1

From: CHEE 4361 Group A / Thursday

Date: 10/13/2020

Subject: Lab Report on Gas Lift and Oxygen Absorption

To: Dr. Patrick C. Cirino

Dept. of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204

Dear Dr. Cirino,

Enclosed is group A’s lab report for the laboratory experiment investigating the transfer of
oxygen between two mediums of liquid and gas. The experiment can be summarized as follows:

This lab’s purpose is to study O2’s transport phenomenon between two phases of liquid and
gas. The concentration of O2 is recorded with different temperatures and flow rates of air and
nitrogen passing through water, respectively to study O 2 absorbing and stripping rates. The
recorded data will be used to construct a concentration vs. time plot. From a curve fit of the plot,
mass transfer coefficient constants will be derived.

Herein we provided a brief description of how the experiment set up and the operating conditions.
After that, we addressed the method we used to determine the liquid mass transfer coefficient
experimentally. Also, a list of the step by step equations is provided under Appendix B showing
how to find the same value but in a theoretical way. We found out that the experimental result and
the theoretical result are quite different because the information that we used to determine both
results were different. Tables and figures are listed in Appendix A were used to support our results
and discussion. We examined how changing the operating condition affected the results in the
discussion part. Then, in the conclusion, we gave a summary of the knowledge that we acquired
for doing this experiment such as the equilibrium concentration of oxygen decreased as we were
using a higher temperature of water to operate the system. We can clearly see how the saturation
point of oxygen in water (the maximum point) got affected when the temperature of water
increased in Figure 1.
 2

9
8
7
O2 Concentration (ppm)

6
5
4
25C
3 30C
37C
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300

Time (s)
Figure 1: O2 absorption into water at different temperatures using 50% of the maximum flow rate.

Even though most of our team members did not have the chance to actually run the lab because of
COVID-19, but by working on the report together, we can still have a full understanding of the
goal for this experiment. However, it will be better if we can put our hands-on a real-life
experiment and collect our own raw data. So far, each team member contributed evenly towards
completing pre-lab research, data analysis, presentation of the results, report writing and
proofreading on this lab report. Our team has four members and Jing has the supporting role every
week. She has divided her work fairly with the Safety Lead for this week, Uyen Trinh.

Sincerely,

JingWangReed
Jing Wang-Reed – Secretary/Safety Lead

UyenTrinh
Uyen Trinh – Secretary/Safety Lead

DungNguyen
Dung Nguyen – Team Leader

HuongPhan
Huong Phan –Technical Lead

Enclosure: O2 Short Lab – Lab Report

 3

Table of Contents
Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Description of Experiment and Methods ...................................................................................... 4
Results............................................................................................................................................. 5
Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A. Tables and Figures ................................................................................................... 8
Appendix B. Calculations ............................................................................................................ 23
Appendix C. References ............................................................................................................... 25
 4

Objective

This experiment will show how temperature and flow rates of gas affect the absorption and
desorption rate of O2. Mass transfer coefficients are derived from the plot of O 2 concentration vs.
time after an approximately linear fit. The experiment will be run with three settings of
temperature, each temperature with three flow rates, to conclude mass transfer coefficients’
relationships with the physical conditions and Henry’s Law constants.

Description of Experiment and Methods

Due to the COVID -19, face masks or shields must always be worn along with long pants, safety
glasses, gloves, closed-toe shoes, and laboratory coats to protect against potential laboratory
hazards throughout the experiment. The experiment consisted of two columns that were connected
at the base and top by two short tubes. The left column contained a gas sparger, a heating coil, 2
probes from a thermocouple that was installed next to it, and an oxygen sensor that connected to a
dissolved oxygen analyzer. On the right column, there was a sonic flow meter to capture the flow
rate of liquid inside the non-sparging column. Both columns were filled with deionized water.
Other instruments that were needed for this experiment included a pressure gauge, a gas rotameter
with a maximum flow rate of 1.82 SCFM (Standard Cubic Feet per Minute), a flow rate controller,
a compressed air supply, a compressed nitrogen cylinder, and a water heater pump. Figure 2 in
Appendix A is showing how the experiment should be set up.

