Air Stripping of Acetone

ChE 432- Chemical Engineering Systems Lab

Experiment date: September 30, 2016
Lab due date: October 14, 2016
Lab resubmitted: October 21, 2016
Group FC

By: Christine Calamunci, Gabriel Marth, John Nieradka, Jennifer Strycharz

I pledge my honor I have abided by the Stevens honor system.

Introduction:
 1
The purpose of this experiment was to utilize a packed stripping column in order to
remove a volatile impurity in a liquid through mass transfer to a gas phase. Stripping is
commonly used in the industry to increase the interactions between liquids and gases. In the
experiment performed, the packed column was fed with a dilute aqueous acetone solution, with
a countercurrent air stream flowing in the column. The resulting concentration of acetone in the
liquid stream was measured for different airflow rates. The purpose of the experiment is to
determine what contributes to stripping and whether increased contact time or higher mass flow
rate will improve mass transfer.

Theory:
The theory in this experiment is described by two-film theory, which involves the transfer
of solute from liquid to gas. This theory details the interactions between the two phases at the
interface where they are in contact. It is governed by overall mass transfer. In the case of a
dilute solution, like in the experiment, the overall resistance to mass transfer is described by the
following equation:

Eq. 1

Here, is the overall liquid mass transfer coefficient, is the mass transfer
coefficient in the liquid phase, is the mass transfer coefficient in the gas phase and K is the
equilibrium constant. K is further described below:

Eq. 2

In this case, and represent the equilibrium mole fraction in the gas and liquid
phases, respectively. Equilibrium is assumed to exist at the interface between the gas and liquid
phase. Here, Henrys Law can be used because equilibrium is assumed to exist at the interface
between the gas and liquid phases. Partial pressure of the solute to the mole fraction of the
solute in the gas phase is related in the following equation:
 2

Eq. 3

In the next equation, a relation is shown of the mole fraction of the solute in the liquid
phase. Here, refers to the concentration in the liquid phase and refers to the total
concentration.

Eq. 4

The next equation relates the partial pressure to the concentration in the liquid phase. It
combines the former equations.

Eq. 5

The equation below shows a relationship between the equilibrium constant and Henry's
constant. when the Henrys constant is large, the equilibrium constant is large and therefore, the
overall resistance to mass transfer is decreased. This, in turn, increases the stripping of the
solute.

Eq. 6

The differential mass balance for a packed column is shown below.

Eq. 7

In the above equation: L is the liquid molar flux, is the overall liquid mass transfer
coefficient, is the mole fraction of the solute in the liquid phase, is the mole fraction of the
solute in the liquid phase in equilibrium with the gas phase and dl refers to the length of the
column. The integration limits will be from the liquid mole fractions from the bottom and the top
of the column. The rearranged equation is below.
 3

Eq. 8

As shown below, the integral is commonly referred to as the number of transfer units
(NTU) and the constants are commonly referred to as the height of a transfer unit (HTU).

Eq. 9

Methods:
An estimated 1000 ppm feed solution of acetone was prepared by the instructor, and the
exact concentration was determined by sampling the feed tank using UV spectrometer with an
absorbance of 265 nm. The spectrometer was calibrated using deionized water prior to
sampling. Figure 1 models the process with the stripping column height of 55, column diameter
of 2, and Intolax Saddles = 0.5.
The stainless steel float in the liquid rotameter was set to 6 and the liquid temperature
was recorded. The needle valve of the air rotameter was opened and the air flow set to 110
SCFH (standard cubic feet per hour). The air temp and air pressure were recorded from the
gauge near the flow meter outlet. When 8 of water had accumulated at the bottom of the
column, the drain valve was opened until the water level was about 2 and the drain valve was
closed. This was repeated to prevent the water level from getting too high or low.
Liquid samples were collected from the sample valve after 10 and 20 minutes. The
experiment was repeated with the liquid float at 6 and the at flow set to 80 SCFH. It was
important to wait at least 10 minutes to make sure steady state was reached.
The air flow was increased gradually until the air flow began to impede downward liquid
flow, signaling flooding phenomena.The liquid and air temp were recorded along with the air
flow and pressure. After completing the experiment the air supply valve and flowmeter valves
were turned off and liquid pump connection to power line was unplugged.
 4

Figure 1: Air stripping of acetone- process flow sheet

Calculations:
Question 2: Calculate ya by using the overall solute balance for the column.
The calculation to determine y A is a multistep process. The molar liquid flux (L) is
calculated from Equation 10 from the the rotameter calibration curve seen in Appendix A.
Dimensional analysis alongside the cross-sectional column area, calculated with Equation 11,
then puts the flux into more appropriate units. The calculations for each run are shown below.

