CDB 2052

Chemical Engineering Laboratory II

May 2017

Experiment : 1 Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) Dynamic

Group : C6

Group members : Rekshavan Mani Maran 21717

Kevin Yek Zu Ming 21665

Liew Yixuanz 21566

Muhammad Farhan Hazeeq bin Hamdan 22287

Elfera Ayu Elvis 22191

Lab Instructor : Muhammad Ishaq Khan

Date of Experiment : 5th July 2017

 Table of content

No Content Page number

1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives

2 Chapter 2: Methodology / Experimental procedures

3 Chapter 3: Results & Discussions

4 Chapter 4: Conclusion

5 References

6 Appendices
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES
1.1 Introduction

Chemical reactors vary from one another. There are many different types of reactor such as
batch reactor, plug flow reactor, CSTR (continuous stirred tank reactor) and etc. Every
reactor is chosen carefully to meet the requirement of the chemical process itself. To design
an efficient reactor, in this experiment, the study of the Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor is
done to obtain knowledge on the behaviour of the reactor.

When a reaction requires extreme agitation, CSTR is usually used (Fogler, 2016). In
continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) the feed which consist of the reactants flows
continuously into the reactor to react and mixed and product is produced. Reactants are
mixed in the reactors by using mixer. By stirring, it will enhance the reaction as reactants
have active where they are more likely bind together when stirring occurs.

Heating or cooling jacket is equipped within the reactor along with mixer, motor and baffles
depending on the reaction need (Fogler, 2016).The advantage of using CSTR is the
temperature is relatively easy to monitor compared to other reactor. However, when
compared among other type of flow reactor, the conversion achieved per volume is the
smallest. Therefore, to achieve similar conversion compared to other reactor it will require
larger reactor volume.

Figure 1 : CSTR in series schematic diagram

The SOLTLEQ CSTR Dynamics (Model BP 107) was used to study the behaviour of
continuous stirred tank reactor. The unit experiment comes with three stirred tank reactors
connected in series with sump tanks and pumps. Conductivity in each reactors obtained by
the computer equipment.
1.2 Objectives
In this experiment, we have repeated the experiment with different manipulated variables to
obtain three different objectives:

1. To identify the effect of step change input to a CSTR in series.

2. To identify the effect of pulse input to a CSTR in series.
3. To investigate on the dead time coil.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY AND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
(Figures below are examples of apparatus used in this experiment)

Figure 2.1: The setup of feed tank T1 with deionised water and feed tank T2 with sodium
chloride solution.

Figure 2.2: The setup of 3 Continuous Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR) in series.
2.1 Methodology and Experimental Procedures
Experiment 1-A: The Effect of Step Change Input
1. The feed tank T1 was filled up with deionised water.

2. 10-L of 0.025M sodium chloride solution was approximately prepared in the feed tank
T2.
3. The 3-way valve V3 position was set towards pump P1. Valve V6 was closed then.

4. Valve V5 was opened. All three reactors were initially filled up with deionised water
when the Pump P1 was switched on. Each reactor volume was recorded.

5. The needle valve V4 was adjusted to obtain a flowrate of approximately 300ml/min on

flowmeter FT1. It was made sure that no air bubbles were trapped in the piping.

6. Stirrers 1, 2 and 3 were switched on. The stirrer speed was approximately set to
200rpm.
7. The deionised water was continued to be pumped until all conductivity readings (CT1,
CT2, CT3) were stable at low values.
8. These conductivity values were recorded at time t0.

9. Pump P1 was switched off. The 3-way valve V3 position was quickly set towards
pump P2. The Pump P2 was switched on and the timer was started simultaneously.

10. All conductivity values (CT1, CT2, CT3) were recorded at a suitable interval (60
seconds) in an appropriate table.

11. The conductivity values were continued to be recorded until all readings were almost
constant.
12. Pump P2 was switched off and then valve V4 was closed.

