ANTIFOAMING AGENTS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION *

Monazir Imam, Ata Yaseen Abdulgader, Ghulam M. Mustafa,

Radwan Al-Rasheed and Ibraheem Al-Tissan
Research and Development Center, P.O Box 8328, Al-Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Abdul Salam Al-Mobayed and Anwar Ehsan
Al-Jubail Desalination & Power Plant, Al-Jubail, Saudi Arabia.
ABSTRACT
Distillate contamination by salt carry over due to excessive foaming in multistage flash
(MSF) distillers and detrimental foaming in deaerator section have been reported in Saline
Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC) and other desalination plants. Application of
suitable antifoaming agents not only maintains high quality of distillate but also improves
release of dissolved oxygen in the deaerator section, thus improving the operating efficiency
of MSF plants. Brose Chemical Company (BCC) and Albright and Wilson Limited (A&W)
developers of antifoaming agents BCC-74M and Albrivap AF-2 respectively collaborated
with SWCC in conducting trial runs to show that their products are as effective and
economical as the one currently being used in SWCC plants.
Foam control, non interference with the antiscalant performance, distillate purity, and
stability over a wide range of temperatures at low dosage levels were some of the important
criteria taken while evaluating the performance of these antifoaming agents. Compatibility
of these agents were determined initially in the laboratory followed by field trial runs in MSF
pilot plant and commercial plants of Al-Jubail phases I&II in order to check the above
criteria. During MSF plant runs distillate conductivity and make-up feed dissolved
oxygen(DO) levels were maintained in the ranges of 1-27 S/cm and 5-47 ppb respectively.
The higher DO was in Al-Jubail Phase I where deaeration takes place in the last stage of the
distiller. These results were achieved at antifoam dose rates of 0.15 to 0.035 ppm. Once
again higher dose rates at Al-Jubail Phase I were needed for the same reason mentioned
above. Based on these results, one could say that data observed during these test runs
showed satisfactory performance and thus conclude that these agents are comparable with
the currently used antifoaming agents and can be effectively used in MSF plants of SWCC.
*Presented in Second Acquired Experience Symposium, September, 1997, Al-Jubail
*This paper is based on Technical Reports No. TR 96002 and TR 96005.

1382

INTRODUCTION
Seawater is not a pure liquid. In addition to 3-4 % inorganic salts, it contains traces of
organic compounds that have surface-active properties. As a surface phenomenon, minute
quantities of organic compounds and fine particulate matter can promote foaming. Some of
the few basic principles related to foaming in MSF desalination plants are highlighted [1]
below:
1. Pure liquid do not foam. Presences of surfactant impurities are necessary for foaming to
occur and stabilize.
2. Foams are unstable and tend to collapse quickly to separate gas and liquid components.
Concentration of surfactant impurities opposes this collapse by several mechanisms.
3. The foam stability depends on many factors. Some of which are film viscosity, surface
elasticity, electrical repulsion and gaseous diffusion. Disruption of these conditions
enables to control foaming.
Antifoaming agents are usually non-ionic surfactants with temperature dependent solubility.
They have the important characteristics of low volatility, ease of dispersion, strong spreading
power and surface attraction and orientation. They act to lower the surface tension of the
vapor/liquid interface, reducing liquid film strength and surface viscosity and speeding
drainage from bubbles. Summaries of foam control agents used in various applications other
than desalination have been reported [2-3].
The effectiveness of antifoaming agents among more than 60 candidates from seven different
chemical classes was determined [1]. The effectiveness of the best one of these was further
verified in a 90 day trial run at a TBT of 108 oC on 2.2 MGD MSF recycle plant in CuraCao(Werkspour) of the Dutch Antilles. In this test foaming was suppressed without affecting
the scale control agent at a dose rate of 0.03-0.05 ppm[1]. The effect of this antifoam on
brine heater and flash chamber scaling using single stage flash evaporator (as a simulation
module) at 120oC outlet temperature with normal recycle configuration was also studied[4].
Detrimental effect of foaming is not only found in MSF distillers but also reported in
deaerator section [5-8]. It has been reported that during the commissioning period of Jeddah
phase III, the deaerator was not performing according to design [5]. A detailed investigation
of this problem resulted in the replacement of existing liquid distribution device with a more

