absorption in jet-venturi scrubbers · 2020. 7. 29. · jet-venturi scrubber can . the jet-venturi...
TRANSCRIPT
Lehigh UniversityLehigh Preserve
Theses and Dissertations
1973
Absorption in Jet-Venturi scrubbersMark RichmanLehigh University
Follow this and additional works at: https://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd
Part of the Chemical Engineering Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by anauthorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationRichman, Mark, "Absorption in Jet-Venturi scrubbers" (1973). Theses and Dissertations. 5105.https://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd/5105
. .
ABSORPTION IN JET-VENTURI SCRUBBERS
BY
MARK RICHMAN
A RESEARCH REPORT
PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY
OF LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
. '
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
BETHLEHEM, PA,
OCTOBER 1973
i
I. {q
. I, I\'.!
· I
I ,. I,
..
'
I I ' I, '
... CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
This research report is accepted and upproved in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Chemical Engineering.
_J}_L,0/13 (Date)
D~~~ Professor in Charge
Dr. Leonard A. Wenzel Chairman, Dept. of Chemical
Engineering
,I
'I
(
,I
I, I
' ,, i( :,
I ,1 ,· '
:, f
. f I l
I I
l ; i; ,i
,)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation
for significant contributions made to this study to
Dr. Gary W. Poehlein, for his guidance and leadership;
to Drs. Clump and Foust for their assistance in finding
reference material; and to Brent Jones and David Fleming
for their assistance in setting up and operating the experimental apparatus.
,: :,
i . I
-- ::·:::-:---:-=-...:--~ ---·· . ~- -------- - ·- .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Certificate of Approval
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Tables·
List of Figures
Abstract
PAGE
i
ii
iii
iv
V
vi
: ) The Jet-Venturi Scrubber
l
3 ··, ·/t
Mass Transfer Theory 8
The Oxygen-Sulfite Phase of the Experiments 19
The HCl Phase of the Experiments 31
Results and Conclusions 41
Recommendations 51
Bibliography 53
Appendix I - Sulfite Phase Data 54
Appendix II - HCl Phase Data 59
Appendix III - Operating Parameters 67
Vita 79
iv
'1'
;\ r ( 'i:,
·ii .. ,,
,,I
i'
l I, 11 11,
I r I ,, ' I ,,
I
I'
/: ,,
I,; ,)
LIST OF TABLES
~) Residence Times ii· ..:~·
!', ) Interfacial Areas
·~) HCl Run Operating Conditions I' ,,
'.) HCl Concentrations in the Gas & the Liquid
,; ·, ,•
,;
HCl Mass Balance
Gas Cleaning Efficiencies
Gas Driving Force
Liquid Driving Force
Mass Transfer Coefficients
Experimental Contact Times & Contact Times Ratios
V
PAGE
16
29
36
37
38
39
42
44
45
46
. ,:,·
;/ i
( I I 'I L, I.
t I
i ! I: I ;
LIST OF FIGURES
Mass Transfer Driving Forces
~ The Fi lrn Theory Model
~· The Penetration Theory Model '·'
• Scrubber Apparatus
5 Mixing Duct ;
6, Graphical Determination of Interfacial Areas -Run 1 & Run 2
n Graphical Determination of Interfacial Areas -Run 3 & Run 4
Bl Graphical Determination of Interfacial Areas -Run 5 & Run 6
Graphical Determination of Interfacial Areas -Run 7 & Run 8
~j Water Flow vs. Interfacial Area
Lj Gas Sampling Apparatus
ii Gas Cleaning Efficiencies vs Liquid Flow ')
~ Gas Phase Based Contact Time Ratio vs Liquid Rate ~-
~ Gas Phase Based Contact Time Ratio vs Gas Cleaning Efficiency
ij Liquid Phase Based Contact Time Ratio vs Liquid Rate
I Liquid Phase Based Contact Time Ratio vs Gas Cleaning
PAGE
9
12
13
20
21
25
26
27
28
30
33
40
47
48
49
Efficiency 50
,,
,I
'
! •I
;;
\i
i
I I :'I i_i I
·-:,
!1 ; ~
~ ·; ; .'.
J ·1
'I; ::;;
·,:
i I,
I: ~ I
ABSTRACT
Increasing public demand for pollution control, coupled with the strict standards set by the government, has made the use of emission control devices such as the venturi scrubber and the jet-venturi scrubber commonplace in industry. Venturi scrubbers are being used for a wide variety of jobs. The steel industry uses venturi scrubbers to remove hydrogen chloride (HCl) gas from stack emissions. Electrical utility companies use venturi scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions from flue gases.
In industrial use, efficiencies of operation for these venturi and jet-venturi scrubbers are determined either from past experience with identical or nearly identical situations
1 or with experimental data from pilot plant studies. This is
C
i/
, I
due to the fact that there are, at present, no satisfactory correlations for mass transfer or particulate removal in venturi scrubbers. Pilot plant projects are expensive, so the develop-ment of correlations would certainly be a money saver, as well as a time saver.
This study involves an examination of mass transfer to see if a suitable theory can be found for venturi and jet-venturi scrubbers. Experimental data from an 8 inch jet-venturi scrubber system, in which HCl was scrubbed from air with water, is used to confirm or reject the theories examined.
Several mass transfer theories were examined, and the l, penetration theory was selected as the theory to be studied.
The relationship between the liquid-gas contact time and the residence time in the scrubber throat was selected as the parameter to be examined. The results indicate.that there is a
'I " l
J'
'.1
i,'
ii: : n \ii . I
definite relationship between the contact time to residence time ratio and both the liquid flow rate through the scrubber and the gas cleaning efficiency. The results also indicate, however, that the penetration theory, applied in this manner, does not adequately describe mass transfer for the system studied. Further examination of the problem is clearly indicated.
-2-
' I
!. I
,, i ' .
! .
/'! ' I
-------~---- ----~------·· --- -------·-- - ------ ---· - '
\, I
I \ .
THE JET-VENTURI SCRUBBER
The engineer, when dealing with objectional fumes disharged from industrial processes, has four major types of mission control equipment to choose from: filters, inertial ystems such as cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, and wet crubbers. Of these four types, wet scrubbers are the most veratile, and probably the closest to a universal answer to emis,; ion control problems.
Wet scrubbers, including venturi and jet-venturi scrubbers, ! swell as wet cyclones, spray towers and packed towers, all aper-., .I
! te according to the same principles. Their scrubbing action is )
: roduced by passing the gas stream past the liquid stream; or vice ; ersa, and spreading the liquid out so that it has sufficient sure ace area to contact all parts of the gas and insure rapid mass ' ·, rans fer. ;\
I•
I: 1, i f
Venturi scrubbers utilize a high velocity section (at the contracta or venturi) for bringing the gas and liquid into
timate contact with each other. They fall into two groups: ) The standard venturi scrubber uses a mechanical blower to eate a high velocity gas stream that passes by a slower moving 'quid surface. The faster moving gas hits and disperses the ower moving liquid. (2) The ejector or jet-venturi scrubber udied in this work uses a mechanical pump to impart a high velity to the liquid stream. The high velocity energy of the liquid ream acts to break up and distribute the liquid into a multitude small drops, giving a large surface area for the liquid. The gh velocity liquid stream also acts 'to pump the gas stream through e scrubbing system and the connecting duct work.
Venturi scrubbers have many advantages over the other types wet scrubbers, as well as the other types of emission control vices. Versatility is a prime attribute of venturi scrubbers, that they can handle solid particulates, liquid particulates
-3-
I'
\. ·./;
ii i
I
I I l'\ ' ' '
I,
r aerosols, and soluble gases, all with high efficiencies. The
ent~ri scrubber is also convenient in terms of size. It occu
ies the smallest area for comparable jobs of any of the wet scrub-
ers, and is smaller than most other emission control systems.
~ espite the small area it occupies, the venturi scrubber can
andle great volumes of effluent gases with top efficiencies.
final advantage of the venturi scrubber is that it can be used
o collect many highly corrosive materials that other systems annot handle; it has no moving parts. :,
Along with these advantages, there are several disadvantages
hat must be considered before a venturi scrubber can be selected
o handle a particular problem. Only one of these, however, is
nherent to the venturi scrubber, while the other disadvantages
; re common to all wet scrubbers. The problems common to all wet
crubbers stem from the use of a liquid stream, usually water, to
o the scrubbing. The first and most important problem with the
se of water as a scrubbing medium is that the water must then be
leaned, and clarification costs can run very high. Climatic con
traints must also be considered, and freezing water lines can be ' : problem. Vapor plumes, caused when small amounts of the scrubt
:· ing liquid exit the stack with the effluent gas stream, arouse
ublic concern, and therefore are also a disadvantage of wet
rubber use. Power costs are a problem for the venturi scrubber,
t not for the other wet scrubbers. Because of the pumping re
irements for both the standard and jet-venturi scrubbers, power
sts can run three or four times the costs for other wet scrubbers.
Should an engineer select the venturi scrubber, he must then
cide which type of venturi scrubber to use, the standard or the
t. Each has its own particular advantages. In the standard
nturi scrubber, a much smaller quantity of liquid (scrubbing
dium) is required, because of the greater gas stream velocities
educed by the gas pump or fan. The smaller quantity of liquid,
-4-
1·
I,,.
!: ·'
. ' i
)
ften from five to eight times less than with the jet-venturi unit,
equires less expenditure for clarification and treatment. With
he lo~er liquid stream flow rates, a smaller pump is needed to
liquid through the unit. Also, due to the use of the
the standard venturi can handle greater gas flow rates jet-venturi scrubber can .
The jet-venturi scrubber, however, has many advantages as
The high velocity liquid stream eliminates the need for a
p to move the gas stream. With no gas pump, there are no moving
contact with the gas. This makes the jet-venturi unit
for dealing with highly corrosive materials. The high
energy of the liquid stream is also advantageous in that
is a much more efficient atomizer of the liquid stream than
· e lower velocity energy in the standard venturi scrubber. The
the atomization of the liquid stream, the greater the num
liquid droplets passing through the scrubber throat, and
greater the surface area with which to contact and scrub the
There are other advantages in using the jet-venturi rubber that are related to the high velocity action of the
: quid and the lack of a gas pump. First, there is a much lower
erall pressure drop in the jet-venturi scrubber, making it more
eful for systems requiring scrubbing between other process steps,
ad, hence, the smallest pressure drop possible. Also, the over-!
~ l power expended in operation of the jet-venturi scrubber is
ually less than in operation of the standard venturi scrubber.
Modifications can be made on venturi scrubbers to improve
eir efficiencies. A simple modification on the scrubber system
to change the scrubbing medium being used from water to some
~ her medium. Caustic is a very popular alternative. Examples [.'
the efficiencies attainable using caustic in jet-venturi scrub-
rs as reported by L. S. Harris 1 are: 98% for so2
removal, 99%
r c1 2 , and 99.9% for r2 removal (maximum efficiencies).
-- L. s. Harris - "Fume Scrubbing with the Ejector. Venturi System" Chemical Engineering Progress, April 1966, page 55.
I '·
ii
i •I
ii i !
i
I
··--·---·-----------. ---·-------~-------~- -
j
I A second modification of the venturi scrubber system in I'
I t valves the use·of scrubbers in series. The electrical operating \'.; costs at the higher scrubbing efficiencies can be reduced con-,. i :, siderably at the expense of higher equipment costs. ffarris re-ports that for a given HCl fume, similar to the gas stream studied . ! in this report, at a rate of 1000 cubic feet per minute, and with a collection efficiency of 98%, the switch from a one stage jetventuri unit to a two stage unit would result in the decrease of theoretical horsepower from 9 hp to 2 hp. This may be sufficient to justify the increased equipment costs required by the second stage.
Another modification of the venturi scrubber system is J the flooded-disc wet scrubber 2. The disc is positioned in a tapering duct section. The shearing action of the gas at the edge of this disc acts to atomize the liquid scrubbing medium very effectively. Optimum pressure drop at different gas flow rates can be maintained easily with the flooded-disc. This is done by raising or lowering the disc as required. This acts to increase or decrease the annular area through which the gas must pass, and increases the range of gas flow rates over which the scrubber can operate at peak efficiencies.
The jet-venturi scrubber is generally used in series with some type of separation device. The job of the separator is to remove the scrubbing medium from the exhaust gas stream. An eft \ ficient separator can remove the contacting liquid from the gas
-7 -8 { to within a value in the range of 5 x 10 to 5 x 10 gallons } of liquid per cubic foot of gas. Various types ·of separators ' are used, including gravity separating chambers, inertia impact separators and cyclonic mist eliminators.
2 -- Bulletin R-C 1000, Research-Cottrell, Inc.
-6-
I. I'
i'
,,i ':
I
I
-• ...,.w _ __, __ =~ -• ••• ---- .... •••~•--- - ·-
r
.. , .i ,.
' ·,
From the discussion of venturi scrubbers, and the jet
venturi scrubber in particular, it is clear that these scrubbers
combine efficiency, versatility, capacity and cost fa~tors in a
unique combination that makes them very useful for many differ
ent emission control problems. At the present time, however,
there is no way available to predict the performance of these
scrubbers without actual experimentation with the effluent to
be scrubbed. In the following sections of this report, we will
examine several theories attempting to predict the performance
of a jet-venturi scrubber, and compare these theories with ex
perimentally collected data for the removal of HCl from air in an 8 inch jet-venturi scrubber .
!
i,i i:.
i I ,,
I
'i
.. _ 'I
MASS TRANSFER THEORY
Many of the basic equations describing mass transfer
can be derived from similar equations involving heat transfer.
One of the most important equations for which this is true is of the following form:
Flux= Coefficient X Driving Force
'. where the driving force is generally some concentration differ-
l ence. For the heat transfer case, this equation takes this form:
; where "h" is the heat transfer coefficient. For the case of
mass transfer, the equation is as follows:
where NA= the rate of mass transfer, as a mass flux, in
units of the mass of the transferred component
"A" that is transferred per unit time per unit
area over which the mass is being transferred
~Cd . . f = the mass transfer driving force r1v1ng orce · defined as the difference of concentrations of
the transferred component between the phases
which provide the mass transfer; this can be
expressed as ~C, ~p, ~x, etc.
The following diagrams show the system used and point 1 out the driving forces for mass transfer.
-8-
I 'I
:I
MASS TRANSFER DRIVING FORCES -·------·-- ··-~---·---······~· ... IQUID IN
Driving force at the top of the ejector, as visualized by the two-film theory.
r-----"T"---~------· . --·-·--LIQUID
,in
PHASE cG,in
I
~Gi,in I
~Li,in I I
~i,in"f~CLi,i ) c;i,in"f(CGi,in)
INLET DRIVING FORCE DIAGRAM : here 'f' is an equilibrium relationship. ,,
r ve~ll driving force at the inlet
In terms of the gas phase;
In terms of the liquid phase:
is:
-1 c~,in - f (CL,in)
f ( CG . ) - CL i ) ,in , n
' n a similar manner, the picture at the outlet position can also
1 e shown with the two film theory: r--· I
/ LIQUID RHASE I I
a.AA PHASE cG,out
I '---11 / ,, i:,
-.
