Chemical Engineering Science, 197 1,Vol. 26, pp. 647-668. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain.

Mass transfer with chemical reaction from spherical one or two

component bubbles or drops

ELI RUCKENSTEIN, VI-DUONG DANG and WILLIAM N. GILL

Chemical Engineering Department, Clarkson College of Technology, Potsdam, N.Y. 13676, U.S.A.

(Received 3 August 1970)

Abstract-Unsteady state mass transfer between a one or two component bubble (or drop) and the
continuous phase with a chemical reaction occurring either in the continuous or in the dispersed phase
is examined. The main assumption for binary bubbles is that the rate determining step is diffusion in the
continuous phase. Two limiting velocity fields, Hadamard flow (Re + 1) and potential flow (Re s I)
are used in the calculations.
For the single component bubble the solution obtained previously by Ruckenstein for mass transfer
without chemical reaction is generalized to include chemical reaction by using Danckwerts’ trans-
formation and the Duhamel theorem and relatively simple analytical expressions are deduced for
transient and steady state average Sherwood numbers. For binary bubbles the concentration of the
continuous phase depends on the dispersed phase concentration which is a function of time. Con-
sequently the same procedure used for the single component case, together with a material balance on
the bubble, generates an integral equation which is solved by an iterative technique for the concentra-
tion inside the bubble.
To determine the accuracy of simplified models of the type suggested by Higbie an extended pene-
tration model is proposed and used for the situation in which a chemical reaction occurs in the con-
tinuous phase. The results of the simplified model are compared with the exact solutions for one and
two component systems, and the range of parameters for which it is accurate is determined.
The accuracy of the quasi-steady state assumption, based on the steady state equations for the
mass transfer coefficient and on an unsteady mass balance for the bubble, is also examined and it is
shown that this assumption may introduce significant errors under certain conditions. Criteria giving
the conditions under which the quasi-steady state assumption may be used are established.

INTRODUCTION In the first, the rate determining step is mass

MASS TRANSFER to or from bubbles or drops
dispersed in a continuous phase is of practical
importance in a variety of industrial processes.
Therefore, as one would expect, numerous
studies related to such systems have been re-
ported. Because of its complexity, various
simplifying assumptions have been used to make
the problem tractable for mathematical analysis.
This is necessary even when a single bubble or
drop is considered. Published analyses primarily
relate to spherical, constant pressure, single
component bubbles without chemical reaction.
In contrast, the present work deals with both
one and two component unsteady state systems
with chemical reaction.
Previously, two limiting cases of steady state
mass transfer between a single component
spherical bubble (or drop) and the continuous
phase through which it moves have been studied.
647
transfer in the continuous phase and in the
second, the dispersed phase controls the rate.
Various approximations of the velocity field have
been used to study these mass transfer problems.
When the rate determining step is mass trans-
fer in the continuous phase, the following situa-
tions have been analyzed: Boussinesq[ 11
examined the case of Re S 1 by assuming
potential flow. Levich [ 15, p. 801 and Friedlander
[4,5] studied the case of Pe % 1 and Re + 1
with the Stokes flow approximation. By using
Hadamard’s velocity profile (Re < 1) Levich
[ 15, p. 4041 examined the case Pe 8=-1. Griffith
[7] considered Pe s 1 and used both the Stokes
and Hadamard velocity profiles. He also has
treated the case of large Reynolds numbers.
Lochiel and Calderbank [ 171 obtained theoretical
equations for flow around any solid or rapidly
circulating axisymmetric bodies of revolution.
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D.
In the presence of capillary active substances
the interface between the continuous phase and
the bubble may behave as a solid because the
tangential velocity component becomes zero
there. In pure systems (without capillary active
substances) the tangential velocity component
differs from zero at the interface. Considering
this, Ruckenstein[l9] established equations for
the mass transfer coefficient in the continuous
phase in which the velocity at the interface
appears as a parameter, both for small and large
Reynolds numbers.
When the rate of mass transfer is governed by
the dispersed phase, different flow patterns also
have been assumed to apply inside the bubbles
or drops. An equation obtained by Newman[ 181
neglects convection inside the bubble completely.
Kronig and Brink [ 141 have taken into account
the circulation inside the drop for small Reynolds
number, but large Peclet number, by using
Hadamard’s velocity field. Handlos and Baron
[9] proposed a turbulent flow pattern inside the
drop by superimposing an assumed random radial
motion, caused by internal vibration, on the
internal circulation. Johns and Beckman[l l]
have obtained numerical solutions using the
Hadamard stream function.
Recently the unsteady situation was examined
by Ruckenstein[21] for the continuous and dis-
persed phases for Hadamard flow and potential
flow both for single and two component drops.
However, the analysis for two component
bubbles was developed for very short times.
Dang, Ruckenstein and Gi11[2] have examined
the unsteady mass transfer for binary bubbles by
assuming that the rate determining step is in the
continuous phase.
Chemical reaction in the continuous phase
has been included in the following references:
Lightfoot [ 161 extended Higbie’s model [ lo] to
include chemical reaction in the continuous
phase. Gill [6], neglecting the effect of curvature
and assuming the flow field to be independent of
position and time, obtained an analytical solution
for the unsteady state problem with first order
irreversible chemical reaction.
Johnson and Akehata[l2] have studied
648
DANG and W. N. GlLL
numerically the steady state problem for both
Stokes and Hadamard velocity fields. Later
Johnson, Hamielec and Houghton[ 131 extended
the numerical computations of Johnson and
Akehata to larger Reynolds number and con-
sidered second order chemical reaction also.
Estrin and Schmidt [3] considered chemical
reactions of the first order outside the bubble by
using Higbie’s penetration model and they took
into account the time dependent concentration
of the dispersed phase.
The aims of the present paper are:
(1) To solve the unsteady state problem with
first order irreversible chemical reaction for a
single component spherical bubble.
(2) To study the unsteady mass transfer from
two component spherical bubbles or drops with
first order irreversible chemical reaction either in
the continuous or in the dispersed phase by
assuming that the continuous phase controls the
rate.
(3) To present an extended penetration model
and to compare it with the exact solutions.
(4) To examine the conditions under which the
quasi-steady state assumption may be used.
Problems (1) and (2) will be solved for two
limiting flow fields, small Reynolds number
(Hadamard flow) and potential flow (Re 9 1) by
combining the transient solution without
chemical reaction for a single component bubble
obtained in reference[21] with Duhamel’s
theorem. In problem (3) an Eulerian modification
of Higbie’s penetration theory is combined with
Duhamel’s theorem and the results are compared
with the more exact solutions under (I) and (2).
Finally the quasi-steady state assumption, which
is very useful for design purposes, is analyzed.
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
Consider a two component spherical bubble
moving in a liquid. It is assumed that the system
is isothermal; densities, viscosities and diffusivi-
ties are constant: the shape of the bubble or drop
always remains spherical; the fluids are New-
tonian and the flow is axisymmetric; first order
irreversible chemical reaction occurs in the con-
tinuous phase and the heat of reaction is negli-
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

