Swinburne University of Technology

Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science (FECS)

(Sarawak Campus)

CEE30003 Process Mass Transfer

Laboratory Experiment 2: Gas Absorption

Group D members

Justin Chua Cheng Ming 101209028

Chong Siaw Yen 100071954

Anika Islam Dipti 100085133

Gracylla Rose anak Guncheng 4334914

Laboratory Instructor : Dr. Yiin Chung Loong

Date of Submission : 8th November 2019

 Tasks Contribution:

Members Assigned Task Contribution Signature

Justin Chua Cheng Executive summary and

101209028 25 %
Ming Conclusion/Recommendation

Introduction, Objective and

Chong Siaw Yen 100071954 25 %
Procedure

Anika Islam Dipti 100085133 Discussion 25 %

Gracylla Rose anak

4334914 Results & Compilation 25 %
Guncheng

“We declare that this report is solely our own work. All contributions made by others have
been dully acknowledge.”
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 2

3. Experimental Procedure ......................................................................................................... 3

4. Result ..................................................................................................................................... 4

5. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 8

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 9

References ................................................................................................................................... i

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Air flow rate at 60 L/h. ............................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Air flow rate at 120 L/h. ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Air flow rate at 180 L/h. ............................................................................................. 7

List of Tables

Table 1: Experimental data at different air flow rate and water flow rate. ................................ 4
Table 2: Calculated data at different air flow rate and water flow rate. .................................... 5
Table 3: Values of n and R2 at different air flow rate. ............................................................... 7
Table 4: Data for sample calculation of water flow rate at 4 L/h (air flow rate = 6.0L/h). .......ii
Table 5: Interpolation Csat,in at Tin = 27.20 °C. ........................................................................ iii
Table 6: Interpolation Psat,in at Tin = 27.20 °C. .......................................................................... iv
Table 7: Interpolation kinematic viscosity, v at T avg = 25.40 °C. ............................................. iv
Table 8: Calculated data for sample calculation of water flow rate at 4 L/h (air flow rate =
6.0L/h). ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Table 9: Interpolation density, ρ at Tavg = 25.40 °C. ................................................................ vi
Executive Summary

Gas absorption is a process whereby a gas or vapor is removed from air or another gaseous
stream by contact with a flowing liquid phase. This report discusses on the determination of
gas absorption. The objective is to determine the mass transfer coefficients of absorption.
Besides, the experiment also used to determine the oxygen solubility in pure water at different
air flow rates and water flow rates. The experiment was conducted by using air flow rates at 60
L/h, 120 L/h, 180 L/h. Furthermore, each air flow rates also conduct with different flow rates
which are 4 L/h, 8 L/h, 12 L/h and 16 L/h. The relation between Sherwood number and
Reynolds number at different air flow rates were plotted in log-log scale with a constant value
n. The n value was found to be 1.0047, 0.7186 and 0.9596. In comparison between theoretical
and experimental data, it was found that the value of air flow rate at 60 L/h, 120 L/h and 180
L/h were not accurate. The error might be due to the lack of stability when taking the values
during the experiment.

1|Page
1. Introduction

Gas absorption is a process whereby a gas or vapor is removed from air or another gaseous
stream by contact with a flowing liquid phase. In gas absorption, the gas mixture will be
separated easily and the components in mixture which may be harmful can be removed
effectively. In this experiment, the wetted wall column is used to study the gas adsorption.
Also, nitrogen gas is used because of the ease of accessibility of liquid nitrogen in laboratories.

2. Objectives

The experiment was conducted to determine the mass transfer coefficients of absorption.
Besides, it was to determine the oxygen solubility in pure water at different air flow rates and
water flow rates.

2|Page
3. Experimental Procedure

Start up

1. The main switch is switched on.

2. Next, make sure valve V1 is connected to the nitrogen gas cylinder. A pressure of 0.5
bar to 1 bar is also set.
3. Make sure the tank is filled with distilled water.
4. Then, pump G1 is turned on valve V3 is adjusted slowly and carefully in order to fill
the deoxygenator column.
5. After that, pump G2 is turned on. By using the microvalve, the flow rate at the flow
meter FI1 is adjusted. This is to ensure that the wetted wall column is wet uniformly
throughout the experiment.
6. Compressor P1 is turned on and using microvalve, the flow rate at the flow meter FI2
is adjusted.
7. Lastly for start up, valve V1 is opened to allow the nitrogen to flow slowly into
deoxygenator column. Note: If the deoxygenator column is slugging, the flow of
nitrogen is needed to be reduced.