·c : ~out , __ ; __ --r.
F1i,outxf(~Gi,ou
I :/ ~Gi,out /J
cs!' Li,out 'I ) I I. , r 1
1
I Ii f; verall t
i , ~u t • ( CLi , out ) j I OUTLET DRIVING FORCE DIAGRAM
f f' I
driVing force at the outlet is;
In terms of the gas phase:
In terms of the ~i.9..~~d phase:
FIGURE 1
-9-
--.. ~----~·--4------·
j
I
, ,
I' !
The driving force for mass transfer calculation should be an average, (specifically the log-mean average), between the "inlet" and "outlet" driving forces. Therefore, the driving forces for mass transfer are:
GAS PHASE: . -1 -1 (CG, in-f (CL, in)) - (CG, out-f (CL, out)) = tied . . riving
LIQUID PHASE:
log e
CG,in-f (C1 ,in)
-1 CG,out-f (CL 1 out) force, G
(f(CG,in)-CL,in) - (f(CG 1 out)-CL,out) f(CG,in)-CL 1 in
log = !::.Cd .. riving
e f(CG,out)-CL,out force, L
The equation for mass flux, "NA", can also be written as:
NA= (dm/dt)/A
where dm/dt = the rate of transfer of mass, as mass transferred ~ per unit time; and A= the interfacial area over which the mass ·?
is transferred.
The two equations for NA are combined to produce a single equation for the mass transfer coefficient:
ke = (dm/dt)/A(!::.Cdriving force)
The equation refers to the mass transfer coefficient as k since the equation provides a means for calculating the mass e transfer coefficient from experimental measurements.
The uses of experimentally determined mass transfer coefficients are somewhat limited with respect to circumstances and situations, as well as to the range of fluid properties.
-10-
I ',,
,'!
I I 'I
I' 'I
. - -··-··---............ ·--·----- - .
. •
Therefore it is important that we be able.to extend their applicability to the situations not covered experimentally.
To accomplish this, there are several theories which try to relate the behavior of mass transfer coefficients to fundamental system parameters. These include the film theory, the penetration theory, the surface-renewal theory and others. All of these are speculations, attempting to simulate and deal with , situations that are not completely understood, and are continu--;,
~ ously being revised. Each has its own merits, and each approxi-mates certain cases of mass transfer better than others. Therefore, we should examine each of the mass transfer theories, and select the one that best fits the mass transfer mechanism that occurs inside the jet-venturi scrubber.
After choosing a mass transfer theory to apply to the jet-venturi scrubber, the theory will be used to calculate a 1 kt (theoretical mass transfer coefficient) to compare with the k (experimental mass transfer coefficient). A good correlation e
between the experimental and theoretical values would indicate , that the theory is a good approximation for the mass transfer ! mechanism in the jet-venturi scrubber. A poor correlation would 1 suggest that we either modify the theory used further, or try another theory altogether.
The three major theories to be considered are the film , theory, the penetration theory, and the surface-renewal theory. The first theory we will consider is the film theory. This is the oldest and simplest picture of mass transfer coefficients. The theory states that when a fluid moving in turbulent flow passes a solid surface, the fluid velocity at the surface itself being zero, a viscous layer or "film" must be formed. The film theory assumes that the entire concentration difference, c2-c
1, is described by molecular diffusion, and that an effective film thickness, 'z', can be defined such that the
-11-
'I
r
. I : i
I
\ I . \ ;.(EFFECTIVE FILM THICKNES __ , - ... ---·------- -----
2b DISTANCE. ( z) I ·-----
FIGURE 2 THE FILM THEORY MODEL
resistance to molecular diffusion in the film of thickness 'z' is equal to the actual resistance to mass transfer in the true system, comprised of the true viscous or laminar layer, the buffer region and the turbulent core. Using this theory the following equation for the mass transfer coefficient can be derived:
; where Dab is the diffusivity of the transferred component in the medium in which the transfer takes place
and zf is the effective film thickness as specified by the film theory.
The second theory to be considered is the penetration theory. This theory was proposed by Higbie as an alternative to the film theory because there are many situations in mass transfer where the time of exposure of a fluid to mass transfer is short, so that nhe concentration gradient of the film theory,
~ Which is characteristic of steady state 6peration, would not have.sufficient time to develop. Higbie, therefore, developed a theory to describe short contact systems, and, in particular, the case where a gas bubble rises through a liquid which absorbs the gas .
.:..12-
' ,I I r
. I ; I
i ' ' ;
i : , I : ! .
··-·--·----
CA. ( in liquid) l
-·-·- -·-··---- ... -- r----·-- -- -PENETRATION THEORY MODEL
FIGURE 3
GAS
LIQUID
A particle of the liquid, initially at the top of the
bubble, is in contact with the bubble for a time, '8', which is
equal to the time for the bubble to rise a distance equal to
its diameter while the liquid particle slips along its surface.
In this theory, the time of exposure or contact is taken to
be constant for all such particles, or eddies for the case of turbulent flow.
Initially the concentration of the dissolved gas in
the liquid is C . At the surface between the liquid and the 0
gas, the concentration of the dissolved gas is C .. During 1
the unsteady state diffusion process, the following equation can be applied:
ac a2 c aG = Dab a z 2
The following boundary equations are then applied:
1) C = C 0
at 8 = 0 for all z 2) C = C
0 at z = 0 for all 8
3) C = C. at z = 0 for e greater than O 1
Using these boundary conditions, the following equation can be [ derived for the mass transfer coefficient: f! II
-13-
I
'I I,
Ii ! I
,. I
I
'.
I •;, ·,
,. "
ii '. The final theory that we shall look at is the surface-
renewal theory, which is a modification of the penetration theory.
Dankwertz, who developed the theory, pointed out that the assump
tion that all of the eddies were exposed for the same ·1ength of
time at the surface is, at best, a special case of what may be
a much more realistic picture, where the eddies are exposed for
varying lengths of time. His equation for the mass transfer coefficient was:
k =i./D s ab
wheres is defined as the rate of production of fresh surface and is assumed to be constant
1 Dankwertz then attempted to solve for this term mathematically, 1 and found:
~ = -se se
/where~ is defined in terms of ~dt being the area of surface
elements having residence times between t and t + dt
and e is the average residence time of an eddy at the surface.
The penetration and surface renewal theories are probably
: the best approximations to the mechanism of mass transfer occur
ring in the jet-venturi unit. First, they are most applicable
to cases in which there is turbulent flow, as in the scrubber.
lso, they were designed for short contact time systems, and the
jet-venturi scrubber can certainly be classified as a short con
tact time unit since the residence times in the scrubber of both
) the liquid and gas phases are always very small (less than one
second for our experimental range). The penetration theory is
the simplest of all of the theories based on the short contact
time approach, and therefore, the easiest to apply to experimental ysterns.
i'
i !
: I
I ,I
I I
; '
!
! I I I .. I ii
i:· [;
Having selected the penetration theory, two maj.or factors
must be known for the determination of the theoretical mass trans
fer coefficients, the contact time '0', and the diffusivity 'Dab'. ·
1
The diffusivity can be found in many data sources as a function
of temperature. The contact time cannot be found in any refer
ence, nor can it be calculated directly to use.in the prediction
of mass transfer rates. We can, however, calculate the residence
time inside the scrubber throat, and use this as an initial ap-
, proximation for the contact time. Residence times for all runs
; and all phases are shown on Page 16. (Residence times are calcu-
'. lated by dividing the length of the scrubber thr-oat by the velocity
~through the throat.) Studies on mass transfer in venturi scrub-; 3
: ers reveal that virtually all of the mass transfer takes place · in the first foot of throat length or less.
Because of this, the ability of the theory to predict 1 ass transfer rates using residence times instead of contact
is suspect. Clearly, the relationship between these resi
ence times and contact times is an important one. An equation elating them would be as follows:
e = t/ n
where e is the contact time (seconds)
tis the residence time (seconds)
n is the contact time ratio, or number of contacts during a single pass
The value for 'n' can be calculated for each set of ex-
etimental conditions. The wai that 'n' varies with liquid flow
ate and gas flow rate through the scrubber, therefore, can be
etermined from experimental data. This term, therefore, will
e the focus of otir experiments and calculations. If 'n' can
e shown to be a function of either gas flow rate, liquid flow
ate, or scrubber throat size, it can then be used to predict mass
ransfer rates for other systems in the jet-venturi scrubber.
Atomization and Cloud Behavior in Venturi Scrubbing Howard E. Hesketh, Journal of APCA, July, 1973
-15·-
i
f. / I : ;
, I lj I· , .. .,. ;i;
f'; ti'; f, I
'J UN IN TERMS OF
' LINE PRESSURE
;. P in ps.ig
14
16
18
20
23
25
:•
28
30
RESIDENCE TIMES
LIQUID RESIDENCE TIME IN SCRUBBER
t 1 1n seconds
0.217
0.211
0.206
0.202
0.195
0.190
0.183
0.179
-16-
GAS RESIDENCE TIME IN SCRUBBER
tG 1n seconds
0.220
0.196'
0.183
0.161
0.161
0.155
0.148
0.144
.\ 'I I
'/ . :
I
l I
i
,, 'I ,, ' '
:1
'' ' .. 1
I
( 1·
: i : i
i
I'
alculation of flow conditions, interfacial areas, and contact (calculated from the first two parameters) for a
iven system in a given scrubber, should then be sufficient to redict mass transfer rates.
The particular system chosen to study is important ecause the system chosen may have its primary resistance to
'ass transfer in either the gas phase or the liquid phase. tudies of the HCl system being used in this report are unclear bout mass transfer resistances. The location of the mass trans
. er resistance must be known to properly apply the penetration heory to venturi scrub~r systems. Diffusivities, residence
~ imes, and concentratiJns used in the calculations are different ·'. or liquid phase and gas phase based systems. Because of the , ncertainty about the HCl system, both cases (gas and liquid . hase resistances to mass transfer) will be examined in the cal• ulations and ·a determination will be made.
For the gas phase case: k eG
= dm/dt A (tied . . f ,G) riving orce
d the theoretically determined mass transfer coefficient:
DHCl-AIR rreG
en the diffusivity used is the diffusivity of the transferred mponent in the gas phase, and 1 8 1
, the contact time,= eG, e gas phase contact time, where 8G = tG/nG, and tG is the resince time of the gas stream in the scrubber throat.
For the liquid phase case: k " eL
= dm/dt A (lied . . f L) riving orce,
d the theoretically determined mass transfer coefficient:
-17-
I 'J.'
ii /i
'j
,,I 'I \,
I /' I
, .
I ,. '
,j, I
I. !
,, I ,, i
. )
I
I
!:! : :1· 1
1/' 111. • i':.i1 •j_' l
!,;::
111·' ~· ! i , ,.1 I : iii
·l' I 'I ' I
-·---··-----·· .. ·-······· - ·-----·----~-·---~
'.I
1. 78 X
· -4 2 * Using DHCl-Air = 1.63 x 10 ft /sec and DHCl-HOH =
-8 2 ** 10 ft /sec, the values at 70°F, the following equa-
tions are found for liquid and gas phase based contact time ratios:
n1 = I: dm/dt ]2
54 4xAx (fled . . ) tL r1v1ng force,L
2 dm/dt
5li9xAx (6Cd . . f G) tG riving orce,
;where dm/dt is the mass transferred, measured experimentally, --in units of lbs HCl/hour,
2 A is interfacial area in units of ft, also experi-mentally determined,
t 1 and tG are residence times in units of seconds,
Concentrations are in units of lbs HCl/ft: (where the
driving forces have been defined earliet) and n1 and nG are dimensionless
The. methods for obtaining the data to use in the above
: equations are outlined in the following sections. The results
of the experiments, including contact time ratios, are presented following the experimental sections .
!, * :, 4
t * I 5 i.
Progress in International Research in Thermodynamics and Transport Properties - ASME, Academic Press, 1962
Gas--Liquid Reactions - P. V. Dankwertz McGraw-Hill, 1970
-18-
.\ I
,,
I,
j.
i. (, I
1 I , ·
THE OXYGEN-SULFITE PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
Before we can try to predict the outlet concentration
of an effluent in air for a given inlet concentration, using
the jet-venturi scrubber as the emission controller, certain
things must be known about the system being studied. These
include: the effluent being studied; the scrubbing medium
being used; the particular scrubber (dimensions and flow rate
ranges) being used to clean the air stream; the operational
i flow rates of the liquid and gas streams; the interfacial areas
for mass transfer as a function of flow conditions; and the mass
transfer theory being used to calculate outlet effluent concentrations.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) has been chosen as the effluent
: to be studied. Water will be the scrubbing medium. The scrubber
being used for the experimentation is an 8" jet venturi fume
scrubber provided by Croll-Reynolds Co., Inc of Westfield, New
Jersey. A diagram of the experimental apparatus is shown on
) the next page. Liquid flow data has been collected up to 45
psig liquid line pressure, defining the range under which we
Ii·
may operate. The penetration theory has been selected as the
mass transfer theory to be used, and the reasons for this choice
have been discussed in the previous section.
The only parameter, therefore, that has not been speci
fied is the interfacial area for mass transfer. Therefore,
before we can apply the penetration theory to the HCl system,
we must determine interfacial areas, which are a function of
liquid flow rate through the scrubber. To do this, we must make
a separate set of experimental runs, using a system other than
HCl in air, and measure the interfacial areas, or calculate them, since they cannot be measured directly.
The system that has been chosen is one that uses sodium
sulfite in water as the scrubbing medium to absorb oxygen out
-19-
I N 0 I BALL VALVE
LIQUID SAMPLING TAP
~ MOTOR
- '. - ···-,,. ,. •:· .,.
FIGURE 4
. - ----- -- ---- ·-
SCRUBBER
AIR EXIT
-- . .
SEPARATOR
TANK
J
SCRUBBER APPARATUS
.·---·----_···-- -_. --- -------·~-..=..-7-.--:~:...-:·~-·--··;._
INCLINED
I I
.. I
~ AIR INLET
REGULATOR
HCl CYLINDER
I
"' ,_. I
~-.- .
ATTACH TO
SCRUBBER
rr ~ ! ' I•
'I
; : I• . I : t
.. , - .. ; ... ·.'...-~ •. · >. -~ •• -, ~ •• , -..., .•
PITOT SAMPLING TUBE
.:.,, :-·~-·.::,
MIXING SCREENS \...
. ·;.... ·. ~~- - ,;.·. ---
HCl Feed BUTTERFLY VALVE ; j4- 3 II
I ,r-------------------~----------t....----------..... -+-----~-1
r ~*-!-< ,I
I! ! :
6 II ----')
T 2 II
4 H 2 o Draft
Manometer
l2 II
FIGURE 5
Lucite Duct
Ii j'
I
:) /
l"' 6 II
MIXING DUCT
/ I I )
i _-(
I ----G" ---4
-~ l I I ' ~------- l 2 II. --- . __ -------/'
4 II
_j_
I I
i
r'.
, I i'j r., !