Base on the data that we got provided, the experiment was carried out on 3 different temperatures
of water (25oC, 30oC, and 37oC) using 50% of the maximum flow rate, and 3 different gas flow
rates (25%, 50%, and 75% of the maximum flow rate) at 30oC. The temperature of the water can
be controlled by an adjustable voltage regulator. The experiment should be done from the lowest
temperature to the highest temperature order. Because it will take a long time to reduce the bulk
water temperature, we should adjust the heater control gradually to ensure no overshoot occurs.
The gas flow rate was controlled by the gas controller and can be read off on the gas rotameter
which was connected directly to the gas sparging system. For the absorption process, the air was
sparged into the left column until reaching saturation point (constant reading), and for the stripping
process, nitrogen was sparged into the same column until the analyzer read zero for the dissolved
oxygen in the water.

The mass transfer coefficients and the rates of oxygenation and deoxygenation can be determined
by analyzing the data on the oxygen concentration for every 10-15 seconds interval. Different
water temperatures and different gas flow rates were used to experience how those numbers got
affected. The given data also provided the liquid flow rate for each temperature settings. We
assumed that the liquid flow rate offsets – around ± 0.6 ft3/min – were negligible compared to the
average flow rate to determine the theoretical mass transfer coefficient.
 5

Results

Define A as oxygen.
Henry’s law constant, HA , is a function of temperature, Table 3. in Appendix A shows the Henry
constant that found using Equation 1 with the 3 given temperatures.

1 1
HA = HA o exp [1500 (T − 298.15)] Equation 1 3
HA o = 0.0013 (molkg −1bar −1 )

The saturated concentration of oxygen can be found base on its partial pressure, PA , and Henry
constant.5

CA ∗ = PA HA Equation 2

Our goal is to determine the overall liquid mass transfer coefficient K L or K L a. So, we only need
to focus on the flux in the liquid system, NA, which is:

NA = K L (CA ∗ − CA ) Equation 3

Convert Equation 3 into a transfer rate by multiplying NA with the cross-sectional area, Ai , we got:

A d(CA V)
NA Ai = [K L ( i)] V(CA ∗ − CA ) = K L a ⋅ V ⋅ (CA ∗ − CA ) = Equation 4
V dt
Ai
a= ; specific exchange surface
V

We assumed the liquid volume is constant to factor the V out and cancel it.

d(CA )
K L a ⋅ V ⋅ (CA ∗ − CA ) = V Equation 5
dt

We used the separation of variables method to solve Equation 5 using this boundary condition:

t = 0, CA ∗ = CA

C −dCA t
∫C A (CA ∗ −CA)
= −K L a ∫0 dt
Ao

CA∗ −CAo
ln ( ) = K L at Equation 6
CA∗ −CA
 6

C ∗ −C
We can see Equation 6 was in the linear form of y = mx + b, with y = ln ( CA ∗−CAo ) , x = t and
A A
m = KLa, which is the slope of the linear line. To construct this graph, we need the raw data of
oxygen concentration (CAo and CA ) carried out in different temperatures and different flow rates
as shown in Table 1. and Table 2. in Appendix A. The data of oxygen concentration was collected
every 15 seconds. The raw data was plotted to see how the oxygen concentration in the water got
affected by changing those conditions, see Figure 1. and Figure 3. After we found the CA ∗ bases
on Equation 2 combined with the information on Table 3. in Appendix A, we were able to construct
C ∗ −C
the ln ( CA ∗ −CAo ) data as showed in Table 4 and Table 5. in Appendix A and plotted it vs time. The
A A
CA ∗ −CAo
plots of ln ( C ∗ ) vs time are showing in Figures 6 and 7. The slopes of the linear trendlines
A −CA
that added in Figures 8 to 19 are equal to the liquid mass transfer coefficient, KLa, of each
temperature and flow rate that used to run the experiment. All the experimental K La that we found
for the absorbing and stripping process are listed on Table 6. in Appendix A.

The theoretical mass transfer coefficient, kLa, was calculated based on the literature with a
correlation for the gas holdup in bubble columns. The appropriate diffusivity and
kinematic viscosity of water value for the different temperatures were estimated from the
correlation developed by Wilke and Change (Equation 8) and the engineering toolbox website.6
With the values of diffusivity and kinematic viscosity in Table 8, the dimensionless numbers
including Sherwood, Schmidt, and Reynold numbers were calculated by Equation 9, 10 and 11.
According to the literature, the mean bubble diameter was independent of gas flow rate, therefore
the mass transfer coefficient was determined from Equation 7 in Appendix B with assuming 0.25
inches bubble diameter.1 The theoretical mass transfer coefficient at 25oC was 0.0107 sec-1 for 25%
maximum flow rate. At 30oC, the theoretical mass transfer coefficients were 0.006 sec-1, 0.0118
sec-1, 0.0175 sec-1 for 25%, 50%, 75% of the flow rate respectively. Finally, the theoretical
mass transfer coefficient at 37oC was 0.0131 sec-1, see Table 9. Appendix A shows more details
about calculations.