gible; the continuous phase is nonvolatile; boundary layer on the potential flow, has shown
thermodynamic equilibrium exists at the fluid that for sufficiently large Reynolds numbers the
-fluid interface. Consequently we can write the contribution of the boundary layer to the velocity
convective diffusion equation for the continuous field is negligibly small. Therefore for sufficiently
phase in the form: large Reynolds numbers, one may use the
potential flow distribution

=D a2c+z!E+ &$(sinO$$j]-kc. (1) ,Re % 1. (3)

[ a9 r ar
Since the Schmidt number is large for a liquid
phase the diffusion boundary layer is restricted to
the vicinity of the surface of the bubble and the
concentration, C, varies appreciably only inside
this thin layer. The region of interest is then with-
in y 4 a where y is the distance measured from
the surface of the bubble and a is the radius of the
bubble.
In contrast to fluid-solid interfaces, at fluid-
fluid interfaces the tangential velocity of the
continuous phase is not zero because internal
circulation occurs in the absence of contaminants.
For small Reynolds numbers, in systems free of
capillary active impurities, Hadamard’s expres-
sions for the velocity components[8] may be
used
Since the depth of penetration of the diffusing
component is very small, only the velocity field
in the vicinity of the bubble surface is of import-
ance for the diffusion process. Consequently,
one can approximate the velocity components by
those valid near the interface and replace the
term (v,/r)(aC/aO) by (v,/a)(aC/at?). Molecular
diffusion in the 6 direction also may be neglected.
By expanding the velocity components in terms
of y/a, and truncating the higher order terms, one
obtains
v~=2voYcos8
,Ree 1 (4)
vO= -v. sin 19
for slow flows, and

v,=3UYcos8
,Re+ 1 (5)
ve=-9Usin0

for high Reynolds number flows.

With these approximations, Eq. (1) is
v. = [(y-T)(;)-”

+(7-T)(:)-‘- U] sin0
For either single or binary component bubbles,
where the initial and boundary conditions are
IJL
vo=_zP+&. C(0, r, cl) = co (7)
C(r, m, 0) = Coe+ (8)
When the bubble is moving in the continuous C(t, 0,O) = c*(t) (9)
phase at very large Reynolds number, the effect
of the viscous force on the flow field is not very where it is assumed that the initial concentration
important. Levich [ 15, p. 4431, superposing a of the continuous phase is a constant, CO.
649
CES Vol. 26 No. 5 -F
 E. RUCKENSTEIN. V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

Because the thickness of the diffusion boundary ~(7, Y, 0) = ~(7, Y, B)epR7 (15)
layer is small, one can assume that the system is
semi-infinite. The bulk concentration is a de- where u is defined by
creasing function of time due to the effect of
chemical reaction as indicated in Eq. (8). Equa-
sin$$--2YcosO* (16)
tion (9) is a consequence of the assumption of aY
equilibrium at the interface; for single com-
ponent bubbles C” is constant but for binary u(0, Y, 0) = 00 (17)
bubbles it varies with time in an unknown U(T,~,@ =wg (18)
fashion. To determine C*(t) a material balance
u(7,0,0) = eRl. (19)
over the bubble is used. This is

4 ,dCd With this transformation, we have eliminated the

r,ac
3 dY I 21=0
chemical reaction term in Eq. (11) and intro-
-Tadt= I0
duced a time dependent interfacial boundary
%=ra2sin 6de -$a3klCd. (10) condition in Eq. (19). To solve these transformed
equations for u we introduce a new function, F,
I. First order chemical reaction in continuous which is related to u by the Duhamel theorem.
phase with single component bubbles or drops Therefore the interfacial boundary condition for
F can be considered to be constant by replacing
By introducing the following dimensionless
variables T with the constant parameter A. Consequently,
the system of equations which defines F is

w= c C* constant
C*’ $=g+Pei sint9%-2YcoseE aY (20)
( >

y=:=Y F(0, Y, 0) = o. (21)

F(T, ~0~0) = w,, (22)
7=- tD
a2 F(T, 0,19) = eRh. (23)
R _ ka2 R _ ka2 Equation (20) was solved previously for constant
D” D
boundary conditions similar to those of Eqs. (2 l),
Pe =1 -- Al.’ 2aU ,Pez=2D 3aU (22) and (23) by Ruckenstein[21] by means of
’ ~/A+-/.L’ D the similarity transformation,

we can rewrite Eqs. (6) (7), (8) and (9) in F(T, Y, 6) = F(q) (24)
dimensionless form as
where

sinfI$--2Ycos0s -Rw, Y
> ’ = 8(0, 7) (25)
i= 1,2 (11)
w(0, Y, 0) = 00 (12) and the solution is
w (7, co, 13)= ti0eeR7 (13)
F(r)) = w,+ (eRA-W,) erfc& (26)
W(T, 0, e) = 1. (14)
To solve this set of equations, first let where 6 is determined by
650
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

( .
>I1
1 - tan2 (O/2) e2Peir -- 1 1 - tan2 (o/2) ezPeiT3
Szsin4B=j$ costi-_Scos3H - (27)
zK > [ + tan2 ( f3/2)e2Pei7 3 1+ tan2 (e/2)e2Pe1’
1

With the F function known, we can write the solution for u immediately, by using the Duhamel
theorem, as
a 7
F(X, T-X, Y, B)dh. (28)
u=G Jo

Thus, from Eqs. (15), (26), (27) and (28), the solution of the original set of Eqs. (1 l), (12), (13) and
(14) can be obtained as

~(7, Y,e) = eeRr-$ [ [wo+(eRA-co,)

