Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Heat and mass transfer model of cross flow liquid desiccant

air dehumidifier/regenerator
X.H. Liu *, Y. Jiang, K.Y. Qu
Department of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

Received 6 November 2005; received in revised form 27 May 2006; accepted 15 June 2006
Available online 17 August 2006

Abstract

A theoretical model is developed to simulate the heat and mass transfer processes in a cross flow dehumidifier/regenerator using liquid
desiccant. The model depends on NTU as input parameter, and NTU can be correlated based on the corresponding experimental data.
The model is able to predict the air and desiccant parameters inside the dehumidifier/regenerator, as well as the outlet parameters, with
known inlet parameters. The calculated results are compared with the experimental findings. For the total 284 groups of dehumidifica-
tion experimental data with different module sizes, the average absolute discrepancies for enthalpy effectiveness and moisture effective-
ness are 7.9% and 8.5%, respectively. For the 82 groups of regeneration experimental results, the average discrepancies for enthalpy and
moisture effectiveness are 5.8% and 6.9%, respectively. The distributions of desiccant outlet temperatures are measured during both the
dehumidification and regeneration processes, and the temperatures predicted by the theoretical model agree well with the experimental
results.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquid desiccant; Cross flow; Heat and mass transfer; Model; Experiment

1. Introduction have performed experimental tests on the heat and mass

In recent years, extensive research has been performed
on the liquid desiccant system because it has advantages
in dealing with the latent load of buildings. It can reduce
the overall energy consumption as well as shift the energy
use away from electricity and toward renewable and
cheaper fuels [1–4]. Furthermore, an added benefit of the
liquid desiccant system is the potential to remove a number
of pollutants from the air stream [4,5]. The dehumidifier
and regenerator are two key components in a liquid desic-
cant system. The heat and mass transfer processes are
about the same in the dehumidifier and in the regenerator
except that the heat and mass transfer directions are differ-
ent. Because of the complexity of the practical dehumidifier
or regenerator, theoretical analysis alone can hardly predict
the performance of a certain real device. Many researchers
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6277 3772; fax: +86 10 6277 3461.
E-mail address: lxh98@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (X.H. Liu).
transfer performances of the dehumidifier or regenerator.
During the experiments, the inlet and outlet parameters
of air and desiccant through the dehumidifier/regenerator
can be easily measured, while the temperature and concen-
tration distributions within the dehumidifier/regenerator
are difficult to measure directly. Numerical simulation
has advantages in studying the temperature and concentra-
tion fields within the heat and mass transfer devices.
Models for heat and mass transfer in counter flow and
cross flow dehumidifiers are summarized in Table 1. The
model for a regenerator is the same as that for a dehumid-
ifier, except that the operating conditions are different. As
shown in Table 1, the models can be divided into simplified
models and complicated models. In simplified models, the
assumption of slug flows of air and desiccant, which are
separated by the heat and mass transfer surface, is usually
adopted. Such models have been adopted for several
researches [4,6–12] for adiabatic counter flow dehumidifiers
and by Jain et al. [13] and Khan [14] for internally cooled

0196-8904/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2006.06.002
 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554 547

Nomenclature

A specific area of packing per volume (m2/m3) V volume (m3)

cp,m specific heat of humid air (kJ/kg C) W width of cross flow dehumidifier/regenerator
de equivalent diameter of packing channel (m) (m)
D diffusion coefficient (m2/s)
F cross sectional mass flow rate (kg/m2 s) Greek symbols
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 C) gh enthalpy effectiveness (%)
H height of the cross flow dehumidifier/regenera- gm moisture effectiveness (%)
tor (m) kT vaporization latent heat at temperature T
ha enthalpy of humid air (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
he enthalpy of humid air in equilibrium with liquid n concentration (mass ratio of desiccant to solu-
desiccant (kJ/kg) tion) of liquid desiccant (%)
hm mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2 s) q density (kg/m3)
hs enthalpy of liquid desiccant (kJ/kg) xa humidity ratio of humid air (kg/kg)
L thickness of cross flow dehumidifier/regenerator xe humidity ratio of humid air in equilibrium with
(m) liquid desiccant (kg/kg)
Le Lewis number (dimensionless)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s) Subscripts
NTU number of transfer unit (dimensionless) a air
Re Reynolds number (dimensionless) in inlet
Sc Schmidt number (dimensionless) s liquid desiccant solution
Sh Sherwood number (dimensionless) out outlet
T temperature (C)