1383

controlled and suitable system. The initial application of this device on site immediately
showed an improvement in oxygen level from 200 down to about 80 ppb. However, this was
still significantly above the guaranteed figure and after a study of the particular antifoam is
being used, it became evident that the antifoam being used at the site was not suitable for the
full-scale plant deaerator. The antifoam normally used was adequate and sufficient for
controlling foam within the distillers, but did not perform satisfactorily at temperature levels
of the deaerator. Utilization of alternate antifoam, capable of operating at temperatures of
30oC and below, immediately improved the deaerator performance. This agent brought down
oxygen levels to less than 20 ppb as was desired.
Thus one can say that antifoaming agents should also serve the purpose of preventing
foaming either in the first few stages or in the deaerator, therefore, improving release of
dissolved oxygen in the deaerator hence preventing carry over of salts to ejector system[6]. In
other words foaming is a major reason for maloperation of deaerator columns [7]. The
effluent dissolved oxygen concentration is strongly dependent on the combined action due to
antifoam dosage rate and stripping steam [8]. Hence the importance of proper antifoam
dosage and stripping steam flow rate on the satisfactory performance of deaerator columns
must be emphasized. It has been further reported that deaeration of seawater can be effective
in lowering oxygen content down to the range of 80-200 ppb as demonstrated in a test using
single spray nozzle. However, for better deaeration i.e., to reduce oxygen level down to less
than 20 ppb, antifoaming agents are to be introduced upstream of deaerator nozzles. Efforts
to improve the performance and optimize the dosing rate of antifoaming agents are still
continuing. In this context certain new advances have been attained particularly by owners of
MSF plants in evaluating and optimizing the use of available antifoaming agents [9-10].
Antifoaming agents BCC-74M and Albivap AF-2 are claimed to be highly effective to
prevent foaming problems in MSF distillation plants. In addition to this, these antifoaming
agents are further characterized by some important and promising features such as their
efficiency over a wide range of temperature at low dosage levels, stable dispersion with
distillate at typical dosing solution concentrations, and economic viability. Table 1
specifically identify the important properties of these two antifoaming agents.The primary
objective of these trial runs is to evaluate the performance of BCC-74M and AF-2 in

1384

controlling foams without disturbing the effectiveness of scale control additives in MSF pilot
plant and commercial plants of Al-Jubail phases I&II.
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
Field trial runs on these antifoaming agents were conducted on an MSF Pilot Plant and
commercial plants of Al-Jubail Phases I&II. Table 2 summarizes the test conditions of these
antifoaming agents. Antifoam dose rate at pilot plant was 0.04 ppm, whereas the dose rate at
phase I was varied between 0.15-0.1 ppm. Dose rates for all ten units of Phase II (unit 11 to
20) were varied between 0.05-0.04 ppm. Dose rates of all the other units of phase II except
unit 12 were further reduced to the normal antifoam dose rate of 0.035 ppm. The antifoam
feed tanks concentrations were checked once per day (for each batch preparation) by
chemical analysis to be sure that the concentration was maintained. Solutions of 0.5 %
antifoam were separately injected into the make up seawater upstream of deaerators of pilot
plant and all units of phase II The solution concentration at Phase I was 1.0%. On-line ball
cleaning systems were operated as usual during all these tests to maintain high distiller
performance.
Miscibility behavior of these antifoaming agents in water was determined in the laboratory
prior to field trial runs. Sea water and brine chemistry, distillate conductivity, deaerator
performance, distillate contamination by organic carry over and potential for bacterial growth
and aftergrowth were closely monitored during performance evaluation of these antifoaming
agents. Performance test monitoring also required data logging of flow, temperature and
pressure measurements. The most important flow monitoring points were recirculating brine,
make-up seawater, distillate, brine heater condensate, and last yet quite important were the
monitoring of antiscalant and antifoaming agents dose rates. Brine heater terminal brine
recycle and vapor temperatures were also monitored. These data were used to calculate the
heat transfer coefficient of brine heater, plant performance ratio or gain output ratio.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of miscibility tests for the antifoaming agents BCC-74M and AF-2 reveal that at a
concentration of 0.5% and 1.0%, the antifoam solution remains homogeneous up to 24 hours
and then starts settling gradually. This observation was also confirmed during testing in AlJubail commercial MSF units, where settling of antifoam in the preparation tanks as well as