0

YSi sin2 8

HI
X erfc 3 ,,2 dh. (29)
2 [ c0se--fcos'8- I+ tan2
[ 1 -tan2 (O/2) e2pei(T-A)
(e/2)e2Pei(T-A)_i 3( 11 --an2
+ tan2 (e/2)e2Pei(T-A)
(O/2) e2Pei(T-A)

It will be shown that the mass transfer results obtained from this complicated solution can be
simplified markedly for small and large values of 7.
The local mass transfer rate is

sin2 f3dX
X (30)
)I1
l- tan2 (e/2)e2Pq(T-A) 1_-an2 (ep)e2PetfT-A) 3 l/2.
c0sB-+0s38--
I+ tan2 (e/2) ezpe+)-7 1 + tan2 (e/2) e2Pe@h)

and the average rate of mass transfer over the surface of the bubble or drop is
P

J 0
2rra2N0 sin Ode = &?ee-R%.t[ (eR"-_o)

X
s
0
77

c0se--~cus"e-
1_-an2 (e/2)
sin3 Bdt?dh
e2Pei(r_A)_l 1 --an2

1 + tan2 (O/2) e2Pei(T-A) 3 1 + tan2 (O/2) ezPei(T-*)

(e/2) e2Ped-A)

HI
3 l/2' (31)

If one defines the mass transfer coefficient of the liquid phase as

kL = c* _;,e” ’ (32)

then the Sherwood number can be calculated by means of the following equation

sin3 BdOdh

HI
X
I_ tan2 (e/2) e2Pei(7-A) 1 1--an!2 (e/2)e2Pei(T-A) 3 112
. (33)
--
c0se--fc0s3e-
1 + tan2 (e/2) e2PeicT-A) 3 1 + tan2 (e/2) ezPei(T-*)
651
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

After some algebraic manipulations, one gets

Sh,= ’
1 _ W0e_R7

sin3 Ode
X
cos+oss8-- 11 +
- tan2 (e/2) e2PW-- 3
1 11 +
- tan2 (e/2) e2PW l/2

(f9/2)e2P”i’ (O/2)ezPei7

+ReR’J: e~Rzdz~o~~cos~_~cos3R_[l-tan2 ($r~Z~~z_l(l-tan2 (~,2)e2pe~?“I)“‘](34’

3 1 + tan2 (O/2) ezPe@ 3 1 + tan2 (19/2)ezpeiz

Equation (34) can be integrated numerically. or

However, for the limiting conditions of small or
large times new analytical expressions may be ShL = l_;oe-R~E(2Eetig
obtained.
For T 4 0*_5/Pei, the integrals with respect to 8 +-%e-O~5R!Prj__&,,oe-Rr . (36)
may be replaced by 2/a[21], and Eq. (34) is >
approximated as
As R + 0, Eq. (36) reduces to Levich’s equation
e-Rr
[lS,p. 4081 -
ShL =
1 -woe-R7
Sh, = $==(-$--g)“‘~, Re * 1 (37)

and for large Re,

Sh,=k (38)

For T % 0*5/Pei, the integral with respect to 8 in Equations (35) and (36) are two of the new
the first term of Eq. (34) may be replaced by results obtained in the present study.
4/fi[21] and the double integral in the second
term may be split into two parts: for z < 0*5/Pei, II. First order chemical reaction in continuous
the integral with respect to 19will be replaced by and dispersed phase with binary bubbles or drops
2/e for z > 0*5/Pei, the value 4/ti will be The physical problem treated in this section is
used for the same integral. Equation (34) can similar to that in part I except a binary rather
then be approximated very well as than a single component bubble is considered. If
the rate is controlled by the continuous phase,
e-Rr the conditions for this will be discussed later, one
Sh, =
1-6~~e-~T can assume that the concentration of the diffusive
species is uniform throughout the dispersed
.5R/Peize-R~&
+ReRT - phase and is a function of time only.
(P 0 The governing equations for the concentration
distribution in the continuous phase are the same
+ Ae-R"dz
s O.BRIPq ti )I as Eqs. (1 I)-( 14) except, to reflect the time
dependence of the bubble concentration, Eq. ( 14)
652
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

is replaced by The dispersed phase concentration ~~(7) is

determined by a mass balance over the bubble
W(T, 0, 0) = 7QJd(7) (39, given
by

= 2na2 sin 0dO-$ra3k,o,

where H is the distribution coefficient and all the YO

dimensionless variables are defined as before (44)

except w = C/Cd,(C,, is the initial concentration
of the diffusive component of the dispersed which, after evaluating the concentration gradient
phase). and integrating with respect to time, leads to the
Again, we introduce the W-U transformation following integral equation

sin3 OdBdA
x
1 _ tan2 (e/2) eH+?i(~-M 1_ tan2 (o/2) eZPei(T-A)
cos l9---Icos3,- (45)
3 1+ tan2 (e/2) e2Pei(7-A) 1+ tan2 (o/2) ezPe@*) .

given in Eq. (15) and in this case u is defined by It is difficult to obtain a solution of this integral
Eqs. (16), (17) and (IS) together with equation in analytical form; therefore it will be
solved by numerical methods.
%(‘)
u(7,0,13) = He ,$7
. (40)
III. Extended penetration model, first order
chemical reactions in continuous phase with
As before, the U-F transformation given by single or binary component bubbles (or drops)
Eq. (28) is employed and F is defined by Eqs.
In a large number of papers the penetration
(20), (2 1), and (22) together with
theory has been used as a simplified model for
estimating the rate of mass transfer. It uses a
F(r, 0,19) = TeRA. (41) Lagrangian description of the process and
assumes that in each element of liquid flowing
along the bubble surface unsteady mass transfer
Therefore the solution for F is
takes place as if the element were a solid body.
We shall use in what follows a simplified Eulerian
F(T, Y, 0) = w,+ Wd(;eRh-~O description of the mass transfer process which
>
neglects radial convection and assumes that the
Y tangential velocity can be replaced by the velocity
Xerfc6(8,T) (42)
of the center of mass of the bubble. Our purpose
is to determine by comparison with the exact
and the concentration distribution of the con-
solution the accuracy of such simplified models.
tinuous phase is given by
Consequently the convective diffusion equation
for the continuous phase in which a single
Wd(A)e'*_
~(7, Y, 0) = epRT& H

