Good evening, everyone, I am Rakesh Bhowmick with my teammate Hridoy Roy are going to present

the insights of the paper named MASS-TRANSFER IN ROTATING PACKED BEDS.

Next
Motivation
We are intrigued to choose this paper for the following reasons.
In Rotating Packed Beds, the energy of high-gravity fields generated by centrifugal operation
considerably increases the molecular diffusion between gas-liquid counter-current flows and
consequently improves mass transport. Moreover, a rotating packed bed can operate at a higher flow
rate, which facilitates industrial processes. Which means that rotating packed bed is more economical
and has greater efficiency in a short time. So, to study mass transfer, particularly diffusion and
convection, with practical application, Rotating Packed Beds are a suitable one.
[Rotating packed beds (RPB) are used to reduce the size of the absorber and desorber in chemical
and food industry, and also in processes like water purification.]
Next
Objectives
The approach used in this study is to develop theoretical expressions for the gas-liquid and liquid-
solid mass transfer coefficients and then extend them to the correlations for the rotating packed bed.
Predicting mass transfer coefficients in rotating packed bed as a function of rotational speed.
Comparing the experimental data with the value obtained by Penetration Theory.
Next
Sketch
This is a Rotating blade model for packed bed. Where r is
The liquid was sprayed on the inside edge of the packed bed and was thrown outwards by the
centrifugal force. The gas was introduced from the outside and, due to an imposed pressure
gradient, flowed inward counter-currently to the liquid. The liquid film on the blade has sloping gas-
liquid interfaces with radial distance due to centrifugal force.
Next
Notation
These are the Notation used in this study
Next
Theory
Here, equaton 1 shows the convection-diffusion model for the rotating blade.
As we know from the fick’s 2 nd law ,which predicts how diffusion causes the concentration to change
2 2
∂C ∂C ∂C ∂C ∂C
with respect to time, = D 2 thus in x direction U = D 2 and in z direction W = D
∂t ∂z ∂ x ∂x ∂z
∂2 C
∂ z2
……………………………..
Here, C is the solute concentration and D is the diffusion coefficient of the solute in the liquid.
……………………………………………..
∂C
For boundary conditions at Gas-liquid interface z = h, C = C* and at z = 0, =0
∂z
here C* is the solute concentration at the gas-liquid interface. The initial condition in the x-direction
is given by at x = 0, C = C1 Where C1, is the concentration of the solute in the inlet liquid.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The film thickness, h, decreases with the radial distance and for an inclined surface the gas-liquid flux
dh
(NL ) normal to the interface is given equation 2. The term ( ) is the correction factor for the
dx
inclined surface and accounts for the fact that the diffusive flux is equal to the mass flux
perpendicular to the surface.
liquid-side mass-transfer coefficient (k L) is defined as, NL = kL(C* - Cavg )
where Cavg is the bulk average concentration defined by equation 4

Next
∂C
Concentration Gradient is evaluated by equation 5
∂x
………………………………………………….
According to Cohen et al The velocity component in the x and z direction is given by equation 6 and 7
………………………………………………………
As the film thickness decreases with the radial distance the following coordinate transformation is
used, here (xi) ξ = z/h , the dimensionless film length
Next
Here, expressing Z as a function of ξ and h we get

Z(ξ , h) = f(ξ ) g(h)

( )
2
dh 2 2 dh
[g(h) = ξ ; g (h) = ξ ] here, h is a function of ξ and h changes along with x axis which is
dx dx
considered for coordinate transformation

[ ( )]
2 Z
Z Z ∂U
[Again, W is a function of U where, f(U) = 2 − ∧ ¿W= ∫ dz] according to Cohen et
h h 0 ∂x
al. the velocity component perpendicular to the blade surface, denoted by W, can be obtained by
integrating U and gives the following equation.
…………………………………………………………………..
∂2 C
With this coordinate transformation, after neglecting the term D 2 ,,,as no diffusion in x direction
∂x
and after adding all equations,,,, equation 5 may be written as shown in equation 8

Next
The gas-liquid interface slope was computed by equation 9
differentiating equation 9 with respect to x we get the maximum and minimum value of film
d2 h
thickness ( ¿ at a given rotational speed as shown in equation 10
d x2
Next
Approximate model
To, validate experimental data, an approximate model was proposed by modifying the rigorous
model. For a simple analytical mass-transfer expression, we assumed that the slope of the gas-liquid
interface (dh/dx) is small and, therefore, the W-component of the velocity can be neglected.
Secondly, as in penetration theory, we assumed that the flux will have smaller values within the fluid
(solute penetration is small). Thus equation 1 may be simplified as following.
…………………………………………………………..
∂C dc 1
At interface z=h Flux, NL = -D which gives, mass-transfer coefficient kL = -D
∂z C*  -  C1 dz
Q C*  - C1
By Integrating within the range 0 to h in z axis, we get k L  =  [ ln ] , Here,
r−R 1 C*  - Cavg
buoyancy force and viscous forces are acting on gas by liquid, thus to correlate these two forces we
replaced D/h with Q/r-R1 where r- R1 is the acting length of rotating blade.
………………………………………………………………………………………
For experimental analysis following empirical equations were used,
( r−R 1 )3
Here, Gr is Grashof Number (ratio of Buoyancy force to the Viscous force), and Gr = rω2 2
VL
Now Hridoy will continue from the next slide

