© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.

org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

Effect of Ionic Salts on Gas hold-up in Bubble

Reactor using Surfactants
Rahul Gupta1, Namit Gadge2, Dr.Sadhana J.Purohit3
U.G. Student, Department of Chemical Engineering, ThadomalShahani Engineering College, Bandra, Mumbai, India1
U.G. Student, Department of Chemical Engineering, ThadomalShahani Engineering College, Bandra, Mumbai, India2
Professor, Department of ChemicalEngineering, ThadomalShahani Engineering College, Bandra, Mumbai, India3

ABSTRACT:A Bubble column reactor has been used to determine the Fractional gas holdup. The superficial gas velocity and the
fractional gas holdup are two of the most important characteristics governing the performance of the reactor, and the influence of
the surfactant in the gas-liquid hydrodynamics of the reactor has been thoroughly studied. The two surfactants that have been used
in this experimental setup are Cocoamidopropyl Betaine (Zwitterionic-type surfactant) and Tween-20(Non Ionic-type surfactant).
It was observed that below a certain value of superficial gas velocity, the addition of surfactants has negligible effect on the gas
holdup. Moreover, the study focuses on the influence of different types of ionic salts, and a variation in their concentrations, on
the reactor characteristics and performance. Thus, it is observed that the addition of surfactants and ionic salts alters the gas
holdup, and the maximum Gas holdup has been achieved.

KEYWORDS: Surfactants, Bubble Column Reactor, Gas hold-up, Ionic Salts.

I.INTRODUCTION

A bubble column reactor system is generally characterized by high liquid content in its tank, and a moderate phase boundary
surface. The bubble column is essentiallyused in reactions, where the rate of reaction between the gas and liquid phases is
slowdue to slower adsorption rates between them. The gas to be used as the reactant in thesystem is introduced from an inlet at the
bottom, and this gas passes through a spargerplate due to which a gas stream is formed, which is turbulent in nature. This
turbulentnature of the gas stream ensures an efficient mass transfer rate between the gas andthe liquid which are reacting inside
the column.
The mixing of the gas-liquid system takes by gas sparging, i.e.due to the randommovement and collisions of the bubbles with the
liquid, and it requires much lessenergy than mechanical stirring. The conversion of the reaction inside this reactor is primarily
governed by a parameter known as the Fractional gas holdup (Eg); it also affects many other important parameters for the bubble
reactor’s overall working.
The fractional gas holdup of any bubble reactor is dependent on various factors such as bubble diameter, bubble rise velocity and
amount of bubbles formed in the system. In the present work, the effect of the addition of a specific surfactant to various liquid
solution (differing in salt present in system) has been studied, so as to increase the conversion rate of the reaction that takes place
inside the reactor for the considered effluent water treatmentapplication.

II.LITERATURE SURVEY
Numerousexperimentations have been taken up over the years, involving various different Bubble reactor configurations
(height; diameter; sparger design) as well as different Air and Liquid solution mixture that enters the reactor.

The first wholesome study of the Fractional gas holdup inside the Bubble reactor was undertaken by Akita and Yoshida
(1973)4. Their solution mixture consisted of Tap water, Air-Isopropyl alcohol system at ambient physical conditions. The Bubble
column reactor configuration consisted of variations in the height and diameter of the column, but employed a Sintered plate of
mean pore size 10 micrometre as the Sparger for the production of the bubbles. Observations made were that the dependence on
velocity is approximately linear at low gas velocity (homogeneous regime), but as the velocity increases, the dependence becomes
less.
The first study was followed up by Oels et.al1, which gave majorup gradations to the theoretical assumptions made by Akita &
Yoshida4. The mixture consisted of Air-Demineralised water system, at ambient physical conditions. The sparger design
employed porous plate, of mean pore diameter 17.5 microns. It found out improvements on the earlier model, inferring that as gas
velocity increases, a transition occurs in which the dynamics governing bubble formation no longer control.
In this study a novel idea has been introduce, which considersthe addition of surfactants i.e. (Zwitterionic and Non-ionic
type)which helps to increase the foaming factor and results in greater and rapid bubble formation, for the same amount of gas and
liquid inside the reactor system.
Based on previous experimental data following imperial formulas are listed below;

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 963
© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

In this study, the Fractional gas holdup values have been calculated by using liquid height change and using a corrected form of
the equation suggested by the study made by Akita & Yoshida.

Where Lo is the height of water inside the bubble column before air is let into the system.
The values of epsilon obtained here have been used to graphically analyse variation of gas holdup to the change on different salt
solution as well as concentration changes.

III.EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Extensive informationhas been provided from the previous studies/literature,regarding the dependence of hold-up structure on
design parameters (such as column diameter, column height, sparger design, etc.) and the operating parameters (such as
superficial gas velocity, superficial liquid velocity, liquid viscosity, surface tension, gas density, liquid density etc.).