1,;. t·'
C [ r
of air. Oxygen reacts with solutions of sodium sulfite in the
presence of catalysts such as cobalt ions, to produce sulfate:
so -2 + 3 so -2
4
This system has been chosen to determine interfacial areas for
two reasons. First, it is a system in which the resistance to
mass transfer is well defined. Liquid phase resistance domi
nates with gas phase resistance being negligible. Second, much
study has been done on the system, and a reliable method has
been developed to calculate interfacial areas for mass transfer.
The reaction was studied by Reith, 7 who ran his,experi
ments using a .8 molar solution of sodium sulfite. A cobalt
chloride catalyst was used because the reaction is normally very
~ slow. Cobalt chloride concentrations used ranged from 3 x 10- 5
to 5 x 10-J gm-moles/liter. Using the data collected, rate con
stants for the reaction were calculated as a function of solu
tion pH, cobalt chloride concentration and temperature. The
rate expression obtained from these calculations was as follows:
R = (A*) 1 ' 5 ((2/3)k D )0. 5 2 a
' where D is•the diffusivity of oxygen in the reacting solution, a and k2 is a reaction rate constant. A* is the saturated con-centration of oxygen
wertz6
as a function in the solution, and is given by Dank-of temperature. Combining this equation
and the data collected by Reith, the reaction rate 'R' can be
calculated in units: gm-moles/ft 2sec. After calculating 'R',
' we experimentally determined (RA) avg., the product of 'R' and
'A', the interfacial area. We, then, divide (RA)avg by 'R' to
get the value for the interfacial area at the particular operating conditions.
6
7
Gas-Liquid Reactions - P. V. Dankwertz, McGraw-Hill, 1970
T. Reith - Physical Aspects of Bubble Dispersions in Liquids, Thesis, Delft Technical University; Delstsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, N.V., 1968
-22-
,,
!
., ;!
I,
I
i i
:I
. I
I I
1 '1 ' ! I
[; I
I:
: J
(RA)avg is determined in the following manner. The
scrubber is run with a recycling sulfite solution and liquid
samples are taken at specific time intervals (a detailed descrip
tion of the experimental procedure foll9ws). The initial rate
/J
\ I
1
of decrease in the concentration of sulfite ions in the solution
is determined graphically by plotting sulfite concentration ver
sus time, and the resulting slope, having units of gm-moles/
liter sec, or gm-moles/sec, is (RA)avg. In other words, although
we cannot measure 'A' directly, we can measure it indirectly.
Eight runs were made, each one at a different liquid
flow rate. The range of line pressures for liquid flow that were
used varied from 14 psig to 30 psig. The lower limit was chosen
because we cannot expect the scrubber to be effective to any degree
much below this flow rate. The upper limit was chosen because
great difficulty was experienced in attempting to run the sul-
' fite solution through the scrubber at rates higher than at 30
psig. For each run, liquid samples were taken every 5 minutes
over a 1 hour period. The sulfite concentration used for each ~
' run was .8 molar, and the cobalt chloride concentration used was
10-3
molar. The procedure for operation was as follows:
1) Prepare the necessary analytical solutions: ( a) 0.21 M KI0
3 ( b) 0.60 M HCl
( C) saturated starch indicator solution 2) Dissolve 45 lbs. of sodium sulfite (Na 2so
3) into
buckets of water and pour into the separator tank; 3) Add water to the separator tank until the level is at
the mark. This will give 196 liters of solution, and a sulfite concentration of 0.8 M;
4) Fill the draft manometer to the zero level 5) Turn on the pump and open the ball valve until the
line pressure gauge is at the desired setting 6) Adjust the butterfly valve to the desired draft
-23-
I
,\ '
1· I II
I !
: .1 I ',,
.1 I.
'I
I. ; ' . ' '
f
I
7) After several minutes to allow the solution to
mix itself thoroughly, add 25 grams of cobalt
~ chloride to the solution in the tank. This is
the amount for a concentration of 10-JM
8) Take liquid samples every 5 minutes, starting at
1 minute after the addition of the catalyst
9) Titrate the samples with the KI03
solution, after
adding 15 ml of the HCl solution and 7.5 ml of
! the starch solution to 15 ml samples i.
10) After 1 hour of samples have been taken, turn off the pump
11) Empty the separator tank immediately and flush the
system to prevent the build-up of sodium sulfite crystals inside the unit
12) Wash the equipment thoroughly
The data obtained from the eight runs is presented in
,;- Appendix I. The graphs used in th9 determination of (RA) avg
~and interfacial areas are on the following pages, followed by
·a chart showing the determined values of (RA)avg and 'A' using ~the Dankwertz 8 data of
-9 2 R = 5.42 x 10 gm-moles/cm sec
-- Gas-Liquid Reactions - P. V. Dankwertz, McGraw-Hill, 1970
-24-
- ,I
i
'·'
.......---~r-:-:-;,~1,-~-:--:[. --- ,-·-·-·:--:T--:·---1---~~ ............... T~"7"1:::1··T .. l .... ,.
LI :y i : ! : I : /~17~'; 1 ; ! />!~; ' ii:'P}j)fi:,+ 1~•'1!~[ :.~~:L:1' ~:.: :::LL:oliA .HICAJ, J):E'l'tRMIN.a_ 'l'ION'r~ Ii/TERF4Clli ~ ~ ' J '' L,) i: .. :··I j;:, ·.· '1-1 ~--····
,.·• -1 / ' i . • RUH 1 & ! Rinf 2 ; ' · · i ·'· / • ! · -• ! ; . 1> . -· ;940 · · / ·1· •· r ·· f · /· : ·:'/··,-1-f~
, .... I .. ·: : : . t· . , . , . . . I . ·, . : :· , . :,:: 1 I
1 •.• I ...... .J.,! _: _ • I --- -- •. ·, -·· • •
I
i ...... · ~930 · I
. ----.i.-- - ..
·-·• ••• I ... ··i.920-I
I I
1
i
... _[_
---·-·· ·-· ·-· .,91-g !
onc~ntra~ion ' ' ---··-l.·-~2 -1··· ... -·
f so3 _ ! : I
~ -.L .. · ----~ 900 I ' . I
g?n-iloiest1:Lt)
, .. lg ·o --···1··-·--,- 9 ..
_ _: ___ ; ..... -· 1. -· ....
I ' I
. / ..... I I
I
I I ..• 880. I ;
I .. -.. / . . . . I
... ___ -i - -- . ·-!
i870 ' I
'
i
I
' .,
RUN l
.. ! ..
i ! .
• ' I '. I ••• I • ......... , ...... - ··1·--··· .. ,. ··-······ 1-· '. ·, ··•· ..
' I ; .. : ' I • • '
RUN~
. 1· .....
...... ___ __! .. __ ( :I •• ! !~
I t··
INITIAL SLOPE 2 =
i I
! . . : . :.1 : . : : : I ~--· ~-.:L . ...; ____ , ' : '.'"' i
-5 gram moles 2.67xl0 liter sec
INITIAL SLOPE 1 =
2 .lJxl0-5 g:am moles liter sec
•• ··-· ,_ '
• I ....•
• • • •
-- ' I I
I
.... j
I I
I ·-·-- .. ~ - - -
. • •-- I
·I· !
. '
I ... '
I . /
I
I • I -............ i ........ ,-...;_ _________________________ _
' I 5 10 15 : I . I
.. i . ... -- - . ! I I
... ·· 1 ....
, I : ' 1
i .... -.. . . . ...
. - .. ···-'-·-···· ..
. •t .
' I
20 25 30 35 4; . ! I I
: ..... I. . -: ... / : I
... -!
Time (minut&s) ' I . i
I • •. I
.l. ..
'\
,,
.''
' ii 'i !,
ji I l: 11
.ii 'JI I' :I !i ,, ;1
I
I
r
/
I' I I'. I
! . I
!:
l ,·
',' . I I
!. I
I· I I!
I· I. i '. ii I lji ' i1,, :
I
: .820 ·
· · .800
: .-780
' ' i ; -moles/lit)
... 11740 I
·! .. I ' -- I -- . • . - ~ • •
,::\ ,., I:,; .
I
. \
·r ,,·
..... ; ____ ;_ ... j ___ •.•. • , . I
;
:' ')
. f . i
:.-./ .• 7.00 ..... :;
I .... ' .. ,. -·- t ·--·: ... ( I
f __ L _:_ _J_.6aa I . : . ··-·-·t·····
i
.. ----!
i I ~ I• ,.
/ ;
' t' ·- --~- .•
f I ' .
. I_·-··-' ... -· -..:
I . - - ~.. . -- ·--1 ·--. . !.
I '
I ' ' , .• I , '
i I
. -··---+---. -
RUN 3 .. ~-- .. . .
'
RUN 4
10 20 25
i ....
I,
.... ,-· ....
INITIAL SLOPE 3 =
3 27 10-5 1ram moles • I
· x iter sec
• ••
. •·. .. . .. ' . -j
.. - - .,_. - - . J
I I ' : I
... !· -·-:--;-·~+--:~:.:.. I ' ' ' : :
·I· ! I I . .. -· ...... ·-· .. :- .... --j
• I I ' • I
I
-· •· ·- ---· r-------, ' i
-1
i ' ' . - ·------ -- '
INITIAL SLOPE 4 =
3 42 10-5 g:am moles · x liter sec
• • •
30 35 40
··--/
J.
• ............ , .. . ' ' I I I
45
I I
-- .... I
I
i
Time (minutes)
-26-
I , I .
. '
i ,,
1: ,; i
1/' 1,
1,, (,
\
I'
'
;f
i
i !·
,; I
1· I ,.
i I i
!
I:
. I f/ , I
'I
( I
i' I
I
.. i" · ..... 900
I ...
I
.. I I
I . ,. i I
' I I
·. ' '"··t· ...... I
j . . I
····-·/· ·- ····;·.-860 - I I
oric~n tra tion I
RUN 6
-, I
INITIAL SLOPE 5 =
~ 42 10-5 1~arn moles · x iter sec
INITIAL SLOPE 6 =
4 61 10-5 g~am moles · x liter sec
'"'J I
:j :.: .. 1
! .. ,
. ·~:j ·-~I
,. I : .:·/ .. . . .L ... ·----!· ·-· . j
.i r--so-~~ T. -13 I
0
:, - - : -1· i __ J ! ; ; '. .. ·.j
' j"
i
I . . .... l ... - !.840
I
---- ' .. - . -- . . -·· .... ·-·. I
r
I
... :. ---/-. 82-0 -- ··- ... ; .... ! I
. I .,
I ' • I ....... 1" "•·-··;··-·:--·· ····· ......
i I . ' I I : OJ'v'\ .
··/··· , ..... f·•QIAI ·····:•• I
.. I
! -.__ __ t ••• ·····-
: I I I
·i· ;. i ... : .. , I
.:... __ ..... -~ .. ; ·• 780 -I '
JI
I , -- ... • •
. : l . l '. ... l ' I I ' I
• I
...• ! ..... .
I . . . -~-- - ....... j
' . i !
j ··: ·- -· !
I I
i ' I
: - .... ·······-···, • ' •••
I
, I ---~ •• !
I
I I
. , .....
I ' I . , ' I
i : ......... j
: J ! I . I
:··--t· ·:··· -r· ~--·Q'--......... ,--10'!---1 ..... ~-. -20--2-,--30--3+-5_4 __ 0 ___ -+----i
I . I
1 ..... I· , 4p · · 1 .. : J . i :..... ·+- ·--- ... r-· - · ... _._; -- . -. · I . . ' .. I ... J ..... I . ,
Time (minutes}
. , • • I
::·· :·i- ... _;: ... +··--;·-) .. ·:· ... j
: -.. I · i · : 1 '. ,
I· I • ···--1-.:...:.. ...... !.. j
I ' ........ - ,- ... -· ··1 i i
I I
J ... I I I
. t• ···- ·1··· ... +· ! I
i : I . . I . ... !
! i; ;i ·:; ii
:)
,, '
i I.
I
i,
,; ,·
i
I
I ;/
., I ii
•i
i ,I
1:
\
' " ., •\
i • i
I
i I
. -- ~ ... ' i. I
I ·-· ......... -- ..
;; -···-·+· ·---· I..·-. I I ,
i '
· j- ·• 860 · · RUN. 8 ' . . I ... ,
-~~c1e~~r_a~1on
f Sb -2 : .. ; 3. : -·-·1·· ... -1·-.84
.~.-
.'·
f gm-rnois/11 t)
... , ,: ,'! ' ! d
···I·· · --i.·..-020
:-· I ! ., ···-. t ••..
'·t - - ·-t ---
1
;1 I
'·
.Boo.
I .
··•
··-1 - ·-- . • • , ____ _,. ____ -··· ···---1----····
' ! ..
~ .. ?80. -- ...... I
I ; ••• I • • -. • .•• t .
·o 5 10
... •----~---!- .. :_ ·I: .... -.. , ... I
, t· 1 I
. . . . I _: I .
i
. I . I .. -- .. -..... . .. i ....
I
' - _j_ ··--. ·-· -- -I
i
1.5 · 20
INITIAL SLOPE 7 =
5.SOxl0-5 i~~m moles 1. er sec
INITIAL SLOPE 8 =
-5 1ram moles 5.92xl0iter sec
··t·.
.. •• :/ '1
. . :: ·,
·---1 I !
.. .. ~ . . . . : I I
I I . . .., I
.. I .. I ... , , • I
I .. ·----· r--- .. ---1
• I
•
•
25 30
-, I
•
•
35
·+-
•
I •··
• 40
' i I
.1
' I
' . ·----- ·-----. ·- --· ---·
I
• . ·+:-· ...
. - . -·1
- ..• .. ' , .. ... J
I :;
45 , .... Time .{minutes) I • ... --········.
-28-
' .
' I
. I I !
•••• T - ·- .... ··--·· •••• • ••
I ·-'--- .J
l
'·
,\ I
., i-;
1.' INTERFACIAL AREAS I;
'I N LINE p (RA)avg INTERFACIAL AREA
psig gm-moles feet squared 1, second
!
(,
t
-3 14 4.17xl0 828 !•
16 -3 1040 5.23xl0
18 -3 1270 6.4lxl0
,i i.
20 -3 1340 6.70xl0
23 -3 1720 8.65xl0
25 -3 1800 9.04xl0 ,.
1
-2 28 l.08xl0 2140 /'
-2 2300
30 l.16xl0 r \, ,,
;;. :1
-29-
:,
'I
,. i '. --- . ;f .,
. -i:, .,
;, !t ., .
·• I
,. I I I I -- ' --+-- -- ! .. _ .. (.
I
·- ·- -·· -· --·. -· -- t·· ....... . I
' ....-...--...--- ... ·---~---····· ... ···-·· .. ··•- .. I
I
.. : __ L ___ : ·---~--- ..... .i. ~-•I
I I
:-- ·· l -·. : I i . :
, I
: !.
. . . . . 1 · ... I . . ··+---· .... ' I I
. , I
I ··-······· -..-•
I
1·
. : -- . ··-· .• j .. I .
... I
i
·-·t ....
