ChemicalEngineeringScience,1965,Vol. 20, pp. 1115-1124. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford. Printed in Great Britain.

Distillation tray efficiency and interfacial area

C. W. J. DE GOEDEREN
Koninklijke/Shell-Laboratorium, Amsterdam
(Shell Research N.V.)

(Received 19 May 1964)

Abstract-Three pure liquids, viz. water, ethanol and toluene were evaporated in air on a 10 cm dia.
sieve plate to ascertain the effect of liquid properties on the mass transfer in the gas phase.
It was found that two extreme forms of dispersion exist on the tray, viz. a liquid dispersion (droplets)
at high air velocity and low liquid hold-up, and an air dispersion (bubbles) at lower air velocity and
higher liquid hold-up.
The mass transfer outside the jetting droplets is found to increase with increasing air velocity and
with decreasing surface tension.
The mass transfer of the cellular foam is found to decrease as the air velocity increases, and is
correlated with an internal circulation Re-number and a Fo-number for the contact time.
The difference in bubbling mechanism between bubbles rising from a single orifice and those rising
from closely spaced orifices is discussed.

INTRODUCTION A.1.Ch.E. Research Committee [8, 91 and is

IN the design of fractionating towers of high sepa-
rating power the availability of a reliable and accu-
rate method for predicting tray efficiency is of
primary economic importance. In the past twenty
years many methods for efficiency prediction have
been proposed. These methods have been based
either on empirical correlation [l, 21, on funda-
mental relations [3, 4, 5, 61 or on semi-empirical
correlations, as outlined by GERSTER[7].
The latter method is illustrated schematically in
Fig. 1. From simple efficiency measurement with a
model system, operating at ‘comparable conditions’,
the efficiency of the tray for the actual system is
calculated by correcting the mass-transfer coeffi-
cient for the difference in Schmidt-numbers. The
method was worked out experimentally by the
FIG. 1. Calculation of gas-phase mass-transfer units
for an actual system from measurements on a model
system.
successful in indicating trends and factors affecting
tray efficiency.
For accurate prediction, however, it is necessary
to develop the concept of ‘comparable conditions’
in more detail. From the definition of the local
efficiency E,, and the number of mass transfer
units No, it is known that [9]:
E,, = 1 - eeNoG, (1)
where :
NOG - -,
‘zF (see equation (12)) (2)
It is reasonable to expect that the Schmidt-number
SC affects EOGthrough its effect on the overall mass-
transfer coefficient floe. In addition, it is expected
that apart from SC flow characteristics, represented
by a Reynolds relationship in Fig. 1 affect &.
However, also the total interfacial area F should
therefore be considered as it is a function of these
flow conditions and the liquids properties.
In the present investigation it has been tried to
establish the magnitude of these hydrodynamic
effects by simple adiabatic evaporation of pure
liquids, viz. water, toluene and ethanol, in an air
stream. By using pure liquids one avoids the compli-
cations introduced by concentration and tempera-
ture gradients at the liquid interface; i.e. the local

E 1115
 C. W. J. DE GOEDEREN

Table 1. Liquid properties at 5°C below -40°C and its temperature was raised to a
value such that the equilibrium temperature of the
Viscosity Surface tension Density evaporating liquid was 5°C.
CP dynlcm kg/m3
Measurements
Water 1.52 70 1000 Temperatures were measured with 0.5 mm thick,
Toluene 0.71 30.2 881
Ethanol 1.62 23.8 802 jacketed copper-onstantan thermocouples.
Vapour concentrations in the air were measured
efficiency Eoo is the same over the entire plate. with a wet and a dry-bulb thermocouple. The
Also the liquid properties such as surface tension, wet-bulb thermocouple was wrapped in a long
viscosity and density are well defined, (see Table 1) glass-fibre wick at the end of which a droplet of the
and mass- and heat-transfer is restricted to the gas evaporating liquid was suspended in the air stream.
phase. Heat supply by radiation to this droplet was pre-
vented by installing a pipe around the wet bulb
EXPERIMENTAL
having its inner wall covered with glass-fibre also
Apparatus wetted with the evaporating liquid.
As the psychrometric measurement is based on
A schematic view of the experimental arrange-
the analogy of heat- and mass-transfer around the
ment is shown in Fig. 2. The “tray” is a copper plate
liquid drop the following formula holds for the
of 3 mm thickness with 66 holes, 3 mm in dia. with
vapour concentration :
10 mm spacing. The plate was mounted between
the flanges of two glass tubes of 10 cm internal a CT- T’)
diameter. x=xw--
Adiabatic conditions were provided by a cooling
P f ’
bath surrounding the glass pipes. The temperature (For explanation see list of symbols.)
of this bath (5°C) was kept about 0~2°C lower than and, according to NUSSELT [lo]:
that of the liquid on the plate to compensate for
SC 2/3
heat flow from the air stream via the copper plate
to the liquid.
To eliminate temperature gradients in the liquid
+
()
pr . (4)

