Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering

THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

of SINGAPORE



Chemical Engineering Process Laboratory II


Semester 5


Experiment R1

Chemical Absorption in Packed Bed


Yeo Kar Ling Catrina U046901B
Yu Haoli Henry U046865B
Zhang YanYang U046709X
Zhou Yien U046854U
Group : F15
Date of Expt. : 01 September 2006
Demonstators Signature:
Grade :
Summary

In this experiment, the objective is to investigate the various reaction zones in a
continuous, counter-current, gas-liquid absorption with chemical reaction in a packed bed.
We design an experiment to determine the heights of the various reaction zones as well as
the mass transfer coefficients in a packed column for the absorption of CO
2
in an aqueous
solution of NaOH.
A total of 6 experimental runs were conducted and the compositions of both inlet and
outlet gas streams were measured and recorded.The volumetric flow rates of both liquid
and the gaseous inlet streams were kept constant.The concentration in the liquid stream
was gradually increased so as to analyse the effect of chemical reaction between CO
2
gas
and aqueous NaOH on the absorption of gaseous CO
2
.
The overall mass transfer coefficients for both the liquid and gaseous phases were then
determined and the heights of the physical absorption, interior reaction and surface
reaction zones determined. The composition (mole ratio of CO
3
2-
and OH
-
) of the liquid
outlet was determined by double titration using first, phenolphthalein and then methyl
orange. The inlet and outlet gas composition was determined by gas chromatography.
The enhancement factor E for each of the 6 runs was calculated to compare the
effectiveness of the chemical reaction in the absorption zones. These results are presented
in the table on page 28.
From the analysis of the data obtained, it was observed that as the concentration of NaOH
solution in the liquid stream was increased, the absorption of CO
2
from the gaseous
stream also increased. Hence, the presence of chemical reaction between NaOH and CO
2

has enhanced the efficiency of absorption of CO
2
. The extent of improvement in the
efficiency of absorption can be seen from the enhancement factor, E which increases as
amount of NaOH present in the liquid stream increases.
Table of Contents

I. Introduction............. 4


II. Technical / Theoretical Background. 5


III. Experimental ... 14


IV. Results and Calculation...... 18


V. Discussion ........................................ 32


VI. Error Analysis 38


VII. Conclusion.. 39


VIII. References.. 40


IX. Appendix A.... 41



Introduction

Many commercial applications today make use of gas absorption processes involving
systems which take place in the liquid phase. These range from the manufacture of paper
to organic chemicals manufacture. They are also present in pollution control systems like
scrubbers in gas furnace exhaust towers. The reaction of NaOH with CO
2
enhances the
rate of absorption and increases the capacity of the liquid solution to dissolve the solute
Packed bed gas-liquid absorption operations are frequently improved by utilizing a
chemical reaction to reduce mass transfer resistance. This is generally effective for fast or
instantaneous reactions in the liquid phase. Similarly, the absorption of CO
2
gas can be
improved by introducing aqueous NaOH solution into the system thus allowing the
following chemical reaction to take place to speed up the absorption.

O H CO Na NaOH CO
2 3 2 2
2 + +

In a continuous, counter current packed bed absorption process with chemical reaction.
There can be three distinct absorption zones, depending on the operating conditions.
They are the surface reaction zone, interior reaction zone and the physical absorption
zone.
The aim of this experiment is to study the various zones in a continuous, counter current,
gas absorption with chemical reaction in a packed bed as well as the mass transfer
coefficients in a packed bed for the absorption of gaseous CO
2
in an aqueous solution of
NaOH.


Technical Background (Theoretical Background)
Packing towers are extensively used in chemical industries for gas absorptions.
Gas absorption is a mass transfer operation that involves a soluble component being
transferred from gas medium to a liquid medium that it is soluble by contact. In a packing
tower, gas stream and liquid stream usually will flow counter-currently. To achieve
desirable recovery of solute from the gas phase, the liquid carrier should be relatively
involatile and the gas carrier should be relatively inert to the liquid. In many cases, in
order to increase the efficiency of absorption, chemical reactions will be involved to
increase the recovery of solute from gas stream by the liquid stream. A liquid will be
chosen such that it will react with the desired component in the gas medium but not the
other components in the air.
The most commonly used method of describing interfacial mass transfer is the
two-film theory of Whitman. Here the mass transfer is assumed to take place only in two
stagnant films on either side of the interfacial area. Assuming Ficks law, the mass
transfer coefficient is given by the binary diffusion coefficient and the film thickness.
The two-film theory of Lewis and Whitman defines the resistance of mass
transfer from gas phase to liquid phase as a gas film resistance and a liquid film
resistance. The resistances of the two films can be combined in an overall resistance. The
concentration gradient between the material in the bulk liquid or gas and the material in
the liquid or gas at the interface is considered as the driving force of mass transfer.. In
practice, it is quite impossible to measure interfacial conditions and overall coefficients
are used giving the equation
dw/dt = K
L
A (x* - x) = KgA(y - y*)
where dw/dt is the amountof gas passing through the interface per unit time, K
L
is the
overall liquid mass-transfer coefficient, Kg is the overall gas mass-transfer coefficient, A
is the interfacial area and x, y are the concentrations of the gas being transferred, in the
liquid and gas streams respectively. The quantities of x* and y* are introduced into the
equation because usually concentrations in the liquid and in the gas are expressed in
different units ( e.g. mol/l for concentration in liquid while partial pressure for gas
concentration). x* represents the concentration in the liquid which would be in
equilibrium with a concentration y in the gas and y* the concentration in the gas stream
which would be in equilibrium with a concentration x in the liquid.
The overall mass transfer resistance can be found out from the following equation:

where k
l
= liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient (L/T)
k
g
= gas-phase mass transfer coefficient (L/T)
H is the Henrys constant.
k
l
and k
g
are calculated by using the following equations based on two-film theory:


Where o
l
and o
g
correspond to liquid and gas-phase film thickness, respectively.
In this experiment, CO
2
is the desired component to be removed from the gas
stream. Water is used to absorb CO
2.
Carbon dioxide will dissolve in water to form
carbonic acid at equilibrium.
CO
2
(aq) + H
2
O(l) H
2
CO
3
(aq) (1)

The solubility of CO
2
in water is relatively low. At room temperature, the
solubility of carbon dioxide is about 90 cm
3
of CO
2
per 100 mL of water. Therefore, to
enhance the absorption, NaOH is used in this experiment. NaOH will react with dissolved
carbon dioxide to form sodium carbonate.
H2CO3 (aq) + NaOH (aq) NaCO3 (aq) + H2O (l) (2)
According to Le Chateliers Principle, the equilibrium (1) will shift to the right. More
CO
2
can then be absorbed from the gas stream. The reaction between CO
2
and NaOH can
be considered to be instantaneous.
The overall improvement in absorption due to chemical reaction is measured using the
enhancement factor, E.