. ' ··-···----~·-·-··•·- ·t -····
f I
. i ··! • I
I
' ,. • I
i. ... ::.-i ..... ' I
I
; ••• j ••••
I ' I
.. ; ·······-- l
I !. -.. ··- ~- .... _: -~ ·-1 I
i I ,.
I ...... _____ .j ··-·-··-·· ••••••••
:· I
' I I ·····I· . ' .... , .. ·-. . !". I :
,. ,. I
.. : . . . . . . : . 1 . 1 ~ ... 18. : 20 2~ ; : . · : : · l" :: · : : : : : ·: · ! · I : · i .. : · / ; :Line Ptessute . - -- ·--4--•:•-·-t-·--~--~--l-········'. .. -- ··I·· ··1- ·•· ·: · , :!:::: 1·· : . :· . i : : p$1g :
26
I ' I
I .. ' . I··
;
I ..
·' . :! I , ~ .. -+··-:1
i .i !···-· .....• t··-
I ··- ·-1
I • : ..••• I
I
28 30 I •
., . ~ ....... . . ............ __ ,_,,,--1 !
I !'IIJ_.~ _i ~:J ' L ~J(t-. ' - ..... l ....
.!
I ij
I, I
! /·
f '
: ' :,1
,,1 ,, /'.
, I
/' : '
I
: \'
THE HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
: J
After having calculated the interfacial areas for mass
ansfer over the appropriate range of flow rates, we should be
le to calculate the theoretical mass transfer coefficient for
e HCl system, and then run experiments with the jet-venturi
rubber and the HCl system to determine an experimental mass
·. ansfer coefficient with which to compare the theoretical value,
ad thus, examine the validity of the theory. However, because
q the difficulties in measuring the contact time, '8', we will
~ e the experimental data to calculate contact times, and relate
e em to the residence times inside the scrubber throat as described '
i the section on mass transfer theory.
~. r. Eight runs were made using water to scrub HCl gas out of
The runs took 45 minutes each, and were limited to this time
t minimize the use of HCl. Inlet and outlet gas samples were \ ·.;
~ ken, and liquid samples were taken every 15 minutes. The gas
S1
ples were taken to determine inlet and outlet concentrations,
~ d to determine the gas cleaning efficiency of the scrubber at
e ch set of operating conditions. The liquid samples were taken
~ make a mass balance to compare HCl into the scrubber with the ~. l leaving the scrubber.
~ take, and more accurate
~ od check on the accuracy . )
Because the liquid samples are easier
than the gas samples, this should be a
of the gas.samples .
The following is the experimental procedure used in making HCl runs:
1) Prepare the following solutions: .02 M NaOH, .OS M NaOH, .10 M NaOH, .01 M NaOH,
h .10 M HCl, .01 M HCl, and .05 M HCl j), ,· Ii f.' !.
2) Fill the separator tank to the mark, at which point there will be 196 liters of water in the tank
3) Fill (2) 500 milliliter erlenmeyer flasks with 400
milliliters each of the .01 M NaOH; Fill (1) 500
-31-
i ,,
r J: ,, ii J1 !1 '] i,
,I
:,
I
I . '
:i ! .
I i
!' ' .
. I
! .
( .
I'>·''•"' •' .:.••
I i
~
I
\
l ' .
milliliter erlenmeyer flask with 250 milliliters of
the .01 M NaOH; these will be the vessels used to
take the gas samples with, the first two for the
inlet gas sample, and the third for the outlet sam
ple (a diagram of the gas sampling apparatu$ is shown on the next page)
4) Fill the draft manometer to the zero level, and check
5)
6)
7)
the level on the carbon tetrachloride manometer used
to measure the flow rate of the HCl gas
Turn on the pump and adjust the ball valve until the
desired liquid line pressure is achieved
Adjust the butterfly valve until the desired draft is achieved
Open the HCl cylinder and adjust the regulator until
the carbon tetrachloride manometer gives the desired reading
8) Check the time - this is the start of the run
9) Turn on the vacuum pump to evacuate the pressure ves
sel used to take the gas samples
10) Set up the outlet gas sample apparatus
11) Fifteen minutes after the start of the run, take the
first liquid sample (three samples will be taken to
protect against any errors in liquid sampling)
12) Collect the gas sample from the outlet:
This is done by drawing l ft 3 of gas through a
250 ml solution of .01 M NaOH
13) Evacuate the pressure vessel to prepare for the inlet
gas sampling
14) Thirty minutes after the start of the run, take the
second liquid sample
15) When the pressure vessel is evacuated, collect the
inlet gas sample from the pitot tube: 3 This is done by drawing 1 ft of gas through
(2) 400 milliliter solutions of .01 M NaOH
16) Take the final liquid sample 45 minutes after the
start of the run
-32-
i;
. I
. I lj
. j'
'I:'.
ll , ,i: i \ -~ ; '
,,
GAS SAMPLING APPARATUS
...... __________ _ .. ------ ·- - .. \.
i ' '
fine control --4
valve ---.......... __ _
-33-
,----/ ------I
vacuum vessel
\
I· I I I
~Ii i/111
r1r1 ' I '11 I ' , : I \ -------- - ----- ______ ../, ·
\'
!i manometer _.;',
', i
1:
j
'
,I
I' )
17) Turn off the HCl cylinder and close the Hoffman clamp .: that is between the regulator and the carbon tetra-
chloride manometer to prevent damaging the regulator 18) After allowing the system to clear (wait about 5 min
utes) turn off the pump and empty the separator tank 19) Carry out the titrations on the various samples
(a) titrate the liquid samples with either .02 M NaOH, .OS M NaOH or .10 M NaOH depending on the expected outlet concentration of HCl; .02 M NaOH was used for runs land 2, .05 M NaOH was used for runs 3 through 6, and .10 M NaOH was used for runs 7 and 8; phenolphthalein was used as an indicator, with a sharp endpoint shown as the pH of the titrated solution crossed 7.0
(b) For the inlet gas sample bottles: titrate the first bottle from each sample (the erlenmeyer through which the gas being sampled passed first, where the majority of the HCl entering reacts) with .01 M HCl; titrate the second flask using .10 M HCl; phenolphthalein is again used as an indicator
(c) titrate the outlet gas samples with either .01 M HCl or .05 M HCl; the first two runs (1 and 2) were titrated with .01 M HCl, and the remaining runs were titrated with the .05 M HCl
An explanation of the titrations should help explain the obtained. The liquid samples contained HCl and ~ater, and
e titrated with NaOH. When the number of moles of NaOH in the rated solution was equal to the number of moles of HCl in the ple, the endpoint was achieved. Hence, the milliliters of NaOH
defined the moles of NaOH titrated, which equaled the HCl in the sample (all liquid samples were 15 milliliter
ples), which defined the number of pounds of HCl in the 196 er separator tank.
-34-
; 1: ,.'
:1
Ji I' '!
I ii r
!, I I
I
I· I
I I: I'
I· ',
I.
I·, • I
: ,' I 1·1' .. ·''
The HCl in the gas samples was absorbed in flasks containNaOH. As the HCl passed through these flasks it reacted with NaOH to neutralize it. The titrations were carried on using to determine how much HCl was needed to complete the neutraliza
tion of the NaOH in these flasks. Hence, the following equation be written to express the results of these titrations:
" ,•.
I , I '-j
moles of HCl titrated+ moles of HCl from gas=
moles of NaOH 1n sampling flask ''.Therefore, from these ti tra tions, we can determine the number of ·1
~oles, or the number of pounds of HCl in 1 ft 3 of inlet or outlet '.gas.
The data accumulated from these titrations and samples pppears in Appendix II. The data, including graphical material, i
bsed in the selection and determination of operating parameters 1
including inlet concentration for the HCl runs is presented in l ~ppendix III.
The following pages are the results obtained from the data ,~ollected during the HCl runs. Such data will include: inlet and •/
butlet concentrations of HCl in the air streams, concentrations of 'l
~Cl accumulated in the scrubbing medium, the gas cleaning efficien-lies of the jet-venturi scrubber under each set of operating con-
titions, and the mass balance of HCl for each run which strongly '.erify the accuracy of these experiments.
.1 .;'"/t
1,;
·::
-35-
\'
l i ., (
11 !I .I ij
111
'' ·, I
1; [:
I· ., 1:
(
I I I Ii
I ii
'I
i ,i
IQUID LINE PRESSURE
j psig
'I i
l j , , 14
16
18
20
23
25
28
30
HCl RUN OPERATING CONDITIONS
INLET AIR DRAFT
0.363
0.437
0.500
0.575
0.667
0.735
0.825
0.903
-36-
INLET AIR RATE
lb/hr
1340
1510
1610
1700
1840
1900
1990
2050
INLET HCl RATE
lb HCl/hr
4.68
5.14
5.53
5.93
6.28
6.61
6.94
6.94
! I !
I
il ;j \:.
:j
I
II
I'
I.
!'. I' \;
HCl CONCENTRATIONS IN THE GAS AND THE LIQUID
I '.:} INLET GAS OUTLET GAS FINAL LIQUID I \,\
I p CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION I
'I ,1
I
IL ,.
T '' jd
lb HCl lb HCl g:m-moles HCl s'.g I
ft 3 ft 3 liter
i'
gas gas j I I j i: J -4 -4
0.095 !·
14 2.60xl0 l.53xl0 " i
I
16 -4 -4 0.146 2.54xl0 l. 07xl0 l
II
I
! I·
'i -4 -5
I .
8 2.56xl0 7.62xl0 0.194 I _I I
I
-4 -5 I' d 0.234 '
2.60xl0 S.lOxlO i i i / L i
j -4 -5 j1
2.55xl0 3.14xl0 0.269 I i I i
.I I
i -4 -5
I
0.291 ~ 2.59xl0 1. 85xl0
I ,, al -4 -6
0.316 'I 2.60xl0 9.00xlO I I
j
i I i i
-6 i ' -4 0.316 ;1
OJ 2.52xl0 7.20xl0 r j I ' I•
ii i!
-.:
!i ~ '
I ;j i
, I I
: I , ·1 •
, I
i ',!
/' ,j •
. !'
i, I' '1:
-37-
~-- -,-------
i /1
j,
' i I. I I
i
! ,, ' i i'
I :,
·I
;i,1 ', ':i: i I i
I'
HCl MASS BALANCE
HCl OUT HCl OUT HCl OUT HCL IN in GAS in LIQUID TOTAL TOTAL
s1 g lb HCl lb HCl lb HCl lb HCl
1 1
J
lf '
2.07 l. so 3.57 3.51 l l < I l
1. 62 2.30 3.92 3.85 16 i i '
18 L26 \\ 3.06 4.32 4 . 2 5 ] ', 1 l ( J
j '
2~ 0.87 3.70 4.57 4.44 ; i ' l l
24 0.58 4.24 4.82 4.71 i ' j
.1
! '
25 I 0.35 4. 59 4.94 4.96 I l
21 5.00 5.19 5.21 0.19
1
0.15 5.00 5.15 5.21
. . , The accuracy of the mass balance, which combines liquid sample data.with gas sample data, indicates that
, the titrations were not a significant source of error.
-38-
% DIFFERENCE HCl OUT
RELATIVE TO HCl IN
I
! '
% I
+l.68%
+l. 79% ,:
+l.62%
+2.95%
' / ,, +2.28% I
'
! !
-0.45% l I
I I
-0.39% i, I· I
t '
-1.17% ',I
,'
I
i' '
,. i ,, I ,.
I· I
I I
,, i
i r )!
I, •• I
' ' ; I I
'I.''
:· I
!
' i I
: ·]
. i' : !
,' i I
• I i
' ! .I 1 ;j ·1
J l
J
LIQUID LINE PRESSURE
psig
14
16
18
20
23
25
28
30
OTE: Gas cleaning
GAS CLEANING EFFICIENCIES
GAS FLOW
SCFM
300
337
360
380
410
425
445
480
efficiency is defined as
GAS CLEANING EFFICIENCY
% EFFICIENCY
41. 0%
58.0%
70.3%
80.4%
87.7%
92.9%
96.5%
97.1%
follows:
Jcas Cleaning Efficiency= lb HCl in Gas IN - lb HCl in Gas OUT lOO% lb HCl in Gas IN x
-39-
,I I
,,
I i
l. j !
l I I I
I ' L j
I
., '
I I
I ! ,: I I I '
i I,
I.
' (/
'· •. I
·''.
:{'
·9 ,. I
::i 8 .. , .. , ' .. ,
·:1 ' · 1 .. - -·- --l·- ·-·. -:I. •'( . ' ::1 ··' .:!
::1 "I ::j .. •'j ., '?; _____ • --- • : ____ t-- --
I
" .; •7 : AS I: ;
·····:t··· ··--··+-··. -·. ;· LEMING : : .· _:_~P.!~~, . " ., .. I I f
\f) ·!·· ' .. j I • I .... 1 ___ -~--- -.: • ••.. i __ -·· .. -:::i I
::J. ,6 ·•:1 t ::!( l :: :j ·-·~-r-·-~ ·-· j .... ····: H· ;• : i : · .,;! I I
j 1 . ;
~--·-···-
· j' ' : .. ·----·---· ' '
.5
I , . ' . ·!
.: -·--t'·-··---- L . ..5 '. • j . . ' t';. I • :~ ' . . . . /
! ' i --.L..:.:.l...:...;_
:·· ·!': . : :. . ' . ; '
, .... -i--·· .' ... . i ... _ '··-· .. I • ..
r· -
I ' i
.! ' ' I
1 i,.
I ,-· l
..... l.
' ! ;.
. - . ~ .... '
.!
I !
i .
I ' ' ' - t ..
•· i
• 1
16 18 20 22 24 ~6 : LIQUjD LINE PRESSURE (~IG)
-40-
I ··1·· I
' ' . r - - . -t- -·
1········-· .. :·-· I I
28 30
. . . . ·, . . :· ...... .
i . JI I • ••
!. . . :,-- .....
i • : ...... r···-·· ·-1 ' I ' • :: .
: .. . I .... : ..... -... ~J
I
'"T•' --- ----~
: i J
..... J
I
. -~
1'
I /
1
\ I I' I, l
t
i
,. Ii
I ' ;,1
• I
• I ' 1·.1 !· ;· I
! r; / i
.: 1' ,,, i
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
From the inlet and outlet gas samples taken during the Cl phase of the experiments, liquid and gas phase driving
; orces can be determined using the equations previously presented. ~ ver the experimental range used, certain simplifications in the ·tquations can be made:
l
I ' ' I
i
-1 CG,out-f (C1 ,outr~cG, out
f(CG,in)-C1 ,in~f(CG,in)
f(CG,out)-c1 ,out~f(CG,out)
Using the above simplifications, the following equations iesult for the driving forces:
j
l:iCd . . f riving orce,G
1:icd · · f riving orce,L
=
=
CG,in-CG,out
log CG,in e--
CG,out
Living force values are presented on the following pages.