1385

clogging in the antifoam dosing system were not noticed. Hence, it can be said that the
antifoaming agents BCC-74M and AF-2 are fully dispersible in water at the solution
concentration of 1.0% and 0.5% as normally practiced in phase I and C2/C3 units of AlJubail Phase II plants. On the other hand, settling started much earlier for higher
concentration of 1.5% i.e., as the residence time increases; turbidity of antifoam solution was
noticed to decrease significantly. Thus it is essential that for such high concentration
extensive miscibility tests have to be conducted taking into consideration actual plant
operating conditions.
As earlier stated, excessive foaming in the MSF distiller results in the contamination of
distillate by salt carry over. Antifoaming agents are added to the make-up feed to maintain
distillate quality by preventing foaming and hence salt carry over. Graph (a) of Figures 1
through 4 show the variation in distillate conductivity versus time. The maximum values of
distillate conductivity in the pilot plant and commercial units of Al-Jubail Phase II were
recorded to be 27 and 4S/cm respectively for antifoaming agents BCC-74M and AF-2
except in unit 13 for AF-2, where the conductivity was found varying in the range of 8-20
S/cm. These values are well within the design acceptable limits and satisfying the
specification of these plants. Higher distillate conductivity in unit 13 was due to the fouled
condition of demister pads prior to the trial run of AF-2, while in Pilot plant is mainly due to
the violent flashing in limited number of distiller stages. Moreover, the lower demister height
and the limited overall volume of MSF pilot unit contribute to the higher conductivity of the
distillate.
Detrimental foaming in the deaerator section has been reported in many MSF desalination
plants. Selection of proper antifoam improves deaerator performance [5-8]. Hence,
monitoring of dissolved oxygen in the make up feed downstream of deaerator was essential
to assess the ability of the antifoaming agents in preventing foaming in deaerator section and
subsequently maintaining acceptable oxygen levels. Variation in dissolved oxygen in make
up stream after deaeration is shown in graph (b) of Figures 1 through 4. The maximum level
of dissolved oxygen in make-up stream of Al-Jubail pilot plant as well as phase II units
varied in the range of 9-15 ppb for both antifoaming agents. These values were within the
acceptable limits of less than 20 ppb after deaeration, which implied the integrity of these
antifoaming agents within the operating temperature range of phase II deaerators. On the

1386

other hand the dissolved oxygen content in the recycle brine in phase I varied in the range of
45-47 ppb. These values are considerably higher compared to pilot and phase II units because
(as earlier pointed out) at phase I deaeration takes place within the last stage of the distiller in
the absence of external deaerator.
Maintenance of effective scale control is the most crucial factor in MSF desalination process.
Some of the effective antifoams may reduce antiscalant activity resulting in 40-50% more
scale[1]. Therefore, the compatibility of these antifoaming agents with antiscalant under use
was checked by calculating plant performance ratio (PR) or gain output ratio (GOR) along
with the overall heat transfer coefficient (HTC). Variation in brine heater heat transfer
coefficients in pilot and Al- Jubail Phase I plants are shown in graph (c) of Figures 1 and 2.
These values of heat transfer coefficients in both plants remained stable throughout the test
runs for both antifoaming agents and did not show any kind of deterioration in their
performance at top brine temperatures (TBT) of 112 and 90 0C in the same order as above.
Brine heater heat transfer coefficients of unit 12 were also found stable at a TBT of 104 0C as
shown in graph (c) of Figure 3. Heat transfer coefficients of brine heater in unit 13 showed
some variation in the case of BCC-74M only as shown in graph (c) of Figure 4, which can be
attributed to load change. The calculated performance parameters in terms of Gain Output
Ratio (GOR) in pilot plant and Al-Jubail phases II&I are shown in graph (d) of Figures 1
through 4. During the trial runs, there was no marked decline in the performance of any
distiller under test. These results basically indicate that no significant scale precipitation took
place in brine heaters or in the heat recovery section during trial runs using these antifoaming
agents. Some specific conditions and results obtained during these tests are also shown in
Tables 3 and 4, which also confirm the effectiveness of these two antifoaming agents
It is also possible that the antifoaming agents may contaminate the distillate by its
constituents. Frequent analysis of distillate was therefore necessary to ascertain the
presence/absence of any organic pollutants carried over into the distillate. Organic carryover
was monitored by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) technique using
USEPA 625 method. Figure 5 represents chromatogram of the distillate samples obtained by
GC/MS. It can be seen from the figure that neither the antifoam as whole nor any toxic
components derived from antifoaming agents were carried over into the distillate. Hence it

