Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ion exchange
{A}{B }
K A
B
{A }{B}
A
KB A
C
KC
KB
Also note that:
1
K B
A
B
KA
Neglecting activity corrections we can write:
[A][B ]
K A
B
[A ][B]
Where:
[A+], [B+]= moles A+, B+ per liter of liquid
% Crosslink
4% 8% 16%
Li+ 1 1 1
C = [Na+] + 2[Ca2+]
+ 2+
[A ] 2[A ]
X A+ or X A2+ or
C C
A B B A
+
A+ [A ][B ]
K B+
+
[A ][B ]
[A ] C
X A
[B ] C X B C(1 X A )
[A ] C
X A
[B ] C
X B C(1 X A )
Substitute in the mass action expression to
get:
(1 X A )
X A
K A
B
(1 X A )
X A
Rearranging gives:
X A A
X A
K B
(1 X A ) (1 X A )
For monovalent divalent exchange:
2 2
A 2B 2B A
X A 2 2 X A 2 C
K A
B
(1 X A2 ) 2
(1 X A2 ) C
2
In this form the equation gives the amount
exchanged as a function of the amount in
solution. It is very useful for process design
as demonstrated below.
Exchange Isotherms -
Isotherms are an alternative to describing
equilibrium by selectivity coefficients.
These isotherms have the same format as
those for carbon adsorption. i.e., Langmuir,
Freundlich, etc.
In spite of the non-constant selectivity coefficient,
calculations can be made with these coefficients to
estimate process limits. Note that the most
vulnerable (non-constant) selectivity coefficients
are for those resins that have weak acid or base
functional groups. These functional groups will
protonate and de-protonate as a function of the
solution pH as opposed to strong acid-base
functional groups that tend to be fully
deprotonated or protonated at most pH values.
Kinetics versus equilibrium.
Ion exchange adsorption is much faster
than carbon adsorption and as a result we
can use equilibrium assumption in design
calculations.
Ion Exchange Design Example
C 1.3 meq/L
The influent has the following characteristics:
[Cl-] = 3 meq/L
-
1.3 eq/L(0.66) 0.86 eq NO 3 per liter of resin.
C 2eq / L
Ca 2+
K Na +
4
What we need to determine is how effective this
regeneration step is, i.e., what is the magnitude of
X Ca after the regeneration is completed.
2+
X Ca2+ Ca 2+ C X Ca 2+
2
K Na + 2
(1-X Ca2+ ) C (1-X Ca 2+ )
X Ca2 4(2) 0.091
0.4
2.2 ( )
2
(1 X Ca2 ) 2
1 0.091
X Na 1 .235 0.765
Only 76.5% regeneration can be accomplished
with this regenerant because even small amounts
of Ca can have a significant effect because of the
high selectivity coefficient in favor of Ca. To get
higher regeneration need to make the NaCl
concentration higher or make the total volume of
regenerant higher to dilute the Ca that comes off
the exhausted column . Both options cost money
and there needs to be a tradeoff evaluated between
higher column utilization and more costly
regeneration. To formalize this trade-off problem
define the following.
Theoretical or total capacity = C (eq/L of bulk
volume).
Degree of column utilization = fraction or
percent of C actually used during an
exhaustion cycle. This is the difference between
the fresh capacity (generally less
C than ) and
the capacity at the end of the exhaustion cycle
compared to C .
Operating exchange capacity = (degree of
column utilization) x C (eq/L of resin).
Regeneration efficiency: ratio of actual
regenerant (equivalents) exchanged divided by
equivalents of regenerant applied times 100
(%).
