AIChE Journal

Transport Phenomena and Fluid Mechanics

DOI10.1002/aic.16595

A Three-Zone Mass Transfer Model for a Rotating Packed Bed

Le Sang,1,2 Yong Luo, 1,2* Guang-Wen Chu,1,2*

Bao-Chang Sun, 1,2 Liang-Liang Zhang, 1,2 Jian-Feng Chen1,2

1
State Key Laboratory of Organic-Inorganic Composites and 2Research Center of the

Ministry of Education for High Gravity Engineering and Technology, Beijing

University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, PR China

* Corresponding author: E-mail address: luoyong@mail.buct.edu.cn;

chugw@mail.buct.edu.cn

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has
not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process
which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please
cite this article as doi: 10.1002/aic.16595

© 2019 American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Received: Oct 10, 2018;Revised: Feb 03, 2019;Accepted: Feb 25, 2019

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abstract

A rotating packed bed (RPB) is recognized for its merits in chemical process

intensification. In most studies of RPB mass transfer modeling, however, the effects

of the end and cavity zones have not been taken into consideration since it was very

difficult to distinguish the end and bulk zones by hydrodynamics and mass transfer

process. In this work, the radial thickness of the end zone was obtained by developing

a probability method and imaging experiments to separate the end and bulk zones. A

three-zone model, including end, bulk, and cavity zones, of the overall gas-side

volumetric mass transfer coefficient (KGa)t was first established. Experiments of

dissolved MEA chemisorption of CO2 was carried out to validate the proposed

three-zone mass transfer model. The results of the MEA-CO2 absorption experiments

showed that the experimentally obtained values of CO2 absorption efficiency were in

agreement within ±20% with the model predictions.

Keywords: rotating packed bed, radial thickness of end zone, three-zone, mass

transfer model, CO2 absorption

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Introduction

A rotating packed bed (RPB) is regarded as an excellent device for chemical

process intensification.1-2 When the liquid phase is introduced into the rotor of a RPB,

it is split into fine droplets, ligaments, and thin liquid films by the rotating porous

packing.3-4 As a result, the mass transfer coefficient and micromixing efficiency of a

RPB are up to 1-3 orders of magnitude in comparison with a traditional packed bed.5-7

RPBs have been widely used for gas-liquid, liquid-liquid, and gas-liquid-solid

systems, such as absorption8 and distillation,9 condensation reaction,2 production of

nanoparticles10 and catalytic hydrogenation.11

The mass transfer performance in a RPB can be determined by experimental

measurement and mass transfer model.12-13 Experimental measurement yields

empirical correlations of mass transfer coefficients associated with experiments, but

specific to the operating conditions. The establishment of a mass transfer model is

more universal, although being dependent upon the hydrodynamics, but beneficial for

the scale-up of the RPB. Guo et al.14 developed models of overall gas-side volumetric

mass transfer coefficient (KGa) and overall liquid-side volumetric mass transfer

coefficient (KLa) considering liquid droplets and films in the packing of the RPB

based on the surface renewal theory.15 Luo et al.12 evaluated the liquid-side volumetric

mass transfer coefficient (kLa) by the assumption of droplets and films flowing in a

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

blade-packing RPB. Sun et al.16 established a mass transfer model of KGa based upon

the existence of liquid droplets and films in a RPB. Qian et al.17 proposed a mass

transfer model of kLa for the MDEA absorption of CO2 with assumption of liquid

films in the packing zone of a RPB. Zhang et al.18 took droplet flow into consideration

in the RPB and developed kLa expression for absorption of CO2 by an ionic liquid.

As shown in Figure 1, the RPB consists of a static casing, a rotating rotor loaded

with packing, a static liquid distributor, and static gas/liquid inlets and outlets. For

RPBs, it is expected that hydrodynamics was different from the packed columns due

to the packing rotation. The most significant zone of the packing in the rotor is the

so-called end zone (the inner packing zone). Because of a large relative velocity

between liquid and packing, this zone has the advantage of intense fluid mass transfer

and mixing enhancement. The rest part of the packing zone is called the bulk zone.

The cavity zone is the annular space between the outer rotor edge and the inner casing

boundary, where lots of small liquid droplets fly. In most studies of RPB mass transfer

modeling, the effects of the end and cavity zones on the mass transfer were not taken

into separated and combined consideration since it was very difficult to distinguish

the physically continuous packing zone to be the end and bulk zone by

hydrodynamics and mass transfer process. Ten years ago, Yi et al.19 developed a KGa

model of the RPB by considering different droplet sizes in the end and bulk zones,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

however with a fixed radial thickness of the end zone of 10 mm. Although the mass

transfer model of Yi et al. was optimized, the influence of experimental conditions on

the radial thickness of the end zone was not discussed, and the lack of appropriate

mass transfer model studies hampers the further structure optimization and industrial

applications of the RPB, especially applied for fast gas-liquid mass transfer process

with known reaction kinetics.

The objective of the present work aimed at completing these shortcomings. The

radial thickness of the end zone was first obtained by a probability calculation method,

and then the end and bulk zones were distinguished. The overall gas-phase volumetric

mass transfer coefficient model was established based on the end, bulk, and cavity

zones (called a three-zone model). Combining imaging data by a high-speed camera

and a mass transfer theory, the three-zone mass transfer model of the RPB was

developed to predict the MEA absorption of CO2. Effects of various parameters on the

radial thickness of the end zone, such as rotational speed and liquid initial velocity, as

well as the predicted CO2 absorption efficiency were investigated.