LA
LA
k
k
E

For instantaneous reaction,

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
Ai A
B B
A A
A B B
C bD
C D
p bD
H C D
E 1 1
Inside a packing tower, 3 zones of absorption can be identified in the column depending
on the concentration of the reactants in both phases. In a counter-current operation, the
zones are shown in the following figure:










x
B,in


y
A,out


x
B3
= x
BC
y
A3


x
B2
= 0

y
A2

h
a


h
2


h
3




Fig. 1 three absorption zones in packing zone
y
A,in


x
B,out
= 0

Gas
film
Liquid
film
Reaction
plane
P
A

C
B

P
Ai

C
Ai

Zone 1: Surface reaction zone
In this zone, the gas reactant concentration is low whilst the liquid reactant
concentration is high. Reaction is at the interface. Mass transfer rate in gas phase controls
the overall rate of mass transfer.


Zone 2: Interior reaction zone
Gas reactant concentration will be higher than the liquid reactant concentration in this
zone. Reaction plane will be in liquid film. Mass transfer rates in both gas and liquid
phases will control the overall transfer rate.










Zone 3: Physical absorption zone
There will not be any chemical reaction in this zone because the liquid concentration is
zero. Only physical absorption takes place. Gas reactant concentration is high.
Gas
film
Liquid
film
Reaction
plane
P
A

High
C
B

End of surface
reaction zone



Designing packing tower:
Assume reaction system: A + bB = products
Operating line of packing tower is derived based on material balance equation of
component A.
G(Y
Ain
Y
A out
) = L(X
Bin
X
B out
)/b
G = gas carrier molar flow rate, mol/s
L = liquid carrier molar flow rate, mol/s
Y
A
= molar ratio of A in gas phase
X
B
= molar ratio of B in liquid phase
Treating packing tower as a plug flow reactor, for PFTR:

=

=
A
A
x
x AV
A
AO
r
dx
F V
0
or

=

=
A
A
x
x AS
A
AO
r
dx
F S
0
(1)
A x A AO
dY GA dx F = (2)
where F
AO
= molar feed rate of A
x
A
= fractional conversion of A
A
x
= the cross-sectional area of the reactor
Substituting (2) into (1)

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AV
A
x
r
dY
GA V or

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AV
A
x x
r
dY
GA hA or

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AV
A
r
dY
G h
Gas
film
Liquid
film
P
A

C
Ai

P
Ai

C
Ab

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AS
A
x
r
dY
GA S or

= =
A
Ao
Y
Y AS
A
x x
r
dY
S
V
GA hA V ie

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AS
A
r
dY
a
G
h
Zone 1: Surface reaction zone (height h
1
)
Reaction plane at the gas-liquid interface, p
Ai
= Y
Ai
p
inert
= 0
A inert gA T
A
A
gA A gA
A
AS
Y p k P
Y
Y
k P k
dt
dN
S
r =
+
= = =
1
1

if P
inert
+ P
A
= P
T,
A
inert
A
Y
P
P
=

Substituting the equation of rate into the equation for height derived above,

=
A
Ao
Y
Y AS
A
r
dY
a
G
h
3
=

+
A
Ao
Y
Y A
A A
T gA
Y
dY Y
aP k
G ) 1 (
= )] ( [ln
4 3
4
3
A A
A
A
T gA
Y Y
Y
Y
aP k
G
+
At the end of surface reaction zone and starting of the interior reaction zone, at the
reaction plane, Y
Ai
= C
Bi
= 0, molar ratio of B in the liquid = X
BC

Based on the mass transfer equation, assuming dilute solution, (when mole fraction of the
reactant in its phase is less than 5%), X
BC
is given the the following equation:


1
4 2 4 1
1 |
| |
+
+
=
A B
BC
Y X
X

where

o
LA
gA
B
A
T
T
k
k
D
D
C
P
G
L
=
1
| ,
1 2
| |
L
bG
=

b = stoichiometric coefficient of the liquid reactant
k
gA
= gas mass transfer coefficient of A
k
gA
= gas mass transfer coefficient of A without chemical reaction

X
BC
is the minimum concentration of B required in the liquid stream for surface reaction
to take place.
If X
Bout
< X
BC,
interior reaction zone will be present.
If X
Bin
< X
BC,
surface reactionzone will not be present.

Zone 2: Interior reaction zone (height h
2
)
In interior reaction zone, X
Bout
= X
B2
= 0.
Overall rate equation for this region is the Hatta equation
If Y
A
<< 1 and X
B
<<1, dilute solution is assumed. Thus mole fraction can be used.
A mass balance over the height o is

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = =

x
b
H C
D
D
p
a k
H
a k
h
dh
dy
G h a N
T
A
B
g
lA gA
A
' ' 1
1
0
o o (3)
Converting the modified Henry law constant H so that concentration can be expressed in
mole fractions gives:
P
H C
m
T
'
= . (3.1)
A material balance over the interior-reaction zone gives ) (
3
y y
L
Gb
x x
c
= . (3.2)
Overall rate constant for the interior reaction =
gA
K , where
0
1 1
l T gA gA
k C
mP
k K
+ = . (3.3)
Substitute equations (3.2), (3.2), (3.3) into (3), and integrating between the limits y
2
and
y
3
,

( )

+ +
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
2 2 3
3
2
ln
1
y
b D
x mD
y y
LD
mGD
y
b D
x mD
L D
mGD
aP K
G
h
A
c B
A
B
A
c B
A
B
gA
(4)
Where y
2
can be obtained from a mass balance between the top of the tower and the plane
containing y
2
,
4 4 2
x
Gb
L
y y + = , since x
2
= 0

Zone 3: Physical absorption zone (height h
3
)
There is no reactant B in liquid phase in this zone, i. e. X
Bin
= X
B2
= X
B1
= 0 in this zone.
The height of this zone is given by:

+ |
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

=
L
mG
y
y
L
mG
L
mG
aP k
G
h
gA
2
1
1
1 ln
1

The overall height of the column h is given by the sum of height of the 3 zones.
h = h1 + h2 + h3
However, not all the three zones will be present in the column. It will depend on the inlet
concentration of reactant B in liquid phase.
Experimental

Apparatus:

1. A column packed with Raschig Ring


Fig 1: Packed column (Raschig Ring packing)