Assume we have a 1-liter column initially
exhausted with Ca2+ . Assume that X 1, Ca 2
1.8 / C C(0.1)
2
2
C(0.0206)
(1 1.8 / C) 3 2(1 0.1)
1.8
2 2
0 .0206
C (1 1.8 / C)
2 2
C (1 1.8 / C) 1.8 / 0.0206 87.38
2
C 3.6C 84.14 0
Solve for the positive root:
C = 11.2 eq/L
0.5
C 1.0
X Ca 2 assuming complete exhaustion
C C
1.0 / C C(0.5)
2
2
C(0.333)
(1 1.0 / C) 3 2(1 0.5)
2 2 2
3.00 C (1 1.0 / C) C 2C 1
C = 3.34 eq/L
RE = (0.5(2)/3.34)x100 = 30%
Column utilization: 30 60 %
X Ca 2 = 0.1
Assume: C = 2 eq/L
Ca 2+
K Na +
3
Influent:
[Ca2+] = 44 meq/L
[Na+] = 30 meq/L
C = 0.074 eq/L
1 (0.074) (0.1) 3
1.52 x 10
3 2 (1 0.1) 2
3
X Ca 2 (1 X Ca 2 ) (1.52 x 10 )
2
3
X Ca 2 1.52 x 10
h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 0.7 3.9 35.2 12.7 46.5 172 68 314 46 830 1347 0.01638 Poor
Otuasega
2 0.6 4.1 44.6 12.3 54.2 105 47 293 34 1021 2836 0.244 Moderate
Oruma
4 0.6 4.0 42.9 8.1 36.5 126 50 485 62 518 974 0.1 Weak
Imiringi
5 0.8 4.2 51.5 10.7 55.4 98 31 165 40 621 2120 0.722 Good
Emeyal
6 0.9 4.3 32.8 13.5 57.8 112 65 183 27 363 1245 0.8675 Good
Kolo
7 0.7 4.5 39.2 9.8 43.5 104 79 265 31 449 1689 0.44 Moderate
Otuoke
11 0.8 3.9 51.8 11.0 56.5 182 103 285 23 540 901 0.708 Good
Opume
12 0.7 4.2 44.6 10.2 35 113 58 263 97 322 784 0.415 Moderate
Emekalaka
la
Protective capacity rating (after Henriet, 1976)
Sum of longitudinal unit conductance (mhos) Overburden protective capacity
classification
0.1-0.19 Weak
0.2-0.69 Moderate
0.7-1.0 Good
Otu
oke
Henriet, J.P. (1976): Direct applications of Dar Zarrouk parameters in groundwater surveys. Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 24, pp. 344 353.
Mailet, R. (1974): The fundamental equations of electrical prospecting. Geophysics, Vol. 12, pp. 529 556.
SOCIAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
SIAs provide a systematic framework to:
Anticipate social change from a proposed development project
which will change the environment;
Community/Institutional Arrangements
Communities in Transition
Individual and Family Level Impacts
Community Infrastructure
ISSUES IN SIA
One of the major role of the SIA is to identify both the winners and losers in
any development;
This means that SIA should be socially friendly i.e. accessible to all types of
stakeholders irrespective of their background;
To predict how the nature of the community will change as a result of
development thus is only the community who can identify those effects.
9m
decrease of the condition of the bedding plane due to weathering was sufficient to cause failure.
The fact that tension cracks developed during the lifetime of the slope also indicates that the slid
block above the bedding plane was not fully supported by shear strength along the lower parts
direction 162
of the bedding plane. The clay infill in the vertical joint set (265/85) has not been included in
the calculations of the reference rock mass and in the slope stability probability, as the infill was
road
expected to be flushed into the discontinuities from the terrain surface and not to be present
bedding
deeper in the rock mass. Whether the spacing of the second joint set (337/48) is taken as 15 or 5
m does not make a difference for the calculation of the reference rock mass nor for the
probability of the slope stability. The SSPC classification, and the limiting-equilibrium and
planes
numerical analyses show that this slope was prone to failure. The limiting-equilibrium and
numerical analyses show instability if the friction angle along the bedding planes is less than
about 37 to 38 without water pressures. This is the friction angle resulting from the SSPC
37
system.
slit
Fig. 11. Example II. Geometrical cross
section of the slope