Using these values for the driving forces, experimental )iquid and gas phase mass transfers coefficients were calculated.
hesi values have been presented on page 44. All of the xperimental mass transfer coefficients appear to be valid with he exception of two determinations: the liquid phase calculaions for the 20 psig and 30 psig runs. The driving force calcuations were a major cause of this inaccuracy, since the equilibium data used, although the best available, may be lacking n accuracy. In addition, the gas sampling procedures were a robable source of error.
-41-
j
I' I
I I
, ,
i
i !
(
I I
! i I
'
!.
.,· 1
,J
lf
/,'
,. I I " ;
I r:
I
. I
!'' I 11. i
i
I
!(
,..,
:·, I
. ' 'I• I
; .·' ; I I ('.I ; 'I•
I· I .. , ,:. / I
/( i' j'. .
i j' ,; • ·. I 11,·,; ,, ,,. ;l'.\ l .' r .1,. 1it111 i: 1ff,/ I I 1!1'.l j': l, 11
I\ .1.
, psig :j
l I i i \
' '14
)6
:18
\20
23
'· 1 ps i
Ls l 1 1 I
j30
1 j j l I
J :1
.l :j :!i
p
GAS DRIVING FORCE
CG' in CG,out
lb HC1/ft3 lb HC1/ft3
2.60 1. 53
2.54 1. 07
2.56 .762
2.60 .510
2.55 .314
2.59 .185
2.60 .0900
2.52 .0720
-42-
~Cd .. riving ·torce,G
lb HC1/ft3
2.02
1. 66
1. 49
1. 28
1. 07
0.910
0.746
0.690
I i' I i. ,, I I
1· I
,, I
,1
I I l· I (
I I /. !,
I ,I
I
,, ,. I' ·;•.
',
' i' !
I I
I ! ,, , .. ' i ' '
i ; .
I.
l I
!' 1 \f
. ,1
j: ' I '
', ' 'I I
i J :1,
; I· j
: I I
,· I ·::1 i'
ii LINE P j ,j
! j
' I .1
·; psig
14
16
18
i 20
23
25
28
.i 30
l j
1 '!
lb HCl
ft 3
1. 37
1. 36
1. 36
1. 37
1. 3 6
1. 37
1. 37
1. 3 6
xl0- 2
LIQUID DRIVING FORCE
-43-
lb HCl
ft 3
1.'28
1. 23
1.18
1.14
1. 06
0.995
0.900
0.864
xl0- 2
!::.Cd . . f L r1v1ng orce,
lb HCl
ft 3
1. 30
1. 28
1. 27
1. 24
1. 20
1.17
1.12
1. 09
xl0- 2
I r I
1,
.1 ,, I
,1 t
,,
j (
i I 1·
I I
I
I.
'' : ' •I\ '
!
I 1: I
I I
I
I . I i I
I .,
i,
!•,
! I '
ii' !
,,,l
. ,i
' I,
:, I
, I i l.'J 1i,
i: LINE p
,' ,,,
psig
14
16
18
20
23
25
28
30
MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
kG kL
ft/hr ft/hr
8. 96 .139
13.3 .17 3
16.2 .190
19.4 .200*
22.4 . 200
26.2 .204
31. 4 .209
31. 6 .200*
-44-
r t !, ,, I
.(
I I
[:
i l \ /; I,
I
(
I
',
"
I ,, i
i ,.
I : ' ! I
I I .,
I
I I:
I II
I
. '·I
... ,l. __ . -·.. ~ . ' ·-
Using the calculated driving forces, contact times and contact time ratios were also determined. The results, shown on page 46, again indicate that the calculations for the liquid phase for the 20 psig and 30 psig runs were inaccurate. The
;,· gas phase contact time ratios range from 0.00619 to 0.0534, and ·•
~ the liquid phase contact time ratios range from 0.0142 to 0.0274. In all cases, the contact time ratios are less than 1.0. Theoretically, mass transfer coefficients are meaningless where the contact time ratios are less than one. Therefore, either the
·]experimental data is not accurate, or there is a flaw in the 'jmass transfer theory being used. The graph of line pressure
I
:j versus gas cleaning efficiency closely approximated predicted ·1 • • •
1 results, indicating that the flaw lies in the theory, rather I
\ than in the experimental data. Despite this, several important Jrelationships develop when the theory is combined with the ex-,
Jperimental data. The following pages show contact time ratios i jplotted versus liquid line pressure and gas cleaning efficiency. !The results, particularly for the gas phase case, indicate def-! inite relationships between the parameters in question. Gas I
:\phase contact time ratios, for example, vary linearly with '•\
I liquid rate and parabolically with gas cleaning efficiency. If 1 jrelationships such as these could be developed accurately, this
'{would be an important step towards the prediction of mass trans.1
,
1
;fer rates. One would merely have to select the gas cleaning ·· efficiency desired, this would specify the contact time ratio j ito be used, which would in turn specify to liquid line presI
· jsure at which the scrubber would be operated to give the desired ., efficiency.
-45-
'· r !, ,, ,i ' 1·
,, I
I l
j 'i,
I'
i J: I. /: ·, .,
I I
'!; I
I I
i.
I. I
I, I I: · ..
I ,
I /I
; I
p
l j20
. i I i2, .I -1
I j 1 i
i
• j2 5 I
ba i I
! ro
,j l
l l j
EXPERIMENTAL CONTACT TIMES AND CONTACT TIME RATIOS
6G 61 nG nL
sec. sec.
33.4 15.3 .00619 .0142
15.1 9.90 .0130 .0213
10.3 8. 2 6 .0177 .0250
7.20 7.40* .0242 .0274*
5.35 7. 40 .0301 .0266
3. 91 7 .10 .0397 .0267
2.73 6.80 .0542 .0270
2.70 7.40* .0534 .0243*
-46-
I'
I '
I
(! ,: ,, I ,, I
;· I
,, I
I !
I·
I I,,
{.:
( ,i ,I
1· ·I
I'
i I
:d ''
: I
i : i . ,I I
l'j I; I
I:/ I ii: i!> •;.' , : I
;; 1·/ ,': ·, :i.
/i i .! .
.. ,
.--.. ~··:-· --~~ ...... _ , ........ -----1
' \ · ... ·: .. -·- - :··-28-1
'./
:f ·; j
:1 . : . ,-· -· - -1 · I
,-. . , -1
26··
:·-·°I .. 25
l __ ,\ .. ) ,, ,1
1
I
[_ .... : ·24· .. 1
':t ' :i l :J .. : ... ; ... _____ ; --23- -'j I . . : ! :
... !
!.
r····
'
l : ; :, .... _l. ___ :.: __ ; _. 22 - ..... i
,. I I I ······•· -···-·· .. , ... ·---· ..... ··--/--- ...
I I
I I.
I
· 1
. f •. --- .• ··- ' ••.•.•. -~ -- ...... ~. -· -' ' ' ! . .
·I
-+---~-- . I ,. ' I
J1qu~d- :Ra~e · , j : . : I I .,---~as,----:--+--2l-·- .. · -.. ·· ... , ·1
fine: P11es~u1;e 1
1
•••
1 ··I 1 ·,' . I : .. i . 1 '.~--- i-g-r+--20 =-------! ·· · ··: · .... ·· - - - :- ... ···-:- ·---- .. : .. "··--1---.-·-·; ';j : I . I ; . . . I .. I ' .. r ...... ' . .. . , . . 1 i : .. : i .. : ... ·1 .•••.• :
::1 I i , . . ,, ; 1 . / : ', · · i · ' · '1 : .• ;:i- --t·--··--t---19-- ......... ;--··- ... 1 . -- : ---!--·---·i ___ ._. .. '. ........ f···-·--·~--~--··:-·F--1
lj:. ! . : . i l O : i ; . . ! . ; ! : i l {T . +· " . ........ 1
• /' 1 .~ +·· ! . f -- T ··,1 ·····-. -~ -·-· 1 .. r.· ,. .. I ,. I i .. :. .. .. , . · ...... j :1 . . \ : ! : . ' I ! I i 1 :;-·--t---·;---/---17-- ........... ,. --· ···:· .. ; .. ---·· .. ···- , ........ !. _____ ,- ~::~·-·(·"· .. ; --i-:71
~~; '1--~···1··:·· .. : /1 ,' ! :.: i. . 1; : .. ,:. ;.:;11· ,, ...... i: ___ :~-~-r1 __ 15._ - .. : ... J .... : .... ~. - .L:: ......... ---·--1.-..... : - ···---~--- ... : ...... -:- .·,- ----~1---·--.· .. · ... ·1 !~\ l ' ' • . ! ' ' ! • '~ I . . ' . . . I . I
· · --1: . ..:. · ! : · .; ; I"· 1 · · , · .... I I I ' l ! . . ; ' I '
. I I. j 1' ' J.. ..• •• : - •• ·---·.: ..•••. _.!--·--·-··--,' ···- ....... --i-- 1,-. ·:··:·1---· .. ···- ......... ,...... I • 1 ! . T . i
... / ..•.. ! • I i . I . : i . : . :: ··--i,:·~·:· ... ,.::-·:Hf: .. ·:,:... /··--'.-,-!··a·· ... J .... : ... ; ..... L .. i +··-:····j ·:·:-····/-:·:·: :._i
I I : : ' . I ... : ; . 'J .. I . .. . . : . . .... ., .. ,,· ·:: . ! .... ,: , ! . . ; : I I ' , I . I • ;·:-·-1~ ·.,· ··i··.·''···~ ' . I I
' ' I ' I • I I ' I
>- I· ... ·.:. : p •p .. : 1 1 t5 .. ~ . 2t5 3 . 3~5- i .:.4./5::: _5. ·: .. 1 l .: ./ . I . ; !: . ! . ; I . . I i I • • . :: -·: .. --~ -··; ... -'T''. '.. ·aAs· iaisED. ·conieT" T.IME .. RA1IO:-( ~G- ). :·x·· 1-:--1.-0· ;;z-r:-: :- :: I
• I I ., ~ . . . .. . I·' . .. j· · .. ·• · .. ·,. · , : : i" I ! ! ' . · 'j" ·; .. 'i .. l . ; . : .. I . I . . . I • : • ! . . : . ; , . . : .. ·J .:..... ~ .. --· !_: _L. .. _ · .. - ·- . I.. .. ..... J •. ·-· ... 4-7-.. I • ·- ! . . . . • ... .. 1.._ ... -~·-'-···· ..• :.l _. :_·
,1
ii I_! I i'·' '} I
·: ·-ao· . ·-·---l--··· ••• ··1 I
I I
..... , ....•. ----· . I
•·I ...
! .. 75 _._ ____ , ____ ....
I
; .. ·--. : .. ·- . . . : .. 70 t AB PLEAN!NG
./
i
; FFIClENCY--··-· o I . . ,;· ·( %:·) ·: ·65 · -' I . ·_., I • I ·-··--•····-····1·-···--·· ........ ,. : I . I •. ' l
I . '
. I i I
'i I
J,
'I
I
;' I
' .1
I I
! :, I
i . I
,,
;. •:
I I, :
I;
i>' ! : '
'! I
:i '
1· I
I I'
.i I I
I.
...... , ---~~··
.--:-~1:-:-:-:-r:-1~r:--:-:-:-:·r-:--:-:r··--r--:-··r: .. -:-;-r·-:-- " .... , .. ,, .... "'' .•. :,1··· 1·1·T~r-.. I ...... •·11• ,,. .. , .• ir' : .. j::.: :::1· ·:. :··: .. · .. : :: ... I .. :·.· :., :·; :·;:':;:: :,::,: ·: .. :;1:1:; !:::,: :: .:::,:··: ::: ::, ;:: .. :t : 1:.: :. : ;;::,· .:: n · vs 1·t1 u1f:Rate::as t~iie' J>~es. "'''.''. :;:T ,; __ :!.:;;;; :·:.~:: :;l ..• : :f-i:-.+30 ·; · ·· i :-r-;"- T · '-- ·_ :,-+:r, \J. \:: '.'.?
i :··:. I. l · ·:··--/- ·: . ·:·:,-·:I· ;. l ·: . l ··:·:·· :c:+ ·::re: .:._.'~ "ti ..... 2'e. ii __ I •• ··r·---;-11· : :; -~~r ..... :--:~: .... 1-.~1-~--- ~:~:_:~r·. _ _;-: :ii:,: !i;: r 7 i , , t • I i.. • , , • • ·•l' L'' I ' ' I . I . .. . : : ! . . . . I' . 'i:. 'I ' ! . I I . : : ; : . : . : : :: !
I ....... f-: :: __ : -·28 .. :·_,.i_ __ :~~--1'-~-~:i~~l~r~--;~ . .L .. ~::: .... ,1~--~:_. ·~~-~~t~·- i. ~rtn .1 . • • . • . I . .. .. , .. . , ! . I . . . . . . , . , ... , .• :! . I . . : I .. I • I• . • 1· :· .. ·1 ' : ! ' I • I·: ::·· . . ~ . : ·:· JI I . :· 1 ·::·;::·~ 'I i : , ·t :.:.. . . i · I···. 1 '· . ..... --1 2? ............ ---··-··---- ------r-- ... -"--··---r-- --·-···- - .. . • i ' .. .. . • • . ". I , ' , . • • • •
.! I ' Ii.:.... I .. ;: . : : : . : .. : .. ,.·.: ·· I·. : .. .! .. ::~::(:: .,. I . I • I .. • .. ·,i, • ' I I .. ""I . ' I ' l I I I ' ' ! l ' I • i ••• "f : •
·1 - ·· ·26· ---- ·· .... -------r--- -·---r---~---T·---~ -r-.. --· --~·-··t---:---·1-· ·--. ij ·• ..... : 25 I _. ' ·- i:. -... _;I_ ...... _j ....... _;! ____ ; __ 'i -:- ~::J?l :·1 j j ; I . i : i I
· .; --~--- :.·--24: ·•-···- ..... /~ ..... l · (_· · .. · ~ 1
.. r --- : : I : : i . . ·/ I . ::!-: : : I I · ! . ··::y· I
'.j 2} _, .... ·•··· ... •·-·•·· ....... !...... I , t . . . l~~ .r··· -;··----- .... ' . ' 1-· ---·l-- -~-- ! -~---__ j :. J
;t·i 1qt R.it/2 · · ·· ·, ·· · I ·- ·f --· r-J: ., I . , ' ' . '. .... :~a--· i· 2-1 · '..... ----·· ...... -: ...... ___ 1' ....... 1- --------~-----~
I ' ) • I • I• ! +in~ Pr"[sure ! , ' ! · ·· ! •· ,j ·'i --{-~sig)<---20- ... ·1-- .... : ·· ·--:... ; ! ··-- ... ;. __ : __ ®-~ :~ . : . i : ; : 'L -Ji -- ) . .J ; : .• i I
"- l / 19 j · : C- · , · · i · :._ I / l:)j : I ., . : .. ! ... i .. ::f i i ' I ::: .. ____ ;: .... - : ... 1a~ -- t. -· .. :. --1-· ........ , ...... - i~~---~ - ··· ·--'--·· --~ :.:. I ! ;~: :1
' .. '1 ! 1 • :J ; I I ' I •: · +- .. ; 17 .. · • . i , · ,. i ....... ; 1 • • , • . .. -, -~ :i' I ' i i I I I : ·1 · · ·1 · · ! · · 1 , - • I·· .. : J .• :· ., ·
>.· --- .. f ........ i1
... 1~ . . ---i,'.-~.: __ _J ___ :·:·-~,- .L .... :. -1 ___ ! _____ ··-i-----1
•, . ! I I i I I
I I I . ! . I : . : . I ' : ' i . ' : ' . j "···r·)·:-r·-l, · ... -····· · .... ----- :· i--... .. :- ... T. ;·:·-
1 . : ·1 ,, . : . ! ... : l / I . ./... : .. -- ,
, I • , i , I , • , : , "I : ... ···1: .... ; ..... 1, ... -:-pr ............... , .... -- .. j----·--1 ·1· : ·--r-- ··:--··1··-- ··-i-- :-"·i "t .· ' ' I, I ' I I '·' , " ' i 1' ' l : :I .. I ' "
: +- :. -j :1 j 4 ; 1 : 6 j . 2. 0 2 : 2 i " 1• ; ; · 2 J 6 I 1
·_ J .. I ' ' .. .. • • : • • I ' 1 l 8. ' . ~ I '411' ' I . ' : i : : : "[' •. ~ : I . i : · j . : ' ; ' i I ; • i ' . . : ! . : . . . J >-r'.. ·:····1· -··:·-- .. 1· .: ... -tiiju:ip .. PHA$E .. B~Ei> c6iiTAct i±M¢.ii4.Tto -<n)Yx.-~o·.;z:·:/.