Eq. 10 y=10.9 x+ 0.14

where x=6.0 on the rotameter scale
 5
mL
L= y=(10.9 6)+0.14=65.5
min

mL
L=65.5
min
2
D
Eq. 11 A=
4

where D=2 inches

( 2inches)2 0.0254 meters 2

A= ( ) =.002 m2
4 1 inch

mL 60 min g 1 mol 1 kmol 1 kmol H 2 O

L=65.5 1.0 2
=107.66
min 1hr mL 18.015 g 1000 mol 0.002 m m2 hr

The ideal gas equation, represented by Equation 12, is used to find the molar gas flux. The
calculations are shown here:

Run 1:

Eq. 12 P V =n R T
m3 Pa m3
where T =19+273=292 K , P=6.1 psig =143411 Pa , V =110 SCFH =3.11 , R=8.314
hr mol K
m3
143411 Pa 3.11
P V hr mol
n= = 3
=183.72
R T Pa m hr
8.314 292 K
mol K

mol 1 kmol 1 kmol H 2 O

G=n=183.72 2
=91.86 2
hr 1000 mol .002 m m hr

The variables x a and x b are found by utilizing the calibration curve found in Appendix B.
From the relationship shown on the curve, Equation 13, the following results were found:

Eq. 13 y=0.003 x0.0011

y+ 0.0011 .496+.0011
x= = =1657 ppm
0.003 .0003

1mol
1.657 g of acetone =.02853 mol
58.08 g
 6
The amount of water can be found by subtracting 1.657g from 1000g. From here xa is found
with Equation 14:

1 mol
998.343 g of water =55.4173 mol
18.015 g

.02853 mol 4
Eq. 14 x a= =5.15 10
.02853 mol+55.4173 mol

The calculation of x b for run 1 is shown here, using Equation 14 in terms of b instead of a.:

.119+.0011
x= =400.33 ppm
.003

1mol
.400 g of acetone =.006893 mol
58.08 g

1 mol
999.6 g of water =55.4871mol
18.015 g

.006893 mol
Eq. 14 x b= =1.24 104
.006893 mol+55.4871 mol

The variable y a can be found by utilizing the provided Equation 15 below, which uses the
liquid molar flux rate, gaseous molar flux rate, and the molar fractions of acetone in both phases
at the top and bottom of the setup:

Eq. 15 L( x ax b )=G ( y a y b)

L(x a xb )
y a= + yb
G

y b=0

kmol
107.66 2
(5.15 104 1.24 104 )
m hr
y a= =4.583 104
kmol
m2
91.86
hr

Run 2:

The same process for run 1 was carried out for run 2. Here are the results:

3
m Pa m3
where T =17+273=292 K , P=3.1 psig=122727 Pa, V =80 SCFH =2.27 , R=8.314
hr mol K
 7
m
3
122727 Pa 2.27
P V hr mol
n= = 3
=114.76
R T Pa m hr
8.314 292 K
mol K

lbmol 1 kmol 1 kmol

G=n=114.76 =57.83 2
hr 1000 mol .002 m 2
m hr

y+ 0.0011 .268+ .0011

x= = =897 ppm
0.003 .003

1mol
.897 g of acetone =.0154 mol
58.08 g

1 mol
999.103 g of water =55.46 mol
18.015 g

.0154 mol
x a= =2.78 104
.0154 mol+55.46 mol

.12+.0011
x= =403.67 ppm
.003

1mol
.40367 g of acetone =.00695 mol
58.08 g

1 mol
999.596 g of water =55.487 mol
18.015 g

.006953 mol 4
x b= =1.25 10
.00695 mol+55.487 mol

kmol 4 4
107.66 2
(2.78 10 1.25 10 )
m hr
y a= =2.848 104
kmol
57.83 2
m hr

Question 3: Calculate x* at the top and the bottom of the column (xa* and xb*)

The fraction of acetone in the liquid phase at both the top and bottom of the column (x a*
and xb*), is calculated using the equilibrium relationship equation, the ideal gas equation
and the ratio C*/Ct.

The relevant equations, Eq. 3-5, are presented here.

p=H C
 8

C
x =
Ct

p= y a P

These equations were combined into Equation 16 and used to calculate x a* for each run,
as shown below.