0 component bubble is moving will be approxi-

mated by
Y
erfc 6(8, 7_ h) dh. (43) $$-+.%=,$-kc (46)
I
653
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

where x is the coordinate measured along the
surface of the bubble downward from the front
stagnation point. The initial and boundary con-
ditions are the same as Eqs. (7), (8) and (9)
except the 8 coordinate is replaced by the x
coordinate and the boundary condition at the
front stagnation point of the bubble, which is the
same as the condition at infinity in the continuous
phase, is
C(t, y, 0) = C,ehk’.
For x 3 Ut, if one uses the transformation
x,=x--t
Eq. (46) becomes
hand, at distances less than tU steady state con-
vection prevails. When t 2 2a/U Eq. (50) pre-
dicts that the entire system is at steady state.
Actually, as will be discussed later, real system
behavior departs from this simplified picture
because of the radial convective effect and be-
cause the tangential velocity depends on distance
from the forward stagnation point. However it
seems interesting to determine the accuracy of
this simpler viewpoint.
(47) The mass transfer rate can be obtained by
evaluating the gradient at the surface of the
bubble. This yields,
NILS.= C*D

For x d Ur, another transformation is used and moreover

tl = t-x/u

Eq. (46) is then

s Ut. (52)
dCax= D$-kc. t 3 x/U. (49)
The mass transfer coefficient is defined as

Solution of Eq. (48) and boundary conditions

1
(7), (8), (9) and solution of Eq. (49) and boundary kL =
2a(C* - COePkt)[I D“tN~.Jr+
1;; Ldr].
conditions (8), (9), (47) are well known and
these can be combined to give the complete exact
solution of Eq. (46) as
t G$ (53a)

,-t&E erfc ~-d&]+e~~erfc[*fi]+~e~kterf--J==},

c
-=- 1 ,-UGD erfc Y ES +e arvm erfc Y +h (50)
c* 2 1 [ 2-u- $1 U [ 2m 0 E

C Y ,t&
-t-oe-kt et-f
C* 2-u I U’

Equation (50) predicts that the region at a and moreover

distance greater than tU from the front stagna- 2a
tion point behaves as though the only transport 1
kL = N,.,.dx, t 2 $. (53b)
mechanism is molecular diffusion. On the other 2a (C* - COeakt) I 0

654
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

Consequently, the Sherwood number is and

shL=F= 1_ le_RT w(7, X, Y) = ewRTPe-$

WO
od (7 - X/Pe + A)eR(7-X’Pe)eRh
IviiEerfdiG+2(~erfGG+e-RI
vz >
1
Y
-2e -R’(l+Per) , t G$ X erfc dh for-r 2 E (56a)
(54) 2m
>
and
cod(T) has to be determined by taking a mass
Sh, = F = 1 _ ioe_, balance over the bubble as in Eq. (44) and this
leads to

1 dud _ -;
--- C-R'
3 dr
UPe wd (T _ l/pe + 1) eR(~-l/Pe+h)

where J( H
-00
>

aU (57)
Pe=E.

forPer > 1,and

When R + 0, Eqs. (54) and (55) reduce to

(54a)
---
1dWd_
3 dr
pe e-R~
-wo

and --&--$$l-Pe7)

ShL = UW (58)

These new results will be compared with the

for Pe T < 1. After some algebraic manipulation
exact analysis of part I; in this way the magnitude
and integration with respect to time, we finally
of the errors embodied in the extended penetra-
obtain the integral equation for the dispersed
tion theory model may be estimated.
phase concentration as:
For a binary component bubble, the initial and
boundary conditions are the same as Eqs. (7), (8),
(39) and (47). Consequently, we generalize the
solution given by Eq. (50) to satisfy Eqs. (39)
wd (7) = e-MT-l/f+) wd

(A >
and (47) by employing the Duhamel theorem.
i-R e-R(T-t)ud(t) dt
This yields the solutions for the two regions as
T

~(7, X, Y) = e-RT&
J[ (%@)eR”_o >
w +
0
H
0

1
erfc ~
; od(7r _~2)e-R(~--r'+D*)
dAforrcg (56) -woe-RT dpdr’ (59)
2m H >
655
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

forPer > 1 and

~~(7) = eVRT+R [ e-R’7-th(t) dt-$=[2Pe ffi

for Pe T 5 1. These two integral equations
then solved numerically to determine ~~(7).
DISCUSSION
Single component results
It seems that no solutions for unsteady state
mass transfer with chemical reaction between a
single or binary component bubble or drop and
the continuous phase exist. However, numerical
solutions for steady state mass transfer with
single component bubbles or drops are given by
Johnson and Akehata[l2] for Stokes and Hada-
mard flows and Johnson, Hamielec and Hough-
ton [ 131 for intermediate Reynolds numbers.
Therefore it is useful to compare, for Hadamard
flow, the asymptotic behavior of Eq. (34) for
large times with the steady state numerical
solution of reference [12]. The comparison is
made in Table 1 which shows that the differences
between the corresponding Sherwood numbers
are small. Consequently, one can conclude that
Table 1. Comparison of steady state Sherwood
and Re S 1 and the numerical results obtained
are no significant errors are introduced in the
average Sherwood number by using the velocity
distribution which is accurate only for the region
near the interface, and by neglecting the term
(2/t-)(X/h), which was included in the numeri-
cal computation of Johnson and Akehata[ 121.
Let us evaluate the time required for the steady
state to be achieved in the case of a single com-
ponent bubble (only in this case is the steady
state achieved in fact). An order of magnitude
estimate of this time can be obtained from the
intersection of the expressions for the Sherwood
numbers for large and small time, Eqs. (35) and
(36), and for simplicity consider the case w,, = 0.
This leads to the general conclusion that the
dimensionless time 7cs required for the steady
state to be achieved, times the dimensionless
rate constant R is a function of RIPei only. That
is
(61)
numbers from the two models for Re 4 I
by Johnson and Akehata[l2] with o0 = 0

ShL
Sh, (Hadamard flow) Sh, (Potential flow) (Extended ShL
Penetration (Johnson
2aU Model and
RD 0%. (55)) Akehata)
Eq. (34) Eq. (36) l% (34) Eq. (36)