For the ethanol and toluene runs the vapour con-

on the plate, liquid was not circulated, and the
static height of the liquid was kept constant by
means of an overflow. The runs were carried out
for values of this static head, varying from 0.5-3.0
cm of clear liquid.
The entering air had a water vapour dew point
Liauid
centration of the entering air is zero, while for the
water runs this concentration could be determined
with a dew point meter. Thus a verification of
equation (4) is experimentally possible using equa-
tion (3). The agreement was found to be excellent,
as Table 2 shows.
All concentrations were carefully corrected for

Table 2. Heat- and mass-transfer analogy of

psychrometre drop
(cP = 0.24 kcal/kg “C)

Y exp, eq. (3) Le = -

Pr
SCy8, theor SC
B7
eq. (4)

Water/air 0.19 - 0.22 0.80 0.20 0.575

Air Ethanol/air 0.345 - 0.355 1.74 0.35 1.26
Toluenelair 0.43 - 0.47 2.55 0.45 1.84
FIG. 2. Apparatus.

1116
 Distillation tray efficiency and interfacial area

8 x N 0 N 0 N
I

1117
 C. W. J. DE GOEDEREN

entrance and end effects such as dripping of some

liquid through holes at low air velocity and the
wetted glass wall above the froth.
The air entrance temperature was corrected for
heat transmitted to the copper plate. The exit air
temperature was measured about 25 cm above the
froth and 40 cm above the jetting liquid so that
wetting of the thermocouple by entrained droplets
was avoided.
Adiabatic evaporation
Each run was checked for adiabatic performance
by making up the evaporation heat balance:
AilAx = c,,T,, (5)
where Tr is the liquid supply temperature. These
calculations can be speeded up by using a Mollier
diagram, in which the gas mixture enthalpy i is
directly found as a function of the measured values
T and X. As the ratio AilAx is indicated on a sepa-
rate scale in this diagram conformity with equation
(5) may be quickly checked. For water in air an
existing Mollier diagram was used, while another
one was drawn for ethanol in air (see Fig. 3).
The calculations for toluene in air were made
numerically. Physical, data were taken from
literature [I l-161.

&XJLTS
Foam height
Average foam heights of the three liquids used
are shown in Fig. 4. At low air velocity, bubbles
are formed of a cellular type as Fig. 5 shows, When
the air rate is increased the cellular foam breaks
I I I/I/llll
Toluene/olr
down and the froth height decreases somewhat. 2

Beyond the shaded area in Fig. 4, for instance, at I’ I I I lllll

air velocities higher than 0.5 m/set and at low liquid 0.1 2 4 68 b0 IM

hold-up the liquid becomes the dispersed phase
showing liquid filaments and many jets of droplets
rising to about 20 cm above the plate.
Cellular foam. On comparing in Fig. 4 the foam
heights of water and ethanol it is seen that an in-
crease in surface tension slightly decreases the cell-
ular foam height, while the data on ethanol and
toluene indicate that a decrease in viscosity increases
the cellular foam height rather strongly. Qualita-
tively this is in agreement with some literature
reports [17, 181. A possible explanation of this
effect is discussed in the Appendix.
“SV m/s
FIG. 4. Foam heightsvs. air entrance velocity.
Liquid jetting. The froth height is difficult to estab-
lish here. It was observed that with ethanol the
droplets are smallest and are thrown up highest
above the plate.
Bubble diameter and interfacial area
From the hold-up (a) and foam height (h)
measurements, assuming spherical bubbles of