I .. I . . I . ' I I ' . .Ill · 1 ' ... I . . I • : I. I . I I : ' . . . ....... ------~-- L_ .. : ...... i ...... ~ .... ..1 ..... -l-4-9 .. .. ! ., .... : __ : ... : ... ·'·--··- L.. ... : ... __ : ___ :J
i' I. I
, I
1,
I. I
'' j '.' i' '. f I
: .. : . I r,
. "~··· ... 1,.' ) . ,, . : •. ' ...
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for future study, as 11 as for optimization of the experimental procedures used this study.
1) More data should be taken using the HCl system to study relationships between n
1 or nG and liquid rate, gas. rate and
s cleaning efficiency.
b) Less dilute inlet HCl concentrations should be tested.
2) The experimental procedures should be optimized.
a) The gas sampling procedure is difficult to accomish and is a certain cause of some experimental error.
b) Considerable liquid escapes out of the gas outlet c using the liquid sample calculations to be of uncertain r liability.
c) An HCl rotometer should be used to measure flow r tes as the manometer employed was inconsistent.
3) Other systems should be studied, some with known mass }ansfer resistances primarily 1n the gas phase, and some with
own liquid phase resistances, to fully evaluate the applicaon of the penetration theory to mass transfer in jet-venturi rubbers.
4) Pressure drop across 'the scrubber throat should be ecked in future experiments, and should be considered as a jor mass transfer parameter.
-51-
~ .. ;· ,:_.":
5) The effective length of scrubber throat for mass transfer should be examined as a mass transfer parameter.
6) Theories based on the high degree of atomization ; attained in jet-venturi scrubbers should be tested. One way !of doing this would be to study the transfer of mass from a igas between two liquid drops to the drops, and to calculate ithe distance between the drops that gives a mass transfer rate ~iequal to the rate found in experimental study. This distance ;
·lcould then be examined as a mass transfer parameter. The I
equations used would be the following:
'i l
I
i . I
! ' i
·there 1
boundary conditions:
2) dpA ~ = 0@ Z=O for all t
o for all t
A is the transferred component, Bis the gas from which r is transferred
~etween drops.
(usually air), and o is 1/2 the distance
' ~
1, ~1
-52-
I i
i
' ,,
,, i j.,' ,. I' " ;; I I
Ii I I
I'' :1 ii
11 : .. , i . Ii· "
lri' i)·' ' ' i \ J: I II,·• !'l 1:
I\\ ·1!_:;·
)
I I
···-----~--------- ------·-· ·--·-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) L. S. Harris -- "Fume Scrubbing with the Ejector Venturi System"; Chemical Engg. Progress; April, 1966
2) A. B. Walker -- "Operating Principles of Air Pollution Control Equipment"; Air Conditioning, Heating & Ventilating; Feb. 1969
L. S. Harris -- "Energy & Efficiency Characteristics of the Venturi Scrubber"; APCA Symposium; June, 1964
! 4)
I L. S. Harris & R. Hartenbaum -- "Performance Test Techniques
for Ejector Venturi Scrubber"; APCA Journal; May, 1962 j 5) R. L. Webb - "The Draft Producing-Venturi Scrubber"; Pro
ceedings of APCA Semi-Annual Meeting; Dec.,1966 6) Edward B. Hanf "A Guide to Scrubber Selection"; Environ-
mental Science and Technology; February, 1970 1 7) Croll-Reynolds Jet-Venturi Fume Scrubbers Bulletin ,8) Mendelsohn & Morgan -- "Study of a Venturi Type Fume Scrubber"; !
Lehigh University Senior Lab Project; May, 1969 9) Thomas Hersh & Gary Munn -- "Absorption in a Jet-Venturi
Scrubber"; Project Report, Lehigh University; June, 1972 I
10) R. D. Ross -- "Air Pollution & Industry"; Van Nostrand Reinhold J
Company; New York, 1972
hl G. Astarita -- "Mass Transfer with Chemical Reaction"; I i Elsevier Publishing Company; Amsterdam, 1967
J2) Robert E. Treybal -- "Mass-Transfer Operations"; Mc-Graw-Hill J Book Company; New York, 1968
f 3) Lynn, Straatemeier, & Kramers -- "Absorption Studies in the ~ Light of the Penetration Theory"; Chemical Engg. Progres~ ;1
1955 (Parts II & III)
· 4) Sharma & Dankwertz -- "Chemical Methods of Measuring Interfacial Area & Mass Transfer Coefficients in Two Fluid Systems"; British Chem. Engg.; April, 1970
5) Calvert & Kapa -- "Penetration Theory Enables Estimation of Transfer Coefficients"j Chemical Engg; February 1963
6) Howard E. Hesketh -- "Atomization and Cloud Behavior in Venturi Scrubbing"~ Journal of the APCA; July, 1973
-53-
,,, ,,.: .. :
1; 11: •. I' ;1 '/t ,• •t .,,
i
I
·' ii
i): " ., I!. 11 :1 I·,· ii' ,I I . ,1.1
.. ...,.....
APPENDIX I
OXYGEN-SULFITE SYSTEM DATA
'i
J Liquid samples were taken for each of the eight experi-1 i mental runs. With each succeeding sample, the concentration J I
9f sulfite ions in the solution decreases, as more and more 1t the sulfite reacts with the oxygen absorbed from the air I
fassing through the scrubber to form sulfate. The concentra-tion of sulfite ions in the solution for a given sample is ~irectly proportional to the milliliters of KI0
3 used in the
titration described in the experimental section, where
I ';
! i I
1 KIO 0158 = Concentration of SO - 2 in qm-moles m 3 x · 3 liter
Graphing the concentration change versus time determines the interfacial areas for mass transfer, as· shown in the ex-1
~erimental section.
'· i I
i
i 1
- I
'
-54-
-,
.... ~·~·-·
APPENDIX I -- OXYGEN-SULFITE SYSTEM DATA
RUN 1
:] Time (min) ml KI0
3 Cone. so3 I ·t j l
14 psig ! p = 0 58.0 0.914 1
in. '1 Draft = .363 H20 5 57.4 0.904 I
: I Air Rate = 5.000 efs 10 56.9 0.896
15 56.5 O'. 8 90
'.) I 20 56.1 0.884 25 55.8 0.879
I
j; I
30 55.5 0.874
;·, :, 'I I•.
35 55.4 0.873 { i
40 55.4 0.871 li ii: .
45 55.3 0.871 11 :I 1 · r I .
I
if I !L1
:l i 11 '.'' ii; i . . . .. •,
ij i I I,!.•
:; 1:·
iih
'Ir::'.
i(:i ! RUN 2
Time (min) ml KI0 3 Cone. so3
! :[:.:
'i ! .. ;j it,.
p 16 psig 0 59.5 0.937 :j: ! = ,, ; ,,
1. Draft .437 in. H20 5 58.8 0.926
Ii/ 111 = n i! Air Rate = 5.610 efs 10 58.2 0.917
;,\ I: f l
,I
11 I I
15 57.7 0.909 ;,(:;1:
I
;; ;·1
20 57.2 0.901 25 '-' 56.8 0.895 :~, 30 56.5 0.890 35 56.3 0.887 40 56.2 0.885 45 56.2 0.885
-55--
APPENDIX I -- OXYGEN-SULFITE SYSTEM DATA
3
Time (min) ml KI0 3 Cone. so3 f = 18 psig
J .475 H20 0 52.5 0.827 raft = 1n.
5 51.6 0.813 Air Rate = 6.00 cfs I
10 51.0 0.803 15 50.3 0.792 I '
20 49.7 0.783 25 49.1 0.773
30 48.6 0.765
35 48.3 0.761 40 48.1 0.758 45 48.1 0.758
'
-,~
i !
,,i 'RUN 4 -~
. ' Time (min) ml KI0
3 Cone. so3 •i
I
~ = ,j 20 psig' 0 48.7 0.767 .·;i
'°iraf t = . 5 7 5 in. H20 5 47.5 0.748 ~ir Rate= 6.33 e:Es 10 46.8 0.737 .. '1 15 46.2 0.727
20 45.5 0.717 ,., 25 ,, 44.5 0.701
30 44.0 0.693 35 43.8 0.690
40 43.6 0.687 45 43.5 0.686
-56-
i·' I
\ ' ' 1,
11, I, I' 'j
i
:j ' I: ii q ii
JU i '
I I I I
:· :, :ii., i
11 '·, . q •
I ~ i ' !I 1: :; 1:
!I' 1:1 ! f\ ' ,1,1',
Iii !:ii; i'J.: :1·· ;::, '. :,I
' " ' \'
"!'I ::1,
:il Ii /1, ','' ,'1 '.,1'
ii. "I
APPENDIX I -- OXYGEN-SULFITE SYSTEM DATA
UN 5
Time (min) ml KI03 = 23 ps1g
0 57.8 ,. raft = . 670 in . H20 5 56.7 ii ' ]Ur Rate= 6.83 efs
i 10 56.0 15 55.0 20 54.0 25 53.4 30 53.0 35 52.2 40 51.8 45 51. 8
6
Time (min) ml KI03
j = 25 psig 0 57.8 'j
taft = .725 in. H20 5 56.5 l u.r Rate = 7.08 efs
10 55.5 i
I 1 15 54.5 'J
20 53.9 I '·'
25 53.0 I
J 30 52.2 35 51. 4 40 51.2 45 51.2
-57-
Cone. S03
0.913
0.893
0.882
0.886
0.851
0.841
0.835
0.822
0.817 .! ,,
0.817
I'
Cone. S0 3
0.910
0.890
0.874
0.858
0.849
0.835
0.822
0.810
0.806
0.806
., r..., ..
: ·i i ,, I
1\ I
',! .. ' !i
I' I 11; ,f
'I 'I I
·1 · .i • . I ., ;1 ', .l '.'
• • I
' ' ., . '• I "q
APPENDIX I -- OXYGEN-SULFITE SYSTEM DATA
7
Time (min) ml KI03
28 psig 0 58.0
ft = .825 in. H20 5 56.6
Rate =7.4lcfs 10 55.4
15 5 4. 3
20 53.4
25 52.6
30 51.8
35 51. 2
40 51. 0
45 51. 0
' 8 .i
(min) ml KI03 Time
:, 30 psig 0 57.0 i
ft= .878 in. l-!20 5 55.5 .1 jRate = 7.64 cfs
10 54.2 ·'
15 53.1
20 52.1 ,1
25 51. 3 !
30 50.4
35 49.7
40 49.6
45 49.5
-58-
Cone. so 3
0.914
0.891
0.873
0. 8 55
0.841
0.828
0.816
0.806
0.803
0.803
Cone. so3
0.898
0.874
0.854
0.836
0.821
0.808 I ,I
0.794
0.783
0.781
0.780
I'
I
I•
" :•1
: '
I I ' ! :
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN lH
Line Pressure - 14 psig
Draft= 0.363 in. H2
0
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.02 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
22.4
47.7
71. 3
I GAS SAMPLES
INLET:
I I
:1
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 96.5 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 38.0 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant 476 ml NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 324 ml
-3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.24xl0 gm-moles/ft
OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 59.0 ml of .. 01 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by titrant - 59.0 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 191.0 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - l.9lxl0 gm-moles/ft
-59-
I\
I ,i
'I
I ,i I
I
I I : j '
{ ~ ~ ,, I ·'11
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 2H
Line Pressure - 16 psig
Draft - 0.437 in. H2o
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.02 M NaOH
'l'ime (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
3 4. 5
71. 5
109.5
·, GAS SAMPLES
INLET:
I ')
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 91.0 ml of .01 M HCl Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 39.3 ml of .10 M HCl NaOH neutralized by HCl 1n titrant 484 ml NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 316 ml
-3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.16xl0 gm-moles/ft
OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 117.0 ml of .01 M HCl NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant 117.0 ml NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 133.0 ml Concentration of HCl in sample - l.33xlo- 3 gm-moles/ft 3
-60-
I ,I
1,. !
: . I
:1,r I':',
I ' ;i ji I, ' ii ',I'
·:, :· 'i i
,.i r i':1 H
:: i ',It' ::1,' ·'~ I· ,., 'I• iii .
. t~1· 'J_ I,, . ! ~ ! , I
'I
[,1,1 •, I' I,' .' . '/ '
'11 ,1,'
fl'' :
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 3H
Line Pressure - 18 psig
Draft - 0.500 in. H2
0
,LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
· --- titrant used was 0.05 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
iGAS SAMPLES
:--- INLET:
ML Titrant
19.0
39.5
58.0
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 91.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 39.0 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 481 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 319 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.19xl0 gm-moles/ft
OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 31.0 ml of .05 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 155.0 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 95.0 ml
Concentration of HCl in sample - 9.SOxl0- 4 gm-moles/ft 3
-61-
,I
I I I
\ .j
: I JI !j· ' ;: ' I ,j I 'I I
ii' ;i 1,1' ',. f ' :
'I ; I I !1 I!! i ! l 1
' '
i i: I l,,1
i,if n·! :1 I ·,_, '
''! :, , ... '.{
,:~ I· 11~'
i{J_, .. ~· i:l ',
/!''I I' ". i\ '. ; / r
ti ' . 11!.
C
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 4H
Line Pressure - 20 psig
Draft - 0.575 in. H2o
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.05 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
22.5
46.8
70.3
GAS SAMPLES
•--- INLET: !