Discussion

Equilibrium concentration of oxygen in water depends largely on the Henry constant. From
literature, Henry constant is inversely proportional to temperature as shown in Equation 1. This
demonstrates that less oxygen is absorbed when the temperature increases. Theoretically, the
calculated equilibrium concentration of oxygen of 25oC, 30oC and 37oC are 10.52 ppm, 9.68 ppm
and 8.66 ppm using Equation 2. However, the respective experiment data are 8 ppm, 7.4 ppm, 6.6
ppm, all deviating from the theoretical concentration by around 2 ppm. Although the error is
significant, it is also consistent for all three temperatures. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that
STP conditions, which are used to calculate the Henry constant using Equation 1, are not the
conditions that the lab was in. For both sets of data, Henry’s law holds true in general.
 7

Experimentally and theoretically, it shows that as flow rates of air increases, oxygen is absorbed
faster, though as a matter of fact as time goes by, they all converge to the same saturation
concentration as Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate. The absorption capacity is shown clearly in the first
150 seconds, shown in Figure 4. For the stripping process, the same phenomena are observed: as
flow rate of nitrogen increases, the oxygen is stripped away faster, especially during the first 125
seconds, shown in Figure 5. The same positive relationship can be stated for rates vs temperature
as well, though not as significant.

The rate of oxygen absorption and stripping relates to time by the volumetric mass transfer
coefficient, KLa. Compared to the calculated KLa from literature, the error between the theoretical
and experimental rate of absorption of the 25% maximum flow rate is significant, yet the same
cannot be said of the 50% and 75% maximum flow rates. In particular, equation 14 states that
decreasing flow rate, in turn, decreases the superficial velocity, consequently, leads to a certain
drop in KLa. This was proven true by the experiment, though the drop in KLa was overestimated
by the theoretical calculations, thus the error.

Conclusions

The experiment validates the relationship between the gas flow rates and temperature vs
concentration. As temperature increases, the rate of absorption and desorption increases. Agreeing
to Henry’s laws, the equilibrium concentration of oxygen decreases as temperature increases. As
for gas flow rates, the bigger it is, the faster absorption and desorption occurs and vice versa. This
is shown through KLa. Although the calculated KLa and experimental KLa differ, they both confirm
the thesis.
 8

Appendix A. Tables and Figures

Table 1. Raw data of oxygen concentration using the different temperatures of water to operate the system.

O2 Concentration - 50% maximum flow rate

Time
25oC 30oC 37oC
(s) Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping
0 0 8 0 7.4 0 6.6
15 0 8 0 7.4 0 6.6
30 0.24 7.6 0.29 7.2 0.39 6.2
45 1.95 6.1 1.87 5.7 1.89 4.9
60 3.93 4.4 3.59 4.1 3.56 3.54
75 5.3 2.96 5 2.87 4.6 2.25
90 6.2 1.97 5.8 1.86 5.4 1.53
105 6.8 1.2 6.4 1.21 5.8 0.98
120 7.2 0.72 6.7 0.76 6.2 0.62
135 7.5 0.38 7 0.43 6.3 0.35
150 7.7 0.15 7.1 0.2 6.5 0.19
165 7.8 0 7.2 0.06 6.5 0.07
180 7.9 0 7.3 0 6.6 0
195 7.9 0 7.3 0 6.6 0
210 7.9 0 7.3 0 6.6 0
225 7.9 0 7.3 0 6.6 0
240 7.9 0 7.3 0 6.6 0
255 8 0 7.4 0 6.6 0
270 8 0 7.4 0 6.6 0
285 8 0 7.4 0 6.6 0
300 8 0 7.4 0 6.6 0
 9

Table 2. Raw data of oxygen concentration on the different percentage of maximum flow rate, which is 1.82 SCFM.