During experiment

1. All units are set up and allow the column to be at steady state.
2. Before initiating the airflow, the tank should be about ¾ full of water.
3. The experiment is started by using first conditions as follows:-
- Air flow rate: 60 L/hr
- Water flow rate: 4, 8, 12 and 16 L/hr
4. Step 3 is repeated by using different air flow rates at 120 L/hr and 180 L/hr and water
flow rates are remained the same.
5. All result are tabulated as shown in the result section.

Shut down

1. Compressor P1, pumps G1 and G2 are switched off.

2. Nitrogen supply (V1) is switched off.

3|Page
 4. Result

*** Sample calculation can be seen in Appendix. All data are calculated using MS Excel and the graphs are plotted for further discussion of
results in Discussion Section.

Table 1: Experimental data at different air flow rate and water flow rate.

Air Water
csat, in csat, out csat, in csat, out
Flow Flow Tin Tout cin cout Patm Psat, in Psat, out Tave ν @ Tave
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Rate Rate (°C) (°C) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mmHg) (mmHg) (mmHg) (°C) (cm2/s)
@ 1 atm @ 1 atm @ Patm @ Patm
(L/h) (L/h)
4.0 27.20 23.60 1.06 10.10 760.00 7.91 8.46 27.05 21.84 7.91 8.46 25.40 8.944E-03
8.0 28.80 26.80 0.77 7.66 760.00 7.69 7.97 29.69 26.43 7.69 7.97 27.80 8.457E-03
60
12.0 28.80 26.80 0.64 7.82 760.00 7.69 7.97 29.69 26.43 7.69 7.97 27.80 8.457E-03
16.0 28.80 27.00 1.09 7.13 760.00 7.69 7.94 29.69 26.73 7.69 7.94 27.90 8.436E-03
4.0 28.40 26.30 0.67 7.97 760.00 7.74 8.04 29.02 25.66 7.74 8.04 27.35 8.548E-03
8.0 28.30 26.40 0.87 7.77 760.00 7.76 8.02 28.85 25.81 7.76 8.02 27.35 8.548E-03
120
12.0 28.10 26.60 1.16 7.72 760.00 7.79 8.00 28.51 26.12 7.79 8.00 27.35 8.548E-03
16.0 28.20 26.70 1.19 7.72 760.00 7.77 7.98 28.68 26.27 7.77 7.98 27.45 8.528E-03
4.0 29.00 26.00 0.38 8.59 760.00 7.66 8.08 30.03 25.20 7.66 8.08 27.50 8.518E-03
8.0 29.80 26.50 0.42 8.54 760.00 7.56 8.01 31.46 25.97 7.56 8.01 28.15 8.386E-03
180
12.0 30.10 27.10 0.62 8.04 760.00 7.53 7.93 32.00 26.89 7.53 7.93 28.60 8.294E-03
16.0 29.50 27.40 0.85 7.32 760.00 7.60 7.88 30.93 27.38 7.60 7.88 28.45 8.325E-03