I I03 20.65 2066 35.66 35.72 35.73 21.73

104 65.06 65.17 112.67 I l2S5 112.85 64.63
I05 205.69 206.02 356.75 356.83 356.83
IO” 650.42 65 I .47 1126.6 1128.4 1128.4 -
102 IO 20.03 20.00 - 22.02
102 20.22 19.97 - - - 22.2
103 27.02 26.33 39.53 39.08 40.26 28.27
104 67.02 67.03 113.92 113.93 114.34 66.02
105 206.38 206.61 356.65 357.17 357.30
10” 650.64 65166 1126.7 1128.5 1128.5 -
104 10s 200.33 200@0 200.44 199.99 202.8 202.22
104 202.34 199.72 215.04 208.79 225.2 204.45
105 270. I4 263.25 395.33 390.81 40260
106 672.27 670.27 1139.2 1139.3 1143.4

656
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

For small values of R/Pe* this relationship the Peclet number and in this case the range of
reduces to RIPe,is, 0 < RjPe, G 10. As in Fig. 1 we find
that Eqs. (62) and (63) provide useful estimates
t cs zzla2L ifR 4 1.
(62)
of the time required for steady state.
4 D Pei Pei It is desirable to have explicit analytical cor-
relations for the Sherwood number as are given
When RIPei is large the right hand side of Eq. by Eqs. (35) and (36). To determine the time
(61) becomes constant and the time required for range in which these expressions are accurate,
the steady state to be achieved is inversely some comparisons are made with the exact
proportional to k, solutions obtained numerically in Figs. 3 and 4.
Clearly, Eq. (35) agrees very well with the exact
2 constant results at small values of r, and Eq. (36) is an
t C8 if$s 1. (63)
k z excellent approximation of the exact steady state
values. Additional data comparing Eq. (36) with
Figure 1 gives the numerical solution of Eq. exact values are given in Table 1.
(34) and illustrates the case of a small value of Figures 1 and 2 also present a comparison
the Peclet number, Pe, = 50, and 0 G R/Pe, G between the exact results of Eq. (34) and the
200. It is seen that the time required for the extended penetration theory (EPT) Eqs. (54)

IO” I I ! I I 1 I
- Exact Analysis Pe,=50

Extended Penetration Model

Fig. I. Sh, vs. time. Comparison between the exact analysis and the extended
penetration model for single component bubbles, or drops (Pe, = 50). Results for
both models for R = 103, I O4 are essentially indistinguishable.

steady state decreases rapidly as the rate of
reaction increases. This is in accord with the
criteria discussed above. If one were to define
the steady state time as the time required for the
Sherwood number to be within 5 per cent of its
steady state value, then for RIPe, %- 1, the
constant in Eq. (63) can be chosen to be approxi-
mately unity.
Figure 2 gives the results for a large value of
657
and (55). EPT is seen to be an excellent approxi-
mation for all values of r for both Hadamard and
potential flow providing R is sufficiently large,
say RIPei & 5. For smaller values of RIPe, the
agreement depends on the type of flow and the
value of r under consideration.
For potential flow Eqs. (38) and (55a) show
that the exact and EPT steady state results are
identical in the limit of R/Pe -+ 0. A simple cal-
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

IO' I

- Exact Analysis

I -.- Extended Penetrotion Model 1 WO’O I

Fig. 2. ShL vs. time. Comparison between the exact analysis and the
extended penetration model for single component bubbles or drops
(Pe, = 105). Results for both models for R = lo6 are essentially
indistinguishable.

culation further shows that Eqs. (36) and (55)
also are identical as R/Pe + ~0 and both reduce
to
ShL = 2fi.
Thus, it is only in the intermediate range of
RIPez, say 0.1 Q RIPe, < 5, that differences
exist between the exact potential flow and EPT
results. However, the differences are not very
large and the EPT is seen to provide a reasonable
approximation in general, as is illustrated
quantitatively in Table I.
With Hadamard flow the situation is quite
(64) different. That is, in the limit of RIPe + 0, the
ratio of the exact to EPT steady state Sherwood
numbers is (l/fl)(p’/(c1.+~‘)) whereas they
both reduce to Eq. (64) as R/Pe+ w. Thus, the
EPT is a poor approximation of Hadamard flow,
unless RIPe, is large enough in which case the

- Exact Anolysis, Equation (34)

Asymptotic Expressions,

ons (35) and (36)

Fig. 3. Sh, vs. time. Comparison between the exact analysis

(Eq. (34)) and the asymptotic equations (Eqs. (35) and (36))
(PQ = 2 X 105). Results for Eqs. (34) and (3.5) for R = 5 X loj, IO6
are essentially indistinguishable.

658
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

- Exact Analysis, Equation (34) Pe,=50

- l - Asymptotic Expressions, w,=o
Equations (35) and (36)

Fig. 4. Sh, vs. time. Comparison between the exact analysis (Eq. (34)) and the
asymptotic equations (Eqs. (35) and (36)) (PeI = 50). Results for Eqs. (34) and
(35) for R = 500,I03, 5 X 103, IO4 are essentially indistinguishable.

Sherwood number is independent of hydro- trols if the approximate inequality

dynamical parameters as shown in Eq. (64).
Finally, it should be noted that in the calcula-
tions for all of the single component results
presented above, the effect of a moving boundary,
which causes the radial velocity at the inter-
face to be finite, has been neglected.

Two component numerical results
With rapid chemical reaction in the continuous
phase, and therefore with very rapid rates of
mass transfer, the rate of collapse of single
bubbles may significantly affect the rate of mass
transfer. In contrast to single component bubbles,
the volume of binary bubbles is approximately
constant if the initial concentration of the trans-
ferring component is dilute. Thus it is not as
important to consider this moving boundary
effect with binary bubbles.
We first consider the case with reaction in the
continuous phase only so that k, = 0. Approxi-
mate criteria for the validity of the assumption of
continuous phase control can be established by
using the additivity of resistence concept with
the steady state expression for the dispersed and
continuous phase mass transfer coefficients.
This approach shows that the liquid phase con-
659
is satisfied. For gas mixtures, D/D is on the
order of 1O4or 1O5 and therefore this equality is
satisfied unless the reaction parameter R is very
large. However, it may be very restrictive for
liquid mixture for which D’/D is of the order of
unity.
Figure 5 illustrates the effect of chemical
reaction on the time dependence of the bubble
concentration for Re ==@ 1. Figure 6 demonstrates
the same effect for Re 9 1.
Figures 7 and 8 show the effect of solubility on
the change in bubble concentration with time for
Re < 1. Figures 9 and 10 demonstrate the same
effect for Re & 1. These figures will be discussed
in more detail in the next section.
The quasi-steady state assumption QSSA
Clearly exact analysis of mass transfer to
binary bubbles is quite complicated and it is
 E. RUCKENSTEIN. V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

Exact Analysis
- l - Quasi Steady State Assumption
1.0

OE
li:
%
3

0.2

0.c

I
I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
I- x IO5

Fig. 5. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time for different values of
continuous phase chemical reaction parameter, R, for Re Q 1 (Pe, = 50).