Model Development

Determination of the radial thickness of the end zone by a probability method

An important prerequisite for developing a three-zone mass transfer model of the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

RPB, is dividing the end and bulk zones. Taking the stainless wire mesh packing

loaded in a RPB as an example, the liquid is introduced into the rotating packing by

the liquid distributor and the liquid flow in the end zone is complex. Part of the liquid

is intensely torn and sheared into droplets along the radial direction of the end zone.

The other part of the liquid adheres to the packing surface under the influence of the

packing rotation in the circumferential direction.

By these actions, we assumed that 99% of liquid has been ever captured by the

rotating packing layers at the tail (outer edge) of the end zone.20 The probability of

liquid captured by every packing layer is pi . When 99% of liquid has been completely

captured at eth packing layers, Eq. 1 applies:

∏ (1 − p )Q ≤ (1 − 0.99)Q
i =1
i (1)

As shown in Figure 2, the radial thickness of each packing layer is d w and the

gap between two adjacent packing layers is bw . There is almost no gap between the

first packing layer and the packing support. When eth packing layer is at the tail of the

end zone, the radial thickness of the end zone is given by Eq. 2.

Re = ed w + (e − 1)bw (2)

Due to the complexity of the packing structure within the RPB, it is necessary to

simplify the physical packing structure to calculate pi according to the following

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

assumptions. As shown in Figure 3, the packing zone is generally composed of

multi-layer of wire meshes in the shape of concentric annuli, and the structure of the

packing layer of the wire mesh consists of horizontal and vertical fibers. The diameter

of the fiber is named as d w (equaling to radial thickness of one packing layer) and

the length of the square opening is named as cw . It can be considered that pi of one

square unit is the same as each layer of the wire mesh packing.

Figure 4 shows the calculation processes of pi for one square unit. The packing

characteristic pi of one square unit equals the captured area of horizontal and

vertical fibers ( Sv , S w ) divided by the total area of one square unit ( St ), which can be

obtained by

Sv + S w
pi = (3)
St

Figure 4(a) shows that the total area of one square unit can be obtained by

=
S t ( cw + d w ) 2 (4)

The shadowed area of Figure 4a shows the total captured area of both horizontal

and vertical fibers. It can be seen from the shadowed area of Figure 4b that the

captured area of the vertical fiber ( Sv ) equals to the moving circumferential length ( l )

of the vertical fiber multiplied by cw , which is expressed by

Sv = cwl (5)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 The moving circumferential length is equal to the linear velocity of the wire

mesh fiber ( v ) multiplied by the residence time of liquid flowing through one square

unit ( t ), as shown in Eq. 6

l = vt (6)

The v and t were obtained by

v = ω ri.out (7)

dw
t= (8)
u0

Substituting Eqs. 6-8 into Eq. 5 gives Sv as shown in Eq. 9

cw d ww ri ,out
Sv = (9)
u0

The fixed captured area of the horizontal and vertical fibers ( S w ), shown by the

shadowed area in Figure 4c, was obtained from:

=S w d w (2cw + d w ) (10)

Substituting Eq. 4, Eq. 9, and Eq. 10 into Eq. 3 determines pi

cw d ww ri ,out
d w (d w + 2cw ) +
u0
pi = (11)
(cw + d w ) 2

Because 0 ≤ pi ≤ 1 , the critical applicable condition of pi should be considered

and is obtained from:

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 dw
d w (d w + 2cw ) + w cw ri ,out
u0
0≤ ≤1 (12)
(d w + cw ) 2

Equation 12 can be simplified as

 dw   u0 
  ≤   (13)
 cw exp  w ri ,out  min

The opening of the corrugated wire mesh actually used in the followed

experiments is irregular as shown in Figure 5a and the width of the opening is not

easy to be measured directly. The width of the square opening was calculated by

simplifying the structure of the corrugated wire mesh opening as shown in Figure

5b. Two corrugated openings were supposed to be a rhomboid. The area of a

rhomboid was assumed to be equal to the area of two square openings, thus cw

was obtained from calculating Sr by Eq. 14.

=
S r 2=
S s 2cw2 (14)

Mass transfer model

K G a is an important parameter which can be used to characterize the mass

transfer performance. Taking CO2 absorption into MEA solution as an example, the

absorption rate of CO2 under a steady operating condition, according to the two-film

theory, can be written as 21

= (∗
N CO2 a K G aP yco2 − yco2
) (15)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 ∗
where yCO2 and yCO are the mole fraction and equilibrium mole fraction of CO2 in
2

the gas phase, respectively.

Considering a micro-size packing ring with an axial height of h and radial

thickness of dr in the RPB, the mass balance can be given as 21

y CO
N CO2 ⋅ a ⋅ 2π rhdr =GI d ( 2
) (16)
1 − y CO
2

where GI is the inert gas molar flow rate.