counter flow and cross flow dehumidifiers, respectively,
while no attempt was made for adiabatic cross flow dehu-
midifiers. In complicated models [15–20], the velocity field
within the dehumidifier is first gained by solving the com-
bined continuity and momentum equations, and then, the
temperature and concentration fields are obtained by solv-
ing the energy and mass balance equations.
Complicated models consume much time and require
large computational memory, hence, the simplified model
is adopted in the present study. The objective of this paper
is to establish a model for the heat and mass transfer pro-
cesses inside the adiabatic cross flow dehumidifier/regener-
ator. The model is validated by a large number of
dehumidification and regeneration experimental data,
including device overall effectiveness and desiccant outlet
temperature distributions. The model can express the tem-
perature and concentration field distributions inside the
dehumidifier/regenerator, which can be used in the optimi-
zation of the devices.
2. Theoretical model
The schematic of the adiabatic cross flow module (serves
as dehumidifier or regenerator) is shown in Fig. 1. The

Table 1
Previous work on heat and mass transfer models in dehumidifier
Dehumidifier Simplified model Complicated model
Counter flow configuration Adiabatic Factor and Grossman [6]a Grossman [15]
Gandhidasan et al. [7]a Ali et al. [16]
Stevens et al. [8]a
Sadasivam and Balakrishnan [9]a
Khan [10]
Potnis and Lenz [11]a
Oberg and Goswami [4]a
Chung and Wu [12]a
Internally cooled Jain et al. [13]a –
Cross flow configuration Adiabatic – Ali et al. [17]
Dai and Zhang [18]a
Internally cooled Khan [14]a Zografos & Petroff [19]
Park et al. [20]a
a
Predicted values by the model were compared with experimental results.
548 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554

z dx Æ dz. Energy, water content and solute mass balances

L on a differential element give Eqs. (1)–(3).
Desiccant
m_ a oha 1 oðm_ s hs Þ
 þ  ¼0 ð1Þ
0 H oz L ox
m_ a oxa 1 om_ s
 þ  ¼0 ð2Þ
H oz L ox
W dðm _ s  nÞ ¼ 0 ð3Þ
y
Air
The overall heat and mass transfer between the air and
the desiccant is given by [8,10]:
   