2. Titration apparatus
(a) Burettes
(b) Pipettes
(c) Conical flask
(d) Beakers
3. A Gas Chromatograph with gas syringes
Rotameters for inflow rates
Liquid
Feed Tank
containing
0.1M
NaOH
Raschig
Ring
Packing
Outlet gas
Inlet gas
Control
Valve for
step 5
Liquid
Inlet
Liquid
outlet
Reagents Provided:
1. 2M NaOH
2. 0.1022M NaOH as standard solution for titration only
3. 0.1097M HCL as standard solution for titration only
4. Indicators for titration: phenolphthalein and methyl orange
5. Air and CO
2
supply
Experimental Procedure
(a) Getting Started
1. About 20L of approximately 0.1M NaOH was prepared, in the feed tank, by
diluting the 2.0M NaOH given using the dilution ratio of 1:19.
2. Inflow rate for CO
2
was fixed at 0.2L/min while that for air was fixed at
1.00L/min. The inflow rates were adjusted by rotameter for the CO
2
gas stream
and air stream respectively.
3. Inflow rates for NaOH and water were adjusted similarly using the rotameters.
Inflow rate for NaOH was adjusted to zero for the first run while that for water
was adjusted to 0.6L/min.
4. The resulting system was left unperturbed for approximately 15 to 20 min to
reach steady state.
5. The control valve for the outlet bottom product was adjusted as and when
necessary to maintain the bottom water level below the gas outlet.
(b) Collection of samples
6. After the system attained steady state, a gas sample was collected from the inlet
gas stream using a gas syringe and the sample was analyzed using the gas
chromatograph.
7. 2 gas samples from the outlet gas tube were also collected and analyzed. If the
two readings were consistent, the experiment proceeded accordingly. Otherwise,
the system was given another 5 to 10 min to reach steady state before collecting
another 2 gas samples.
8. 150ml of outlet liquid was collected as sample for titration.
(c) Titration
9. 25.0ml of liquid sample was pipette and titrated against standardized HCL using
phenolphthalein as indicator to obtain the colorless end point.
10. The resulting mixture from step 9 was further titrated against the same HCL
using methyl orange as the new indicator to obtain another orange end point
(double titration).
11. Titration was carried out again using another 25.0ml of the liquid sample to
ensure consistency and accuracy in the results.
12. Steps 2 to 11 were repeated five times, using different inflow rates for water and
NaOH, i.e. inflow rates for NaOH and water in step 3 was changed accordingly
using the table below.

Inlet Flow Rates in L/min
Run H
2
O NaOH Air CO
2

1 0.60 0.00 1.0 0.2
2 0.55 0.05 1.0 0.2
3 0.50 0.10 1.0 0.2
4 0.45 0.15 1.0 0.2
5 0.40 0.20 1.0 0.2
6 0.35 0.25 1.0 0.2
Table 1: Six runs, with varying NaOH inflow rates, were conducted in the experiment

Precautions
1. HCL solutions are corrosive and NaOH solutions are caustic. Handle with care! If
spilled on the body, wash immediately with copious amount of water.
2. If water is spilled at the electrical points, inform the laboratory demonstrator
immediately. Do not try to do anything on your own.
3. If the pump does not run after the power is switched on, switch it off and inform
the laboratory demonstrator.
4. Handle glassware with care! In the event of breakage, clean the place immediately
and report to laboratory demonstrator. Do not touch the broken pieces with bare
hands.
5. Handle gas cylinders with care. If in doubt, ask the laboratory demonstrator. Do
not open the main valve too rapidly. Ti may cause explosion.
6. Wear gloves when preparing and analyzing samples. Wear goggles at all times
Results and Calculations

Packed Bed Data:
Height of column, h = 0.490m
Inner Diameter of packed bed column = 50 mm
Raschig Rings
Inner Diameter = 6mm
Outer Diameter = 8mm
Length = 9mm
Other data
Molar volume of air at RTP = 24.0 L/mol
Molar concentration of water = 55.56 mol/L
Concentration of HCl used in titration = 0.1097 M
Concentration of NaOH used for back titration = 0.1022 M
Henrys Law constant, H
A

[6] = 29.82 atm L/mol
Diffusivity of CO
2
in solution, D
A
[6] = 1.92 x 10
-5
cm
2
/s
Diffusivity of NaOH in solution, D
B
= 2.17 x 10
-5
cm
2
/s

Experimental Results

Run
Inlet (Vol%)
Outlet (Vol%)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
CO
2
Air CO
2
Air CO
2
Air CO
2
Air
1 28.21 71.79 19.87 80.13 21.25 78.75 20.56 79.44
2 18.41 81.59 9.82 90.18 9.85 90.15 9.83 90.17
3 18.63 81.37 5.88 94.12 6.18 93.82 6.03 93.97
4 28.97 71.03 7.21 92.79 6.58 93.42 6.89 93.11
5 21.93 78.07 1.58 98.42 1.55 98.45 1.57 98.43
6 17.95 82.05 0.69 99.31 0.55 99.45 0.62 99.38
Table 2: Composition of CO
2
and air in inlet and outlet gas flow measured using gas
chromatography


Run
Volume of HCl used for titration
(Phenolphthalein)
Volume of HCl used for titration
(Methyl Orange)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
1 3.30 3.20 3.25 1.80 1.80 1.80
2 3.80 3.70 3.75 3.40 3.30 3.35
3 6.20 6.10 6.15 3.10 3.30 3.20
4 8.20 8.50 8.35 6.35 6.10 6.23
5 9.80 9.70 9.75 4.15 4.10 4.13
6 11.90 11.90 11.90 3.80 3.40 3.60
Table 3: Volume of HCl used for titration with the liquid sample drawn from absorption column.

Calculations

Run
Inlet mole fraction
of CO
2
, y
A
,
in

Inlet mole ratio of
CO
2
, Y
A
,
in

Outlet mole fraction
of CO
2
, y
A,out

Outlet mole ratio
of CO
2
, Y
A,out

1 0.2821 0.3930 0.2056 0.2588
2 0.1841 0.2256 0.0983 0.1090
3 0.1863 0.2289 0.0603 0.0642
4 0.2897 0.4079 0.0689 0.0740
5 0.2193 0.2810 0.0157 0.0159
6 0.1795 0.2188 0.0062 0.0062
Table 4: Tabulation of Mole Fraction / Ratio of CO
2
in inlet and outlet stream

Mole Fraction / Ratio of CO
2
in inlet and outlet stream

Sample Calculation

Using Sample 2,
Mole fraction of CO
2
(inlet), y
A,in
=
100
41 . 18
= 0.1841
Mole ratio of CO
2
(inlet), Y
A
,
in
=
59 . 81
41 . 18
= 0.2256
Mole fraction of CO
2
(outlet), y
A,out
=
100
83 . 9
= 0.0983
Mole ratio of CO
2
(outlet), Y
A
,
out
=
17 . 90
83 . 9
= 0.1090
Calculation of NaOH concentration in feed tank

Volume of NaOH pipetted = 25 ml

Feed NaOH that was used in Week 1 was used for Runs 1 and 4 while feed NaOH that
was used in Week 2 was used for Runs 2, 3, 5 and 6.