Combining Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 gives the following equation:

yco2
K G aP( yco2 − yco∗ 2 )2π rhdr =
GI d ( ) (17)
1 − yco2

Because of the fast reaction rate between CO2 and MEA solution, the absorbed

CO2 in the solution is consumed immediately during the absorption process. 22 The

∗
yCO2
can thus be assumed to zero and K G a can be derived from Eq. 17 as

GI yco2,in (1 − yco2,out ) yco2,in yco2,out

=KG a [ln + ( − )] (18)
Pπ ( rout
2
− rin2 ) h yco2,out (1 − yco2,in ) 1 − yco2,in 1 − yco2,out

where rin and rout are the inner and outer radii of packing, respectively. If K G a

and yco 2 ,in

are known, yco 2 ,out
can be calculated by Eq. 18. Then CO2 absorption

efficiency can be predicted by the following equation:

yco2 ,out
η= 1 − (19)
yco2 ,in

Next step, we give the calculation model of K G a in the whole RPB based on

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

the end, bulk, and cavity zones as followed. According to the volume weighted

average of the total gas-side volumetric mass transfer coefficient of the three zones,

( K G a )t can be written as

( K G a )e Ve + ( K G a )b Vb + ( K G a )c Vc
( K G a )t = (20)
Ve + Vb + Vc

As shown in Figure 6, K G a of each mass transfer zone can be determined by the gas

and liquid phase mass transfer as follows:

1 1 1
= + (21)
K G a kG a Hk L a

Before establishing the three-zone mass transfer model for the absorption, the

following simplifications were accepted:

1. The pore flow, liquid film flow, and droplet flow were observed in the end and

bulk zones,23 but the proportion of the different liquid flow patterns is still unclear.

The majority of liquid inside the packing zone under the high-gravity environment

existed as dispersed droplets by the strong shear and impingement of packing fibers

based upon previous imaging studies of liquid flow in a RPB.24 Because droplets from

the outer edge of the packing move into the cavity zone and impact upon the inner

wall of the casing, lots of mother liquid droplets flows in the cavity zone, and liquid

films would form on the inner wall of the casing and daughter droplets were generated

in the cavity zone.25 The surface areas of droplets in the three zones and surface area

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

of liquid film on the inner wall of the casing were therefore regarded as the gas-liquid

effective interfacial area.

2. The gas behavior, such as the gas flow, gas temperature, gas viscosity, and gas

composition almost has no effect on the shape and flow path of liquid flow pattern.

The liquid was dispersed in the gas phase.12

3. Isothermal absorption of CO2 takes place in the RPB.

Liquid-side mass transfer coefficient (kL)

The MEA absorption of CO2 can be treated as a fast and pseudo-first-order

reaction. 21, 22 The mass transfer process of the simultaneous absorption of CO2 can be

assumed to reach a steady state instantaneously. At the macroscopic view, liquid

droplets at radial direction was assumed as plug flow in a RPB.7 The mass equation of

CO2 in a liquid droplet can thus be expressed as 16

∂c D ∂ ∂c
= 2L (r 2 ) − k1c (22)
∂t r ∂r ∂r

The concentration gradient of CO2 tends to zero at the center of the droplet,

whereas the initial concentration of CO2 is c0 at the surface of the droplet. Therefore,

the boundary conditions for Eq. 22 are

∂c
=0 (23-a)
∂t

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 ∂c
=0 (r = 0) (23-b)
∂r

d
c = c0 (r = ) (23-c)
2

The solution of Eq. 22 satisfying Eq. 23 is given by

d k k d
c = c0 sinh( 1 r ) / sinh( 1 ) (24)
2r DL DL 2

The flux of mass transfer can be obtained as

∂c
=J AL D= k Ld c0 (25)
∂r r = d
L
2

The mass transfer coefficient of CO2 in the droplet can hence be expressed as

k1 k d 2
=k Ld DL ( / tanh( 1 )− ) (26)
DL DL 2 d

The mass equation of CO2 in the liquid film can be expressed as

∂c ∂c
= DL − k1c (27)
∂t ∂y

The initial concentration of CO2 on the surface of the film is c0 . The boundary

conditions for Eq. 27 are hence:

∂c
=0 (28-a)
∂t

∂c
=0 ( y = 0) (28-b)
∂y

c = c0 ( y =δ ) (28-c)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 The solution to Eq. 27 is

k1 k
c = c0 sech( δ ) cosh( 1 y ) (29)
DL DL

The mass transfer flux can be obtained as

∂c
=J AL D= k Lf c0 (30)
∂y y =δ
L

The mass transfer coefficient of CO2 in the liquid film can therefore be expressed

as

k1 k k
k Lf = sech( 1 δ ) sinh( 1 δ ) (31)
DL DL DL

Gas-side mass transfer coefficient (kG)

Previous studies reported that gas-side mass transfer coefficient ( kGp ) was not

significantly influenced by the centrifugal force in the RPB.26 The gas flow in RPB is

akin to that in a packed column and the values of kGp of a RPB lie in a range similar

to that in the packed column.16, 19 Hence, kGp in the end and bulk zones can be

estimated by 27

kGp = 2at DG Re0.7 Sc1/3 (at d p ) −2 (32)

A larger number of dispersed droplets flying were observed in the cavity zone

based on a visual study. The interaction of gas and liquid flows in the cavity zone was

akin to that in a spray tower and the values of the gas-side mass transfer coefficient in