O2 Concentration at 30oC
25% 50%
75%
Time(s) Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping
0 0 7.4 0 7.4 0 7.4
15 0 7.4 0 7.4 0 7.4
30 0.09 7.2 0.29 7.2 0.35 7
45 1.31 6.2 1.87 5.7 2.3 5.3
60 2.75 4.8 3.59 4.1 4.3 3.51
75 3.96 3.73 5 2.87 5.5 2.08
90 5 2.68 5.8 1.86 6.3 1.22
105 5.7 1.89 6.4 1.21 6.8 0.67
120 6.1 1.34 6.7 0.76 7 0.31
135 6.5 0.93 7 0.43 7.2 0.09
150 6.7 0.62 7.1 0.2 7.3 0
165 6.9 0.4 7.2 0.06 7.3 0
180 7 0.24 7.3 0 7.3 0
195 7.1 0.12 7.3 0 7.3 0
210 7.2 0.04 7.3 0 7.3 0
225 7.2 0 7.3 0 7.3 0
240 7.3 0 7.3 0 7.4 0
255 7.3 0 7.4 0 7.4 0
270 7.3 0 7.4 0 7.4 0
285 7.4 0 7.4 0 7.4 0
300 7.4 0 7.4 0 7.4 0

Table 3. Information that used to calculate the equilibrium concentration of oxygen base on Henry’s Law and O2 partial pressure

Pressure, C to Henry CA*(ppm

17.696 Temperature
P, (psi) Kelvin Constant = mg/L)
O2 in air
0.21 25oC 298.15 0.00130 10.519
(yA)
MW of A
32 30oC 303.15 0.00120 9.682
(g/mol)
PA= yA* P 3.72 37oC 310.15 0.00107 8.659
(psi)
 10

Table 4. Data plotted to determine the experimental KLa for different temperatures bases on the estimate linear slope of the
graph

Ln (CA*-CAo/CA*-CA)
o
Time 25 C 30oC 37oC
(s) Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0.023 -0.147 0.030 -0.084 0.046 -0.178
45 0.205 -0.562 0.215 -0.557 0.246 -0.602
60 0.468 -0.887 0.463 -0.895 0.530 -0.911
75 0.701 -1.099 0.727 -1.094 0.758 -1.136
90 0.890 -1.222 0.914 -1.232 0.977 -1.242
105 1.040 -1.308 1.082 -1.312 1.108 -1.316
120 1.153 -1.358 1.178 -1.364 1.259 -1.362
135 1.248 -1.392 1.284 -1.400 1.300 -1.395
150 1.317 -1.415 1.322 -1.424 1.389 -1.414
165 1.353 -1.429 1.361 -1.439 1.389 -1.428
180 1.390 -1.429 1.402 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
195 1.390 -1.429 1.402 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
210 1.390 -1.429 1.402 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
225 1.390 -1.429 1.402 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
240 1.390 -1.429 1.402 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
255 1.429 -1.429 1.445 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
270 1.429 -1.429 1.445 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
285 1.429 -1.429 1.445 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
300 1.429 -1.429 1.445 -1.445 1.436 -1.436
 11

Table 5. Data plotted to determine the experimental KLa for different flow rates bases on the estimate linear slope of the graph

Ln (CA*-CAo/CA*-CA)
Time 25% 50% 75%
(s) Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping Absorbing Stripping
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 0.009 -0.084 0.030 -0.084 0.037 -0.162
45 0.145 -0.423 0.215 -0.557 0.271 -0.653
60 0.334 -0.761 0.463 -0.895 0.587 -0.995
75 0.526 -0.959 0.727 -1.094 0.840 -1.203
90 0.727 -1.121 0.914 -1.232 1.052 -1.311
105 0.889 -1.228 1.082 -1.312 1.212 -1.374
120 0.994 -1.296 1.178 -1.364 1.284 -1.413
135 1.113 -1.344 1.284 -1.400 1.361 -1.436
150 1.178 -1.379 1.322 -1.424 1.402 -1.445
165 1.247 -1.403 1.361 -1.439 1.402 -1.445
180 1.284 -1.420 1.402 -1.445 1.402 -1.445
195 1.322 -1.433 1.402 -1.445 1.402 -1.445
210 1.361 -1.441 1.402 -1.445 1.402 -1.445
225 1.361 -1.445 1.402 -1.445 1.402 -1.445
240 1.402 -1.445 1.402 -1.445 1.445 -1.445
255 1.402 -1.445 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445
270 1.402 -1.445 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445
285 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445
300 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445 1.445 -1.445

Table 6. Slope of the linear trendlines provided the KLa values

Experimental KLa (s-1)

T, flow rate Absorbing Stripping
25oC, 25% 0.0121 -0.0179
30oC, 25% 0.0110 -0.0174
o
30 C, 50% 0.0124 -0.0189
o
30 C, 75% 0.0130 -0.0190
o
37 C, 50% 0.0125 -0.0178
 12

Table 7. Assume the offset of the liquid flow rate is negligible, and the average liquid flow rate can be used.

