achieved in real life due to the tracer and
the water having different physical properties. The water has a higher density than the tracer do the
tracer will have a higher velocity distribution than the rest of the water and will travel faster in the tank,
causing some of the tracer to get ahead of the bulk. It was also observed that the top of the PFR tank
had a higher flow than the bottom of the tank due to lack of friction, as the flow of the water and tracer
produces friction with the base of the tank.

Figure 7: Plug Flow Reactor

As mentioned above, non-ideal plug flow conditions were observed in the reactor. This was further
proven in the shape of the effluent profile. Many factors contributed to the non-ideal plug flow
conditions which were discussed in detail above. To summarize the points discussed, short circuiting,
the formation of dead zones, the change in temperature causing a temperature gradient, and the non-
instantaneous injection of the dye all contribute to the non-ideal plug flow behaviour. Due to all of these

14
factors, it is very difficult to achieve ideal plug flow behaviour in real life. A recommendation for future
sessions would be to change the shape of the PFR from rectangular to circular to avoid the formation of
dead zones in the corners of the vessel.

In this lab session, the tracer solution was not diluted enough and the bottle was marked incorrectly.
This resulted in a higher concentration of tracer being injected into the reactor, causing the dye to take a
longer time than usual to completely exit the reactor in the span of one hour. Since the effluent was
measured for 60 minutes, not all of the injected tracer was able to completely exit the reactors. The
fluid in both reactors remained pink after the hour. This means that the entire injected tracer was not
recovered which is demonstrated in tables 3 and 4. Both tables show that the initial concentrations of
the reactors were not the same as the concentrations at the end of the reactors.

The theoretical residence time and the mean residence time were calculated for both the PFR and CSTR
in tables 6 and 8. It was observed that the average residence time dis not equal the theoretical value; it
was lower in both reactors. This may have been due to slight changes in the tank flow rates, error in the
laboratory procedure, temperature gradients, and definite deviations in calculating the area under the
curve using the trapezoidal rule.

Temperatures were taken in both reactors for the influent, effluent, and within the reactors. This was
done to analyze any deviations from steady state conditions. Deviations from ideal models occur due to
unsteady state conditions. In the PFR, a difference in temperature of the influent from the tank will
contribute to a temperature gradient, which in turn causes non-ideal flow. The influent of the CSTR had
a significantly lower temperature than the effluent, but due to the rapid mixing of the reactor, there was
no temperature gradient formed.

This laboratory experiment contains many sources of experimental errors. A few were discussed above
but other sources of error include equipment and human errors. Firstly, when starting the pumps, there
was a slight leakage in the pipes of the PFR, this may have caused a change in flow rate as water
escaped. The pump was then stopped and started again after the connection of the pipes was tightened.
As mentioned above, the tracer was not diluted enough which resulted in a higher concentration,
altering the data of the lab. When measuring the absorbance values of the effluent, the effluent was
supposed to be collected at exact times. In this experiment, it may not have been collected at the exact
specified times. Lastly, when measuring the absorbance, the test tube must be completely clean and
free of any water, oil, or finger prints. Since the test tubes did not have a cover, some fluid may have
spilled over in the process of moving and placing it into the spectrophotometer or the tube may not
have been wiped properly. This will affect the absorbance, which also affects the concentrations of the
effluent.

15
6.0 CONCLUSION

In this laboratory experiment, the behaviours and characteristics of the flow of a completely mixed flow
reactor (CMFR) and a plug flow reactor (PFR) were analyzed through the use of tracers in the reactors.
After performing this laboratory experiment, it is concluded that the concentration of the effluent in the
CSTR gradually decreased due to rapid mixing, but it was observed that not all of the tracer dye exited
the reactor after the span of one hour as expected. An error in the dilution of the tracer solution and
incorrect labelling of the bottle caused a mix-up and a higher concentration of dye was injected. Based
on observation and absorbance values, it was determined that the entire tracer was not recovered from
the reactor. Despite this error, complete mix conditions were demonstrated and observed in the CSTR.

After performing the tracer experiment of the plug flow reactor, it can be concluded that the PFR
demonstrated non-ideal flow conditions. This was due to various factors such as short circuiting of the
reactor, dead zone formations, and different retention times due to temperature gradient and non-
instantaneous injection of the dye. The same tracer dye was used for the PFR as the CSTR resulting once
again, in the injection of a higher concentration of tracer which caused a significant amount of dye to
remain in the tank after the hour. Based on this observation and the absorbance values, it was
determined that the total tracer amount was not recovered. It is very hard to achieve ideal behaviour in
real life for a PFR due to those conditions but there are some suggestions that can be made to improve
the conditions of the reactor so that it behaves closer to an ideal flow reactor. Since baffles are already
present in the reactor used for this laboratory experiment, one crucial recommendation that can be
made to improve this experiment is to use a circular shaped reactor instead of the rectangular one. As
mentioned above and discussed in detail in the discussion section, it will greatly help in preventing dead
zones due to the edges being circular, not cornered.

16
7.0 REFERENCES

D'Aoust, Patrick. "Laboratory Study of Flow Reactors." CVG 3132. 2017.

Hashemi, Bahman. "Laboratory Study of Flow in Reactors." Laboratory Manual 2017. 2017.

Peterson, Holly G. A Tracer Laboratory for Undergraduate Environmental Engineering Programs. Report.
Montana: University of Montana, 2017. Online Document.

17