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

the cavity zone ( kGc ) of a RPB was assumed to be similar to that in a spray tower. 24

kGc in the cavity zone can hence be estimated by 28

DG
=
kGc (2 + 0.552 Re0.5 Sc1/3 ) (33)
d

Gas-liquid effective interfacial area (a)

In previous studies, the droplet diameter of the end zone was very small due to

the intense impingement between the liquid and rotational packing.23 Because of the

smaller flow area in the end zone, droplets had more possibility to coalesce than those

in the bulk zone. The droplet diameter of the end zone grew moderately when liquid

flowed from the inner edge to the tail of the end zone. The expression of droplet

diameter in the end zone is hence determined: 19

d e = (0.826 + 17.4( re − ri ))d1 (34)

The gas-liquid effective interfacial area of the end zone can be calculated as

6e e
ae = (35)
de

The liquid holdup in the end zone is evaluated by the correlation of 14

e e = 47.45Le 0.772 (ω 2 re )
−0.545
(36)

In the bulk zone, the cross-sectional flow area increases as liquid flows outward,

so the possibility of coalescence between liquid droplets is relatively small. Thus, the

droplet diameter decreases with increasing the outer packing radius and is regressed

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

as follows: 18

σ
db = 12.84( )0.630 L0.201 (37)
ω rb r
2 b

The gas-liquid effective interfacial area of the bulk zone can be calculated as

6ε b
ab = (38)
db

The liquid holdup in the bulk zone is evaluated by Eq. 39

ε b = 47.45Lb 0.772 (ω 2 rb )
−0.545
(39)

The mass transfer surface area of the cavity zone ( Ac ) had been determined 25 and

the gas-liquid effective interfacial area can be written as:

Ac
ac = (40)
Vc

Experimental Section

To verify the probability calculation method, an imaging study of the droplet

flow in the cavity zone of the RPB was conducted by a high-speed camera. Figure 7a

shows a setup of the experimental system, including an image acquisition system and

a RPB system. The experimental procedure for the imaging processes was described

as follows. At a constant temperature of about 15 °C, water was fed into the rotor

through two stationary distributors and moved radically outwards through the rotor

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

driven by the centrifugal force generated by the rotating shaft. The liquid distributor

consists of two pipes configured in parallel with the shaft, and each pipe has a single

nozzle of 3 mm diameter. The water was subsequently collected at the bottom of the

casing and discharged through the liquid outlet. A high-speed camera (FASTCAM

SA4, Photron Limited, Japan) with lens (AF 200 mm f/4D, Nikon Co., Japan) placed

right above the various outer packing radii was utilized to capture the images of

droplet motion in the cavity zone. The illumination was placed around the shooting

area and was on when the high speed camera was imaging. The specifications of RPB,

packing, and high-speed camera are listed in Table 1.

The operating conditions of imaging were a rotational speed of 300-1100 r/min, a

liquid flow rate of 60-140 L/h. The packing was added two layers by two layers

closely starting from the inner packing support to avoid the deformation of one layer

of the wire mesh. The total changing number of packing layers was 26.

Previous studies show that the droplet tangential angle ( θ ) is an potential

parameter to judge the radial thickness of the end zone because the variation of

droplet tangential angle is remarkable in the end zone and almost unchanged in the

bulk zone in the rotor of the RPB.29 We assumed that if the ratio of the tangential

angle difference of liquid droplet of the adjacent two two-packing-layers to the

th
tangential angle at i packing layer is less than 0.05, as shown in Eq. 41, the radius

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

difference of 1st and i th
packing layer can be regarded as the radial thickness of the

end zone.

θi + 2 − θi
≤ 0.05 (i=2, 4, 6...24) (41)
θi

Figure 7b shows the top view of the packing and cavity zones of the RPB. From

Figure 7b, the droplet tangential angle can be calculated as shown in Eq. 42.

180 u
θ= arcsin( r ) (42)
π u

The droplet radial (Eq. 43) and resultant velocity (Eq. 44) are expressed as

( x3 − x1 ) 2 + ( y3 − y1 ) 2 − ( x2 − x1 ) 2 + ( y2 − y1 ) 2
ur = λ (43)
∆t

( x3 − x2 ) 2 + ( y3 − y2 ) 2
u=λ (44)
∆t

where O1(x1, y1), O2(x2, y2), and O3(x3, y3) are the centroid coordinate of the rotor, the

target droplet in the first image, the target droplet in the second image, respectively.

∆t is the time interval between two consecutive images in pixels. For the sake of

reducing errors, the value of the average droplet velocity under each experimental

condition was obtained by measuring 30 liquid droplets from the images recorded at

different frames.

Results and Discussion

Comparison of probability method and imaging experiment for the radial

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

thickness of the end zone

Figure 8 presents the effect of rotational speed on the average droplet tangential

angle. The average droplet tangential angle decreased when increasing the number of

the packing layer at various rotational speeds. The increase of the number of the

packing layer meant an increase of outer packing radius and resulted in a larger linear

velocity of packing. Thus more droplets were captured and flew along the tangential

direction, leading to the decrease of the average droplet tangential angle with the

increase of the number of the packing layer. It also can be seen from Figure 8 that the

variation of droplet tangential angle is faster to stabilize with an increasing rotational

speed, probably by an increase in the liquid captured probability of the vertical fibers,

as the rotational speed increases. The packing layer number at the tail of the end zone

could be calculated by Eq. 41 and then the radial thickness of end zone was calculated

by Eq. 2 as shown in Table 2.