Graph
The comparison of the flux NL, calculated by the rigorous and the approximate method at lower
rotational speeds is presented in Figure 2a. At all the rotational speeds, the penetration theory gives
an excellent prediction of the gas-liquid flux for blade lengths less than 1.5 cm. The penetration
theory starts to overpredict at 6000 rpm, and at x = 4 cm it overpredicts the flux by 18%. The close
agreement between the penetration theory and the rigorous model shows that the slope in the
developing region is not significant for mass-transfer calculations, thus validating the assumption of
neglecting the W-component of the velocity. Figure 2b shows a comparison at a very high value of
rotational speed, indicating that the penetration theory is valid only for small surface renewal lengths
at this high rotational speed. At a surface renewal distance of 2 cm, the error is almost 25%.
Next
Conclusion
Conclusion of this study are as follows.

W component of the velocity (perpendicular to liquid flow) can be ignored and the infinite film
thickness assumption can be made at reasonable rotational speeds.
The expression for the liquid-side mass-transfer coefficient shows that k L ∞ ω1/3 and for the liquid-solid
mass-transfer coefficient, ks ∞ ω4/9
Liquid-solid mass-transfer coefficient is more sensitive to rotational speed
For the development of correlations for the mass transfer coefficients, more applicable theory should
be developed as penetration theory fails to give proper prediction at higher rotational speed.

…………………………………………………………..
That’s all we have investigated from this study, this is the reference. Thank you everyone. Please ask
us questions if you have any.

Appendix

Q1: In developing the expressions for the mass-transfer coefficients, Why the effect of an
inclined gas-liquid interface is neglected? (page 11)

As I mentioned, the liquid film on the blade has sloping gas-liquid interfaces with radial distance due
to centrifugal force. At 900 rpm or above based on the experimental data dh/dx is too small
compared to 1 and as dh does not vary along the x axis within this rotational speed,,,, thus W
component of velocity is also insignificant and therefore to reduce complexities in mass-transfer
coefficients calculation W term is also ignored.
Q2: Why penetration theory failed to give prediction at higher rotational speed? (page 16)
Appendix
NL = 2√ DVmax/ π L (C1i - C1 )
Vmax is the interfacial velocity of the water. N1 is the flux at the interface
L is the length of the exposed film
k = 2√ DVmax/ π L
L/vmax, is the contact time

( )
1 /2
kL 6
= Re1/2 Sc1/2
D π
penetration theory is based on transfer into a semi-infinite fluid

Penetration theory deals with the relation between mass-transfer coefficient and linear velocity
Where, mass transfer coefficient k varies with the square root of the velocity. According to Cussler
 ( )
1 /2
kL 6
= Re1/2 Sc1/2 and it is also expected that k should vary with the two-thirds power of the fluid
D π
velocity. This is larger than that expected by penetration theories.

Here, rotational speed is related with the rate of change of the angular position of a rotating body. As
velocity is proportional to the rotational speed, at higher rotational speed velocity also changes
accordingly. But According to Penetration theory, the effect of changes in velocity is mitigated as the
mass transfer coefficient varies with the square root of the velocity. Therefore, though the changes in
velocity is significant at higher rotational speed, changes in mass transfer coefficient are insignificant.

The penetration theory also predicts variation with the square root of flow but less than that indicated
by most correlations. This is why experiments show a larger velocity variation than the penetration
theory predicts.

[Rotating packed beds (RPB) are used to reduce the size of the absorber and desorber in chemical
and food industry, and also in processes like water purification.]

The diffusion coefficient (D) is the amount of a particular substance that diffuses across a unit area in
1 s under the influence of a gradient of one unit. It is usually expressed in the units cm2 s−1.

Fick's second law predicts how diffusion causes the concentration to change with respect to time.

Cussler
The key assumption penetration theory is that the falling film is thick. Other important assumptions
are that in the z direction, diffusion is much more important than convection, and in the x direction,
diffusion is much less important than convection.

NL = 2√ DVmax/ π L (C1i - C1 )
penetration theory is based on transfer into a semi-infinite fluid

Surface renewal: The transfer of different interfacial elements into the bulk region is random. That
means interfacial region are not static, but are constantly exchanged with new elements from a
second ‘‘bulk’’ region.