Week 1 Week 2
Reading 1 2 1 2
Final Reading (ml) 37.10 37.00 27.50 27.50
Initial Reading (ml) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Volume of HCL (ml) 37.10 37.00 27.50 27.50
Average (ml) 37.05 27.50
Concentration of
NaOH in feed (mol/L)
0.1626 0.1205
Table 5: Titration results of volume of HCl used to neutratlise NaOH in the feeed tank

Sample Calculation

Using data from Week 1,
Number of moles of HCl required = 1097 . 0
1000
05 . 37

=
3
10 064 . 4

mol
Number of moles of NaOH pipetted = Number of moles of HCl required
=
3
10 064 . 4

mol
Concentration of NaOH in the feed tank =
( )
1000
25
10 064 . 4
3

= 1626 . 0 mol/L

Table 6: Tabulation of Volumetric, Molar flow rate and Mole Fraction/Ratio of NaOH and deionised water in
inlet stream

Calculation of mole ratio of NaOH from the inlet stream for different runs
Concentration of NaOH from feed tank = 0.1205 mol/L
Sample Calculation

Using data from Run 2:
Volumetric flow rate of H
2
O = 0.55 L/min
Molar flow rate of H
2
O = Molar volume of H
2
O x Volumetric Flow rate (H
2
O)
= 55 . 0
18
1000

= 30.56 mol/min
Volumetric flow rate of NaOH = 0.05 L/min
Molar flow rate of NaOH = Concentration of NaOH from feed tank x Volumetric flow
rate of NaOH
= 05 . 0 1205 . 0
= 6.02 x 10
-3
mol/min
Mole fraction of NaOH, x
B,in
= Molar flow rate of NaOH / Total molar flow rate
=
56 . 30 10 02 . 6
10 02 . 6
3
3
+

= 1.97 x 10
-4
mol NaOH/total mol
Run
Volumetric
flow rate of
NaOH
(L/min)
Volumetric
flow rate of
H
2
O
(L/min)
Molar flow
rate of
NaOH
(mol/min)
Molar flow
rate of H
2
O
(mol/min)
Mole fraction
of NaOH
x
B,in

Mole ratio
of NaOH
X
B,in

1 0.00 0.60 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00
2 0.05 0.55 6.02 x 10
-3
30.56 1.97 x 10
-4
1.97 x 10
-4

3 0.10 0.50 1.20 x 10
-2
27.78 4.33 x 10
-4
4.34 x 10
-4

4 0.15 0.45 2.44 x 10
-2
25.00 9.75 x 10
-4
9.76 x 10
-4

5 0.20 0.40 2.41 x 10
-2
22.22 1.08 x 10
-3
1.08 x 10
-3

6 0.25 0.35 3.01 x 10
-2
19.44 1.55 x 10
-3
1.55 x 10
-3

Mole ratio of NaOH, X
B,in
=
4
4
10 97 . 1 1
10 97 . 1

= 1.97 x 10
-4

mol NaOH/mol H
2
O

Run
Moles of
HCl used
(Phenolphthalein)
Moles of HCL
used
(Methyl Orange)
Moles of CO
2

(Outlet stream)
Moles of NaOH
in sample
Moles of NaOH
(Outlet Stream)
1 3.565 x 10
-4
1.975 x 10
-4
1.975 x 10
-4
1.591 x 10
-4
0
2 4.114 x 10
-4
3.675 x 10
-4
3.675 x 10
-4
4.388 x 10
-5
0
3 6.747 x 10
-4
3.510 x 10
-4
3.510 x 10
-4
3.236 x 10
-4
0
4 9.160 x 10
-4
6.829 x 10
-4
6.829 x 10
-4
2.331 x 10
-4
0
5 1.070 x 10
-3
4.525 x 10
-4
4.525 x 10
-4
6.171 x 10
-4
1.061 x 10
-4

6 1.305 x 10
-3
3.949 x 10
-4
3.949 x 10
-4
9.105 x 10
-4
3.995 x 10
-4

Table 7: Tabulation of Number of moles of NaOH and CO
2
in the outlet liquid stream
25 ml of the sample were drawn from the outlet stream for each run and 5 ml of NaOH
was added to the sample. The purpose of adding an additional amount of NaOH was to
ensure that all the CO
2
gas which was absorbed into the liquid stream reacted with NaOH
to form Na
2
CO
3
instead of being dissolved in H
2
O in the form of H
2
CO
3
. 2 rounds of
titration were carried with HCl using 2 indicators phenolphthalein followed by methyl
orange. As the pH range of phenolphthalein was between 8 to 10, the change in colour of
phenolphthalein from pink to colourless at the end point indicated that the excess NaOH
was neutralized and also all the Na
2
CO
3
reacted with HCl to form NaHCO
3
. The volume
of HCl used neutralized NaOH and converted Na
2
CO
3
to NaHCO
3
. The chemical
reactions that occurred during the first round of titration are shown below.



A few drops of methyl orange was added and the mixture titrated with HCl until methyl
orange turned from yellow to orange. At the end point, HCl converted all the NaHCO
3
to
CO
2
and H
2
O. The volume of HCl used reacted with all NaHCO
3
. The difference in the
volume of HCl used in the 2 sets of titration allowed us to calculate the volume of NaOH
NaOH + HCl NaCl + H
2
O

Na
2
CO
3
+ HCl NaHCO
3
+ NaCl

present in excess in the sample. The chemical reaction for the second set of titration is
shown below.


Calculation of mole ratio of NaOH and CO
2
from outlet stream for different runs
Sample Calculation

Using data from Run 2:
Moles of HCl used (1
st
titration) = 1097 . 0
1000
75 . 3
= 4.114 x 10
-4
mol
Moles of HCl used (2
nd
titration) = 1097 . 0
1000
35 . 3
= 3.675 x 10
-4
mol
Moles of CO
2
present in sample = 3.675 x 10
-4
mol
Moles of excess NaOH in sample = 4.114 x 10
-4
- 3.675 x 10
-4
= 4.388 x 10
-5
mol
Volume of NaOH added to sample = 5 ml
Moles of NaOH added to sample = 1022 . 0
1000
5
= 5.11 x 10
-4
mol
Moles of NaOH in the sample obtained from outlet stream = 4.388 x 10
-5
- 5.11 x 10
-4

= -4.6719 x 10
-4


The negative value was obtained because some of the NaOH that was added to the
sample reacted with the CO
2
that was dissolved in H
2
O. Hence, the amount of NaOH in
the inlet liquid stream was not sufficient to result in total chemical absorption, thus
physical absorption of CO
2
into H
2
O occurred in the lower part of the absorption column.
Since the number of moles of NaOH that was added to the sample was more than the
number of moles of excess NaOH in the sample, it can be deduced that there was no
NaOH in the sample collected from the outlet liquid stream (prior to the addition of
NaOH).