4|Page
 Table 2: Calculated data at different air flow rate and water flow rate.
Air Water
Wetting
Flow Flow ρ @ Tave Na/A ∆cin ∆cout ∆cln Kr
Rate, W Re Na (μg/s) Kc (cm/s) Sh ln(Re) ln(Sh)
Rate Rate 3
(kg/m ) (μg/s.cm )
2
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (g/cm2.s)
(cm2/s)
(L/h) (L/h)
4.0 997.02 0.1038 46.44 1.004E+01 1.045E-02 6.85 1.64 3.65 2.859E-03 2.868E-03 10324.33 3.84 9.24
8.0 996.37 0.2077 98.24 1.531E+01 1.594E-02 6.92 0.31 2.12 7.475E-03 7.502E-03 27006.35 4.59 10.20
60
12.0 996.37 0.3115 147.35 2.393E+01 2.491E-02 7.05 0.15 1.79 1.390E-02 1.395E-02 50206.79 4.99 10.82
16.0 996.34 0.4154 196.94 2.684E+01 2.794E-02 6.60 0.81 2.76 1.009E-02 1.012E-02 36448.25 5.28 10.50
4.0 996.49 0.1038 48.59 8.111E+00 8.442E-03 7.07 0.07 1.51 5.577E-03 5.596E-03 20147.30 3.88 9.91
8.0 996.49 0.2077 97.19 1.533E+01 1.596E-02 6.89 0.25 2.01 7.911E-03 7.939E-03 28579.39 4.58 10.26
120
12.0 996.49 0.3115 145.78 2.187E+01 2.276E-02 6.63 0.28 2.00 1.135E-02 1.139E-02 41007.45 4.98 10.62
16.0 996.46 0.4154 194.83 2.902E+01 3.021E-02 6.58 0.26 1.96 1.535E-02 1.541E-02 55465.93 5.27 10.92
4.0 996.45 0.1038 48.77 9.122E+00 9.494E-03 7.28 0.51 2.55 3.715E-03 3.728E-03 13421.35 3.89 9.50
8.0 996.27 0.2077 99.07 1.804E+01 1.878E-02 7.14 0.53 2.54 7.358E-03 7.386E-03 26588.65 4.60 10.19
180
12.0 996.14 0.3115 150.24 2.473E+01 2.574E-02 6.91 0.11 1.66 1.549E-02 1.555E-02 55987.31 5.01 10.93
16.0 996.18 0.4154 199.58 2.876E+01 2.993E-02 6.75 0.56 2.49 1.196E-02 1.201E-02 43232.23 5.30 10.67

5|Page
 Air Flow Rate = 60 L/h
11.00
10.80
y = 1.0047x + 5.4962
10.60
R² = 0.8505
10.40
10.20
ln(Sh)

10.00
9.80
9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
ln(Re)

Figure 1: Air flow rate at 60 L/h.

Air Flow Rate = 120 L/h

11.00

10.80 y = 0.7186x + 7.067

R² = 0.9703
10.60
ln(Sh)

10.40

10.20

10.00

9.80
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
ln(Re)

Figure 2: Air flow rate at 120 L/h.

6|Page
 Air Flow Rate = 180 L/h
11.00

10.80 y = 0.9596x + 5.817

R² = 0.8752
10.60

10.40
ln(Sh)

10.20

10.00

9.80

9.60

9.40
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
ln(Re)

Figure 3: Air flow rate at 180 L/h.

Table 3: Values of n and R2 at different air flow rate.

Air Flow
N R2
Rate (L/h)
60 1.0047 0.8505
120 0.7186 0.9703
180 0.9596 0.8752

7|Page
5. Discussion

Theoretical and experimental data of mass transfer coefficient at different Reynolds numbers
or air velocities were compared by using the following relationship:-

(Sh) = f(Sc)1/2(Ga)1/6(Re)n

(Sh) ∞ (Re)n

Three plotted graphs with different Reynolds numbers indicate that the mass transfer
coefficient equation developed in this work has enough degree of accuracy. Generally, it was
found that the discrepancy was lower at low Reynolds but it increases as Reynolds number
increases. Additionally, increases in Sherwood number is proportional with Reynolds number.
Based on Table 2, the result showed that the mass transfer coefficients fluctuate a lot with
different values of Reynolds number. This might be due to the lack of stability when taking the
values during the experiment.

Furthermore, it can be interpreted that increased the air and water flow rates will also increase
the value of Kc when comparing the liquid phase mass transfer coefficient, K c with air and
water flow rates. However, the obtained result might be inaccurate due to few errors when
conducting the experiment. For example, generally, the gradient of the best-fit line from the
graph showed the values of n is increased as air flow rate increased. Contrary, based on Table
3 showed that the obtained values of R2 are inconsistent. Also, by referring to Table 3, it is
clearly showed that the value of R2 at 180 L/h is smaller than the value of R2 at 120 L/h. Thus,
this can be concluded that the experimental data might not entirely accurate.

According to Duduku Krishnaiah et.al (2014), higher diffusion rate of oxygen can be achieved
if increase in concentration flux and temperature. This is because increase in kinetic energy of
water molecules will allow the trapped oxygen molecules in water to be separated when
temperature is increasing. However, based on Table 2, the values of concentration flux, NA
with overall mass transfer coefficient, Kr are increased nor decreased. Therefore, it can be
concluded that less solubility of oxygen in water.