1118
 Distillation tray efficiency and interfacial area

Table 3. Bubble diameters and interfacial area of cellular foam

Water/air Ethanol/air Toluene/air

Air mass flow, G kg/h 9.55 12.9 15.6 9.55 12.9 15.6 9-55 12.9 15.6
Superficial velocity us, m/s 0.27 0.36 044 0.27 o-37 044 0.27 0.36 0.43
Clear liquid height, cm 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 20 1.0 1-O 2-O 2.0 1-O 1-O 2-O 2.0
Bubble rising velocity, Vb. m/s? O-36 040 0.47 0.57 0.63 0.35 0.48 0.53 0.63 O-31 O-42 0.45 0.55
Bubble diameter, talc., d, cm 1.30 1.25 l-35 l-35 1.25 I.35 1.35 1.25 1.25 1.45 140 l-35 l-35
Interfacial area per
Unit volume, talc. A, cm2/cm3 3-45 3-25 3.45 3.45 3.30 3.45 3.45 3.30 3.30 3.70 3.65 3-50 3.50

t vb = us/(1 - a).

uniform diameter (d), the interfacial area per unit derived from a mass balance as follows:
volume, A, is found to be:
;d3p$ = nd’& - c).
(6)
Integration gives:
For a number (n) of parallel strings of bubbles
rising in a fluid, the interfacial area per unit volume
9
4
e: ln

-.
( 1 ci
CI -
Cl - co
(11)
is calculated to be:
As the vapour concentrations used in our experi-
*=&. (7) ments were very low it can be put that c = x. On
cd b elimination of (1 - a) from equation (6) and the
From frequency relations for a single string of average bubble contact time t = h/ub = h(1 - a)/&
bubbles, the bubble rising velocity is given by [5] and subsequent substitution of t into equation (1 l),
and rearrangement one finds:
6V
t)b=T.
=!!!T=ln
nd

The average bubble diameter can be calculated by

N G
G ( )
The results are represented in Fig. 6 by the
‘lexi
XI - XII
.
(12)

substitution of A and v, from (7) and (8), in equa-

tion (6):
d = [F&l - a)6/n7~]~‘~.
Bubble diameters and interfacial areas calculated
according to equations (9) and (6) from the experi-
mentally observed gas hold-up (1 - a) are shown
in Table 3.
It is seen that the bubble diameter thus calculated
is 13 mm on the average for the three liquids used.
This is in fair agreement with bubble diameters
which were estimated from photographs taken of
the top layer of foam as shown in Fig. 5. Bubbles
coalesced or split up into two or three smaller ones
the more frequently, the higher the air velocity.
Mass transfer in cellular foam
The number of gas-phase mass transfer units for
evaporation of a liquid into a gas bubble can be
drawn lines. It is seen that the number of mass
transfer units, Nc, decreases towards a minimum
(9) value as the superficial air velocity increases.
Agreement with measurements published by WEST
[19] is good.
Correlation
The heat and mass transfer processes in the bub-
bles of the cellular foam are subject to forced
internal circulation of the air as is discussed in some
detail in the Appendix. Also, the transfer coefficient
will be time-dependent as is the case with stagnant
bubbles [20, 211.
The variables involved can be found by consider-
ing the differential equations of the laminar bound-
ary layer including the time dependent term and
considering the transport condition close to the
wall. The following groups are then formed:

1119
 C. W.J. DE GOEDEREN

Sh=E Re _vcd_6Vt 0 woter/aw

A Toluene/air
PD’ ‘v ndv ’ 0 Ethanol/a,,

SC = v F. = p = Dh(l - a)
D’ D d2 d2ys ’
For each run these groups were determined by 4
z” f
first calculating the average spherical bubble dia-
%
meter and the interfacial area from equations (9)
2
and (6). By means of the method of least squares
the following correlation was developed:
01 I
0.001 2 4 5 8 0.01 2 4 6 B 0.1
Sh = 0.67 Rez’3 Fo,“~~. (13) Fo,= Dt/d’

The groups varied as follows: 300 5 Re, $ 900,

FIG.7. Effect of residence time and internal circulation
on mass-transfer in cellular foam.