Mole ratio of CO
2
present in outlet stream, X
A,out
=

=

+
|
.
|

\
|

0
18
1000
1000
25
10 675 . 3
4

Moles of CO
2
(Moles of H
2
O + Moles of NaOH)
NaHCO
3
+ HCl NaCl + CO
2
+ H
2
O

= 2.646 x 10
-4

Mole ratio of NaOH present in outlet stream, X
B
,
out
=

= 0

Table 8: Tabulation of mole ratio of NaOH and CO
2
in the outlet liquid stream

Calculation of overall mass transfer coefficient, K
GA
o
a (without chemical reaction)

For Run 1, there was no NaOH introduced in the liquid stream. CO
2
that came into
contact with the liquid stream was absorbed by water (solvent) and hence the entire
column operates purely as a physical absorption zone. Hence, the overall mass transfer
coefficient, K
GA
o
a can be calculated by the following equation.

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

=
L
mG
mX Y
mX Y
L
mG
L
mG
hAP
G
a K
out B out A
out B in A
T
o
GA
, ,
, ,
1 ln
1

where
Cross sectional area of Column, A =
( )
4
10 50
2
3
t
=
3
10 963 . 1

m
2

Molar flow rate of carrier gas (air), G =
24
0 . 1
=
2
10 167 . 4

mol/min
Molar flow rate of carrier liquid (water), L =
18
1000
60 . 0 = 33.33 mol/min
Total Pressure, P
T
= 1 atm
Height of column, h = 0.490 m
Mole ratio of NaOH in outlet liquid stream, X
B,out
= 0
Mole ratio of CO
2
in inlet gaseous stream, Y
A,in
= 0.3930
Mole ratio of CO
2
in outlet gaseous stream, YA, in = 0.2588
Run X
A
,
in
X
A
,
out
X
B
,
in
X
B,out
Y
A,in
Y
A,out

1 0 1.422 x 10
-4
0 0 0.3930 0.2588
2 0 2.646 x 10
-4
1.971 x 10
-4
0 0.2256 0.1090
3 0 2.527 x 10
-4
4.336 x 10
-4
0 0.2289 0.0642
4 0 4.917 x 10
-4
9.754 x 10
-4
0 0.4079 0.0740
5 0 3.258 x 10
-4
1.084 x 10
-3
7.634 x 10
-5
0.2810 0.0159
6 0 2.843 x 10
-4
1.549 x 10
-3
2.876 x 10
-4
0.2188 0.0062
Moles of NaOH

(Moles of H
2
O + Moles of CO
2
)
Stripping Factor,
L
mG
=
L
G C H
T A

=
5556 . 0
10 944 . 6 56 . 55 82 . 29
4


= 2.071

Using the above found values, the overall mass transfer coefficient without
chemical reaction was calculated and found to be:

K
GA
o
a = 32.75 mol/ m
3
.min.atm

Calculation of gas phase mass transfer coefficient, k
gA
a (with chemical reaction)

To obtain the gas phase mass transfer coefficient, k
gA
a, results from Run 6 were used. For
this run, as the concentration of NaOH fed into the column was very high, therefore the
rate of absorption will be controlled by the rate of mass transfer through the gas film, k
gA
.
The reaction can be assumed to be occurring only on the gas liquid interface and the
entire column assumed to be made up of the surface reaction zone.












I
As Y
A
is quite significant, we cannot assume that the system is dilute. Hence, the
equation of the height of the surface reaction zone is given by the following equation:

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
= ) ( ln
, ,
,
,
3 out A in A
out A
in A
T gA
Y Y
Y
Y
aAP k
G
h

C
B

bulk film
P
A

film bulk
I
Liquid Gas
Cross sectional area of Column, A =
( )
4
10 50
2
3
t
=
3
10 963 . 1

m
2


Assuming ideal gas and room temperature conditions,
Molar flow rate of carrier gas (air), G =
24
0 . 1
=
2
10 167 . 4

mol/min
Total Pressure, P
T
= 1 atm
Height of column, h = 0.490 m
Mole ratio of CO
2
in inlet gaseous stream, Y
A,in
= 0.2188
Mole ratio of CO
2
in outlet gaseous stream, Y
A,out
= 0.0062

From the calculated values above, the gas phase mass transfer coefficient with chemical
reaction was calculated and found to be:
k
gA
a = 163.28 mol/ m
3
.min.atm

Calculation of liquid phase mass transfer coefficient without chemical reaction,
k
LA
0
a

a k
H
a k a K
A L
A
gA
GA
0 0
1 1
+ =


K
GA
o
a = 32.75 mol/ m
3
.min.atm

k
gA
a = 163.28 mol/ m
3
.min.atm

Substituting the values above into the equation,

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|
=

=
mol
atm m
L
m
mol
L atm
a k
a K
H
a k
gA
GA
A
LA
. min .
28 . 163
1
75 . 32
1
1000
1 .
82 . 29
1 1
3
3
0
0

= 1.221 min
-1

Calculation of the heights of the various reaction zones

a) Surface Reaction Zone
We first determined the zones inside the column by finding the critical mole ratio, X
BC

which determines the end of the surface reaction zone and start of interior reaction zone.
By comparing the liquid inlet and outlet mole ratio, X
B,in
and X
B,out
we will be able to
determine whether the surface reaction zone exists.
Mass transfer rate of A = (Mass transfer rate of B)/b
Since CO
2
in the gas phase is not dilute,
T
A
A
A
P
Y
Y
P
+
=
1


b D
X D aC k
B
X aC D
b
X aC k
Y
Y aP k
A
BC B T LA BC T B BC T LB
A
A T gA
0
3
3
1
= = =
+ o

3
3
0
1
A
A
T
T
B
A
LA
gA
BC
Y
Y
b
C
P
D
D
a k
a k
X
+
=
By material balance over the surface reaction zone,
( )
BC out B out A A
X X
bG
L
Y Y + =
, , 3

Solving for Y
A3
and X
BC
by goal seek using Microsoft Excel for the various runs,

Run Y
A, out
X
B, in
X
B,out
X
Bc

1 0.2588 0 0 0.2022
2 0.1090 1.971 x 10
-4
0 8.529 x 10
-2

3 0.0642 4.336 x 10
-4
0 5.038 x 10
-2

4 0.0740 9.754 x 10
-4
0 5.837 x 10
-2

5 0.0159 1.084 x 10
-3
7.634 x 10
-5
1.302 x 10
-2

6 0.0062 1.549 x 10
-3
2.876 x 10
-4
5.713 x 10
-3

Table 9: Tabulation of Y
A,out
, X
B,in
, X
B,out
and X
BC
for the different runs

For Run 1, only physical absorption zone existed in the column as no NaOH was present
in the liquid stream.
For the remainder of the runs, as the mole ratio of NaOH in the inlet liquid stream, X
B,in

was less than X
BC
, hence no surface reaction zone exist in the column.
Since NaOH is present in the outlet liquid stream for Runs 5 and 6, hence the column is
made up of only the interior reaction zone in these 2 runs. For Runs 2 to 4, the column
constituted the interior reaction zone and the physical absorption zone. The table below
summarizes the reaction zones for each of the experimental runs.