oha NTU  Le 1
¼  ðhe  ha Þ þ kT s  1  ðxe  xa Þ
oz L Le
H
ð4Þ
x
where Le and NTU are defined in Eqs. (5) and (6),
respectively:
Fig. 1. Schematic of the cross flow dehumidifier/regenerator. h
Le ¼ ð5Þ
hm cp;m
hm aV
desiccant, flowing across the direction of the air flow, is dis- NTU ¼ ð6Þ
tributed over the packing by gravity and absorbs (or m_ a
releases) moisture as it comes into contact with the air. The Le number is usually assumed to be one [7,13].
Since the situations of desiccant and air are uniform along Then, Eq. (4) becomes:
the y direction in Fig. 1, only their situations on the x–z
plane are studied, as shown in Fig. 2. oha NTU
¼  ðhe  ha Þ ð7Þ
The assumptions for the present model are: (1) the local oz L
heat and mass transfer coefficients are uniform throughout The moisture transfer between the air and the desiccant
the module; (2) the areas of heat and mass transfer both are can be expressed by [8,10]:
equal to the specific surface area of the packing and (3) the oxa NTU
contribution of conduction or diffusion to the total heat or ¼  ðxe  xa Þ ð8Þ
oz L
mass transfer can be neglected in the flow directions.
The module can be divided into an infinite number of The boundary conditions are:
differential elements, each with volume of dV, dV = W Æ T s ¼ T s;in ; n ¼ nin ; at x ¼ 0 ð9Þ
T a ¼ T a;in ; xa ¼ xa;in ; at z ¼ 0 ð10Þ
Eqs. (1)–(3), (7) and (8) are the governing equations of
0 L z
the heat and mass transfer processes in the module. Solving
(1,1) (2,1) (3,1) (i,1) (M ,1) the above equations with boundary conditions (9) and (10)
(1,2) (2,2) (3,2) (i,2) (M ,2) can give the distributions of the air and desiccant parame-
ters inside the module as well as the air and desiccant
(1,3) (2,3) (3,3) (i,3) (M ,3)
parameters at the outlet of the module. The present paper
numerically solves the equations.
The computational domain is the x–z plane of the mod-
ule. It is discretized into M · N meshes, as shown in Fig. 2.
(1, j ) (2, j ) (3, j ) (i, j ) (M , j ) For mesh (i, j), Eqs. (1)–(3), (7) and (8) are discretized as
follows:
N
m_ a ðha;iþ1;j  ha;i;j Þ ¼ ðm _ s;i;j hs;i;j  m_ s;i;jþ1 hs;i;jþ1 Þ ð11Þ
M
N
m_ a ðxa;i;j  xa;iþ1;j Þ ¼ ðm_ s;i;jþ1  m_ s;i;j Þ ð12Þ
(1,N ) (2,N ) (3,N ) (i,N ) (M ,N ) M
H m_ s;i;jþ1  ni;jþ1 ¼ m_ s;i;j  ni;j ð13Þ
x NTU
ha;iþ1;j  ha;i;j ¼ ðhe;i;j  ha;i;j Þ ð14Þ
M
NTU
Fig. 2. A two dimensional schematic of the cross flow dehumidifier/ xa;iþ1;j  xa;i;j ¼ ðxe;i;j  xa;i;j Þ ð15Þ
regenerator. M
 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554
With known NTU value and air and desiccant inlet
parameters of mesh (i, j), solving Eqs. (11)–(15) can give
the air and desiccant outlet parameters of this mesh, which
are equal to the air inlet parameters of mesh (i + 1, j) and
desiccant inlet parameters of mesh (i, j + 1), respectively.
The concrete procedures are as follows.
(a) Calculate air outlet enthalpy ha,i+1,j using Eq. (14)
and humidity ratio xa,i+1,j using Eq. (15).
(b) Calculate air outlet temperature Ta,i+1,j using air
physical property, since air outlet enthalpy and
humidity ratio are known.
(c) Calculate desiccant outlet mass flow rate m_ s;i;jþ1 and
concentration ni,j+1 using Eqs. (12) and (13),
respectively.
(d) Calculate the desiccant outlet enthalpy hs,i,j+1 using
Eq. (11).
(e) Calculate the desiccant outlet temperature Ts,i,j+1
using desiccant physical property, since desiccant
enthalpy and concentration are already known.
Repeat the above procedures on the meshes in the fol-
lowing order: (1) calculate the outlet parameters of air
and desiccant for mesh (1, 1), since air and desiccant inlet
parameters are all known; then calculate the outlet
parameters for mesh (2, 1), since the air inlet parameters
for mesh (2, 1) are equal to the air outlet parameters of
(1, 1); and then the outlet parameters for mesh (3, 1),
(4, 1) until mesh (M, 1); (2) for meshes (1, 2) to (M, 2),
the outlet parameters can be gained similarly to those
for (1, 1) to (M, 1), since the desiccant inlet parameters
are equal to the desiccant outlet parameters of (1, 1) to
(M, 1) and (3) such processes are performed on meshes
(1, 3) to (M, 3), meshes (1, 4) to (M, 4), until meshes
(1, N) to (M, N). Thus, the above model can give the dis-
Packed module
Cooling coil Humidifier
Air inlet
Heater A
H T
Sampling fan
Solution
T Temperature sensor
H Wet-bulb temperature
sensor
C Density sensor
P Pressure sensor
Solution tank B
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
549
tributions of air and desiccant parameters over the entire
computational domain.
However, the NTU value is difficult to obtain by pure
theoretical analysis. Experimental data have to be used
for determining the NTU value.
3. Dehumidification experimental data for validation
The schematic of the experimental setup [21] is shown in
Fig. 3. The module is the core device in the experiment,
which can serve as either dehumidifier or regenerator. A
lithium bromide (LiBr) aqueous solution was used as the
desiccant in the system. The Celdek structured packing
was used in the module with a specific surface area of
396 m2/m3 and flute height of 7 mm. The packing was
made of corrugated cellulose paper sheets with different
flute angles, one steep (45) and one flat (45) that had been
bonded together. The measurement devices and corre-
sponding accuracies were shown in Table 2. The tempera-
tures were measured using Pt RTD (resistance
temperature detectors), and the temperature readings were
scanned and recorded by the data acquisition system (Agi-
lent 13970 A). The air humidity ratio was derived by the
measured dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, and the
desiccant concentration was derived by the measured desic-
cant temperature and density.
For the dehumidification experiment, two different sizes
of modules (recorded as module A and B) were used. The
height (H), thickness (L) and width (W) of the packed
modules were 550 · 400 · 350 mm3 and 550 · 300 ·
350 mm3 for module A and module B, respectively. The
air and desiccant inlet parameters are shown in Table 3.
Totally 284 experimental runs (201 groups for module A,
and 83 groups for module B) were conducted for the two
modules.
T Standard nozzle
Air outlet
Fan
T H T P
C Sampling fan
Rotor flowmeter
T
Heater B Valve
Cooling water
Flowmeter
Heat exchanger
T
T
C
Solution
Valve Solution pump tank A
550 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554