0.004 5 Fo, 5 0.03, 0.5 6 SC $ 2. The error is

of the order of 10 per cent.
With these groups, equations (11) and (12) can
also be written as follows:
N, = 6ShFo,. (14)
Then, using correlation equation (13), the final
correlation for No becomes:
N G = 4&0’3Fe0’55
c D 9 (15)
which is shown in Fig. 7.
The influence of the time-dependent group is in
striking agreement with theoretical calculations of
mass transfer in stagnant drops [22] which for very
small values of Fo, give [6]:

Sh = ; Fo,“~. (16)

In contrast to those for stagnant drops however,

the present results show a noticeable increase of the
Sherwood number, due to internal circulation
currents in the bubbles. This effect has also been
reported for drops forming at a capillary [23].
KRONIG and BRINK derived the effect of viscous
NG 2 circulation in drops on the mass transfer [21].
They also found Sh to be a negative potential
function of Fo, [31], while the exponent is smaller
than for stagnant drops and the absolute values of
I.0
Sh are in between those of stagnant drops and the
“S. 4 present results.
FIG. 6. Gas-phase mass-transfer units vs. air entrance
velocity. Mass transfer in jetting liquid

7 If ue = Vb (see also equation (24)) the circulation air

From a general mass balance for a jetting liquid,
velocity oCis found by eliminating ubfrom equation (8). again equation (12) is found for the number of

1120
FIc. 5. Photographs of cellular foam. Air velocity
about 0-28 m/sec; Static head: 1"0 cm.

Facing page 1120

 Distillation tray efficiency and interfacial area
gas-phase mass transfer units. The results
represented in Fig. 6 by the dotted lines. It is seen
that Nc increases with increasing air velocity
apparently this increase is stronger when the sur-
face tension is lower.
Correlation
For the correlation of the number of mass transfer
units at spraying conditions (clear liquid height =
0.5 cm) the determining variables are found as
follows.
It is assumed that mass transport from the
droplets is described by established correlations
[24, 25, 261 as:
Sh = const ’ Re’t2Sc’/3
P 3
where Re, is based on the average drop diameter
d, and the actual air velocity ue. The total interfacial
area of a spray of uniform droplets forming a total
liquid hold-up H, is given by
F = 6H/d,,
while G = pu,F,, where
u,F, = u,F,,~ = v f din:
It is further assumed that the average drop diam-
eter is determined by equilibrium between drag and
molecular forces [27, 281, i.e.:
d, = const. o/pvg.
Finally, substitution of 8, F, G and d, from
equation (15) through (20) into equation (12) gives,
after rearrangement (knowing that the air viscosity
has practically been constant in our experiments):
N,Sc213 = const. p~$~/F,a”~.
As the cross section available for air flow FO
depends on the actual gas hold-up, which is expected
to be also a function of the gas load and surface
tension it follows that No will be a function of these
two variables. In the correlation, which is shown
in Fig. 8, the air velocity was expressed as F,, =
VP”~. This yields:
NoSc213 = 1.62 F;“la,
This correlation is not dimensionless and holds for
a clear liquid height of O-5 cm on the tray.
are
8
and 6
I
>
‘” 4
P ”
L=
2
0.01
IO 2 4 6 8 I00
6 dyn/cm
FIG. 8. Effect of surface tension and air velocity on
mass-transfer of jetting liquid.
As discussed before, the exponent of the Schmidt
(17) number can also be determined from the analogy
ratio E/i?. On the average, good agreement is found
with the 213 power of equation (22) which, as indi-
cated above, also holds for the drop of the wet-bulb
thermocouple.
(18)
CONCLUSIONS
ANDDISCUSSION
It is understood that the correlation derived from
(1% the present experiments will have limited applica-
bility to actual prediction of distillation tray
efficiency. Nevertheless, qualitative information
has been obtained which is of definite importance
for the development of prediction methods.
The results can be summarized as follows:
(20)
(9 Two regimes of gas/liquid contacting exist,
viz. cellular foam or gas dispersion, and liquid
jetting or liquid dispersion.
(ii) At constant liquid hold-up the number of gas-
phase mass transfer units, Nc, for cellular foam
is proportional to v,-li4, as it can be put that
(21) the gas hold-up for the three liquids was rough-
ly independent of u,. For liquid jetting, how-
ever, proportionality with vsle5 was found.
(iii) For cellular foam no effect of surface tension
is found, while for the liquid dispersion No is
inversely proportional to the surface tension.
(iv) The effect of SC appears to be somewhat
stronger for spraying conditions than for
cellular foam.
(22) Apparently, for jetting of droplets and liquid
filaments the fineness of the dispersion and hence
the mass transfer is markedly affected by the air
1121
 C. W. J. DE GOEDEREN