Figure 9 displays the effect of the liquid initial velocity on the average droplet

tangential angle, showing that the average droplet tangential angle decreased with an

increasing layer number of packing at various liquid initial velocities. It also can be

seen from Figure 9 that the variation of droplet tangential angle is slower to stabilize

with an increasing liquid initial velocity, since more liquids were introduced into the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

packing with an increasing liquid initial velocity and were captured by more layers of

packing at a constant rotational speed. The packing layer number at the tail of the end

zone could be calculated by Eq. 41 and then the radial thickness of end zone was

calculated by Eq. 2 as shown in Table 3.

Figure 10 shows the comparison of experimental and predicted radial thickness

of the end zone at different rotational speeds or liquid initial velocities. The

experimental results agree well with the probability calculation method. The average

calculation error in the experiments is less than 19%. Two suggestions to further

reduce the difference between the experiments and predicted values are: (1) try to add

the packing layer one by one in the imaging experiments; (2) consider the influence of

the packing support on the liquid flow in the probability calculation.

Three-zone mass transfer model validation

The chemisorption CO2 into MEA solution was employed to validate the

three-zone mass transfer model for the prediction of CO2 absorption efficiency. The

experimental results of CO2 absorption was obtained from Li’s report of our group.30

The RPB was packed with stainless steel wire mesh packing, whose fiber diameter

and porosity were 0.22 mm and 0.95, respectively. The packing parameter of the

above literature is similar to that of the above imaging work, thus packing parameter

used for the model calculation of CO2 absorption efficiency are based on the imaging

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

work.

Figure 11 is the diagonal plot of the experimental and predicted values of CO2

absorption efficiency. It can be found that the three-zone mass transfer model offers

relatively precise predictions on CO2 absorption efficiency in the RPB, with a

deviation within ±20% compared to the experimental values.

Calculated KGa in the three zones of the RPB with various operating conditions

Figure 12 shows the values of the model-calculated KGa in the three zones of the

RPB under different rotational speeds. It can be seen that KGa of the end zone is about

3 times that of bulk and cavity zones. The values of KGa of cavity zone are a little

higher than that of the bulk zone. Figure 12 also displays the dependence of the

model-calculated KGa on the rotational speed, showing KGa increased with an

increasing rotational speed. With an increase in rotational speed, the droplet diameter

decreased, which led to a increment of the gas-liquid contact area (a) and liquid side

volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) to obtain a larger KGa of end zone. The

values of KGa of bulk zone seem to be no obvious change with the increase of the

rotational speed. For the cavity zone, the values of KGa increased with an increasing

rotational speed from 400 to 1000 r/min firstly, and then slightly decreased with an

increasing rotational speed from 1000 to 1200 r/min. The higher rotational speed

significantly increased the gas-liquid contact area and hence intensified the mass

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

transfer process. Also, an increasing rotational speed can reduce the liquid residence

time in the cavity zone and thus weaken the absorption of CO2. The latter factor was

more predominant at rotational speed beyond 1000 r/min, and resulted in the slow

reduction in KGa.

Figure 13 presents the dependence of KGa on the liquid initial velocity in the

three zones of the RPB. As expected, the values of KGa increased with increasing the

liquid initial velocity in all the three zones. The increase of the liquid initial velocity

could result in the increase of the liquid holdup and gas-liquid contact area in the three

zones, which is the main reason for the increase of KGa. Besides, mass transfer

contribution of cavity zone is much more with different liquid initial velocities,

compared with different rotational speeds.

Figure 14 illustrates how KGa depends on the gas volumetric flow rate in the

three zones of the RPB. KGa of all three zones increases with gas volumetric flow rate,

due to an increased turbulence between gas and liquid phases and an decrease of

gas-side mass transfer resistance.

Figure 15 depicts KGa values with the MEA concentration in the three zones of

the RPB, with a steady increase with an increasing MEA concentration as the result of

an increasing reaction rate between MEA solution and CO2 with associated increase in

kL, and thus a KGa increase in the three zones.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 As can be seen from Figures 12-15, the end, bulk, and cavity zones contribute to

the total mass transfer of the whole RPB. According to the calculation, the end, bulk,

and cavity zones contribute cumulatively to the total gas-side volumetric mass transfer

coefficient in the different experimental conditions for around 50-66%, 15-20%,

15-26%, respectively, thus it could be found that dominant mass transfer contribution

to the total mass transfer in the whole RPB is the end zone.