Table 2
Specification of the different measuring devices
Parameters Devices Accuracy Operational range
Air flow rate Standard flow nozzles plus inclined differential manometer 1% 0–1600 m3/h
Air dry-bulb temperature Pt RTD 0.2 C 0–100 C
Air wet-bulb temperature Pt RTD 0.2 C 0–100 C
Solution flow rate Glass rotor flowmeter 2% 0–2500 l/h
Solution temperatures Pt RTD 0.2 C 0–100 C
Solution densities Specific gravity hydrometer 1 kg/m3 1300–1700 kg/m3

Table 3
Air and desiccant inlet parameters during the dehumidification experiment
Module Fa (kg/m2 s) Ta (C) xa (kg/kg) Fs (kg/m2 s) Ts (C) n (%)
A 1.58–2.43 24.7–33.9 0.010–0.021 2.12–4.55 20.1–29.5 42.6–54.8
B 1.74–2.50 25.4–35.4 0.0095–0.018 2.04–5.35 19.7–27.2 42.2–54.1

The mass transfer coefficient can be expressed by the Sh tively. Error analysis based on the accuracies of direct mea-
number. The form of the Sh correlation provided by Chung surements indicated that the uncertainties of the enthalpy
and Wu [12] is adopted with the constants newly fitted by and moisture effectivenesses were both within ±8%.
nonlinear regression of the present experimental data.
The final correlation becomes:
 0:396  1:913
0:333 Fs n 80
Sh ¼ 0:0011  Re1:363
a  Sca   1 
Fa 100 +20%
0%
ð16Þ
60
Predicted values /%

where Sh number is defined by Eq. (17), in which de is the -20%

equivalent diameter of the channel as defined by Al-
Farayedhi et al. [22]. The value of de is equal to 7.85 mm 40
for the structured packing used in the experiment.
hm  d e
Sh ¼ ð17Þ 20
qa  Da Module A
NTU can be rewritten in the form of Sh, as shown in Eq. Module B
(18). 0
0 20 40 60 80
q  Da  a  V
NTU ¼ Sh  a ð18Þ Experimental results /%
m_ a  d e
With Eqs. (16) and (18), the NTU value can be calcu-
80
lated with known inlet parameters of the air and desiccant.
Then, the outlet parameters and the distributions of the +20%
0%
parameters inside the module can be calculated using the
60
Predicted values /%

model.
-20%

3.1. Overall effectiveness 40

The enthalpy effectiveness and moisture effectiveness are

adopted to describe the combined heat and mass transfer 20
performances of the dehumidifier (or regenerator). The out- Module A
let parameters of the air and desiccant can be gained with Module B
known inlet conditions, once the enthalpy effectiveness
0
and moisture effectiveness are determined [23]. The enthalpy 0 20 40 60 80
and moisture effectivenesses are defined as the ratio of the Experimental results /%
actual enthalpy or humidity ratio variance of the air passing Fig. 4. Comparison of simulation results with the experimental findings
through the dehumidifier/regenerator to the variance under for air dehumidification processes: (a) enthalpy effectiveness and (b)
ideal conditions, as shown in Eqs. (19) and (20), respec- moisture effectiveness.
 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554 551