8|Page
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the n values for different air flow rates relate Reynolds number to Sherwood
number in the gas absorption operation were 1.0047, 0.7186 and 0.9596. The result did not
agree with the theoretical result. In addition, less solubility of oxygen as the values of
concentration flux, NA with overall mass transfer coefficient, Kr are increased nor decreased.
The possible source of error would be due to lack of stability when taking the values during
the experiment.

To obtain better result in this experiment, it would be recommended to control the V1

consistently during conducting the experiment. Thus, this can lead to less discrepancies in
literature research results due to potential presence of rippling.

9|Page
References

Duduku Krishnaiah, Rosalam Sarbatly, S.M. Anisuzzaman & Rendy Kasin 2014, ‘Effects of
operating pressure and temperature on the oxygen diffusion through hollow fiber ceramic
membrane’, Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 1309-1313, viewed 7th November 2019,
< https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jas.2014.1309.1313>.

Paar, A 2019, Gas adsorption for surface and pore size analysis, , viewed 5 November 2019,
<https://wiki.anton-paar.com/my-en/gas-adsorption-for-surface-area-and-pore-size-
analysis/>.

i|Page
Appendix

Sample Calculation

Column diameter = 3.4 cm

Column height = 90 cm

Wetted Perimeter, P ≅ 2𝜋𝑅 = 𝜋𝐷 = 3.14 × 3.4𝑐𝑚 = 10.7 𝑐𝑚

Gas/liquid interface area, A = 106cm × 90cm = 960.84 cm2

D = 2.5 × 10−5 𝑐𝑚2 /𝑠

Table 4: Data for sample calculation of water flow rate at 4 L/h (air flow rate = 6.0L/h).

Water Csat,in Csat,out

Csat,in Csat,out
Flow 𝑻𝒊𝒏 Tout Cin Cout Patm @ @ 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑜𝑢𝑡 Tave 𝝂 at Tave
@ Patm @ Patm
Rate 1atm 1atm

mg/ mm
L/h ℃ ℃ mg/L mg/L mg/L mmHg mmHg mg/L mg/L ℃ 𝑐𝑚2 /𝑠
L Hg

8.944
4 27.20 23.60 1.06 10.10 760 7.91 8.46 27.05 21.84 7.91 8.46 25.40
× 10−3

ii | P a g e
 𝑇𝑖𝑛 + 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡
Average temperature, 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 , ℃ = 2
𝐿
At water flow rate = 4 ℎ,
27.20 + 23.90
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑔 , ℃ = = 25.40℃
2

i. Linear interpolation method is used to find Csat,in by extracted information from Table 1
in lab manual.
At 𝑻𝒊𝒏 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟐𝟎℃,

Table 5: Interpolation Csat,in at Tin = 27.20 °C.

𝐦𝐠
𝑻℃ 𝐂𝐬𝐚𝐭,𝐢𝐧 @ 1 atm, 𝐋

27 7.94

27.20 𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛

28 7.80

Linear interpolation;

28 − 27 7.80 − 7.94
=
28 − 27.20 7.80 − 𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛

mg
𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 = 7.91
L

*** The calculation is repeated at different temperature for each flow rate in order to find
𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑜𝑢𝑡 .

ii. Linear interpolation method is also used to find 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 by extracted information from Table
3 in lab manual.

At 𝑻𝒊𝒏 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟐𝟎℃,

Note: 1 atm = 101325 Pa = 760 mmHg

iii | P a g e
 Table 6: Interpolation Psat,in at Tin = 27.20 °C.

𝑻℃ 𝑷𝒔𝒂𝒕, Pa

27 3564

27.20 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛

28 3779

Linear interpolation;

28 − 27 3779 − 3564
=
28 − 27.20 3779 − 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛

760 𝑚𝑚𝐻𝑔
𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 = 3607 𝑃𝑎 × = 27.05 𝑚𝑚𝐻𝑔
101325 𝑃𝑎

*** The calculation is repeated at different temperature for each flow rate in order to find
𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑜𝑢𝑡 .

iii. Linear interpolation method is used to find 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝜈 by extracted

information from Table 2 in lab manual.

At 𝑻𝒂𝒗𝒈 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟒𝟎℃

Table 7: Interpolation kinematic viscosity, v at Tavg = 25.40 °C.