13. All liquids were drained in each reactor when the valves V11, V12 and V13 were
opened.

Experiment 1-B: The Effect of Pulse Input

1. The feed tank T1 was filled up with deionised water.
2. 10-L of 0.025M sodium chloride solution was approximately prepared in the feed
tank T2.
3. The 3-way valve V3 position was set towards pump P1. Valve V6 was closed then.
4. Valve V5 was opened. All three reactors were filled up with deionised water when the
Pump P1 was switched on. Each reactor volume was recorded.
 5. The needle valve V4 was adjusted to obtain a flow rate of approximately 300ml/min
on flow meter FT1. It was made sure that no air bubbles were trapped in the piping.

6. Stirrers 1, 2 and 3 were switched on. The stirrer speed was approximately set to
200rpm.

7. The deionised water was continued to be pumped until all conductivity readings
(CT1, CT2, CT3) were stable at low values.
8. These conductivity values were recorded at time t0.

9. Pump P1 was switched off. The 3-way valve V3 position was quickly set towards
pump P2. The Pump P2 was switched on and the timer was started simultaneously.
10. Pump P2 was let to be operated for 2 minutes and then pump P2 was switched off.
The 3-way valve V3 position was quickly switched back towards pump P1. Pump P1
was switched on and it was run until the end of the experiment.

11. All conductivity values (CT1, CT2, CT3) were recorded at a suitable interval (60
seconds) in an appropriate table.

12. The conductivity values were continued to be recorded until all readings were almost
constant.
13. Pump P1 was switched off and the vale V4 were closed.

14. All liquids were drained in each reactor when the valves V11, V12 and V13 were
opened.

Experiment 1-C: The Investigation on Dead Time Coil

1. The feed tank T1 was filled up with deionised water.

2. 10-L of 0.025M sodium chloride solution was approximately prepared in the feed
tank T2.
3. The 3-way valve position was set towards pump P1.

4. Valves V6 and V10 were opened and the valves V5 and V15 were closed. The pump
P1 was switched on and the liquid was allowed to flow slowly through the coil for
few minutes to bleed off any air trapped.
5. Valve V10 was closed and valve V15 was opened.

6. The needle valve V4 was adjusted to obtain a flowrate of approximately 300ml/min

on flowmeter FT1. It was made sure that no air bubbles are trapped in the piping.
7. Stirrer 3 was switched on and the speed of it was set to approximately 200rpm.
8. The deionised water was continued to be pumped until the conductivity reading (CT3)
was stable at low values.
 9. This conductivity value was recorded at time t0.

10. Pump P1 was switched off. The 3-way valve V3 position was quickly set towards
pump P2. Pump P2 was switched on and the timer was started simultaneously.

11. Pump P2 was left to be operated for 2 minutes, and then it was switched off. The 3-
way valve V3 position was immediately set back towards Pump P1. Pump P1 was
switched on and was run until the end of the experiment.
12. The conductivity value (CT3) was recorded at a suitable interval (60 seconds) in an
appropriate table.

13. The recording of the conductivity values was continued until the readings were almost
constant.

14. The experiment was repeated from steps 5 to 13 but this time the liquid was allowed
to partially flow through the dead time coil. The valve V15 was adjusted to get the
right flow to get this done while the value V10 remained open.

15. The experiment was stopped and all the liquids in the reactors were drained by
opening valves V11, V12 and V13.

2.2 Safety and Precautions

1. Always observe all safety precautions in laboratory.

2. Always wear protective clothing, shoes, helmet and goggles throughout the laboratory
session.
3. Always run the experiment after fully understand the equipment and procedures.
4. Always plug in all cables into appropriate sockets before switching on the main power
on the control panel. Inspect all cables for any damage to avoid electrical shock.
Replace if necessary.
5. Make sure that the stirrer assembly is secured properly. Avoid excessive load to the
electrical motor to prevent damage.
6. Inspect the unit, including tubing and fittings, periodically for leakage and worn out.
Leakage might cause damage to equipments by corrosive chemical in the long run.
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Results and Discussions for Experiment A, B and C