ha;in  ha;out experiment, totally 82 groups of data were gained with

gh ¼  100% ð19Þ
ha;in  he;in the parameters changing ranges shown in Table 5. The
xa;in  xa;out dimensionless mass transfer correlation is shown as:
gm ¼  100% ð20Þ
xa;in  xe;in  0:617  5:353
Fs n
The comparison between the calculated effectiveness and Sh ¼ 5:59  106  Re1:546
a  Sc0:333
a   1
the experimental values is shown in Fig. 4. For the two Fa 100
modules, the average absolute differences are 7.9% and ð21Þ
8.5% for the enthalpy and moisture effectiveness, respec-
tively. According to the comparison results, the calculated NTU values are gained by combining Eqs. (21) and (18),
results by the model accord well with the experimental which are used as inlet parameters in the theoretical model.
findings.
4.1. Overall effectiveness
3.2. Temperature distribution along desiccant outlet
Similar to the dehumidification process, enthalpy effec-
The measuring points for the distributions of air outlet tiveness and moisture effectiveness are adopted to describe
temperatures and humidity ratios were difficult to install the regenerator performance. The comparison between the
for the narrow space, and therefore, the measurement of calculated effectiveness and the experimental values is
the distributions of desiccant outlet parameters were cho- shown in Fig. 6, with the average absolute differences of
sen during the experiments. As predicted by the experimen- 5.8% and 6.9% for enthalpy and moisture effectiveness
tal results, the desiccant concentration changed only a respectively. Good agreement is shown between the pre-
little, so the desiccant outlet temperatures were measured dicted values and experimental findings.
to validate the parameters distribution predicted by the
model. The comparison results between the predicted val-
ues and the experimental findings are shown in Fig. 5 with
the air and desiccant inlet and outlet parameters shown in
30
Table 4.
As expressed by Fig. 5, the predicted desiccant outlet
29
temperatures’ changing trend is the same as that of the
experimental findings. The desiccant outlet temperature
28
was the highest in the left side (z = 0) and lowest in the
T s,out /°C

right side (z = L). The desiccant in the left side contacted

the most humid air and, hence, absorbed more moisture 27
from the air stream, that is, more vaporization latent heat
was released along the mass transfer process, leading to the 26
highest desiccant temperature there. Predicted values
25
Experimental results
4. Regeneration experimental data for validation
24
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
The schematic of the regeneration experimental rig is
shown in Fig. 3, where the heater B in the water system z /m
was open, and the desiccant was heated by the hot water Fig. 5. Comparison of simulation results with the experimental findings
before coming into the module. During the regeneration for desiccant outlet temperatures in the dehumidification process.

Table 4
Air and desiccant inlet and outlet parameters in dehumidification experiment for Figs. 5 and 8
Fa (kg/m2 s) Ta (C) xa (kg/kg) Fs (kg/m2 s) Ts (C) n (%)
Inlet parameters 1.97 31.7 0.013 3.08 22.9 45.7
Outlet parameters by experiment – 26.9 0.0099 – 27.8 45.7
Outlet parameters by simulation – 27.6 0.010 – 27.5 45.6

Table 5
Air and desiccant inlet parameters during the regeneration experiment
Module Fa (kg/m2 s) Ta (C) xa (kg/kg) Fs (kg/m2 s) Ts (C) n (%)
A 1.37–2.19 28.6–38.8 0.012–0.022 2.47–4.48 47.5–62.7 38.4–54.0
552 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554

80 50
+20%
0% 48
60
Predicted values /%

-20%
46

Ts,out /°C
40
44

20 Predicted values
42
Experimental results

0 40
0 20 40 60 80 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Experimental results /%
z /m

80 Fig. 7. Comparison of simulation results with the experimental findings

for desiccant outlet temperatures in the regeneration process.
+20%
0%
60 air since the mass transfer potential was essentially large
Predicted values /%

-20% there. The desiccant temperature decreased most because

more heat was required for the mass transfer process;
40 and therefore, the desiccant outlet temperature was the
lowest in the left side.