I I

- Exact Analysis Pe,=5x105 R,=O Cd

lAJd=-
- 0 - Quasi Steady State Assumption H -0.01 UJo=o C%
I.C

_ 0.6 ,-
I-J
-k
3

0.2 t-

0.c l-

( I.0

Fig. 6. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time for different values of
continuous phase chemical reaction parameter, R, for Re B I (PC,= 5 x loj).

660
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

,
Exact Analysis Pe,=500 k,=o
-O- Quosi Steody State Assumption R=lOO wo=o wd
IL

Ofj-

T
%
3

0.2

OS

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00

T

Fig. 7. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Effect of solubi-

lity for Re < I (R = IO*). Multiply time scale by IO-* as indicated to obtain dimen-
sionless time.

Exact Analysis R,=O R=103

Cd
0,-c
-*- Quasi Steady State Assumption Pes= 500 wo=o do
I.

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 a04 0.0

T x IO

Fig. 8. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Effect of solubility

for Re < I (R = 103). Multiply time scale by I Oe2, I O-4 as indicated to obtain dimension-
less time.

661
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

T
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

-a- Quasi Steady Stote Assumption

I I
OI) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8
r x IO’
Fig. 9. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Comparison be-
tween the exact analysis and the results obtained by means of the quasi-steady state
assumptions for chemical reaction in the continuous phase (R = 104) and Re + 1 (Pe, =
5 X 104). Multiply time scale by IO-’ as indicated to obtain dimensionless time. Results
for both models for H = I, IO are essentially indistinguishable.

desirable to have a simpler method for the inter- The solution of Eq. (66) is
pretation of experimental data and for design.
For these purposes it is useful to introduce the od (7) = e-3ShLT/2ff
+ 3Sh,w,
quasi-steady state approximation, QSSA, and 2(R - 3ShJ2H)
therefore this assumption will be examined. x ( e-3ShLdZH _ e-R~)
(67)
The QSSA implies the use of the steady state
mass transfer coefficient for the continuous where the Sherwood number, ShL, can be
phase, even though transient effects exist, obtained from Eq. (36) in the limit 7 ---, ~0as
coupled with the unsteady state mass balance
over the dispersed phase. By using this assump-
ShL = 2fi et-f e + 4E e--O+RI%. (68)
tion a simple expression for the dispersed phase
concentration as a function of time and the para-
meters Pei, H and R is obtained. The validity of When mass is transferred from the continuous
the expressions established in this manner will be phase to the dispersed phase and chemical
checked with the exact solutions. reaction takes place only inside the bubble
When chemical reaction occurs only in the (i.e. k = 0), the unsteady mass balance for the
continuous phase (i.e. k, = O), the unsteady mass concentration in the bubble leads to
balance for the concentration in the bubble leads
to 4
5na3d$ = 4nazkL(co -2) -$a’k,Cd. (69)
4
y-a ad&
- = -4n-a2kL $$- toe-kt .
(66)
dt ( > Solution of Eq. (69) with zero initial bubble
662
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

‘Exact Analysis \=5xlO4 ‘R,=O Cd

w=-
-*- Quasi Steady State Assumption R=105 w,=o o Cd0

Fig. IO. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Comparison

between the exact analysis and the results obtained by means of the quasi-steady state
assumption for chemical reaction in the continuous phase (R = 105) and Re + 1 (Pe, =
5 X 104). Multiply time scale by IO-* as indicated to obtain dimensionless time. Results
for both models for H = I are essentially indistinguishable.

concentration is then the system will behave approximately as

od (7) = R + 3Sh,,2H [ 1 - e-(R+3Sh@Hb]
where ShL can be obtained from Eqs. (37) or (38)
as follows
(71)
Before examining numerical results it is
desirable to establish qualitative criteria for the
QSSA. If the interfacial concentration is con-
stant the continuous phase eventually will
achieve a steady state concentration distribution,
say in time &. On the other hand, if the con-
centration of the interface varies with time no
true steady state will exist. However, if the rate
of change of the interfacial, or bubble, concentra-
tion is small enough so that its change in con-
centration during the time t,, is relatively small,
though it were at steady state.
Over the period of time td, which is required
(70) for significant changes to occur in the concentra-
tion of the dispersed phase, if td is large com-
pared to tcs, the system will appear to pass
through a series of quasi-steady states. Con-
sequently, the criterion for the quasi-steady
state assumption to apply is, td % tc8.
The conditions for the validity of the quasi-
steady state assumption are first discussed for
the case of chemical reaction occurring only in
the continuous phase. The steady state time t,,
has been determined previously and is given by
Eqs. (62) and (63) for small and large values of
Ripe,, which is the ratio of the hydrodynamic to
chemical reaction time scale.
Equation (67) shows that the time scale for the
dispersed phase is given by
aH
td”--.
k.
663
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