velocity and the surface tension, i.e. by the We-
number.
On actual distillation trays provided with down-
comers [29] the liquid hold-up can be assumed to
be roughly independent of the vapour flow. At low
vapour loading some bubbling may be observed,
which, however, is different in structure from the
cellular foam observed on small-diameter trays [29].
At moderate to high vapour loading in vacuum and
atmospheric distillation, jetting of large and small
droplets is exclusively observed. It is therefore to be
expected that tray efficiency will be markedly
affected by vapour loading and surface tension,
apart from a SC-number effect. On the other hand
tray-to-tray entrainment and increased liquid mix-
ing over the tray will counteract the increased local
efficiency.
From this investigation it has become clear that
the working model as described in the Introduction
for deriving a prediction method of the local mass
transfer efficiency will have to be refined if accurate
efficiency calculations are to be performed.
APPENDIX
Bubble rise und bubble formation at closely spaced
,orif ices
Experimentally we found that the diameter of the
bubbles in the cellular foam, calculated from the
measured gas hold-up, are not affected by the air
velocity (see Table 3). This was confirmed by
photographs taken at different air velocities and for
different values of the liquid hold-up. Three of these
photographs are shown in Fig. 5, where it can be
seen that the diameter of the glass tube (10 cm)
roughly corresponds to 7-8 bubbles.
As the bubbles rise closely to each other it follows
that the average bubble rising velocity is propor-
tional to VI.‘, (see Table 3). This is in striking
disagreement with well-known experimental work
on bubbles rising from single orifices in so-called
“chain-like bubbling” [5, 301. In Fig. 9 the correla-
tion for single-orifice bubbles is shown, from which
it is found that the average bubble diameter is
proportional to V”‘4 and, by using equation (7),
that the average rising velocity of the bubbles is
only proportional to YO.‘.
This different behaviour of bubbles formed at
closely spaced orifices can be understood by calculat-
ing the apparent drag coefficients, C,. From the
results shown in Fig. 9 it is seen that C, is very small
compared to C, of a bubble stream rising in a bulk
of liquid. It follows that on increasing the gas
velocity the bubble rising velocity in cellular foam
is equally increased so that the bubbles need not
become larger.
The low drag coefficient may be ascribed to the
absence of form drag as the liquid film rises with the
bubbles to the top of the foam. It can easily be
observed that the liquid of these films is carried to

FIG. 9. Drag coefficients of bubbles.