Eq. 16 y a P=H x a Ct

ya P
x a=
H C t

The Henrys Constant (H) can be found by dividing the vapor pressure by the solubility at a
certain temperature. The source of the values used can be found in Appendix C:

VP
Eq. 17 H= , where VP=vapor pressure , S=solubility
S

36.0 103 Pa kg m2 mol

H= .05808 =2.091
kg
1.0 10 3 3
mol s2
m

kg
1000
H 2O m3 mol
Eq. 18 Ct = = =55509 3
MW H 2O kg m
.018015
mol

m2 mol mol
where y a=4.583 104 , P=101325 Pa, H=2.091 2
, Ct =55509 3
s m
4
( 4.583 10 ) 101325 Pa 4
xa = 2
=4.001 10
m mol mol
2.091 2
55509 3
s m

x b=0, since y b=0

Run 2:

m2 mol mol
where y a=2.848 104 , P=101325 Pa , H=2.091 2
,C t =55509 3
s m
4
( 2.848 10 ) 101325 Pa 4
xa = 2
=2.486 10
m mol mol
2.091 2
55509 3
s m
 9

x b =0, since y b=0

Question 4: Determine the liquid side overall mass transfer coefficient for the first and second
runs.

Multiple equations are needed in order to determine the liquid side overall mass transfer
coefficient. The needed equations are shown and explained here:

The height of the column is equal to the product of the number of transfer units (NTU) times the
height of a transfer unit (HTU). NTU can be approximated by the Equation 9 shown below.

l T =HTU NTU

1


(.0254 m)
Where l T =55

The height of a transfer unit is a function of the liquid molar flux and the overall liquid side mass
transfer coefficient. By using this relation we can isolate and analytically determine the the
overall liquid side mass transfer coefficient, K x a , shown through Equations 7, 8, 19 and
forming Equation 20 and 21. The needed expressions and manipulations are presented here:

L
Eq. 19 HTU =
Kxa

dx (x ax b )
NTU = =
xx x LM
x b xb
x a xa

Eq. 20
ln
(x x )(x x )
x LM = b b a a
Run 1:
where x a=5.14 104 , x a =4.001 104 , x b=1.24 104 ,x b =0
4
1.24 10
5.15 1044.001 104



ln
4 4 4
(1.24 10 )(5.15 10 4.001 10 )
x LM =

 10
4 4
(5.15 10 1.24 10 )
NTU = =3.275
1.194 104
L l
Eq. 21 = T
K x a NTU

L NTU
K x a=
lT

kmol H 2 O
(107.66 )3.275
m2 hr kmol H 2 O
K x a= =252.4
1.397 m m3 hr

Run2:
4 5 4
where x a=2.486 10 , x a=2.471 10 , x b=1.25 10 ,x b=0
4 4
2.78 10 2.486 10
4
1.25 10
=6.605 105
()
ln
(1.25 10 )(2.78 1042.486 104 )
4
x LM =

(2.78 1041.25 104 )
NTU = =2.316
6.605 105
kmol H 2 O
(107.66 )2.316
m2 hr kmol H 2 O
K x a= =177.7
1.397 m m3 hr

Question 5: Compare the % recoveries for the first and second data sets.

The % recovered from each run can be expressed as a function of the molar fraction of acetone
in the gas phase times the molar flux of gas divided by the molar fraction of acetone in the liquid
phase times the molar fluxes of liquid, in Equation 21. The calculations are as follows for each
run:

ya G
Eq. 22 Recovered= 100
xa L

Run 1:
 11
kmol H 2 O kmol H 2 O
where y a=4.583 104 , G=91.86 2
, L=107.66 2
,x a=5.14 104
m hr m hr

kmol H 2 O
4.583 104 91.86
m2 hr
Recovered= 100=76.08
4 kmol H 2 O
5.14 10 107.66
m2 hr

Run 2:

kmol kmol H 2 O
where y a=2.848 104 ,G=57.86 2
, L=107.66 2
,x a=2.78 104
m hr m hr

kmol
2.848 104 57.83
m2 hr
Recovered= 100=55.03
4 kmol H 2 O
2.78 10 107.66
m2 hr