Consequently, for the dispersed phase respectively. As before the QSSA is valid if
td 9 tcs; hence
(72)
(78)
a2H R
% 1. (73)
=zG? iGi
Figures 1 l-l 3 show comparisons of the
As indicated previously the QSSA will be QSSA with the exact solutions. There are con-
valid when td S t,,, and therefore as criteria for ditions, predicted by the above criteria, for which
the validity of this assumption we obtain the steady state assumption is reasonable, but
there are also conditions for which the error
obtained by its use is more than 100 per cent.
HdF& P 1
When (RJPei) + (2/H)- < O-005, the
quasi steady state assumption gives error about
and
5 per cent or less.
Hfi% 1 if&% 1. (75)
I CONCLUSION
The principal results of this work are:
These criteria suggest that systems involving
sparingly soluble gases are most likely to be (1) the concentration distributions for single
described accurately by the quasi-steady state component bubbles (Eqs. (29)) when diffusion is
assumption. accompanied by a first order chemical reaction.
Figures 5-10 indicate clearly that the criteria (2) the exact values of the Sherwood number
given in Eqs. (74) and (75) properly describe the for the same situation (Eq. (33)).
regions in which the QSSA is valid. It is seen (3) the approximate values of the Sherwood
that errors of approximately 15 per cent or less number for the same situation for small and
are incurred by using the QSSA, for the entire large values of time (Eqs. (35) and (36)).
ranges of the parameters H, Pet and R investi- (4) the concentration distribution for the same
gated, if HflR > 10 for RIPei > 1 or if Hfii situation (Eq. (50)) obtained on the basis of
b 10 for RIPei < 1. On the other hand the the extended penetration model.
QSSA may introduce very serious errors when (5) the values of the Sherwood numbers for the
either Hfi or HVZi is smaller than 10 as same situation obtained on the basis of penetra-
indicated in Figs. 5-10. Thus, QSSA should be tion model (Eqs. (54) and (55)).
used with care, but when it is applicable it cer- (6) the concentration distribution for binary
tainly simplifies the analysis of binary bubble or bubbles given by Eq. (43) together with the time
drop systems very markedly. dependent bubble concentration given by Eq.
When chemical reaction takes place only in- (45). First one must solve integral Eq. (45) and
side the bubble, the characteristic time scales for the results are then used to calculate the local
the dispersed and the continuous phases are distribution by means of Eq. (43). These results
were used to discuss the quasi steady state
assumption.
(76)
(7) the concentration distribution obtained on
the basis of an extended penetration model of
binary bubbles (Eqs. (56) and (56a)) together
and
with the time dependent bubble concentration
t -3a2 (77)
(Eqs. (59) and (60)). The calculation procedure
” - DPei followed that described under (6) above.
664
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

Exact Analysis Pe2=5x10S R=O Cd

-o- Quasi Steady State Assumption H=IO
wd=-&-

I.i ,-

0.E i-

‘2
57

F.-
0.4

0.0
a 3 0 0.08 0.12 0.16
rxlos

Fig. I I. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Comparison

between the exact analysis and the results obtained by means of the quasi-steady
state assumption for different values of reaction parameter inside bubble for Re * I
(R = 0, Pe, = 5 X I05). Multiply time scale by IO-‘, 10m3 as indicated to obtain
dimensionless time and multiply concentration scale by IO-’ as indicated to obtain
dimensionless bubble concentration.

- Exact Analysis Pe,=5x10s R=O Cd

wd=c,
-a- Quasi Steady State Assumption R,=103
0.6.

1.04

0.0 3.00
0.0 0.4 0.8 _ 1.2 1.6
T Itlo=
Fig. 12. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Comparison
between the exact analysis and the results obtained by means of the quasi-steady
state assumption for chemical reaction inside bubble (R, = 103) and Re * I (R = 0,
Pe, = 5 X 105).Multiply time scale by IO-‘, 10m3 as indicated to obtain dimensionless
time and multiply concentration scale by IO-* as indicated to obtain dimensionless
bubble concentration.

665
CESVol. 26No.5-G
 E. RUCKENSTEIN, V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

T
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
- Exacl Analysis
-o- QSSA

Fig. 13. Dimensionless bubble concentration vs. dimensionless time. Comparison be-
tween the exact analysis and the results obtained by means of the quasi-steady state
assumption for chemical reaction inside bubble (R, = 2) and Re 4 1 (R = 0,Pe,= 50).
Multiply time scale by 10e2as indicated to obtain dimensionless time and multiply con-
centration scale by 1O-l,
1O-* as indicated to obtain dimensionless bubble concentration.

Acknowledgments-This work was supported in part by the H distribution coefficient

National Science Foundation Grant GK 699. E. R. held a k reaction rate constant in the continuous
National Science Foundation Visiting Foreign Scientist
Fellowship during the course of this work. phase
k, reaction rate constant in the dispersed
phase
NOTATION kL average mass transfer coefficient
radius of the bubble N average mass transfer rate
concentration of the continuous phase N U.S. mass flux across the rear part of the
equilibrium concentration of the con- bubble interface, Eq. (5 1)
tinuous phase NM. mass flux across the front part of the
initial concentration of the continuous bubble interface, Eq. (52)
phase NB local mass transfer rate
Cd concentration of the dispersed phase 1 j.~’ 2aU
initial concentration of the dispersed Pel ~/L+/.L’ D
cdo
phase 3aU
D molecular diffusivity in the continuous Pe2 --
20
phase aU
Pe
D’ molecular diffusivity in the dispersed 20
phase R ka21D
erfc (x) l-erf(x)=L G zme-@dt Rkla2
1 D
I
F function satisfies Eqs. (20), (21), (22), Sh 2k,a
D
L
(23)
666
 Mass transfer with chemical reaction

r radius coordinate of the system mea- h parameter

sured from the center of the bubble 7) Yl6
t time p viscosity of the dispersed phase
t cs time required for the continuous phase P’ viscosity of the continuous phase
to reach steady state r tDla2
fd time required for the dispersed phase T,, dimensionless time required for the
to reach steady state continuous phase to reach steady
u function satisfies Eq. ( 16), (17), (18) and state
(19) 13 polar coordinate (spherical coordinate
U translational velocity of the bubble system)
u-/L w C/C* for one component bubble
v” 2 j_L+p’ o. Co/C* for one component bubble
v, radial velocity component of the con- w C/Cd, for two component bubble with
tinuous phase with respect to the chemical reaction in the continuous
center of the bubble phase only
vg tangential velocity component of the od Cd/Cd0 for two component bubble with
continuous phase with respect to the chemical reaction in the continuous
center of the bubble phase only
x coordinate measured along the surface w C/C, for two component bubble with
of the bubble from the front stagna- chemical reaction in the dispersed
tion point downward phase only
md Cd/Co for IWO COmpOnent bubble with
x& chemical reaction in the dispersed
y r-a phase only
Y yla
Subscripts
Greek symbols 1 for Hadamard flow
6 thickness of diffusion boundary layer 2 for potential flow