APPARATUS
Based on the literature we have used bubble columns for thehydrodynamic studies. The consideredcolumn consisted of SS-316
material, with a Pyrex glassinternal lining, an inside diameter of 0.15 m, and columns of varying heights being used, ranging from
0.15 m to 1 m, and has a Gross capacity of 1.2 kilo-litre, and an Operating capacity of 1 kilo-litre.
The process was equipped with the necessary ancillary equipment to accommodate continuous counter-current operation.
Safety valves and Level and Pressure control gauges have also been used in this system to ensure uniform physical and reaction
conditions inside the reactor.
The air, water and salt solution flow rates were controlled by laboratory rotameters.
Two different types of gas spargers were used in the column and appear at the bottom of Figure.1 The sparger hole size used was
of 0.5 mm specification, and the spargers were different owing to the different number of holes they consisted of (16 holes and 84
holes) as well as difference in % Free area available (0.6 and 0.23).

PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The purpose of our study is to find the effectiveness of surfactants to the application of sewage water treatment.Two different
types of surfactants have been added to the system of salt solution and air, so as to observe the rise in fractional gas holdup, for
the given feed sample. Liquid levels inside the bubble reactor were controlled using level gauges to ensure optimum amount of
liquid inside the reactor.

GAS HOLDUP MEASUREMENT

In the given column, gas holdup was determined by measuring the change in liquid height, with and without air flow.

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 964
© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
Over the years, many different Fractional gas holdup equations have been developed to predict the model inside the reactor, once
the operating conditions are known.

IV.EXPERIMENTALSET UP

FIG 2: Top view of Sparger

FIG 1: PFD of Bubble column Reactor

V. OBSERVATION TABLE

Comparative studies of surfactants

Parameters Tween 20(non-ionic) Cocoamidopropyl Betaine

(Zwitterionic)

Cost(per kg) ₹ 4000-5500 ₹ 70-350

Temp stability Less stable More stable

(500-600k)

Temp Solubility (298k) <0.2mg/l >1000mg/l

PH 6-8 5-7

Foaming factor Less High

Table no 1

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 965
© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
VI.EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fig 3: Sparger Design/ Eg vs Vg Graph for Non-coalescing type mixture

1. In a non-coalescing mixture, where the free area of the sparger is specified as 0.6%, it has been observed that a decrease
in the size of the outer diameter of the sparger from 3mm to 1mm (for a constant superficial gas velocity) leads to a
slight increase in the amount of gas hold-up.
2. Whereas, when the outer diameter of sparger is kept at a particular value viz. 0.5mm and the free area is decreased i.e.
(0.23 to 0.6%), a tremendous rise in gas holdup value was noted.
3. Hence, free area is inversely proportional to amount of gas hold-up.

Eg vs Vg
0.5
Fractional Gas Holdup, Eg

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Superficial Gas velocity, Vg

do=3mm do=1mm do=0.5mm %FA=0.6" do=0.5mm %FA=0.23

FIG 3 Sparger Design/ Eg vs Vg Graph

Fig 4: Ionic Salts, Different Ionic salts as parameter-

1. The composition of effluent water from various sources was compared and was found that cacl2 was found in majority
composition followed by mgso4 and NaCl
2. And the ionic nature of salts are listed below;
NaCl>MgSO4>BaCl2>KCl>Na2SO4>CaCl2
3. Hence, in our experimental set up we have compared gas hold up of each individual salt solution which has been found
in sewage water.
4. The setup consist of different salts solution with same concentration, and after performing experimentally, it has
observed that at till a particular value of 8.5mm/s the fractional gas holdup of all salt of same concentration rises linearly.
5. Further increase in superficial gas velocity to around 11mm/s to 12mm/s gives us the peak value of fractional gas holdup
for all salt solutions- here, the residence time of the salt solution and the cleaning air contacting it has been found to be
ideal.
6. Subsequent increase in the gas velocity, from 11mm/s to 18 mm/s, leads to a deviation from the ideal residence time, due
to which gas holdup inside the reactor decreases.
7. The holdup value keeps on depreciating till 20 mm/s, at which the increase in amount of salt entering the system is such
that the high number of dissociated ions in the system leads to greater foaming in the system, and hence the residence
time parameter is now ignored.
8. The gas holdup keeps on increasing till a certain saturation point, after which no further variation in gas holdup is
observed, regardless of the increase in the superficial velocity.