Average liquid flow rate

Gas Flow (ft3/min)
Temperature
Rate
O2 Absorption O2 Stripping
25 50% 1.977 1.997
25% 1.573 1.710
30 50% 1.688 1.690
75% 2.706 2.661
37 50% 1.577 2.268

Table 8. Appropriate kinematic viscosity of water and diffusivity at different temperatures were estimated from the Engineering
Toolbox website.

Temperature
Kinematic Viscosity, v (ft2/hr) * Diffusivity, D (ft2 /hr)
(K)
298.15 0.034553 0.000094
303.15 0.029776 0.000107
310.15 0.027004 0.000126

Table 9. Theoretical mass transfer coefficients from the calibrated flow rates.

Gas Flow Rate SCFM Gas Flow Rate

T (C) kLa (s-1)
(1.82) (CFM)
25 50% 0.3941 0.0107
30 25% 0.2004 0.0060
30 50% 0.4007 0.0118
30 75% 0.6011 0.0175
37 50% 0.4100 0.0131
 13

Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram of gas lift and O2 absorption experiment.

9
8
7
O2 Concentration (ppm)

6
25C
5
30C
4
3 37C

2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)
Figure 3. O2 stripping from water at different temperatures using 50% of the maximum flow rate.
 14

8
7
O2 Concentration (ppm)

6
5
4 25%
50%
3
75%
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)
Figure 4. O2 absorption into water at 30oC using different flow rates.

8
7
O2 Concentration (ppm)

6
5
4 25%
3 50%
75%
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)
Figure 5. O2 stripping from water at 30oC using different flow rates.
 15

1.6

1.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8 25%
50%
0.6
75%
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)

Figure 6. A summary of analyzed absorbed O2 concentration in water in the absorption process.

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6
25%
-0.8 50%
75%
-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)
Figure 7. A summary of analyzed absorbed O2 concentration in water in the stripping process.
 16

1.6

1.4
y = 0.0121x - 0.2807
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)

Figure 8. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 25oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2
ln((CA*-CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8 y = -0.0179x + 0.2908

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 9. The stripping rate of O2 from water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 25oC.
 17

1.6

1.4 y = 0.0124x - 0.287

ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Time (s)

Figure 10. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6
y = -0.0189x + 0.3609
-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 11. The stripping rate of O2 from water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.
 18

1.6

1.4 y = 0.0125x - 0.2564

ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (s)

Figure 12. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 37oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6

-0.8
y = -0.0178x + 0.2514
-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 13. The stripping rate of O2 from water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 37oC.
 19

1.6

1.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2
y = 0.011x - 0.3136
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (s)

Figure 14. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 25% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6

-0.8 y = -0.0174x + 0.3748

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 15. The stripping rate of O2 from water using 25% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.
 20

1.6

1.4 y = 0.0124x - 0.287

ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (s)

Figure 16. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6
y = -0.0189x + 0.3609
-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 17. The stripping rate of O2 into water using 50% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.
 21

1.6
y = 0.013x - 0.2447
1.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (s)

Figure 18. The absorption rate of O2 into water using 75% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.2

-0.4
ln((CA*−CA0)/(CA*−CA))

-0.6

-0.8 y = -0.019x + 0.275

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6
Time (s)

Figure 19. The stripping rate of O2 from water using 75% of maximum flow rate at 30oC.
 22

0.14
25%
50%
0.12
75%
y = -0.011x + 0.1065 Linear (25%)
Mass trasnfer rate (s-1)

0.10

y = -0.0124x + 0.1201 Linear (50%)

0.08
y = -0.013x + 0.1259 Linear (75%)

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Oxygen Concentration (ppm)

Figure 20. Overall mass transfer coefficients of O2 absorption at 30oC.