Conclusions

This work calculates the radial thickness of the end zone by using a probability

method. The number of the packing layers in the end zone was about 6-16 with the

experimental operating conditions in this work. With these results, we succeeded in

dividing the packing zone to be end and bulk zones. A three-zone model of overall

gas-side volumetric mass transfer coefficient (KGa)t has been established based on the

physical zones of end, bulk, and cavity. The system of MEA solution chemisorption

of CO2 was used to verify the mass transfer model. Experimental results of absorption

efficiency were in agreement within ±20% with the predicted data by the model. It

could be found that the end zone contributes more than 50% to the total mass transfer

in the whole RPB.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

(Nos. 21725601, 21676009, and 21436001).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Notation

ab effective interfacial area of bulk zone, m2/m3

ac effective interfacial area of cavity zone, m2/m3
ae effective interfacial area of end zone, m2/m3
Ac mass transfer area of cavity zone, m
bw distance between packing layers, m
cMEA MEA concentration, mol/L
cw width of mesh opening, m
d average droplet diameter, m
db average droplet diameter in bulk zone, m
de average droplet diameter in end zone, m
dw fiber diameter, m
DL diffusion coefficient in liquid, m2/s
DG diffusion coefficient in gas, m2/s
G gas volumetric flow rate, m3/h
H Henry constant, kmol/m3•Pa
h axial height of packing, m

( K G a )b overall gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of bulk zone, 1/s

( K G a )c overall gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of cavity zone, 1/s

( K G a )e overall gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of end zone, 1/s

( K G a )t overall three-zone volumetric mass transfer coefficient, 1/s

( kG a ) b gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of bulk zone, 1/s

( kG a ) c gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of cavity zone, 1/s

( kG a ) e gas-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of end zone, 1/s

( k L a )b liquid-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of bulk zone, 1/s

( k L a )c liquid-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of cavity zone, 1/s

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

( k L a )e liquid-phase volumetric mass transfer coefficient of end zone, 1/s
k1 pseudo first order rate constant, s
l moving circumferential length of vertical fiber, m
N rotational speed, r/min
n number of packing layer at the tail of the bulk zone
P pressure, Pa
pi probability of captured liquid
Q liquid volumetric flow rate, L/h
ri ,out outer packing radius at the ith packing layer, m
rin inner radius of the packing zone, m
rout outer radius of the packing zone, m
Re radial thickness of end zone, m
St total captured area, m2
Sv captured area of vertical fiber, m2
Sw fixed captured area of horizontal and vertical fibers, m2
Sc Schmidt number
T temperature, K
u0 liquid initial velocity, m/s
ur liquid radial velocity. m/s
Vb packing volume of bulk zone, m3
Vc packing volume of cavity zone, m3
Ve packing volume of end zone, m3
Vt volume of RPB, m3
yin mole fraction of gas inlet
yout mole fraction of gas outlet
Greek letters
ω rotational speed, rad/s

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ρ liquid density, kg/m3
µ liquid viscosity, Pa•s
ε liquid holdup
σ liquid surface tension, N/m
θ contact degree, °
η absorption efficiency
δ liquid film thickness, m
λ calibrated spatial resolution of the droplet photograph, mm/pixel

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

1. Ramshaw C, Mallinson RH. Mass Transfer Process. US patent 4,283,255. 1981.

2. Zhao H, Shao L, Chen JF. High-Gravity Process Intensification Technology and

Application. Chem Eng J. 2010;156(3):588-593.

3. Bašić A, Duduković MP. Liquid Holdup in Rotating Packed Beds: Examination of

the Film Flow Assumption. AIChE J. 1995;41(2):301-316.

4. Yan ZY, Lin C, Ruan Q. Dynamics of Droplets and Mass Transfer in a Rotating

Packed Bed. AIChE J. 2014;60(7):2705-2723.

5. Zhang LL, Wang JX, Liu ZP, Lu Y, Chu GW, Wang WC, Chen JF. Efficient Capture

of Carbon Dioxide with Novel Mass-Transfer Intensification Device Using Ionic

Liquids. AIChE J. 2013;59(8):2957-2965.

6. Luo Y, Luo JZ, Chu GW, Zhao ZQ, Arowo M, Chen JF. Investigation of Effective

Interfacial Area in a Rotating Packed Bed with Structured Stainless Steel Wire

Mesh Packing. Chem Eng Sci. 2017;170:347-354.

7. Chen JF, Gao H, Zou HK, Chu GW, Zhang L, Shao L, Xiang Y, Wu YX. Cationic

Polymerization in Rotating Packed Bed Reactor: Experimental and Modeling.

AIChE J. 2010;56(4):1053-1062.

8. Chu GW, Fei J, Cai Y, Liu YZ, Gao Y, Luo Y, Chen JF. Removal of SO2 with Sodium

Sulfite Solution in a Rotating Packed Bed. Ind Eng Chem Res.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 2018;57(6):2329-2335.

9. Li YM, Li XH, Wang Y, Chen YY, Ji JB, Yu YL, Xu ZC. Distillation in a Counterflow

Concentric-Ring Rotating Bed. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2014;53(12):4821-4837.

10. Leng JN, Chen JY, Wang D, Wang JX, Pu Y, Chen JF. Scalable Preparation of

Gd2O3:Yb3+/Er3+ Upconversion Nanophosphors in a High-Gravity Rotating

Packed Bed Reactor for Transparent Upconversion Luminescent Films. Ind Eng

Chem Res 2017;56(28):7977-7983.

11. Dhiman SK, Verma V, Rao DP, Rao MS. Process Intensification in a Trickle-Bed

Reactor: Experimental Studies. AIChE J. 2005;51(12):3186-3192.