Experiment A: The Effect of Step Change Unit

Concentration vs Time Interval

0.9

0.8

0.7
Concentration(g/L)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Time Interval ( mins )

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor 3

Figure 3.1: Concentration vs Time Interval graph for Experiment A

For this experiment, we carried out an experimental study to study the effect of step
change input on the concentration of salt solution, which is Sodium Chloride (NaCl) solution.
Theoretically, when a step change of solute concentration is introduced at the feed in Tank 1,
the reactor in series arrangement will undergo a transient behaviour. Based on Figure 1, it can
be seen that when the time is at t=0, the concentration of deionised water will be at a steady
state condition. When the NaCl solution is introduced, the concentration of salt solution
increases until the point of relentless state. This is due to feed entering Reactor 1 first and
then followed by Reactor 2 and Reactor 3 respectively. Based on the graph plotted, it can be
seen that Reactor 2 has the highest concentration of salt solution followed by Reactor 3 and
lastly, Reactor 1. Thus, it can be concluded that the trend in the graph follows the transient
response behaviour and satisfies the theory. All solutions in the reactor have become
saturated resulting in the concentration of the solution to not undergo much increment
towards the end of the experiment.
 Residence Time Distribution vs Time Interval

Residence Time Distribution,E(t),(min-1)

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time Interval ( mins )

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor 3

Figure 3.2: Residence Time Distribution vs Time Interval graph for Experiment A

Based on Figure 3.2, it can be seen that the residence time distribution for all three
reactors increase to a peak before decreasing and eventually increasing gradually towards the
end of the experiment. The residence time for Reactor 2 peaks at the highest, followed by
Reactor 1 and lastly, Reactor 3. The increase in residence time is due to when salt solution is
passed into the reactor, the concentration of solution becomes saturated and begins to leave
the reactor, resulting in residence time to increase gradually and after some time, decrease.
Thus, it can be concluded that Reactor 2 reaches saturation faster when compared to Reactor
2 and Reactor 3.

Flow rate vs Time Interval

220

218
Flow rate(mL/min)

216

214

212

210

208

206
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time Interval ( mins)

Figure 3.3: Flow rate vs Time Interval graph for Experiment A

 Based on Figure 3.3, it can be concluded that are changes occurring in the flow rate
values despite being fixed at 300 mL/min. The fluctuation of flow rate occurs due to air
bubbles being trapped in the reactor, thus resulting in the flow rate to fluctuate. As means of
improvement, the flow rate should be adjusted from time to time manually, to ensure there is
no fluctuation and a more accurate data can be obtained.

Table 3.1: Tabulated data for Experiment A

Time
Interval Conductivity (S) Concentration of trace, Ct (g/L)
(min)
CT1 CT2 CT3 CT1 CT2 CT3
0 4.0 50.6 160.3 0.000491 0.009026 0.033897
1 182.2 82.0 161.3 0.039263 0.015707 0.034140
2 398.4 236.5 168.2 0.096353 0.052963 0.035821
3 565.1 461.3 181.3 0.143901 0.114004 0.039040
4 689.9 717.0 271.3 0.180929 0.189107 0.061999
5 788.8 968.3 392.9 0.210994 0.266960 0.094828
6 863.3 1214.1 542.6 0.234016 0.346084 0.137346
7 919.8 1427.2 707.5 0.251674 0.416650 0.186235
8 962.2 1623.5 875.5 0.265031 0.483052 0.237815
9 997.7 1797.0 1041.1 0.276282 0.542743 0.290117
10 1025.1 1952.0 1198.0 0.285006 0.596796 0.340823
11 1046.2 2075.6 1344.3 0.291748 0.640357 0.389000
12 1062.2 2185.5 1473.6 0.296874 0.679414 0.432231
13 1074.6 2274.4 1600.7 0.300854 0.711221 0.475276
14 1086.9 2348.5 1708.1 0.304809 0.737874 0.512046
15 1094.3 2411.6 1800.6 0.307191 0.760668 0.543990
16 1100.8 2463.1 1886.8 0.309286 0.779338 0.573978
17 1105.8 2507.8 1956.4 0.310899 0.795589 0.598339
 Table 3.2: Tabulated data for Experiment A