REFERENCES
[II BOUSSINESQ J.. .I. Mrrth. PureAppl. 1905 6 285.
PI DANG V. D., RUCKENSTEIN E. and GILL W. N., ChemicalEngineer, London, No. 241, p. 248,197O.
PI ESTRIN J. and SCHMIDT E. H., Jr.,A.f.Ch.E.J! 1968 14 678.
[41 FRIEDLANDER S. K.,A.I.C)I.E.JI 1957 3 43.
1% FRIEDLANDER S. K.,A./.Ch.E.JI 1961 1347.
161GILL W. N., Chem. Engrs 1962 189.
[71 GRIFFITH R. M., Chem. Engng Sci. 1960 12 198.
PI HADAMARD J., Compt. Rend. 191 I 152 1734.
191 HANDLOS A. E. and BARON T.,A.f.Ch.E.JI 19573 127.
[101 HIGBIE R., Trans. Am. inst. Chem. Engrs 1935 31365.
[I 11 JOHNS L. E. and BECKMAN R. B ..A.1 .Ch.E.J/ 196612 10.
[I21 JOHNSON A. I. and AKEHATA T., Can. J. them. Engng I965 43 10.
[I31 JOHNSON A. I. and HAMIELEC A. E. and HOUGHTON W. T.,A.I.Ch.E.Jl 1967 13 379.
[I41 KRONIG R. and BRINK 1. G..Atml. scient. Res. 1950A-2 142.
[ISI LEVICH V. G., PhysicochemicalHydrodynamics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1962.
1161 LIGHTFOOT E. N., A.I.Ch.E.JI 19584499.
LOCHIEL A. C. andCALDERBANK P. H.,Chem.EngngSci. 19647471.
;:i; NEWMAN A. B., Trans. Am. Inst. them. Engrs 193 127 3 10.
[I91 RUCKENSTEIN E., Chem. Engng Sci. I964 19 13 1.
WI RUCKENSTEIN E., Chem. Engng Sci. I968 23 363.
[211 RUCKENSTEIN E., Int. J. Heat Mass Trunsfer 1967 10 1785.

667
 E. RUCKENSTEIN. V.-D. DANG and W. N. GILL

R&sun&-On examine le transfert de masse en Ctat non stationnaire entre une bulle (ou goutte) ii un
ou deux composants et la phase continue avec une reaction chimique se produisant soit dans la phase
continue, soit dans la phase dispersee. La principale hypothese pour les bulles binaires suppose que
l’etape determinant de la vitesse est la diffusion dans la phase continue. Deux champs de vitesse limite,
I’ecoulement Hadamard (Re a 1) et l’ecoulement potentiel (Re % I) sont utilises pour les calculs.
En ce qui concerne la bulle a un seul composant, la solution obtenue anterieurement par
Ruckenstein pour le transfert de masse sans reaction chimique est gen6ralisC pour comprendre la
reaction chimique en se servant de la transformation de Danckwert et du theoreme de Duhamel.
Des expressions analytiques relativement simples sont deduites pour des nombres de Sherwood
transitoires et en Ctat stationnaire. En ce qui concerne les bulles binaires, la concentration de la
phase continue depend de la concentration de la phase dispersee qui est une fonction du temps. En
consequence, la m&me pro&de utilist pour la bulle a un composant, avec un bilan de matiere sur
la bulle, engendre une equation integrale qui est resolue par une technique iterative pour la concentra-
tion a I’interieur de la bulle.
En vue de determiner la precision des modeles simplifies du type suggere par Higbie, un modele
de penetration ttendue est propose et utilist pour le cas dans lequel une reaction chimique se produit
en phase continue. Les resultants du modele simplifie sont compares aux solutions exactes pour les
systemes a une et deux composants, et la gamme des parametres pour lequel il est p&is est dtter-
mince.
La precision de I’hypothese de l’etat quasi stationnaire, baste sur les equations en etat stationnaire
pour le coefficient de transfert de masse et sur un bilan de mat&e pour la bulle, est tgalement exam-
ine, et il est demontre que cette hypothese peut introduire des erreurs importantes dans certaines
conditions. Des criteres donnant les conditions dans lesquelles I’hypothbse de I’ttat quasi stationnaire
peut &tre utilise, sont Ctablies.

Zusammenfassung-Stoffiibertragung im nichstatiomiren Zustand zwischen einer Ein- oder Zwei-

Komponponenten-blase (oder einem Tropfen) und der kontinuierlichen Phase, mit Ablauf einer
chemischen Reaktion entweder in der kontinuierlichen oder in der dispergierten Phase, wird unter-
sucht. Die Hauptannahme fiir binare Blasen ist, dass die die Geschwindigkeit bestimmende Stufe
die Diffusion in der kontinuierlichen Phase ist. In den Berechnungen werden zwei begrenzende
Geschwindigkeitsfelder verwendet, nlmlich Hadamard Stromung (Re Q I) und potentielle Stromung
(Re s 1).
Fiir die Ein-Komponenten-blase wird die frtiher von Ruckenstein fur Stoffiibertragung ohne
chemische Reaktion erhaltene Losung so verallgemeinert, dass sie die chemische Reaktion mit
einschliesst, und zwar durch Verwendung der Transformation von Danckwerts und des Duhamel-
schen Theorems, und es werden verhaltnismassig einfache analytische Ausdriicke fiir voriiber-
gehende und stationare durchschnittliche Sherwood Zahlen abgeleitet. Fur binare Blasen h%ngt die
Konzentration der kontinuierlichen Phase von der Konzentration der dispergierten Phase ab, die eine
Funktion der Zeit ist. Die im Fall der Ein-Komponenten-blase angewendeteMethode, zusammen mit
einer Stotlbilanz der Blase, erzeugt folglich eine Integralgleichuna, die mittels der iterativen Methode
fiir die Konzentration innerhalb der Blase gel&t wird- - -
Zur Bestimmung der Genauigkeit vereinfachter Modelle des von Higbie vorgeschlagenen Typs
wird ein erweitertes Penetrationsmodell vorgeschlagen und fur den Fall wo eine chemische Reaktion
in der kontinuierlichen Phase vorkommt verwendet. Die Ergebnisse des vereinfachten Modells
werden mit den ganeuen Liisungen fiir Ein- und Zweikomponentensysteme verglichen, und der
Bereich der Parameter fur den es genau ist wird bestimmt.
Die Genauigkeit der Annahme des quasi-stationlen Zustandes, auf Grund der StationLzustands-
gleichungen fur den Stoffubertragungskoeffizienten und der nichtstationaren Stolfbilanz fur die
Blase, wird ebenfalls untersucht und es wird gezeigt, dass diese Annahme unter gewissen Bedingungen
zur Anwesenheit bedeutender Fehler fiihren kann. Es werden Kriterien aufgestellt, die die Bedin-
gungen geben unter welchen die Annahme des quasistationken Zustands verwendet werden kann.

668