12. Luo Y, Chu GW, Zou HK, Wang F, Xiang Y, Shao L, Chen JF. Mass Transfer

Studies in a Rotating Packed Bed with Novel Rotors: Chemisorption of CO2. Ind

Eng Chem Res. 2012;51(26):9164-9172.

13. Luo Y, Chu GW, Zou HK, Zhao ZQ, Dudukovic MP, Chen JF. Gas-Liquid Effective

Interfacial Area in a Rotating Packed Bed. Ind Eng Chem Res.

2012;51(50):16320-16325.

14. Guo F, Zheng C, Guo K, Feng Y, Gardner NC. Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer

in Cross-Flow Rotating Packed Bed. Chem Eng Sci. 1997;52(21-22):3853-3859.

15. Danckwerts PV. Significance of Liquid-Film Coefficients in Gas Absorption.

Insights into Chemical Engineering. 1981:51-75.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

16. Sun BC, Wang XM, Chen JM, Chu GW, Chen JF, Shao L. Simultaneous

Absorption of CO2 and NH3 into Water in a Rotating Packed Bed. Ind Eng Chem

Res. 2009;48(24):11175-11180.

17. Qian Z, Xu LB, Cao HB, Guo K. Modeling Study on Absorption of CO2 by

Aqueous Solutions of N-Methyldiethanolamine in Rotating Packed Bed. Ind Eng

Chem Res. 2009;48(20):9261-9267.

18. Zhang LL, Wang JX, Xiang Y, Zeng XF, Chen JF. Absorption of Carbon Dioxide

with Ionic Liquid in a Rotating Packed Bed Contactor: Mass Transfer Study. Ind

Eng Chem Res. 2011;50(11):6957-6964.

19. Yi F, Zou HK, Chu GW, Shao L, Chen JF. Modeling and Experimental Studies on

Absorption of CO2 by Benfield Solution in Rotating Packed Bed. Chem Eng J.

2009;145(3):377-384.

20. David WW. A Mathematical Description of the Fluid Boundary Layer. Appl Math

Comput. 2006;175:1675-1684.

21. Jassim MS, Rochelle G, Eimer D, Ramshaw C. Carbon Dioxide Absorption and

Desorption in Aqueous Monoethanolamine Solutions in a Rotating Packed Bed.

Ind Eng Chem Res. 2007;46(9):2823-2833.

22. Bishnoi S, Rochelle GT. Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Aqueous Piperazine:

Reaction Kinetics, Mass Transfer and Solubility. Chem Eng Sci.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 2000;55(22):5531-5543.

23. Burns JR, Ramshaw C. Process Intensification: Visual Study of Liquid

Maldistribution in Rotating Packed Beds. Chem Eng Sci. 1996;51(8):1347-1352.

24. Sang L, Luo Y, Chu GW, Zhang JP, Xiang Y, Chen JF. Liquid Flow Pattern

Transition, Droplet Diameter and Size Distribution in the Cavity Zone of a

Rotating Packed Bed: A Visual Study. Chem Eng Sci. 2017;158:429-438.

25. Sang L, Luo Y, Chu GW, Liu YZ, Liu XZ, Chen JF. Modeling and Experimental

Studies of Mass Transfer in the Cavity Zone of a Rotating Packed Bed. Chem

Eng Sci. 2017;170:355-364.

26. Chen YS, Liu HS. Absorption of VOCs in a rotating packed bed. Ind Eng Chem

Res. 2002;41:1583-1588.

27. Onda K, Takeuchi H, Okumoto Y. Mass Transfer Coefficients between Gas and

Liquid Phases in Packed Columns. J Chem Eng Jpn. 1968;1(1):56-62.

28. Brogren C, Karlsson HT. Modeling the Absorption of SO2 in a Spray Scrubber

Using the Penetration Theory. Chem Eng Sci. 1997;52(18):3085-3099.

29. Li YW, Wang SW, Sun BC, Arowo M, Zou HK, Chen JF, Shao L. Visual Study of

Liquid Flow in a Rotor-Stator Reactor. Chem Eng Sci. 2015;134:521-530.

30. Li YH. Study on Absorption of High Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in

Rotating Packed Bed. Master Disertation. Beijing University of Chemical

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Technology, 2011.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the RPB. (1) Gas outlet; (2) seal; (3) casing; (4) gas

inlet; (5) rotor with packing inside; (6) packing support; (7) shaft; (8) liquid

distributor; (9) liquid outlet; (10) liquid inlet.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of packing layers and its parameters.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the simplified packing structure.

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of liquid captured area. (a) Total captured area; (b)

captured area by vertical fiber; (c) fixed captured area by vertical and horizontal

fibers.

Figure 5. (a) Photograph of one layer of corrugated wire mesh packing; (b) schematic

diagram of calculating width of the opening of the corrugated wire mesh.

Figure 6. Calculating diagram of three-zone model of overall gas-side volumetric

mass transfer coefficient.

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of (a) experimental setup for visual study and (b)

droplet tangential angle calculation (top view) (1) spot lights; (2) high-speed camera;

(3) computer; (4) RPB; (5) liquid flowmeter; (6) storage tank; (7) valve; (8) pump.

Figure 8. Effect of rotational speed on the droplet tangential angle.

Figure 9. Effect of liquid initial velocity on the droplet tangential angle.