Time Flow
Residence Time Distribution,
Interval Cumulative Distribution, F(t) Rate
E(t), (min-1)
(min) (mL/min)
CT1 CT2 CT3 CT1 CT2 CT3
0 0.000336 0.006178 0.023201 0.026538 0.004573 0.000166 208.4
1 0.026874 0.010751 0.023367 0.039076 0.0255 0.001151 209.3
2 0.065950 0.036251 0.024518 0.032545 0.041781 0.002204 215.7
3 0.098495 0.078032 0.026722 0.025344 0.051405 0.015714 216
4 0.123839 0.129437 0.042436 0.020578 0.053287 0.022471 208.4
5 0.144417 0.182724 0.064907 0.015758 0.054158 0.029102 209.5
6 0.160175 0.236882 0.094008 0.012086 0.0483 0.033463 213.2
7 0.172261 0.285181 0.127471 0.009143 0.04545 0.035305 212
8 0.181404 0.330631 0.162775 0.007701 0.040856 0.035799 212.1
9 0.189105 0.371487 0.198574 0.005971 0.036997 0.034707 213.6
10 0.195076 0.408484 0.233281 0.004615 0.029816 0.032975 213.6
11 0.199691 0.438301 0.266256 0.003508 0.026733 0.02959 215.6
12 0.203199 0.465034 0.295846 0.002724 0.021771 0.029463 216.7
13 0.205923 0.486804 0.325309 0.002707 0.018243 0.025168 215.1
14 0.208630 0.505047 0.350476 0.001631 0.015602 0.021865 213.3
15 0.210261 0.520649 0.372341 0.001434 0.012778 0.020526 213.7
16 0.211695 0.533428 0.392867 0.001104 0.011123 0.016674 217.7
17 0.212799 0.544551 0.409541 0.012518 0.032032 0.024091 213.3
Experiment B: The Effect of Pulse Input

Concentration vs Time Interval

0.14

0.12
Concentration , C(t), g/L

0.1

0.08
Reactor 1
0.06
Reactor 2
0.04 Reactor 3

0.02

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Interval ( mins )

Figure 3.4: Concentration vs Time Interval graph for Experiment B

For experiment B, based on Figure 3.4, the solution is initially at a steady state.
However, the transient behaviour changes due to a reduction in concentration from the input
when the pulse input was introduced for a span of two minutes. It can be seen from the graph
that the concentration of all three reactors increased to a peak before gradually decreasing and
reaching steady state.

Residence Time Distribution vs Time

0.07
Residence Time Distribution, E(t),min-1

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Interval (mins )

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor 3

Figure 3.5: Residence Time Distribution vs Time graph

 In Figure 3.5, it can be seen that the residence time distribution for all three reactors
increased with time as the pulse input is introduced. After the pulse is introduced, it can be
seen that the residence time interval for all three reactors decreased gradually, with Reactor 1
decreasing the most and Reactor 3 decreasing the slightest. Reactor 1 has the highest initial
residence time as the salt solution is passed through first into Reactor 1 and later on to
Reactor 2 and Reactor 3 respectively.

Flowrate vs Time
600
Flowrate (mL/min)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time Interval (mins )

Figure 3.6: Flow rate vs Time Interval graph for Experiment B

From figure 3.6, we can conclude that the flow rate having been set to 300mL/min
had undergone very mild fluctuations throughout the experiment despite peaking at 480
mL/min the start of flow.
 Table 3.3: Tabulated data for Experiment B