Run
Surface Reaction
Zone
Interior Reaction
Zone
Physical Absorption
Zone
1 X X \
2 X \ \
3 X \ \
4 X \ \
5 X \ X
6 X \ X
Table 10: Tabulation of the different reaction zones present in the column during the
different experimental runs

Since the surface reaction zone is not present in all 6 runs, the interior reaction zone and
physical absorption zone was calculated for the different runs by the following equations:

b) Interior Reaction Zone
In the interior reaction zone, the mass transfer rate is given by the Hatta equation,
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
= =
B T
A
A
B
A
A
T
o
GA
A
AV
X C
b
H
D
D
Y
Y
P a K
dt
dN
V
r
1
1
----- (1)
By material balance around the interior reaction zone,
) (
, , out A A in B B
Y Y
L
bG
X X = ----- (2)
By substituting (2) into (1) and then performing integration with the use of MATLAB to
obtain the height for interior reaction zone (See Appendix A),

=
2
,
2
A
out A
Y
Y AV
A
r
dY
G h

c) Physical Absorption Zone
The height of the physical absorption zone was calculated using following equation:

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

=
L
mG
mX Y
mX Y
L
mG
L
mG
aAP K
G
h
B A
B in A
T
o
GA
2 2
2 ,
3
1 ln
1


The table below summaries the heights of the reaction zones for the 6 runs.

Run
Surface Reaction
Zone, h
1
(m)
Interior Reaction
Zone, h
2
(m)
Physical Absorption
Zone, h
3
(m)
Total Height
(m)
1 0 0 0.4900 0.4900
2 0 0.0238 0.1465 0.1703
3 0 0.0787 -0.0234 0.0787
4 0 0.3526 -0.0740 0.3526
5 0 0.4068 0 0.4068
6 0 0.8037 0 0.8037
Table 11: Tabulation of the heights of the different reaction zones in the column for the
different experimental runs

Calculation of Enhancement factor, E

For instantaneous reaction, E is given by:

+ =
ave A A
A ave B B
P b D
H C D
E
,
,
1

Since C
B
is not constant along the packed column, the enhancement factor changes along
the column. Therefore, average C
B
is

used to calculate the enhancement factor for each
run.
Sample Calculation
Using date from Run 2,
in B
C
,
=
in B T
X C
,

= 55.56 x 1.971 x 10
-4

= 1.095 x 10
-2
mol/L
out B
C
,
=
out B T
X C
,


= 55.56 x 0
= 0 mol/L
ave B
C
,
=
2
, , out B in B
C C +

= 5.475 x 10
-3
mol/L
in A
P
,
=
in A
in A
T
Y
Y
P
,
,
1+


=
2256 . 0 1
2256 . 0
1
+

= 0.451 atm
out A
P
,
=
out A
out A
T
Y
Y
P
,
,
1+



=
1090 . 0 1
1090 . 0
1
+

= 0.218 atm
ave A
P
,
=
2
, , out A in A
P P +

= 0.335 atm

Substituting the values above into the equation,
E = 1.276

Run C
B,in
C
B,out
C
B,ave
P
A,in
P
A,out
P
A,ave
E
1 0 0 0 0.786 0.518 0.652 1.000
2 1.095 x 10
-2
0 5.475 x 10
-3
0.451 0.218 0.335 1.276
3 2.409 x 10
-2
0 1.204 x 10
-2
0.458 0.128 0.293 1.693
4 5.419 x 10
-2
0 2.710 x 10
-2
0.816 0.148 0.482 1.948
5 6.022 x 10
-2
4.241 x 10
-3
3.223 x 10
-2
0.562 0.032 0.297 2.830
6 8.603 x 10
-2
1.598 x 10
-2
5.100 x 10
-2
0.438 0.012 0.225 4.819
Table 12: Tabulation of the Enhancement Factor for the different runs


Comparing the overall improvement in absorption due to chemical reaction in
terms of the effectiveness factor

The percentage of CO
2
absorbed as the flow rate of NaOH was increased in the inlet
liquid stream was used as an indicator for the improvement in absorption rate. The
equation is given below:
Percentage of CO
2
absorbed = 100
,
, ,

in A
out A in A
Y
Y Y

The table and graph below summarise the relationship between the percentage of CO
2

absorbed and the effectiveness factor between each run. It was observed that the
percentage of CO
2
absorbed increased as the effectiveness factor increased. However, the
percentage of CO
2
absorbed reached a saturation point as more NaOH was introduced.

Run Enhancement Factor Percentage of CO
2

absorbed (%)
1 1.000 34.14
2 1.276 51.67
3 1.693 71.96
4 1.948 81.85
5 2.830 94.33
6 4.819 97.15
Table 13: Extent of CO
2
absorption with respect to Enhancement Factor

Graph of Percentage of CO
2
absorbed against Enhancement Factor
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000
Enhancement Factor
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
b
e
d

Discussion

Based on the data of the experiment collected, the inlet CO
2
concentration is much higher
than 5 volome% .

Run Inlet mole fraction of CO
2
, y
A
,
in
Inlet mole ratio of CO
2
, Y
A
,
in

1 0.2821 0.3930
2 0.1841 0.2256
3 0.1863 0.2289
4 0.2897 0.4079
5 0.2193 0.2810
6 0.1795 0.2188

Since the system can be assumed to be dilute only when the concentration of the
component is less than 5% mole fraction, the system in this experiment was considered as
non-dilute. Therefore, the calculations performed above were based on mole ratio rather
than mole fraction.

Height of each zone
1. The accuracy of the height calculated for the three zones in each run
From the calculated result shown in the above table, there are negative numbers in run 3
and run 4. Based on the analysis of the equation used for computing the physical
absorption zone, the negative column height implied that the stripping took place instead
of absorption. This is against the law of thermodynamics and is thus flawed. However,
given that the values of the heights are close to zero, the values obtained could be a result
of experimental error during the titration or collection of sample. Furthermore, from
Table 9, it can be seen that there was no NaOH in the liquid outlet for runs 3 and 4. As
we do not have information of the concentration of NaOH at different points along the
column, it could be true that the end of the interior reaction zone could be near the end of
the entire column. Hence, the height of the physical absorption zone could be
insignificant or close to zero.