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.02

-0.04
Mass trasnfer rate (s-1)

-0.06

-0.08 25%

-0.10 50%

-0.12 75%

y = 0.0174x - 0.1685 Linear (25%)

-0.14

y = 0.0189x - 0.183 Linear (50%)

-0.16
y = 0.019x - 0.184 Linear (75%)
-0.18

-0.20
Oxygen Concentration (ppm)

Figure 21. Overall mass transfer coefficients of O2 stripping at 30oC.

 23

Appendix B. Calculations

1. Determine theoretical mass transfer coefficient values, kL, based on the correlation for gas
holdup in the bubble columns.1
• The unit of kL is ft.hr-1
• Dp is denoted as the bubble diameter in the unit of ft
𝔇∗Nsh
kL = Equation 7
Dp

2. Determine the oxygen diffusion coefficient in water, 𝔇, based on the correlation developed
by Wilke and Change equation.8
• The unit of diffusivity is cm2.sec-1
• Absolute temperature, T, unit is K
• An association factor for the solvent water, ϕH2O , is 2.6.4
• Molecular weight of water, MH2O, unit is g.mol-1
• The dynamic viscosity of water, μH2O , unit is centipoises
• The molar volume of oxygen, VO2 , is 25.6 cm3.g-1.mol-1.7

1
7.4∗10−8∗T∗(ϕH2 O MH2 O)2
𝔇= Equation 8
μH2 OV0.6
O 2

3. Determine the Sherwood number, NSh, for bubble swarm in bubble columns
• For bubble swarms, a = 0.0187 and b = 1.61
• The gravitational force, g, unit is ft.hr-2
1 0.072 b
Dpg3
NSh = 2 + a [(NRe )0.484 (NSc )0.339 ( 2 ) ] Equation 9
𝔇3

4. Determine the Schmidt number, NSc

• Kinematic viscosity, ν, unit is ft2.hr-1 or ft2.sec-1
ν
NSc = Equation 10
𝔇

5. Determine the Reynolds number, NRe

• The slip velocity, Us , unit is ft.sec-1

Dp U s
NRe = Equation 11
ν

VSG VSL
Us = h′
− (1−h ′) Equation 12
 24

6. Determine the fractional holdup of gas at zero liquid flow, h

• VSG is considered as the superficial velocity for the gas and the VSL is considered
as the superficial velocity for the liquid.
• The unit of VSG and VSL is ft.sec-1
• h’ is the fractional holdup of gas, which is assumed to calculate the value of h.
The guess value h’ will be accepted until the calculated value of h can return the
correct value for VSG based on the Figure 22, describing the correlation for air -
liquid data.
VSG
h = VSG VSL Equation 13
−
h′ (1−h′ )

Figure 22: Gas holdup correlation.

7. Determine the superficial velocity, V s

• The unit of superficial velocity, V s is ft.sec-1
• F is denoted as the fluid volumetric flow rate in the unit of ft3.sec-1
• Ac is denoted as the column area in the unit of ft2
F
Vs = A Equation 14
c

8. Determine the specific exchange surface, a, based on the correlation for gas holdup in the
bubble columns.
• The unit of specific exchange surface is ft-1
6h
a= D Equation 15
p
 25

Appendix C. References
[1] Hughmark, G. (1967). Holdup and Mass Transfer in Bubble Columns. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, 6 (2), 218-220. doi:
10.1021/i260022a011
[2] Mosedale, Andrew. Instrumentation Note: The Surprisingly Confusing World of Rotameters.
University of Houston, Blackboard 
[3] NIST Chemistry WebBook, Oxygen. Accessed 20 Sep 2020. From
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgiID=C7782447&Mask=10#Solubility
[4] Reid, R.C., J.M. Praunsnitz, and T.K. Sherwood. 1977. The Properties of Gases and Liquids,
Third Edition. McGraw-Hill. NY. p. 578. 
[5] Seader, J. D.; Henley, E. J.; Roper, D. K. Separation Process Principles _ Chemical and
Biochemical Operations; Third Edition -John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[6] Water – Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity. The
Engineering ToolBox. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-
viscosity-d_596.html?vA=25&units=C# (accessed 7 October 2020)
[7] Weast, R.C. (ed.) 1969. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 50th Edition. p F-36.
[8] Wilke, C.R., and P. Chang. 1955. A.E.CH.E. Journal 1: 264-270.