Time
Interval Conductivity (S) Concentration (t), (g/L)
(min)
CT1 CT2 CT3 CT1 CT2 CT3
0 18 163.5 166.6 0.002757 0.034675 0.03543
1 154.5 160.1 172.6 0.032493 0.033848 0.036898
2 309.9 230.6 179.3 0.072223 0.051449 0.038546
3 368.2 330 196.9 0.08802 0.077624 0.042919
4 319.6 408.1 223.3 0.074823 0.09905 0.049585
5 277.2 457.8 256.2 0.063548 0.113012 0.058056
6 241.7 484 288.5 0.054301 0.120465 0.06653
7 209.6 493.8 319.6 0.04611 0.123268 0.074823
8 181 492.3 348.6 0.038966 0.122838 0.082665
9 157.6 481.9 370 0.033243 0.119865 0.088514
10 137.6 465.8 383.6 0.028449 0.115281 0.092257
11 121.2 442.9 402.5 0.024593 0.108802 0.097492
12 106.3 418 406.2 0.021157 0.101812 0.098521
13 92.7 392.3 405.8 0.018081 0.094662 0.09841
14 83.1 367 403.3 0.015949 0.087691 0.097714
15 73.5 342.2 398.2 0.013854 0.080926 0.096298
16 65.6 316.4 390.3 0.012159 0.073964 0.094109
17 58.7 293.4 378.1 0.010703 0.067828 0.090741
18 52.6 271 365.5 0.009437 0.06192 0.08728
19 47.9 250.1 352.8 0.008476 0.056472 0.083809
20 44 231.7 334.4 0.007689 0.051731 0.078813
21 40.7 212.8 320.1 0.007031 0.046919 0.074958
 Table 3.4: Tabulated data for Experiment B

Residence time distribution, E(t) Flow rate

C(t) dt
(min-1) (mL/min)
CT1 CT2 CT3 CT1 CT2 CT3
0 0 0 0.002042 0.009622 0.010961 489.9
0.068318 0.073839 0.073856 0.024062 0.009393 0.011415 299.3
0.136469 0.105757 0.078001 0.053483 0.014278 0.011925 299
0.166375 0.153665 0.086602 0.065181 0.021541 0.013278 291.8
0.150287 0.195612 0.099771 0.055408 0.027487 0.01534 290.2
0.127773 0.223855 0.116113 0.047059 0.031362 0.017961 292.5
0.108955 0.23938 0.133 0.040211 0.03343 0.020582 291.1
0.092569 0.245458 0.149496 0.034146 0.034208 0.023148 295.6
0.078406 0.244829 0.164665 0.028855 0.034089 0.025574 295.3
0.066795 0.239193 0.176326 0.024617 0.033264 0.027383 294.5
0.05721 0.229931 0.185012 0.021067 0.031991 0.028541 293.5
0.049326 0.217433 0.193582 0.018212 0.030193 0.030161 294.4
0.042434 0.203571 0.196662 0.015667 0.028254 0.030479 295.2
0.036477 0.189384 0.196625 0.013389 0.02627 0.030445 293.6
0.031911 0.17545 0.195188 0.011811 0.024335 0.03023 293.8
0.027841 0.161786 0.192338 0.010259 0.022458 0.029791 295.4
0.024398 0.148204 0.187825 0.009004 0.020526 0.029114 295.4
0.02147 0.135732 0.181451 0.007926 0.018823 0.028072 295.6
0.018976 0.123994 0.174556 0.006988 0.017183 0.027002 295
0.01701 0.11318 0.167109 0.006277 0.015672 0.025928 294.8
0.015421 0.103439 0.158006 0.005694 0.014356 0.024382 293.9
0.011937 0.079802 0.126214 0.005207 0.01302 0.023189 292.7
Experiment C: Investigation of Dead Time Coil

Concentration vs Time Interval

0.3
(Concentration , C(t), g/L

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time Interval (mins )

Figure 3.7: Concentration vs Time Interval graph for Experiment C

In Experiment C, the effect of dead time coil is investigated by introducing pulse

input to Reactor 3. From Figure 3.7, we can observe that the solution of NaCl has highest
peak in concentration when it was allowed to flow into the reactor for two minutes. Next, the
pump is switched and the deionized water begins to dilute the NaCl solution, resulting in the
NaCl solution to decrease gradually. The dead time coil valve is then opened and a fraction of
NaCl solution is allowed to flow through causing the concentration in the reactor to increase
rapidly. Thus, we can conclude that the presence of dead time zones in the reactor is when
there is no mixing between mixtures in the reactor. The dead time zones function to allow
partial flow of solutions through it. Towards the end of the experiment, the deionized water is
allowed to dilute the concentration, causing a dip in concentration once again.