The calculations performed above were based on the assumption that Run 6 had only
surface reaction zone present as Run 6 had the highest inlet NaOH concentration, 1.55
10
-3
% mole fraction. With this assumption, k
gA
a, the mass transfer coefficient in gas
phase with chemical reaction can be calculated. Thus the following calculations can be
done to calculate the heights of each zone. However, from the results calculated, we
found out that in run 6, there is actually no surface reaction zone present because the inlet
NaOH concentration is less than X
BC
, the critical concentration of NaOH for surface
reaction zone, 5.713 x 10
-3
. There is only interior surface reaction zone present in Run 6.
This shows that our assumption was actually wrong. As a result, the calculated k
gA
a was
incorrect and the subsequent calculation done based on that k
gA
a value was also
inaccurate.

Another possible source of inaccuracy in the calculation was the fluctuating flow rate.
Even though we fixed the flow rate of CO
2
and air to be 0.2 L/min and 1 L/min, the inlet
concentration of CO
2
measured from gas chromatography was not constant. For both
water and NaOH, the rotameter reading did not stay at the level we adjusted. It was
difficult to attain a truly steady state. Therefore, the mass transfer coefficient k
gA
a, k
LA
a,
and thus K
gA
a were actually not constant for each run. Yet, we used the overakl mass
transfer coefficient calculated from run 6 result for the calculations in the other runs. This
resulted in some inaccuracy in our final results.

From theory, we know that by setting CO2 flow rate to 0.2 L/min, and air flow rate to 1.0
L/min, the volume% obtained from gas chromatography should read around 16.7% for
CO
2
. However, from the data collected, the inlet volume percent of C0
2
was about 30%,
which is close to double of what was expected. One reason could be due to the
excessively high pressure from the CO
2
gas tank, which resulted in a highly concentrated
CO
2
flow stream into the inlet of the column. Thus, the flowrate of CO
2
can be lowered
in the experiment. Another reason could be the poor mixing of the CO
2
and air streams as
the samples were taken immediately after they have mixed. This could lead to inaccurate
mass transfer calculations.

Another possible explaination for the deviation of the column height could be due to poor
initial liquid distribution and the irrigation quality from the distributor, resulting in the
deterioration of column efficiency and the mass transfer performance of the packed
column. A less efficient mass transfer would result in a longer column height to achieve a
desired separation, however since calculation was done based on the outlet mole ratio of
the liquid and gases, This could justify the smaller column heights calculated and hence a
shorter column.

One more assumption we made was that the mass transfer in the gas absorption is based
on film theory and that the interfacial film area is stagnant. However this assumption is in
doubt. Many researches and investigations have modeled the mass transfer process using
different theories in which a non-stagnant interfacial film area is involved.

There were also other experimental errors involved in the titration process such as the
parallax errors in the reading of the liquid level during titration. This will be discussed
more in error analysis section.

2. Relationship of height of each zone and the NaOH concentration

As NaOH flow rate was increased, it was observed that the interior reaction zone
increased and the physical absorption zone decreased. This goes well with the theory.
With more NaOH present, there will be higher C
B
concentration at the interface. The
Run
Surface Reaction
Zone, h
1
(m)
Interior Reaction
Zone, h
2
(m)
Physical Absorption
Zone, h
3
(m)
Total Height
(m)
1 0 0 0.4900 0.4900
2 0 0.0238 0.1465 0.1703
3 0 0.0787 -0.0234 0.787
4 0 0.3526 -0.0740 0.3526
5 0 0.4068 0 0.4068
6 0 0.8037 0 0.8037
reaction plane will shift towards the interface. The surface reaction zone if present should
increase with increasing NaOH flowrate based on theory.

Mass transfer coefficients

K
GA
o
a 32.7461231
k
gA
a 163.2764288
k
LA
o
a 1.221461174

Comparing the mass transfer coefficients shown above, K
LA
o
a is much smaller than k
gA
a.
From the calculations, it can be observed that the resistance to mass transfer in the liquid
film is much more significant than the resistance to mass transfer in the gas film. Hence
the mass transfer of CO
2
is liquid phase controlled. Based on the experiment conducted
by Brettschneider et al, the fraction of liquid mass transfer resistance for CO
2
varies from
40 up to 90%. The fraction of liquid mass transfer resistance for CO
2
mass transfer
resistance is located almost completely on the liquid side. However, its contribution was
reduced to less than 40% in the more reactive sections of the column. The experimental
results is illustrated in the diagram below. From the diagram, it can be observed that the
resistance to mass transfer on the liquid phase actually varies at different sections of the
column. Furthermore, the high percentage of mass transfer resistance occurring in the
liquid side further validates our calculation for K
LA
o
a.


Compare the overall improvement in absorption due to chemical reaction in terms
of effective factor as a function of the operating conditions.


Graph of Percentage of CO
2
absorbed against Enhancement Factor
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000
Enhancement Factor
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
b
e
d



Assumptions made in the experiment
1. The rate of reaction in the liquid is instantaneous relative to the rate of mass
transfer. Thus, the overall rate will only be determined by mass transfer rate and
independent of the rate of reaction.
The reaction between sodium hydroxide and carbonic acid is an acid base reaction.
The neutralization reaction involves the combination of a H
+
and an OH
-
ion.
Reaction between ions requires very low activation energy and thus the rate of
reaction is relatively fast. In an instantaneous reaction, the reactants cannot
coexist together can thus the reaction occurs in a plane.
For an instantaneous reaction, reaction occurs in a plane anywhere within the
liquid film and its location depends on the relative mass transfer rates of the
absorbed carbon dioxide and NaOH.
2. Henrys law is applicable.
This assumption in turn assumes dilute concentration and partial pressure of
carbon dioxide in the gas and aqueous phase. Since the modified Henrys law
constant is also a function of temperature and pressure, temperature and pressure
is assumed to be constant throughout the column.
3. The chemical reaction takes place only in the liquid phase, no reaction occurs in
the gaseous phase.
Since NaOH is a non-volatile solute, we can safely assume that none of it escapes
into the gaseous phase. And since carbon dioxide is only weakly soluble in water,
there will be no carbonic acid in the moisture of the gas phase. NaOH can only
react with dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid).
4. There is no evaporation of water into the gas stream. With this assumption, we
assume the inert liquid flow rate L to be constant. Similarly, we assume that other
gases in the gas stream such as oxygen do not dissolve in the liquid stream so that
inert gas flow rate G is constant.
Error Analysis