Question 6:
1. Determine the overall liquid side mass transfer coefficient based on this data.
A process identical to the previous questions is carried out here. Below are the
calculations in their entirety:
kgmol
L=11.48 102
m2 s
kgmol
G=1.23 102
m2 s
T =24 C+273=297 K , for both streams
5
P=1.214 10 Pa
F eed water composition : 53,000 parts per billiontoluene (on mass basis)
Effluent water composition:1,400 parts per billion toluene(onmass basis)
1 mol 4
.053 g toluene ( )=5.752 10 mo l
92.14 g
1mol
999.9947 g water ( )=55.51mol
18.015 g
5.752 104 mol
x a= 4
=1.036 105
5.75210 mol+55.51 mol

1 mol 5
.0014 g toluene ( )=1.519 10 mo l
92.14 g
 12
1mol
999.947 g water ( )=55.51mol
18.015 g
1.519 105 mol
x b= 5
=2.736 107
1.519 10 mol+55.51 mol

y b=0

kgmol
11.48 102 2
(1.036 1052.736 107 )
m h 5
y a= =9.414 10
kgmol
1.23 102 2
m h
3 2
3.75 10 Pa kg m mol
H= .09214 =645.85 2
kg mol s
0.535 3
m

m2 mol mol
where y a=9.414 105 , P=1.214 105 Pa , H =645.85 2
, C t=55509 3
s m
5 5
( 9.414 10 ) 1.214 10 Pa
x a= 2
=3.188 107
m mol mol
645.85 2
55509 3
s m

x b=0, since y b=0

5 7 7
where x a=1.036 10 , x a=3.188 10 , x b =2.736 10 ,x b =0
7
2.736 10
5 7
1.036 10 3.188 10



ln
(2.736 10 )(1.036 105 3.188 107 )
7
x LM =

(1.036 106 2.736 107 )
NTU = =3.721
2.711 106
kgmol
(11.48 102 ) 3.721
2
m s kmol H 2 O 3600 s kmol H 2 O
K x a= =.306 3
=1101.6 3
1.397 m m s 1hr m hr

2. Calculate the percent recovery for toluene.

The calculations follow the same procedure as problem 5. These calculations are shown below:
 13
ya G
Recovered= 100
xa L

kgmol kgmol
where y a=9.414 105 ,G=1.23 102 2
, L=11.48 102 2 ,x a =1.036 105
m s m s

kgmol
9.414 105 1.23 102
m2 s
Recovered= 100=97.36
5 2 kgmol
1.036 10 11.4810
m2 s

Discussion of Results:
Q1:
The data for the first run were measurements of the solution concentration using the UV
spectrometer at 265 nm. The samples were taken at 0, 10, and 20 minutes and recorded in the
table in Graph 1 in the Appendix. The data for both run 1 and 2 proves steady state was
reached by 10 minutes because there was not much difference in the absorbance between the
two samples taken at 10 and 20 minutes.
Q2:
For experimental run 1, ya= 4.583 104 at a flow rate of 110 SCFH and for

experimental run 2 ya 2.848 104 where the flow was reduced to 80 SCFH. A higher flow
rate with a larger calculated ya would indicate an increased recovery of acetone, while an
increased flow rate with lower calculated y a would indicate the dilution effect. The starting
concentrations for run 1 was 1657 ppm and run 2 was 400 ppm which could explain the values
of ya in the experiment and why it did not favor the dilution effect.

The calculations show the value of y a for the larger flow rate was lower than the y a value of the
reduced flow rate indicating the dominance of the dilution effect.
Q3:
The mole fraction of solute in the liquid was calculated at the top and bottom of the
column(xa* and xb*). For the flow rate of 110 SCFH, x a= 4.001 10
4
and x a=

5.15 104 while a flow rate of 80 SCFH resulted in x a = 2.486 104 with x a=
 14
4
2.78 10 . If the mole fraction of solute in the liquid phase at equilibrium with solute

concentration in the gas phase ( x a ) is greater than the mole fraction of the solute in liquid

phase ( x a ), the reaction would not take place and would signify experimental error. The

values of x a are less than x a for run 1 and 2 indicating for stripping has occurred and the

solute is transferring from liquid to the gas phase. x b= 1.24 104 for run 1 and

x b= 1.25 10
4 for run 2, while x b=0 for both experiments because y b=0 .
Q4:
The liquid side overall mass transfer coefficient (Kxa) is expected to be higher at a higher
flow rate because the mass transfer coefficient increases with the increase of mass flow rate. By
increasing the gas flow rate the mass transfer boundary film thickness is decreased. Since the
diffusivity of acetone in water increases then it can be said k y is increased causing Kxa to
increase as shown by 1/Kxa=1/kxa + 1/(Kkya). In the first run with a flow rate of 110 SCFH