Residence Time Distribution vs Time Interval

0.05
Distribution,E(t) (min-1)

0.04
Residence Time

0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time Interval ( mins )

Figure 3.8: Residence Time Distribution vs Time Interval graph for Experiment C
 From Figure 3.8, it can be seen that as the concentration of solution in flow increased,
the residence time also increased before gradually decreasing when the dilution of solution
occurs. There is another peak in residence time distribution when the valve of the dead time
coil is partially opened and another drop is experienced once the solution undergoes dilution.

Flow Rate vs Time Interval

310
Flow Rate ( mL/min)

300
290
280
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time Interval ( mins )

Figure 3.9: Flow Rate vs Time Interval graph for Experiment C

For this experiment, the flow rate was set to 300 mL/min. However, the flow rate
fluctuated throughout the experiment with the highest flow rate reaching approximately 310
mL/min and the lowest being 288 mL/min.
 Table 3.5: Tabulated data for Experiment C

Residence
Time
Conductivity Concentration time Flow Rate
Interval C(t) dt
(S) C(t) (M) distribution, (mL/min)
(min)
E(t) (min-1)
0 79.2 0.015093 0 0.002442 301.9
1 295.1 0.068279 0.157796 0.011047 306.8
2 704.0 0.185178 0.351789 0.029959 305.5
3 902.9 0.246375 0.459821 0.039860 300.4
4 781.6 0.208785 0.418873 0.033779 298.0
5 670.5 0.175103 0.352261 0.028329 299.1
6 577.7 0.147589 0.296548 0.023878 299.7
7 497.0 0.124185 0.249731 0.020091 298.0
8 428.9 0.104865 0.210820 0.016966 298.4
9 371.1 0.088816 0.178577 0.014369 299.8
10 322.5 0.075603 0.152145 0.012231 299.5
11 283.5 0.065209 0.130849 0.010550 298.5
12 248.7 0.056110 0.113001 0.009078 299.8
13 222.4 0.049356 0.126508 0.007985 292.1
14 503.3 0.125993 0.261174 0.020384 292.4
15 851.0 0.230194 0.421479 0.037242 289.0
16 810.5 0.217668 0.428229 0.035216 288.7
17 699.5 0.183820 0.369248 0.029740 290.1
18 602.2 0.154793 0.311342 0.025043 288.8
19 520.8 0.131033 0.263441 0.021199 290.3
20 452.1 0.111399 0.223838 0.018023 289.8
21 393.1 0.094884 0.190674 0.015351 288.9
22 342.8 0.081089 0.162922 0.013119 289.8
23 299.8 0.069529 0.139703 0.011249 290.5
24 263.3 0.059906 0.120499 0.009692 289.5
25 234.1 0.052347 0.089764 0.008469 290.3
3.2 Errors and Recommendations

Errors occur during the progression which results in inaccuracy inconsistency of outputs.
Hence, some recommendations are made in order to correct the errors.

1. Inconsistency of inlet flowrate: The flowrate of input is fluctuating throughout the

experiments; this might be due to the turbulent type of flow of solution, or the
inconsistent pressure supplied by the pump. We can use a lower flowrate which would
satisfied the laminar type of flow to get a more stable and consistent flow. Using a
better pump which supplies consistent pressure would help to give a steady force to
the flowing solution.