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 966
© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

Salt as Parameter
0.45
0.4

Fractional Gas Holdup

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Superficial Gas Velocity (Vg)

Distilled Water Nacl MgSO4 CaCl2

FIG 4: Ionic Salts

Fig 5: Ionic salts, Different salt concentration as parameter-

1. Ionic salts, Different salt concentration as parameter-

2. Here we have considered a salt CaCl2, which has the highest concentration (mol/mol) in the sewage water when
compared to different waste water sources.
3. It has been studied that as the number of dissociation of ions per mole is increased, the gas hold-up in the reactor is
maximum at 8.5 mm/s superficial velocity for almost all the salt solutions.
4. When the gas velocity is further increased, the amount of gas holdup in the solution decreases due to the low
residence time of the salt solution, due to non-ideal flow of solution into the reactor system.
5. After a certain value of the superficial gas velocity (in the range of 15-20 mm/s), such is the amount of salt now
present in the reactor, that there is a drastic increase in the number of dissociated ions, due to which the residence
time parameter is neglected, and the gas holdup value is found to increase gradually, till it reaches a critical
saturation point.

Salt Concentration as a parameter

0.45
Fractional Gas Holdup, Eg

0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Superficial Gas Velocity, Vg

Distilled Water 0.01 mol/L 0.02 mol/L 0.03 mol/L

FIG 5: Ionic salts, Different salt concentration as parameter

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 967
© 2018 IJRAR July 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
VII.CONCLUSION

1. In the heterogeneous regime, for multipoint spargers and at the same superficial gas velocity, Fractional gas holdup
increases with a decrease in the holediameter (3mm to 0.5mm).
2. The combination of various salt solutions and surfactants has been studied to gain insight into the gas holdup profiles,
which helps us to know which surfactant will help proceed a more efficient reaction, once the feed salt solution is known.
3. These holdup profiles that have been obtained, will help us to predict the amount of cleaning agent and surfactant
required for any particular effluent stream.
4. Our studies have indicated that at a low feed superficial gas velocity below 0.3cm/s, or a feed flow rate value of below
31.8 LPH, the addition of any surfactant has very low effect on gas holdup.
5. At low temperature Cocoamidopropyl Betaine is more economically and thermally stable than Tween 20.

VIII. FUTURE SCOPE

Further studies can be made to study the effect of number of holes on fractional gas hold-up, to study the effect of temperature
on the surfactant micelle ability in a salt solution to optimise waste water treatment process where feed solutions is available at
very high temperature to analyse the amount of impurities and salts present in the sludge system.

IX.REFERENCES

1) U OELS, J LUCKE ET. AL GERCHEMENGNG (1978)

2) J ZAHRADNIK, M FIALOVA ET. AL TRANS INSTNCHEMENGRS (1995)

3) AKITA, K., YOSHIDA, F., 1973, GAS HOLDUP AND VOLUMETRIC MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT IN BUBBLE COLUMN.
EFFECT OF LIQUID PROPERTIES, INDENGCHEM PROCESS RES, 12, 76-80.
4) Akita, K., Yoshida, F., 1974. Bubble size, inter facial area and liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient in bubble columns.
IndEngChem Process, 12, 76–80.
5) Joshi, J.B., ParasuVeera, et. al B.N., 1998. Gas hold-up structure in bubble column reactors. PINSA 64A (4), 441–567.
6) Kalekar, M.S., Bhagwat, S, S., 2006. Dynamic behavior of surfactants in solution. Journal of Dispersion Sci and
Technol., 27(7): 1027-1034.

7) KOTHEKAR, S.H.C., WARE ET, AL S.A., 2007. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTIES OF TWEEN-20, TWEEN-60,
TWEEN-80, ARLACEL60 AND ARLACEL-80. JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCI AND TECHNOL., 28(3): 477-484.

8) KRISHNA, R., VANBATEN, J.M., 2003. MASS TRANSFER IN BUBBLE COLUMNS. CATALYSIS TODAY, 79–80,67–75.
9) Kulkarni, A. A., Joshi, J. B., 2005. Bubble formation and bubble rise velocity in gas–liquid system: a review. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 44, 5873-5931.
10) Nigar, K., Fahir, B., Kutlu, O. U., 2005. Bubble column reactors: A review. Process Biochemistry 40, 2263 2283.
11) Porter, M.R., 1994. Hand book of Surfactants, Blackie, London.

12) DECKWER, W.D., 1992. BUBBLE COLUMN REACTORS. WILEY, CHICHESTER.

13) H F BACH AND T PILHOFERGERCHEMENGNG 1 (1978)

14) J ZAHRADNIK, M FIALOVA, J DRAHOS, ET. AL CHEMENGNGSCI 52 (1997)

15) M J LOCKETT AND R D KIRKPATRICK TRANS INSTNCHEMENGRS(1975)

16) J DRAHOS, J ZAHRADNIK, M FIALOVA ET. AL CHEMENGNGSCI 47 (1992)

17) WIKIPEDIA- THE FREE ENCYCLOPAEDIA

IJRAR1903118 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 968