1122
 Distillation tray efficiency and interfacial area

the column wall by splashing and returns down- This equation can be compared to equation (7)
wards alongside the column wall, carrying a number which after rearrangement gives :
of small bubbles of about 3 mm in dia. down to the v 0.5
perforated plate. The liquid viscosity is expected d = 1.23 d,, - . (W
to affect this liquid recirculation velocity and thus 0vb
the supply of new liquid to the orifices. Accordingly It is seen that both equations have the same form,
the film between bubbles will be thinner, and there- differing only in the constant.
fore the foam height per unit vapour volume lower, In view of the difficulty of determining actual
when the liquid viscosity is higher (see Fig. 4). bubble diameters (see Fig. 5), the above agreement
A bubble formation mechanism for cellular foam supports the proposed bubbling mechanism, which
can be derived on the basis of the above considera- was based on complete momentum transfer as
tions. In Fig. 10, a sketch of a bubble at the end of bubble rise is almost frictionless in cellular foam.
its formation period is shown. We may assume
that at that moment the air circulation velocity at
NOTATION
any place in the bubble is constant as it does not
contract or expand. Then it follows from continuity A Interfacial area per unit volume of foam m2/me
that: a Fractional liquid hold-up in the foam
1-I‘ CP, CPl Specific heat of air and liquid kcal/kg “C
I
d'v, = 2 div. (23) Cl, c Vapour concentration at interface
24 4 and far from interface kg/kg
D Diffusion coefficient m2/sec
As the top of the bubble rises at a velocity r+,,it d Average spherical bubble diameter m
follows that the upward circulation velocity in the dh Perforation hole diameter m
centre of the bubble relative to its wall is given by 4 Droplet diameter
EOG Local overall efficiency Z
v, = vo - v*. At point A the downward circulation F Total interfacial area m2
velocity relative to the sieve plate then is v,* = Fcol Column cross section m2
v, - v* = Do - 2v,. Fh Hole area F. factor = vp0.s
Fo Column cross section available for air
When the momentum transfer from the issuing air flow m2
jet to the bubble is complete, the velocity of the air G Air mass flow kg/set
jet relative to the sieve plate should be reduced to Gravity constant m/sec2
i Total liquid hold up m3
zero, i.e. v,* = 0. In that case v,, is the highest h Foam height on the tray m
attainable. Thus in general (some drag) the follow- i Enthalpy of moist air (zero for water
ing relation holds: of 0°C) kcal/kg dry air
n Number of perforations
vo 2 25 or v, 2 vb.
(24) NOG,NG Number of overall and individual
gas-phase mass transfer units
Elimination of v0 from equations (24) and (23) gives: Heat of vaporization k&/kg
I _.\ 0.5 T,Tt! Temperature of air and wet bulb “C
dgd,,x . (23 Contact time sec.
0vb : Average air rate through a hole m3/sec
UC Air circulation velocity in bubble m/set
V, Ub,vo, v8 Average hole velocity, bubble rising
velocity, actual air velocity and superh-
cial air velocity m/set
Xl, x, xw Vapour concentration at interface,
far from interface and at the
wet bulb kg/kg dry air
a, a Local and average heat transfer coefficient
kcal/ma.sec”C
,& 8,pOGLocal, average and overall gas-phase
mass transfer coefficient kg/m2.sec, AX=1
v Liquid dynamic viscosity CP
Y Air kinematic viscosity mz/sec
V
Pl>P Density of liquid and air kg/m3
FIG. 10. Bubble formation. u Surface tension dyn/cm

1123
 C. W. J. DE G~EDEREN

FOD Fourier number for diffusion = Dtld2 Pr Prandtl number

Ree Circulation Reynolds number = v&/v SC Schmidt number
Rep Droplet Reynolds number = vodp/v Sh Sherwood number = pd/pD

REFERENCES
[I] DRICKAMER H. G. and BRADMIRD,J. R., Trans. Amer. Inst. Chem. Engrs. 1946 42 863.
121
.--
* O'CONNELL H. E.. Trans. Amer. Inst. Chem. Engrs. 1946 42 863.
[3] GEDDE~R. L., Trhns. Amer. Inst. Chem. Engrs.-1946 42 79.
[4] BAKOWSKI S.,Chem. Engng. Sci. 1952 1266.
[5] VAN KREVELEN D. W. and HOFTIJZERP. J., Chem. Engng. Progr. 1950 46 29.
[6] HGBJE R., Trans. Amer. Inst. Chem. Engrs. 1935 31 365.
[7] GERSTER3. A., COLBURNA. P., BONNETW. E. and CARMODY T. W., Chem. Engng. Progr. 1949 45 716.
[S] A.I.Ch.E., Research Con-m.; Final Reports Univ. Delaware (1958), N. Carolina State Coll. (1959) and Univ. Mich