2. Overflow of solution: During the experiment, there was once an overflow occurs in
the first CSTR while filling up water solution in the series of CSTR. This is because
the solution in the first CSTR flows slower to the second CSTR comparing to the inlet
flow, causing the solution level in the first CSTR to rise too fast until maximum
volume before being able to transfer to the next CSTR. To prevent the same condition
from happening, we reduced the inlet flowrate and keep track on the solution level in
each CSTR, and open the draining valve while necessary.
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
In conclusion, through this experiment, we could conclude that the dynamic
behaviour of CSTR is studied by observing retention time distribution (RTD) parameter. The
concentration of NaCl present effects the RTD at a certain time.

Based on experiment A, whenever there is a step change of solute concentration at the

feed, the concentration of NaCl ions in all three reactors increases with time until the
concentration is steady. According to the theoretical graph, it shows that reactor 1 portrays
highest increase in concentration followed by reactor 2 and then reactor 3. However, in our
experiment, reactor 2 has the highest concentration and reached much faster compared to
reactor 1 and 3. This is due to fluctuation of flow rate occurred because of air bubbles being
trapped in reactor. Nevertheless, we can see that as the time increased, the concentration of
all of the three reactors almost become constant.

For experiment B, whenever there is a pulse change of solute concentration initiated

at feed, concentration increased to a peak before gradually decreasing and reaching steady
state. Reactor 1 has the highest decrease in residence time intervals as the salt solution is
passed through first into Reactor 1 and later on to Reactor 2 and Reactor 3 respectively. This
proves that Reactor 1 was well mixed based on the RTD and concentration curve.

In experiment C, the CSTR and dead time coil is fixed in parallel. The flow rate
fluctuated throughout the experiment with the highest flow rate reaching approximately 310
mL/min and the lowest being 288 mL/min. As the concentration of solution in flow
increased, the residence time also increased before gradually decreasing when the dilution of
solution occurs. There is another peak in residence time distribution when the valve of the
dead time coil is partially opened and another drop is experienced once the solution
undergoes dilution.

Overall, the experimental results proven our objectives which is to study the transient
behaviour of three Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) connected in series and also a
CSTR in parallel with dead coil. The results are relevant and only deviates a little from the
theoretical results as there are some errors involve when conducting the experiments and this
can be improved by the recommendations we proposed in experiment. The dead time zones
function to allow partial flow of solutions through it. Towards the end of the experiment, the
deionized water is allowed to dilute the concentration, causing a dip in concentration once
again.
REFERENCES
Fogler, H. S. (2016). Elements of chemical reaction engineering. Boston: Prentice Hall.
APPENDICES
i. Calculations
1. To determine the molarity of NaCl solution from conductivity
The molarity of NaCl is determined by:

= 3106 1.1475
Where y is the molarity and x is the conductivity.
For experiment B, CT1 at t=0 and conductivity = 27.2 (S)

= 3106 (27.2)1.1475 = 0.0001328278 /

2. Numerical evaluation of 0 ()

() = 3 [ + 4 + + ]

Where h=b-a
For CT 1, At t = 1min,

() = /3 [=0 + 4=1 + =2 ]
= (1 0) / 3 [(0.002757) + 4(0.032493) + (0.072223)]
= 0.068318

3. To calculate residence time distribution, E(t)

()
() =
0 ()
26
For CT1 at t = 0, C(t) =0.000133 and 0 () = 0.059816

0.051731
() = =0.014356
3.6035

4. To prepare the 0.025M Sodium Chloride (NaCl) solution.

Molecular weight of Na = 23 g/mol
Molecular weight of Cl = 35.5 g/mol

14.61 1
= 0.025
(23 + 35.5 ) 10
5. To determine molarity of NaCl solution from conductivity

Graph of Molarity vs Conductivity for NaCl Solution

0.25

y = 3E-06x1.1475
R = 0.9978
0.2
Molarity (mol/L)

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Conductivity (mS)

Graph 1: Graph of Molarity vs Conductivity for NaCl Solution

The molarity of NaCl solution is determine using the equation,

= 3106 1.1475

E.g.: Experiment C, at t = 0 and conductivity = 73.2 S

= 3106 (73.2)1.1475 = 0.000413664 /