𝒎𝟐
𝑻℃ 𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝝂
𝒔

20 1.004 × 10−6

25.40 𝜈

30 0.801 × 10−6

Linear interpolation;

30 − 20 (0.801 × 10−6 ) − (1.004 × 10−6 )

=
30 − 25.40 (0.801 × 10−6 ) − 𝜈

iv | P a g e
 𝑚2 10000𝑐𝑚2 𝑐𝑚2
𝜈 = (0.8416 × 10−6 )×( ) = 8.944 × 10 −3
𝑠 1 𝑚2 𝑠

*** The calculation is repeated at different average temperature for each flow rate in order to find
𝜈.

v|Page
 Table 8: Calculated data for sample calculation of water flow rate at 4 L/h (air flow rate = 6.0L/h).

Water Wetting
ρ @ Tave Na/A ∆cin ∆cout ∆cln
Flow Rate Rate, W Re Na (μg/s) Kr (g/cm2.s) Kc (cm/s) Sh ln(Re) ln(Sh)
3
(kg/m ) (μg/s.cm )2
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(L/h) (cm2/s)
4.0 997.02 0.1038 46.44 1.004E+01 1.045E-02 6.85 1.64 3.65 2.859E-03 2.868E-03 10324.33 3.84 9.24

iv. Linear interpolation method is used to find density, ρ by extracted information from Table 3 in lab manual.

At 𝑻𝒂𝒗𝒈 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟒𝟎℃,

Table 9: Interpolation density, ρ at Tavg = 25.40 °C.

T (°C) ρ (kg/m3)

25.00 997.13

25.40 ρ

26.00 996.86

vi | P a g e
Linear interpolation;

26 − 25 997.13 − 996.86
=
26 − 25.40 997.13 − 𝜌

𝑘𝑔
𝜌 = 997.02
𝑚3

*** The calculation is repeated at different average temperature for each flow rate in order to
find ρ.

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒

=
𝑊𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑊 𝑊𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐿 𝑐𝑚3 1 ℎ
4 × 1000 𝐿 × 3600 𝑠
= ℎ
10.7 𝑐𝑚

𝑐𝑚2
= 0.1038
𝐿

𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟, 𝑅𝑒 𝑐𝑚2

4 × 0.1038 𝑠
=
𝑐𝑚2
8.944 × 10−3 𝑠

= 46.44

Absorption Rate, Na

= Water Flow Rate × (cout − 𝑐𝑖𝑛 )

𝐿 𝑚𝑔 1 ℎ
= 4 × (10.10 − 1.06) ×
ℎ 𝐿 3600 𝑠
𝑚𝑔
= 0.01004
𝑠
𝜇𝑔
= 10.01
𝑠

vii | P a g e
 𝜇𝑔
10.01 𝑠
=
𝑁𝑎 960.84 𝑐𝑚2
𝐴
𝜇𝑔
= 0.01045
𝑠. 𝑐𝑚2

∆𝐶𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝑖𝑛 @𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 − 𝐶𝑖𝑛

= 7.91 − 1.06

𝑚𝑔
= 6.85
𝐿

∆𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 = |𝐶𝑠𝑎𝑡,0𝑢𝑡 @𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 − 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 |

= |8.46 − 10.10|

𝑚𝑔
= 1.64
𝐿

∆𝑐𝑙𝑛 (∆𝐶𝑖𝑛 − ∆𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 )

=
∆𝐶
ln ( 𝑖𝑛 )
∆𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡

(6.85 − 1.64)
=
6.85
ln (1.64)

𝑚𝑔
= 3.65
𝐿

𝐾𝑟 𝑁𝑎
= 𝐴
∆𝑐𝑙𝑛

𝑔 𝑔
0.01045 × 10−6 × 997.02
= 𝑠. 𝑐𝑚2 𝐿
−3 𝑔
3.65 × 10 𝐿

𝑔
= 2.859 × 10−3
𝑠. 𝑐𝑚2

viii | P a g e
𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑟
=
𝜌

𝑔
2.859 × 10−3
= 𝑠. 𝑐𝑚2
𝑔
0.99702
𝑐𝑚3
𝑐𝑚
= 2.868 × 10−3
𝑠

𝑆ℎ 𝐾𝑐 × 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
=
𝐷
𝑐𝑚
2.868 × 10−3 𝑠 × 90𝑐𝑚
=
𝑐𝑚2
2.5𝐸 −5 𝑠

= 10324.33

ix | P a g e