20 5. Utilization of the model

The above model can give the distributions of air tem-

0 perature and humidity ratio as well as desiccant tempera-
0 20 40 60
Experimental results /%
Fig. 6. Comparison of simulation results with the experimental findings
for air regeneration processes: (a) enthalpy effectiveness and (b) moisture
effectiveness.
4.2. Temperature distribution along desiccant outlet
Desiccant outlet temperatures were measured to validate
the model in the regeneration process. The comparison
results between the predicted temperatures and the experi-
mental findings are shown in Fig. 7 with the air and desic-
cant inlet and outlet parameters shown in Table 6. The
predicted desiccant outlet temperatures’ changing trend
by the model agrees well with that of the experimental
results. The desiccant outlet temperature reached the high-
est value in the right side and became the lowest value in
the left side. The reason may be explained as follows.
The desiccant in the left side contacted the driest air, and
more moisture was transferred from the desiccant to the
80
ture and concentration inside the module, as well as the
outlet parameters, which are important for studying
enhancement of the heat and mass transfer in the dehumid-
ifier/regenerator.
Take a dehumidification process as an example. Fig. 8
gives the temperature and concentration distributions in
the dehumidifier with the inlet parameters shown in Table
4. In this case, the air is cooled and dehumidified along its
flow direction, while the desiccant is heated and diluted
along its flow direction. At the air outlet (z = L), the air
at the top has the lowest temperature and humidity ratio
since it contacts the coolest and strongest desiccant there.
At the desiccant outlet (x = H), the desiccant at the left
has the lowest concentration and highest temperature
because the air humidity ratio as well as the mass transfer
driving force is essentially large there, and hence, more
moisture is transferred from the air to the desiccant, lead-
ing to the lowest desiccant concentration and highest desic-
cant temperature since the vaporization latent heat is
released during the mass transfer process.

Table 6
Air and desiccant inlet and outlet parameters in regeneration experiment for Fig. 7
Fa (kg/m2 s) Ta (C) xa (kg/kg) Fs (kg/m2 s) Ts (C) n (%)
Inlet parameters 1.41 35.4 0.021 2.77 57.3 47.1
Outlet parameters by experiment – 46.6 0.031 – 46.1 47.6
Outlet parameters by simulation – 46.2 0.031 – 46.3 47.4
 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554 553

Fig. 8. Temperature and concentration distributions in the dehumidifier with inlet parameters shown in Table 4: (a) air temperature; (b) air humidity ratio;
(c) desiccant temperature and (d) desiccant concentration (H = 0.55 m, L = 0.40 m).