kmol H 2 O and when the flow rate was decreased to 80 SCFH

K x a= 252.4 3
m hr

kmol H 2 O
K x a=177.7 3 supporting the theory.
m hr
Q5:
The data with the higher flow rate had a higher percent recovery of 76.08 and the
lower flow rate had a percent recovery of 55.03%. The higher recovery is due to decrease in the
boundary layer thickness and the increase in overall liquid side mass transfer coefficient. The
lower flow rate had a lower mass transfer coefficient and a lower percent recovery.
Q6:

Henrys constant is a function of both vapor pressure and solubility and can determine
which component would result in a higher % recovery during the stripping process.
3 2
36.0 10 Pa kg m mol
H= .05808 =2.091
Acetone: kg
1.0 10 3 3
mol s2
m
3.75 103 Pa kg m2 mol
H= .09214 =645.85 2
Toluene: kg mol s
0.535 3
m
 15

Acetone has a higher vapor pressure than toluene but has a much higher solubility
making it harder to strip acetone from liquid than toluene. The lower solubility of toluene
explains why the recovery is much higher than acetone. The % recovery for toluene calculates
as 97.36% and is higher than the % recovery of acetone because Henrys constant of toluene is
larger than that of acetone.

Conclusion:
From a packed column, a liquid mixture had undergone air stripping to remove volatile
acetone. Utilizing air flow rates at 110 SCFH and 80 SCFH between two trials, the experiment
hoped to find which variables contribute to stripping and whether contact time or mass flow rate
rise with mass transfer.
According to Graph 1, the variable of time is not very influential to the mass transfer.
Between Trials 1 and 2 respectively, even though there is a significant difference between the
beginning absorption values (0.496 A vs. 0.268 A), after 10 minutes, an almost identical steady
state is reached (0.132 A vs. 0.119 A), converging even more after 20 minutes (0.120 A vs.
0.119 A). One has to wonder if the existence of only 3 data points per trial is affecting the
accuracy of the graph however, particularly before the 10 minute mark.
Regarding mass flow rate, it appears as if mass transfer increases alongside this value.
This is evident by the calculations, showing that the mass transfer coefficient, K xa, is

kmol H 2 O kmol H 2 O
252.4 3 for 110 SCFH in Trial 1 and 177.7 for 80 SCFH in Trial 2.
m hr m3 hr
Even due to the large process error outlined in Appendix E, one would think that the end relation
would remain proportional, due to the former coefficient essentially doubling the latter; it would
be unlikely to think that present error would be so large as to gain that much magnitude.
Another important observation to make note of is the directly proportional nature
between air flow rate and percent recovery, where Trial 1 boasts a recovery of 76.08 and
Trial 2 of 55.03%. Due to the recovery being with regard to the acetone being transferred into
the air, a higher air flow rate is shown to be much more beneficial to the stripping process.

Appendices:
Graph 1:
 16

Appendix A:

Calibration Curve for Rotameter

Appendix B:
Calibration Curve for Acetone Concentration
 17

Appendix C:
Data: vapor pressures and solubilities at 24oC.

Component vapor pressure (Pa) solubility (kg/m3 )

Acetone 36.0xl03 1.0xl03

Toluene 3.75xl03 0.535

Appendix D:
Data: Trial 1 Machine Statistics
RUN #1 Liquid Air
Flow Rate 6 110 SCFH
Pressure 6.1psig
Temperature 19 C 19 C

Appendix E:
Data: Trial 2 Machine Statistics*
RUN #2 Liquid Air
Flow Rate 6 80 SCFH
 18
Pressure 3.1 psig
Temperature 19.5 C 19.5 C
*The machine providing a flow of air broke, then was fixed by the TA at around t=5:30; liquid flow rate is not exact due to faulty equipment.

Appendix F:
Data: UV Spectrophotometer Analysis
Time, min Trial 1 Absorbance (265 nm) Trial 2 Absorbance (265 nm)
0 (feed) 0.496 A 0.268 A
10 0.132 A 0.119 A
20 0.119 A 0.120 A
Appendix G:
Data: Flooding Statistics
Flooding Liquid Air
Flow Rate 6 130 SCFH
Pressure 9.4 psig
Temperature 19.5 C 19.5 C