:l J
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 91.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 38.5 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl 1n titrant 476 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 324 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.24xl0 gm-moles/ft
~--- OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 37.3 ml of .OS M HCl 'l
NaOH neutralized by HCl 1n titrant 186.5 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 63.5 ml -4 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 6.3Sxl0 gm-moles/ft
i I 'I
i
! I
,I
',
'·) \ i:1
' I I I I
'i :j I I l ;, 11, 1· ,; .
ii
II !,_
.i · I Ii ,•' I , i:
I ii I,, ! l ', I ,
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN SH
Line Pressure - 23 psig
Draft - 0.667 in. H20
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.05 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
26.5
53.5
80.5
j GAS SAMPLES
INLET:
·.1--i
'J
.~
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 9}.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 39.0 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 483 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 317 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.17xl0 gm-moles/ft
OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 42.3 ml of .OS M HCl
NaOH neutralized by titrant - 211 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 39.0 ml -4 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.9xl0 gm-moles/ft
-63-
,: 'I
Ii
! . . .
:: (
I I I
:1 I I
i ' 1
1. I
II, ' ,: · I :; I i!' (, ll ii ;I· I I; , .
11 i1;
I ' ! . :
·1 j
1'J I
:1
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 6H
Line Pressure - 25 psig
Draft - 0.735 in. H20
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.05 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
28.5
59.8
87.3
iGAS SAMPLES I
j--- INLET: j
·l First Flask - 400 ml of . 01 M NaOH I
) 1
1J
,.j .l 'I
I !
·;!---
titrant used - 95.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 38.3 ml of .10 M HCl NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 478 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 322 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.22xl0 gm-moles/ft
OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 45.5 ml of .05 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 227.0 ml NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 23.0 ml
. -4 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 2.30xl0 gm-moles/ft
-64-
! \(
,i
' i J, ....
1,--·
•' .. __ , -· ••. -....'.!....,-·
APPENDIX II-~ HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 7H
Line Pressure - 28 psig
Draft - 0.825 in. H20
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.10 M NaOH
,, '! ., I
jGAS
j---j
·J ., I
j i
j
' ,;
Time (min)
15
30
45
SAMPLES
INLET:
ML Titrant
15.5
31. 5
47.5
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 91.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 38.5 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 476 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 324 ml
Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.24xl0- 3 gm-moles/ft 3
OUTLET:
Collection Flask·- 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 47.8 ml of .05 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant - 238.8 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample - 11.2 ml -4 3 ·Concentration of HCl in sample - l.12xl0 gm-moles/ft
· -65-
.I
,I
' 1(
' 1· : ' '
I I/ I
: '
!
APPENDIX II -- HCl PHASE OF THE EXPERIMENTS
RUN 8H
Line Pressure - 30 psig
Draft - 0.903 in. H2o
LIQUID SAMPLES (all 15 ml)
titrant used was 0.10 M NaOH
Time (min)
15
30
45
ML Titrant
16.0
31.8
47.5
;GAS SAMPLES ;
'·! INLET:
First Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 97.0 ml of .01 M HCl
Second Flask - 400 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 39.0 ml of .10 M HCl
NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant 487 ml
NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 313 ml -3 3 Concentration of HCl in sample - 3.13xl0 gm-moles/ft
~--- OUTLET:
Collection Flask - 250 ml of .01 M NaOH
titrant used - 48.3 ml of .05 M HCl NaOH neutralized by HCl in titrant 241. 0 ml NaOH neutralized by HCl in sample 9.0 ml Concentration of HCl in sample - 9.00 -5 3 x 10 gm/moles/ft
-66-
! I
'. ii I
I•, , I
; .. I !
:1 ,, ., ·1
:l j ;j •;!
APPENDIX III
DETERMINATION AND SELECTION OF OPERATING PARAMETERS
11ine Pressure
psig
14
16
18
20
23
25
28
30
AIR FLOW RATES
Volumetric Flow Rate
SCF/hr Air
18,000
20,200
21,600
22,800
24,600
25,500
26,700
27,500
-67-
Mass Flow Rate
lb/hr Air
1340
1510
1610
1700
1840
1900
1990
2050
11
1: ,I 11 •I !1
!
,, I'·
,I'
'I I It
:1,.1 r i' . . . 1
I
• I
)i. I
:1 l .1 ·,
',i'.' ..
:i: ·) ;1; .. '.i '. , , . J lj I j: I
I; , , ,! i ·I
I :l ' ' 4 , , , I • , i ,
• t ! I : : I .. : : ' ' • I < I
--lJ -------- '- --- -. • I
I I I
. I ,
-·· ..... i --4·-•- ..
I
::, .. ;. :'.'.$; ::;~_ t • t I ,
I ' •. : ; : - - __ ,...__ __ NOZZLE . . . . . - - .
· I ; i ! - -I t ' • I j I • It • i 11 ,-H 1 I t f : '. ! -1--~
• j ; i I :., .j
' ' I • I , , I PRESSURE : :·:Js: ·:;; ; ; : :
1 ' • 1 ' ' ' - ! ' ! I I • - t t I ~ 1 • vs ---t" ' - __ _;. i.. SCFH AIR . ' . I ' . ; : ' . I ' . I ' • ' I • : ; '-I -
' '-• ' : I : I • • ! • t ' 1 , I , , I ·th .. ----. '.: :~:: 1:: -+:. '. ::: ",' ·::; ~·!,:
-------,-----~-- - - ·-·-- --- -~ --i-- . . I .. l : : : I;~. ':: : '. : .. .. : I:::: .. : ; ; - -- I_ •• • l ' .. ; ·-·1 l T . ' ' : '. 1-: -: : I; . ----~-. -:·-:~I ----~ . : : .
: ; !""I ' '"' .. "'+·· '1
• ·I· ! . . .. I - -- l- . : -~ .:_ __ ~_:_~-· · ' - 1
_f ' ' : ' 1 · ·--' +.-~~. , ~-~ ·!-' :~~~~ . I I I I_
• I ' I ' . • . I •• I I : . '. I I . ' ' ... I. ' I ; "! I. I: --- .. - - ,J________ :-·- ___ '. ____ : -t·· ... :_~ __ : ____ · __ · -~~~+--~-' .. '.'.
l ' l I ' I .... ! ' ' ' . : ' . ' : !
i . !
-- ... - ..... -1- --
.. ,s
I I ! . I".. . . I .. 1 ·' · / 1:.. I.
~--t~ __ ., _ _JI __ .:__------'.--·---~- ., . :1:·: I:: ... ·.1:. ··i·•:J:::; '•·•I . , ! . ! I . --.. -:-~-----:- r- --1-:-~·--:··1-----,- .. ~ :~~ '. . ~:-~. I I I I : ! ' . : I . . . I ' I : : : i : : : ' : : .
--.... .L ....... f ..... . ~-------+- .. · 1----J-' ' __ J_· __ .:...i ~-- ·f--+-~--- I ' ' • ' ·~; ;
: 1' , I : · - · I : - l · ,
1
. : . • · • 1 • • · : : : : : : -· : : ' I • • I . . ' . . . . . . . ... . I I .. I .. I . I • . . .. • : ..••• B -- ··- - ~- .: --~ - -· .l. -----
j l .
1
. I · '. - : : - : . : . : : : , .. ·: : : ·, I · 1 · · · • · , . . • .I •..
I ' I I . · I .. .. . I . I ..
o' - " T r-- ---r T --1-- r-.. -~ I ·----,- - - ; _~ · ~~-- _ J__.:_ · : 1-- ---~ I ~:-~~L-~-~----l .. :~~--i~ --~-J
.:· -'ti
!; ;!
I • I I .
- I -
--+ ---- -- i · -
I '1 ! I • I I • • i I I . ' I . :
- 1 1 - t' . · 1 . : . 1 · j · 1 _ , .. 1 I . I • • • : • . • . i : . ! I I • I I I -----r :··----~ . i - - i '. - _... 1 1 - . ;·---;
I . I I i i . ! I I , - I - , 1
. I i ' I I
, -. • i --r · · · · 1 - ·. i---1 · 1 . • ·• r- r ~ 1 -- --- ~--- -~-! ------- _J -- ___ __J ___ ~ -r'-· -----! . __ J.. : ~ ~. --~ ~- . ··--L ------1
• I I I . I I . b I I I . I .. I I. . . I I • 1 ·: I '1
I I ... L , I" 'Ir. , I' ; ! ' . ',.. · 1 I ______ J_ · _____ [------ _: ______ ~ ___ · r·---~4------·---/--- .. _.!- ___ · ___ i · __ : ____ . ----~ ~ .. --··r_:....,._:_· I . I . .. I. . I ... I ... , "i,' i . '" : : : . : .. I' , i , I ",, I , '. '
.. f • I . I . l . . : : I : ' . I . . I ,,· .. ·-- --------+----- .. ·,·. ------ - r--- ---.···· ----- ------- -·- -+-··---- .... i .. ---!------ -- i ...... .. . •. +-·-·-··· ~
I . I . 1 · . 1 . : l : · . : : I . ! 1' 1 · ; . I · . · 1
I I I ' ' . . . - \q. -~~ -~-· _/ __ · _·_: 1-~ __ :_ -) ... .:.. _:~j ·--~--~~-~-.. : ~-- _:-_____ / ____ : .... .J ... ---- i: ·• --·-1: _____ : -~ ·1
1
: . : . .l-~--~-1 ... \ . : . i . : I .. : l . . . . . I . : ! . i ... ' I . ; I ... I
1~ ··--·.
.. \,
I I . . . I . : I • I I I . I . Ii . ' ' .. ' . . I . I ••
•• •ff• •
I
! . -. _ _J:
I
I I. -
i I . I I
NOZZLE PRESSURE
(PSIG)
-68-
i I . I
' ' ' i .
I : . I · · : · ·: · -r ·- -·:· -: ~- ---- i - ..... _ i I ' I . . :
-_ .. L .. _____ :..: ______ L_ __ :_J .. · : __ :.: _I
,. ' ,I
h ' : !
APPENDIX III
NOZZLE (LINE) PRESSURE VS. DRAFT
LINE PRESSURE OPERATING DRAFT
psig inches of water
14 .363
16 .437
18 .500
20 .575
23 .667
25 .735
28 .825
30 .903
-69•-
I'
• I
'I
11 :' :, t I , I' '
I I
l ,; i: .·
; ! •/:, I
,I j i i :I I
'.j;
iJ/: 'i, 1. ;. ,
i: : I : I 'f: . I
.. ,. I ,'1 ,; '
\ /!
'f 11 J,
'1' /,;
i! ! 1: 1'
'·
•!
:· .i '·
~1.0
.7
I .I LI .. i.T 1 I 'i
···---... _1_::.' :
. -i T I
I. I
'J
i l __ ... , __ ,. .. _.
I I'
\ '6 2.0 21. 16
NOZZLE PRESSURE (PSIG)
-70-
u 10
• ~L--
' II
i2.
··---1 ...... -
I .. I
, I
... r ...... --
I
I .., .
S4-
'' I
36
1/ j
:, ' '
'
:' I :ii 1·• I, ' Ii,,· ''f :_i"
1 ,i i
:! ·1 I
I ·l j
.:) I
OTE:
APPENDIX III
CALIBRATION OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE MANOMETER
Manometer Reading
inches cc14
0.04
0.16
0.35
0.63
0.99
1.19
1. 33
1. 42
1. 51
1. 67
1. 83
1. 93
2.22
HCl Gas Flow Rate
ft 3HC1/hr
10
20
30
40
50
55
58
60
62
65
68
70
75
Calibration calculated from following equation:
inches cc1 4 = 12 (q) 2 (1 - B4) (density of HCl)
2 (C) 2
(Y) 2
(Athroat) 2
(g) (density of tel 4)
q = HCl rate in ft 3/sec
B = orifice to line diameter ratio
C = coefficient of discharge (dimensionless) = 0.61
Y = expansion factor (dimensionless) = 1.00
Athroat = orifice throat area in ft 2
g = gravity constant
-71-
1.! i
!·: '
' i• :ti I' :,· ii
I!' 1, , . I 'l· .!··· ' ii i :,: I'·: I! • I ' l; : . •.
··1-; -~·~-·r····· : : ~-: ;.· ' .... : ' . • • • • . I
~f --·-, ·----+
, l;:; 1·•;-'. .... -1-:-J-1·-t-+-+-, L. '.- -1-1 .·,· 1, : .. t +-t·· ·i·i --~-+
1---····'"·i+··,--1 .. 1 -r· h·H
I.' '1 ] ··r 1 ·· .. '. l. . 7. /· ~- . ' ·• +· '··r /-. - . .J.--j- t I _j ' I I ' ' I I I . '
MANOMETER
11 --: :....;_: .i.-+: Tr~ : .: . . > . ~ -'. : : ; :· , : 0
j : '. . : · , ••• I
1 .. : I .... 1
.. I I
I
. . I . . --IS -- -·~; -·- -
• . I
-t:1----·' -·--· I
READ ING ' I l •• i. . : . .. . . ~-- . I ; ., i ·1· Lt. l .. 1 , ..• 1 • , f . : . : , · : i +·
Vs . !.) .....•. I' I '. t' I . ., ..•. I , , -.-t--- ·t--...:. . ...;.·-1-.........6-.-0>--...-,__
•· , • -I • .• I· J • • , ' .. ' ·r I • · 1 . . ... ,, . -l : ·• _ ! + r '. ..... , . . . . . .. __ . . , . . . . . . ';--l i- ~ ' . ' ., : I . . ' . I . • I . . . . . ' . ' ·: f ,_ .• I .I .... ,. • . . . I ' . I . . . . . ' : - : ' .: I·. : .•
...,___,___,---7+' -~-- ~-l I _;__._j I • ... ... _' : I •.•• I . ' .. i . ; I I
• ' I I . ; I ·•- i . ·1 .• :, ._, I · .. •. '... . . . I . . . • • ; _ j • j .! t ' ' ' ' ' ' t -~ . ·-~·-· . I ~ . . ' I • : • ,. • • ·-
• ---~---··- . , •. f-•-•; , .. ~- I.,--,~-,-. ,1 j .... I . . . ' ' . - . t- • • j . . ' I ' . . ' I • • I . . . ' . I • • ' •.
I ! :,1 ... ,. ,,,, .!,,,~••·•·•• I ' . . . : ... · I ; : .. i. . ; , .....
I • I
. I HCl RATE • I
I .• I • . . I , .