[9]!?%.E., Research Comm., Bubble-tray Design Manual; Prediction of Fractionation Efficiency, 1958.
[lo] NU~~ELTW., Z. Angew. Math. II. Mech. 1930 10 105.
[ll] T~MMERMANS J., Physico-chemical constants ofpure organic compounds, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1950.
[12] D’ANs J., LAX E., Taschenbuch fiir Chemiker und Physiker, Springer, Berlin, 1949.
1131 KAYE G. W. C., LABYT. H., Tables ofphysical and Chemical Constants, Longmans, New York, 1955.
i14] LANGEN. A., Handbook of Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.
1151 KOGLIN W.. Kurzes Handbuch der Chemie. Vanden Hoeck und Ruprecht, Gottingen, 1951.
[16j BARTA,E. J., GARBERH. G., Chem. Met. l&rs. 1940 47 292.
[17] MUKIUENOVI. P., Zhur. Priklad. Khim. (J. Appl. Chem. USSR) 1958 3145.
[18] MERSMANNA., Abstract V.D.I.Z. 1962 104 35, 11, p. 1804.
[19] WEST F. B., Inst. Engng. Chem. 195244 2470.
[20] JOHNSONA. I., A.Z.Ch.E. JZ. 1960 6 145.
1211 KRONIG R. and BRINK J. C., Appl. Sci. Res. A 19502 142.
[22] NEWMANA. B., Trans. Ame;. I%. Chem. Engng. 193127 203.
1231 GR~~THUIS H., KRAMERSH., Chem. Engng. Sci. 1955 4 17.
[24] GRP~TH R. M., Chem. Engng. Sci. 196012 198.
[25] FROSSLINGN., Gerlands Beitr. Geophys. 1938 52 170.
1261 STE~NBERGER R.. and TREYBALR., A.Z.Ch.E. JZ. 1960 6 227.
[27] MUGELER. A., 2.I.Ch.E. JI. 1960.6 3.
[28] SLEICHERC. A., A.I.Ch.E. JI. 1962 8 471.
[29] Int. Symp. on Distillation, Brighton, May 1960, pp. 201, 220 and 63.
[30] WALTERSJ. K., DAVIDSONJ. F., J. Fluid Mech. 1962 12 408.
[31] THL~SSEN H. A. C., Thesis “Verslag Landbouwkundig onderzoek”, No. 61. 12.

R&tm&--Afin d’elucider l’influence des proprietes du liquide sur le transfert de masse dans la phase
gazeuse l’auteur a CtudiC l’evaporation de 3 liquides purs (l’eau, l’ethanol, le toluene) dans Pair sur
un plateau perfore de 10 cm de diametre.
11 existe deux extremes de dispersion sur le plateau: une dispersion liquide (gouttelettes) qui se
produit aux vitesses d’air elevees et lorsque le hold up de liquide est faible; une dispersion d’air (bulles)
qui se produit aux faibles vitesses de Pair et lorsque le hold up de liquide est important.
Le transfer? de masse a partir des gouttelettes est favorist par l’augmentation de la vitesse de Pair
et par la diminution de la tension superticielle. Le transfert dam la mousse dt?croit lorsque la vitesse de
Pair augment& On peut le correler a l’aide dun nombre de Reynolds pour la circulation interue et
d’un nombre Fo pour le temps de contact. La difference entre le mecanisme de formation de bulles a
partir dun orifice simple et d’un plateau perfore est discute dans un appendice.

Zusammenfaasung-Die Abhangigkeit des Stoffiibergangs in die Gasphase von den Eigenschaften

der Fltissigkeit wurde durch das Verdampfen reiner Fltissigkeiten (Wasser, Ethanol, Toluol) auf
einem Siebboden von 10 cm Durchmesser ermittelt. Dabei stellen sich auf dem Siebboden zwei
verschiedene Dispersionen em: bei hoher Luftgeschwindigkeit und geringem Holdup der Fltissigphase
wird die Fltissigkeit dispergiert (Tropfen), bei geringer Luftgeschwindigkeit und grol3em Holdup der
Fltissigphase wird die Luft dispergiert (Blasen).
Der Stofftibergang aul3erhalb der ablaufenden Tropfen nimmt mit steigender Luftgeschwindigkeit
und mit abnehmender Oberflachenspannung zu. Der Stofftibergang im Schaum nimmt mit steigender
Luftgeschwindigkeit ab; der Geschwindigkeitskoeffizient lal3t sich mit Hilfe einer Re-Zahl (innere
Zirkulation) und einer Fo-Zahl (Kontaktdauer) korrelieren.
Dartiber hinaus wird der Mechanismus der Blasenbewegung diskutiert, und zwar fur den Fall
einer einzigen Oeffnung und fiir den Fall dicht benachbarter Oeffnungen.

1124