In the case corresponding to Fig. 8, the maximum
temperature and humidity ratio differences of air in the
transverse direction of the air flow are as high as
2.7 C and 1.5 g/kg, while the maximum temperature
and concentration differences of desiccant in the trans-
verse direction of the desiccant flow are as high as
2.9 C and 0.1%. Other cases have similar situations,
including the regeneration processes. That suggests the
differences of air temperature and humidity ratio in the
transverse direction of the air flow can not be neglected.
The desiccant temperature difference in the transverse
direction of the desiccant flow can not be neglected
either, while the desiccant concentration difference in
the transverse direction of the desiccant flow can be rea-
sonably neglected.
6. Conclusion
A two dimensional theoretical model for the cross flow
dehumidifier/regenerator is established in this paper, where
Le and NTU should be taken as input values. Le is
assumed to be one, while NTU should be determined by
the corresponding experimental findings. In the present
analysis, NTU is correlated from the dimensionless correla-
tion provided by Chung and Wu with the constants newly
fitted by nonlinear regression of the present experimental
data.
Good agreement is shown between the calculated results
with the experimental findings. For the total 284 groups of
dehumidification experimental data, the average absolute
discrepancies for enthalpy effectiveness and moisture effec-
tiveness are 7.9% and 8.5%, respectively. For the 82 groups
of regeneration experimental results, the average discrepan-
cies for enthalpy and moisture effectiveness are 5.8% and
6.9%, respectively. The predicted distributions of the desic-
cant outlet temperatures by the theoretical model agree
well with both the dehumidification and regeneration
experimental results.
Based on the analysis of air and desiccant temperature
and concentration fields, the desiccant concentration differ-
ence in the transverse direction of the desiccant flow can be
reasonably neglected, while the differences of air tempera-
ture, air humidity ratio and desiccant temperature in their
flow transverse directions can not be neglected.
554 X.H. Liu et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 546–554
Acknowledgement
The funding provided by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 50276029) and the Specialized
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Edu-
cation (No. 20050003051) are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Waugaman DG, Kini A, Kettleborough CF. A review of desiccant
cooling systems. J Energy Res Technol-Trans ASME 1993;115:1–8.
[2] Jain S, Dhar PL, Kaushik SC. Evaluation of liquid desiccant based
evaporative cooling cycles for typical hot and humid climates. Heat
Recov Syst CHP 1994;14:621–32.
[3] Kessling W, Laevemann E, Kapfhammer C. Energy storage for
desiccant cooling systems component development. Sol Energy
1998;64:209–21.
[4] Oberg V, Goswami DY. Experimental study of the heat and mass
transfer in a packed bed liquid desiccant air dehumidifier. J Sol
Energy Eng Trans-ASME 1998;120:289–97.
[5] Miao RS. Study of alternative liquid absorbents using a thermody-
namic model and a combined physico-optical method, PhD thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at
Chicago, Chicago, 1997.
[6] Factor HM, Grossman G. A packed bed dehumidifier/regenerator for
solar air conditioning with liquid desiccants. Sol Energy
1980;24:541–50.
[7] Gandhidasan P, Kettleborough CF, Ullah MR. Calculation of heat
and mass transfer coefficients in a packed tower operating with a
desiccant-air contact system. J Sol Energy Eng Trans-ASME
1986;108:123–8.
[8] Stevens DI, Braun JE, Klein SA. An effectiveness model of liquid
desiccant system heat/mass exchangers. Sol Energy 1989;42:449–55.
[9] Sadasivam M, Balakrishnan AR. Effectiveness-NTU method for
design of packed bed liquid desiccant dehumidifiers. Chem Eng Res
Des 1992;70:572–7.
[10] Khan AY. Sensitivity analysis and component modeling of a packed-
type liquid desiccant system at partial load operating conditions. Int J
Energy Res 1994;18:643–55.
[11] Potnis SV, Lenz TG. Dimensionless mass-transfer correlations for
packed-bed liquid desiccant contactors. Ind Eng Chem Res
1996;35:4185–93.
[12] Chung TW, Wu H. Comparison between spray towers with and
without fin coils for air dehumidification using triethylene glycol
solutions and development of the mass-transfer correlations. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2000;39:2076–84.
[13] Jain S, Dhar PL, Kaushik SC. Experimental studies on the
dehumidifier and regenerator of a liquid desiccant cooling system.
Appl Therm Eng 2000;20:253–67.
[14] Khan AY. Cooling and dehumidification performance analysis of
internally-cooled liquid desiccant absorbers. Appl Therm Eng
1998;18:265–81.
[15] Grossman G. Simultaneous heat and mass transfer in film absorption
under laminar flow. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1983;26:357–71.
[16] Ali A, Vafai K, Khaled ARA. Comparative study between parallel
and counter flow configurations between air and falling film desiccant
in the presence of nanoparticle suspensions. Int J Energy Res
2003;27:725–45.
[17] Ali A, Vafai K, Khaled ARA. Analysis of heat and mass transfer
between air and falling film in a cross flow configuration. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 2004;47:743–55.
[18] Dai YJ, Zhang HF. Numerical simulation and theoretical analysis of
heat and mass transfer in a cross flow liquid desiccant air dehumidifier
packed with honeycomb paper. Energy Convers Manage
2004;45:1343–56.
[19] Zografos AI, Petroff C. A liquid desiccant dehumidifier performance
model. ASHRAE Trans 1991;97:650–6.
[20] Park M, Howell JR, Vliet GC, Peterson J. Numerical and
experimental results for coupled heat and mass-transfer between a
desiccant film and air in cross-flow. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
1994;37:395–402.
[21] Liu XH, Zhang Y, Qu KY, Jiang Y. Experimental study on mass
transfer performances of cross-flow dehumidifier using liquid desic-
cant. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:2682–92.
[22] Al-Farayedhi AA, Gandhidasan P, Al-Mutairi MA. Evaluation of
heat and mass transfer coefficients in a gauze-type structured packing
air dehumidifier operating with liquid desiccant. Int J Refrig
2002;25:330–9.
[23] Liu XH, Qu KY, Jiang Y. Empirical correlations to predict the
performance of the dehumidifier using liquid desiccant in heat and
mass transfer. Renew Energy 2006;31:1627–39.