1. Steady state was assumed to be reached as long as two consistent readings for the
gas samples were obtained. In reality, however, both the gas and liquid flow rates
were fluctuating from time to time, and not constant. Therefore, steady state was
not really attained, leading to erroneous data recorded.
2. It was found out that that the assumption that Run 6 had only surface reaction
zone was incorrect as the concentration of NaOH entering was too low for that to
take place. It was based on the assumption that K
ga
was calculated, leading to a
rather inaccurate value of K
ga
obtained. That value made the subsequent
calculations incorrect.
3. Our system was not operated based on dilute conditions. Therefore, using Henrys
constant in the calculations was incorrect. For a non-dilute system, the
equilibrium curve is not a straight line and therefore Henrys constant does not
really apply.
4. The inlet gas ratios for all the runs showed inconsistent readings. This shows the
possibilities of contamination of gas syringes and atmospheric air taken in
together with the gas samples when drawing samples. Therefore, the values
obtained from the gas chromatograph did not reflect the actual composition of the
gas samples.
5. Possible errors on titration include parallax errors when taking readings from the
burettes and human judgment errors when observing colour change. Improper
washing of the apparatus could lead to contamination of reagents and liquid
samples. As a result, inaccurate data may have been be taken.
6. NaOH solution on the feed tank was not mixed thoroughly, therefore the sample
taken out from the feed tank for titration may not have at the same concentration
as that fed into the column.
7. The mass transfer operation may not be explained entirely only by the two-film
theory like what was assumed. Other possible theories that can complement the
two-film theory include penetration theory and surface rejuvenation theory.
8. As the inlet CO
2
concentrations were very high in the experiment, the assumption
that CO
2
does not dissolve in the liquid solvent might not hold. CO
2
concentration,
when high enough, can dissolve into the liquid solvent to a certain extent.
9. Due to the enthalpy of chemical reaction and different environmental conditions
between week one and two of experiment, temperature and pressure may not be
constant unlike what we had assumed.

Conclusion

From this experiment, we can conclude that the presence of the three absorption zones
(namely surface reaction zone, interior reaction zone and physical absorption zone) are
directly related to the concentration of NaOH entering the packed tower since the
flowrates of CO
2
and air are not changed. In run 1 (pure water used only), the column is
solely operating under physical absorption zone. The mass transfer of the liquid phase is
controlling in this whole experiment.
When a low concentration of NaOH is used (run 2 to 5), the interior reaction zone as well
as the physical absorption zone are present. As the NaOH concentration is increased, the
reaction with carbonic acid formed moves the reaction nearer to the gas-liquid surface.
k
LA
a increases with the concentration of NaOH in the feed. k
gA
a is taken to be constant
and therefore the overall gas mass transfer coefficient increases with concentration of
NaOH. The mass transfer resistance in the liquid phase decreases with increase in
concentration of NaOH.
References

1. O. Brettschneider et al. Separation and Purification Technology 39 (2004) 139
159) Experimental investigation and simulation of the chemical absorption in a
packed column for the system NH
3
CO
2
H
2
SNaOHH
2
O

2. Cooper, A.R. and G.V. Jeffreys, Chemical Kinetics and Reactor Design,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.

3. Geankoplis, C.J., Transport Processes and Unit Operations, 3
rd
Ed., Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1993.

4. Levenspiel, O., Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3
rd
Ed., Wiley, Inc. 1999.

5. Treybal, R.E., Mass-Transfer Operations, 3
rd
Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1981.

6. Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W., Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7
th
Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, 1997.

7. Danckwerts, P.V. and Sharma, M.M., I.CHEM.E.REVIEW SERIES, The
Chemical Engineer. 1996.

8. Beavon, R., Determination of Sodium Hydroxide and Sodium Carbonate in the
Presence of One Another, Retrieved 05 September, 2006 from
http://www.rod.beavon.clara.net/mixedind.htm

9. Astarita, G., Mass Transfer with Chemical Reaction, Elsevier Publishing
Company Limited, 1967

10. Hikita, H., Asai,S. and Takatsuka,T., "Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous
hydroxide and sodium carbonate-bicarbonate solutions", The Chemical
Engineering Journal, 11 (1976) 131-141

11. http://www.nzifst.org.nz/unitoperations/conteqseparation8.htm

12. Chemical Engineering Science 55(2000)



Appendix A

M-File for calculating the height of the Interior reaction zone and physical absorption
zone

%Define Variables%
P_T = 1;
K_GAa = 32.7461231;
Db = 2.170E-05;
Da = 1.920E-05;
HA = 29.82;
b = 2;
CT = 1000/18;
Xb_in = [0.000E+00 1.971E-04 4.336E-04 9.754E-04 1.084E-03 1.549E-03]';
Ya_out = [0.2588 0.1090 0.0642 0.0740 0.0159 0.0062]';
G = 4.167E-02;
L = 33.33333333;

%Solve for Ya_2 by material balance%
Ya_2 = Ya_out + (L/(b*G))*Xb_in;

syms Ya

Xb = Xb_in - (b*G/L)*(Ya - Ya_out);
%Integrating function with respect to Ya to obtain height of the
interior%
%reaction zones for each run%

fprintf('Heights of interior reaction zones for Runs 1 to 6:\n');
f1 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(1)));
height_1 = G*int(f1,Ya,Ya_out(1),Ya_2(1));
height1 = eval(height_1);

f2 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(2)));
height_2 = G*int(f2,Ya,Ya_out(2),Ya_2(2));
height2 = eval(height_2);

f3 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(3)));
height_3 = G*int(f3,Ya,Ya_out(3),Ya_2(3));
height3 = eval(height_3);

f4 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(4)));
height_4 = G*int(f4,Ya,Ya_out(4),Ya_2(4));
height4 = eval(height_4);

f5 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(5)));
height_5 = G*int(f5,Ya,Ya_out(5),Ya_2(5));
height5 = eval(height_5);

f6 = K_GAa*(P_T*(Ya/(1+Ya) + (Db/Da)*(HA/b)*CT*Xb(6)));
height_6 = G*int(f6,Ya,Ya_out(6),Ya_2(6));
height6 = eval(height_6);

h_interior = [0 height2 height3 height4 height5 height6]'

%Calculating physical absorption zone%
m = CT*HA/P_T;
A = 1.963E-03;

Ya_in = [0.3930 0.2256 0.2289 0.4079 0.2810 0.2188]';

fprintf('Heights of physical absorption zone for Runs 1 to 6:\n');
for i = 1:1:4
h(i) = (G/(K_GAa*A*P_T*(1-m*G/L)))*log((1-
m*G/L)*(Ya_in(i)/Ya_2(i))+ m*G/L);
h(5) = 0;
h(6) = 0;
end
h = h'

Matlab Program

Heights of interior reaction zones for Runs 1 to 6:

h_interior =

0
0.0238
0.0787
0.3526
0.4068
0.8037

Heights of physical absorption zone for Runs 1 to 6:

h =

0.4906
0.1468
-0.0233
-0.0738
0
0