: · ; ···--:1-~---:1
_ • l '.J ;---- .- ~-: r--~-1~-: · ,~-. · :· I/,! •.. ,.,! ... ' I '4·••••
·\{ . ·-. ··-- -~ ··- ----~ - --~~ ___ : __ _[_:_ ' . . -+----· ~)-~ ··-t' _· ~-~-- . -~~ ~ I . ' I . . .. I I . I ' . ' . I . : ; ·l
.. I : I . I I . ! I j I . I . . I .. ' • I .. '.! I i • : ; I . I . . l . . . ! i . I . I ... I .... ! .. : I : ... I .. ! ..... ' . . . . , - . 'I ~s- ------- ··---· -----r--- -----··-------1---------.. ·--·--- J....-----1------ - ---- ---i-----··---.J...--------,.--- i . I
I i . I . I . . . I . I . . . ' . I . . . . . .. . I I·.. i I ' . . . i . · 1 ... : ....... . I , ... ,. ·! I··:· ·····1•·j
.1. I-~·'··· I .. ··I···· .. ·I······ i- ; ---i-··-----, ----t--- ·--!--··--<-· ' j . . I I
\ : I •• : I ·: : :: '1 : : : : '·: : : -~-i I.~ ·-· ___ ; ______ J _____ --'.----:----~-- __ :_ __ ~,: ~-i: :.+.:.--+~:1
·i . I . I ' • . I • • ; • I . .! I . ! j... . . , . I ·1 ' j f . • . ' ' I . . I I I * • :, i- -fl . ·-- _, ----· -·-- ·---·+···-- -+-----··'-·--· .. ··-+. ··--- ~---··--+- ---· - . ___ ) : . • ' . I ' i. ; . .. I I I . I '.· : ... I .. 1·· l ... +d ..... / .. i I I ••• , -·~1 J . : . · 1: : · 1 ·:. -l: ... I .. ::!:: : .: : . , ... : . I ... i . : :t: : :\: .. , i-1.1 ----i----; _ __j______ -~~---1---+- r---- - -i
: I ...::.L I :L [ __ lllt .... ft1 i ...JS : ' .. I . i . . .. . j.. .., . ; . ,.. ... . ... '..' . ! . '.' I ........ . i I . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i .... l ...... I ... ! . ' .. I .. I ~ I : • • • :. • . .. . • • ' . . I . .. j : .. • .. i . ··· ····j· ·'I~···,. ···I•,,., .. , ... ···'····!·· ~ · . ·:~ -:--··-:--:-~---.. - . . . ,-. -_ .. -: . ---~--·---i·~--------i-·--·:-·,-·-~--i ----', : : · : : I:·• . : I · : . · 1 · · .. ·
1 • : : • : • : : - • : • I · . · . ( . ! -.. : · : · : 1 . .
. . : I . ' I . ! . . . I .... i . . . . . . i . . . i . . .. : ... I .. I . . I : ·--~ · · J"--"i- -~-1-~-:~-:--~ ---·---r · · I ---. · ;·-- .. : --· ~-r-- ----~--- ·- t· - ---1-:-:- ·: . • : : I : : : . I : . . I . . ~ : . : : : I :. : . : I : : . : I ~ . . . i . : . ! . ' : i . . . . I : : ; ~-~±-'. ~--~-;~ ___ :_)_· .. ~-+-~~1-· ·-r::· I. . . +:_: ___ : _:___· _;_~---~..:.~---~-J-~.--:..t _ _:_· I ... l .. ·j .. 1·· .... ,;, ..... ! .. : . :· . : ,'. .. : .,. 1 . . ' . . . .. .. : . . . . I . . . . .. . . . ·• . ' . ! . . . . I ' t I I .. ·-·. : ·.· .. . I ... i ...... I.'. i.. I. I . . 'I . : ... ,
~~-.. -~-~ __ j __ ~i-~+---:_:_ -~-~..:.f· .J· i...:___:__~11 ____ .. - L ·-·---/---~ -~---t..:.--~· '--·-+·-~-'.-~ . • ,' ' I ~ . . . . I . . I j • • • • ••• ' I . . . I . . .. ' . I . . . . . . ' . I ' .. ' .... : ' : . I . ! . . . . I . . . ' : . . . I . : . " . I • • . I • I •••.. , •.•.•.. : '. ' • . . . I ... , ... ! .... ,· . ' . . . .. I .. ' • . . . . . . . t . . . . . . I I : . . I . .. ' . . I _-Cl.______ --·-·t··--·-- ·-t·--- -·-----+-----· +--------. -------t-1---··r·---1 ••• ' I • . • • . . ... I . . .. . .. '· .... I ' . . I . I . . . I . •· l . . . . . . . - ; ... I
... , . . · 1 · ... I .... , . . . , .. I·· . . . . I .... : . ,' •· _,_ 0 '"j
1 ,. l I i .. •.• . ·• . . . .. ·•· . • . ' • ' . . • . . . . . . · 1 . ' . ; . . ' I . • • • . .. ... . . . .... : .; .• : :··· . . . ... i .. · · · · · .. i · · · - · · f. ···I
I
--!·--·--··-·- ~- .. ~-- -!-
. . . . 't- ! . . ... :
· · . • 11
··• · I ..... ,- ...... . ---1------r...._·t ·-·
• ' ·::.: . : I : : : : I : · ,., .. ;~.'. :· i::; :1.:..
SO .. .S . . . . . 60 . 6.S. . i . ,., .... L n , . ··I .. · .. · · t I· .. ' · · . . · ... l HCl FLOW MTE 1-~-b: 1-..:..~..:_~ ·3· ·
ft 3/hr : :·::: j :£:::.: :-: :·! :_-: :.~-' • : • I • .. i · • • ·•· : i · · · ·•
~ .. --'--- --- ...i .. - __t__.
-72-
....... __ , ·- -~ - ···-·
APPENDIX III
SELECTED OPERATING VALUES FOR HCl FLOW
ne Pressure
psig
14
16
18
20
23
i 2 5 .J
j I 28 l :j 1
30
Manometer Reading
inches CC1 4
l. 0
l. 2
l. 4
l. 6
l. 8
2. 0
2.2
2.2
-73-
Volumetric HCl Rate
SCF/hr HCl
50.3
55.3
59.5
63.8
67.5
71.1
74.6
74.6
Mass HCl Rate
lb/hr HCl
4.68
5.14
5.53
5.93
6.28
6.61
6.94
6.94
' I 'I
'i 1; .. I ii, ! ; ~ ·1 r ,i' 1
if. !' ,. ,; I ·: :j. I. I ;1· l !' ; I :
APPENDIX III
OPERATING INLET CONCENTRATIONS OF HCl
Line Pressure % HCl in INLET GAS
psig % by volume
14 0.280
16 0.274
18 0.276
20 0.280
23 0.274
25 0.279
·28 0.280
30 0.271
' -74-
APPENDIX III
WATER FLOW RATES THROUGH SCRUBBER
Line Pressure Water Rate Water Rate
Ii I psig gallons/minute 3 ft /second
I
1, 14 35.7 0.0800 I; I
16 36.7 0.0820
18 37.7 0.0840
20 38.7 0.0861
22 39.7 0.0883
24 40.7 0.0905
26 41.6 0.0925
28 42.6 0.0947
30 43.6 0.0969
32 44.6 0.0991
34 45.5 0.1013
-75-
' I
,.
i I
I
! I
I I·
I I
I
;I ·,
: I I
' !J;'
,;,_:
'j' :i '1
i 1.l! i~.,
-~-i-·---r ····· ·- ·trNE -F3t!TTD1:l·--·..; .. -w·K"rm:,,:r."'li11r:~mt:l':--T-~--·p-~-, I,' , '.' • 1 · , ' Llr.l\.C, v~. •' .ii..+-J;W. '. _.,. I j' J.Jllj':,' '": ! , ',: I : ; : : ': ; : :, ; ';:: : : : : '; .. I ' I I I I ' I . I • ,.. • ' • • • ' .. • •• ·I· .. I, · · I · · ' · . · : · · · i · · , · : 1 • ' • · • • i · · · : · · '. .. I · · .. · : I · · · ! : · . : · : : r: I : ~ ! : ::
I I I , ' · · ' · I I I · ' ' . . .. . . ... . --·-·(·· :. ..,.... ., : .. :---+-··'.·-·:r··"····; ... ··:-·- ··-:-(···-~--[~~-:~\ ! I· . :. I ! I . · l:. :I
·j·· ·% :·· I. T ··!-· ... .;:- ···"; ... _ .J ... I .J · 1· ••
, .. I
' ··-+------ .t.
' I
GPM) .. _:~
I ·-!·
-+--. .• ...; .• ___ ... __
I
I .. ,. '
.. ! ... '
' : I
: __ . ----L-----· ...... ·-I· .... . ! I I I
I. 1· ; I I ' " ' ; -~---r--·:ji ····· .. ·-1·· i I . ;
I ·: l ···--+--. ··-· i l 1 ' .···· .. \ .. ·Jf}
I . I ..... -... - ... ;
' . ., ' . . I.. . ,'}/ ·:-r:·::~tj
. , - •.... •!-•·-. ···-.
I .
..... ,J ____ . ; ___ _
I····•··
I ·t·
I
l-
·1
1·
·I
.. I.
' - ~ .. I I
I
. ..... ,
• . ·: ·:. I I .. ; : I
! { " J. ·- ·- ~:.... . I . L...:. ; _ __:J i . . ! .. ' .
; · I ' · I
.. "1'
1-
i
' .. -f. I i I ··t··-.
! I I·
i' '
I
! . i I . I
. :_ ... ( __ .: ... --~- ...
I I I . '-· ·- .. -- . !"
f ! .
...... _! __ _ ... · 1
I I ... - r . -I
,.
' --;-·•
.. ' '
·i·
. :~i--1 :::. I
, . . I
-· _: .... i. - .. __ .J I . i
.:I 1· :
·-·· ---~ ___ )
I • 1 · .j T ··1
.. --. ; . -· ... --! ' .:!
i i ., -·---1 i
,j
I ~J
I I
.1 . ········-···-i
I i I
... J
. ····· .J '
' I .J
\:.: . .3S'--_.... _ _._, ---~:o__;,..~---1.-.....-. ---... -,;..: -3~ ,-·"1 __ _..=>lL.-· .-_;_ __ :.i ____ ; ____ ... ...: ... ti ·---'~ I~ ... ·u , , l(> ~(, '-) 31 v.l I . I :
I i, t··
t • • I
--.... .l. __ .... LINE PRESSURE (PSIG)
-76-
Ii i
APPENDIX III
SELECTION OF LIQUID SAMPLE TITRANT CONCENTRATIONS
Separator Tank has 196 liters liquid= 433 lb H2o
HCl has a molecular weight of 36.45 gm/gm-mole
Possible HCl concentrations in separator tank:
LB HCl Gm-Moles HCl Cone. of HCl in Tank , in Tank in Tank
1. 0 12.4 0.0633
2.0 24. 8 0.127
3.0 37.2 0.190
4.0 49. 6 0.253
5.0 62.0 0.317
6.0 74.4 0.380
7. 0 86.8 0.443
8.0 99.2 0.507
Sample size will be 15 ml
Want titrant used to be in range of 30 to 120 ml, preferrably
in range of 50 to 90 ml
Therefore use:
a) .10 M NaOH for 5 to 8 lbs HCl expected
b) .OS M NaOII for 3 to 5 lbs HCl expected
c) .02 M NaOH for 0 to 3 lbs HCl expected
-77-
I
/1 I
,I l' :11
i ' l : ,i· 1 If I :i Li 1 ; t' f:
'·'
:ft:------·----·
··-r·-----r-·-r-·r--- ,--·. -· - ........ ··-··- .. -1··-··--·· 1~·--r-·-T·--..--n7r: ... .----r-JG1 , , '1 ••I t , , • , , I ,I • • ••, , I !•••• ••• ,, , • • 1• • ,,1, ••• I
I . ' ' ' I I ' I ' I ' ' I,., '. ''' ' ·1 ., "' '"' ... ,
: '.,' ·1 ' I ' : • I ... '. " ".. ' ' '. '•'"I'., , . : ' , , : . • , , I : , 1 ! : : ' ! ' , • I ' t ! • : '. ) • • ; • • I • • : I ; ~ ;_~ . I ., I· ' ' I I I I " l ·1 .. . · I , : ' , · .. ·1. · .. :. : .. . ..... ...... . , . . . .. ---·-··. l. .. ____ ..... - .~-E • • , • r •••••••
~ .C, ·--· ,-··-·:.
~ '7 '
·1 ·
I . i·
i .... I.
I
i I
-ri ___ ; ___ :_ ' . - . . •• t ··- -- •..
I
i. ' ~+a .. ·--~- -~~--- '. .... :- .. I , I
'' ' . -:-- ... -· -r- .. ··-· ;_ .. i I ' I
-- , - •• I • . •-· -~ • -
. I I
. . I I
I I
'
. I .,
~h1 ·--~---:j .. _:_. I
EQUILIBRIUM CURVE
FOR HCl
·•·-' l
I l
. r- -- ... -
I
.... •----~I -·-··· .. '. ' . '. .1
' ' '
!··
.. j ..
I : I I I I
-!---·- .... l. I
I . : !
;
I ,.
,,
L_ .. __ _!
i ' t• -·- ••• ·-+·. -·.
i I
I .i ..
' . ' ·1 -1.% - ··--:+.
I. I j
.L. ······· ·1 I l
. i i . I
l · .1 . I .
. ~q ___ ;~-- I_: .. :.'.··+·-·· . ' I '
. "I i : , .. . I --r··--.· .... : ....... . i I" . l
I. I
I ' I - -· ·"T'""······· .•. t····--·· ····-•······ ....
I • · I I ' ' ' !
-··; -'l ... .. i ' I .. : . . I . . .,. . . : 1 i . . I 1· _:
-... _ ••.•..• L .•....... l
I "I
. ,..j····:·· T I
i t· ...
i : ·-···~·-·-·; .. , . .. . . . . ....... I
·'t .. 3
logy= log_ p
··--j· I
'Range of
I •.. !-
I
I I
, I
I ,.
; : 1 ·: '.: :: : : l . . . ; : : . : ~ ; ·+:- ·(L.:_: . I • ~:. : . :· JI: T ·l,
: I • . ~ .... I . ... 0 I••. ·~-:--·1
l . : . ' ''
' .1--~--~ I • •
I .. :
.?i .... -:--11 ' I
· 1 · .. ,. . . . I . . . I
inlet gas concentrations
0 • • I
~-ii- - . to .... - Ii
: ' i·
I
. •••• !
.. , I
!·
! •
-1
I
• f ---·
·-' I
1·
... -,
' t - •.. -··
I
I
•·
-I
1· I i
, I f-.-0-· .. : ·-:~~
.! . , : I f' , .. ::.i ._ log
. •+1-. X
I L 1.j :~
. : I ..
i
1-+···:· .. :: ·: I i ~ ' .. 1 ... •'LJ --~- -I
I
t9:·
.. ·1
., I I
2.0 .. --- J
'!
.., ... ti
0 .
i:.i I . ~ I
·1' I
,1 i i;! 'I ,:) j·
:i; ti' !,, ' I., I'
'·/
i I' il i ,: : '
.! 1 ': I
NAME:
DATE OF BIRTH:
PLACE OF BIRTH:
PARENTS NAMES:
MARITAL STATUS:
EDUCATION:
Elementary:
High School:
University:
DEGREE:
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
VITA
Mark Richman
February 7, 1952
Queens, New York
Donald and Beatrice Richman
Single
Rufus King Public School, Queens, New York
George J. Ryan Junior High School Queens, New York
Francis Lewis High School, Queens, New York
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering June, 1972
Presently employed as a Development Engineer with
Cottrell Environmental Sciences, a division of Research-Cottrell, Inc.
-79-