Figure 10. Comparison of experimental and predicted radial thickness of the end zone

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

with different (a) rotational speed and (b) liquid initial velocity.

Figure 11. Comparison of experimental and predicted CO2 absorption efficiency.

Figure 12. Effect of rotational speed on KGa.

Figure 13. Effect of liquid initial velocity on KGa.

Figure 14. Effect of gas volumetric rate on KGa.

Figure 15. Effect of MEA concentration on KGa.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the RPB.

(1) Gas outlet; (2) seal; (3) casing; (4) gas inlet; (5) rotor with packing inside;

(6) packing support; (7) shaft; (8) liquid distributor; (9) liquid outlet; (10) liquid

inlet.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of packing layers and its parameters.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the simplified packing structure.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 (a)

(b) (c)

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of liquid captured area.

(a) Total captured area; (b) captured area by vertical fiber; (c) fixed captured area by

vertical and horizontal fibers.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 (a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Photograph of one layer of corrugated wire mesh packing;

(b) schematic diagram of calculating width of the opening of the corrugated

wire mesh.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Figure 6. Calculating diagram of three-zone model of overall gas-side volumetric

mass transfer coefficient.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 (a) (b)

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of (a) experimental setup for visual study and (b)

droplet tangential angle calculation (top view).

(1) Spot lights; (2) high-speed camera; (3) computer; (4) RPB; (5) liquid flowmeter;

(6) storage tank; (7) valve; (8) pump.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 u0=1.965 m/s
60 300 r/min
500 r/min
700 r/min
54 900 r/min
1100 r/min
θ (°)

48

42

36

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
i

Figure 8. Effect of rotational speed on the droplet tangential angle.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 60
N=700 r/min
1.179 m/s
54 1.572 m/s
1.965 m/s
2.358 m/s
2.751 m/s
48
θ (°)

42

36

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
i

Figure 9. Effect of liquid initial velocity on the droplet tangential angle.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 10 u0=1.965 m/s 10 N=700 r/min
Calculated by the probability method Calculated by probability method
Imaging experiments Imaging experiments
8 8

Re (mm)
Re (mm)

6 6

4 4

2 2

300 500 700 900 1100 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
N (r/min) u0 (m/s)

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Comparison of experimental and predicted radial thickness of the end

zone with different (a) rotational speed and (b) liquid initial velocity.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 100

Predicted absorption efficiency η (%)

80
+20%

60

-20%
40

20
20 40 60 80 100
Experimental absorption efficiency η (%)

Figure 11. Comparison of experimental and predicted CO2 absorption efficiency.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 0.0045
u0=1.415 m/s, G=1 m3/h, CMEA=1 mol/L
End zone
Bulk zone
Cavity zone

KGa (molPa-1m-3s-1)
0.0030

0.0015

0.0000
400 600 800 1000 1200
N (r/min)

Figure 12. Effect of rotational speed on KGa.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 0.0060
N=1000 r/min, G=1 m3/h, CMEA=1 mol/L
End zone
Bulk zone
KGa (molPa-1m-3s-1) 0.0045 Cavity zone

0.0030

0.0015

0.0000
0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5
u0 (m/s)

Figure 13. Effect of liquid initial velocity on KGa.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 0.020
N=1000 r/min/s, u0=1.415 m/s, CMEA=1 mol/L
End zone
Bulk zone
0.015 Cavity zone
KGa (molPa-1m-3s-1)

0.010

0.005

0.000
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
3
G (m /h)

Figure 14. Effect of gas volumetric rate on KGa.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 0.024
N=1000 r/min, G=1 m3/h, u0=1.415 m/s
End zone
Bulk zone
0.018 Cavity zone
KGa (molPa-1m-3s-1)

0.012

0.006

0.000
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
CMEA (mol/L)

Figure 15. Effect of MEA concentration on KGa.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table Legends

Table 1. Specifications of RPB and High-Speed Camera

Table 2. Variation of Radial Thickness of End Zone in different Rotational Speeds

Table 3. Variation of Radial Thickness of End Zone in different Liquid Initial

Velocities

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Specifications of RPB and High-Speed Camera

Items Values

Parameters of RPB

Outer radius of casing (m) 0.317

Outer radius of rotor (m) 0.2225

Inner radius of rotor (m) 0.088

Height of rotor (m) 0.054

Specification of packing

Specific surface area (m2/m3) 500

Porosity 0.97

Fiber diameter (mm) 0.22

Visual observation conditions

Imaging rate (fps) 1000

Image resolution (pixels) 1024×1024

Shutter speed (s) 0.00002

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table 2. Variation of Radial Thickness of End Zone in different Rotational Speeds

Rotational Liquid initial Number of packing layer Radial thickness of

speed (r/min) velocity (m/s) at the tail of end zone the end zone (mm)
300 16 6.08

500 14 5.32

700 1.965 12 4.56

900 8 3.04

1100 6 2.28

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table 3. Variation of Radial Thickness of End Zone in different Liquid Initial

Velocities

Rotational Liquid initial Radial thickness

Number of packing layer
speed velocity of
at the tail of end zone
(r/min) (m/s) the end zone (mm)
1.179 8 3.04

1.572 12 4.56

700 1.965 12 4.56

2.358 14 5.32

2.751 16 6.08

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.