1387

can be stated that the distillate purity was unaffected during the trial runs of these
antifoaming agents.
Increased bacterial after growth and consequently higher fouling potential could be due to
supply of nutrients by the antifoaming agent. Bacterial growth and after growth were thus
determined in samples of: (i) raw seawater (ii) make-up feed (iii) antifoam mixing tank, and
(iv) product water which is used as diluent in mixing tank. Results of bacterial counts for
bacterial growth and after growth potentials are presented in Tables 5 and 6. These showed
that bacterial after growth obtained from samples containing antifoam were either lower or
similar to raw sea water samples. It is therefore concluded that the antifoam is not enhancing
nor contributing to the bacterial growth and would not be anticipated to result in fouling of
antifoam dosing system.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Antifoaming agents BCC-74M and AF-2 solutions were fully dispersible in water at a
concentration of 0.5 and 1.0%, as no settling of antifoam in preparation tanks nor
clogging in the dosing system was noticed.
2. Bacteriological analysis of make-up water and antifoaming agents showed that, they are
not a source of contamination. Furthermore after growth potentials for bacteria indicated
that the antifoaming agents were not enhancing growth and consequently biofouling.
3. Dissolved oxygen levels in the make-up feed after deaerations were within acceptable
limits of less than 20 ppb. The only exception of Al-Jubail Phase I unit which varied
between 45-47 in the recycle stream.
4. Distillate quality was maintained within the acceptable range of 1-27 S/cm. On the
other hand carry-over of any steam-volatile component related to the antifoam was also
not detected, thus maintaining the distillate purity over the entire duration of these test
runs.
5. At dose rates of 0.15 down to 0.035 ppm these antifoaming agents were effective at all

MSF operating temperatures (TBT 90-1120C) and found compatible with the antiscalant
presently under use. Moreover, the overall performances of monitored distillers were
found satisfactory during these trial periods, (see attached Tables 3 and 4 also Figures 1
to 4). Hence, it can be concluded that the subject antifoaming agents are acceptable for
MSF application.

1388

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The results of these evaluation tests indicate that the performance of BCC-74M and AF2 are quite satisfactory and can be used in MSF plants as effective antifoam agents.
2. The observed performance of antifoaming agents BCC-74M and AF-2 in pilot and
commercial plants of Al-Jubail phase II at dose rates of 0.04 and 0.035 ppm and TBT of
112 and 92 0C respectively was satisfactory. It is therefore recommended that further
dose rate optimization is to be carried out.

1389

REFERENCES
1. Auerbach, M. H., O.Neill J. J., Reimer R. A. and Walinsky S. W. (1981) Foam Control
Additives in MSF Desalination, Desalination, 38, 159-167.
2. Owen, M. J.(1985) Antifoaming Agents, In Encyl. of polymer Science and Engineering,
2nd edn; (Edited by Mark, H. F., Bikales N. M., Overberger C. G. and Menges G.) A
Wiley Interscience, USA, 164-171.
3. Lichtman, J. and Gammon T. (1979) Defoamers, in Encycl. of Chemical Technology, 3rd
edn; Edited by Kirk-Othmer) A wiley Interscience, USA, 430-448.
4. Auerbach, M. H. and Carruthers M. S. (1979) Laboratory Application Testing of
Desalination Antiscalants, Desalination, 31, 279-288.
5. Abkar, A. A., Girgis F. and Von Loebbecke H. D. (1986) Operating Experience Related to
SWCC Desalination plant Jeddah III in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Topics in
Desalination, SWCC, Saudi Arabia, 104-105.
6. Nada, N., Khumayyis D. and Al Hussain M. (1985) Economical Evaluation of Al-Khobar
Phase II 50 MIGPD at Three Different Mode of Operation, Desalination, 55, 43-54.
7. Eckert, J. S. (1970) Selecting the Proper Distillation Column Packing, Chemical
Engineering Progress, 66(3), 39-44.
8. Rabas, T. J., Inoue S. and Shimizu A. (1987) An Update on the Mass Transfer of
Counterflow, Packed Deaerators Containing Pall ring Packing, Desalination, 66, 91-107.
9. Imam, M., Abdulgader A. Y., Mustafa G. M., Al-Rasheed R., Al-Tissan I., Al-Mobayed
A. S., Ehsan, A. and Dayley D. (1996) Performance Evaluation of Antifoam Additive
BCC-74M on MSF Pilot plant and Commercial Plants of Al-Jubail Phase I&II, R&D
Center, SWCC, Al-Jubail, Technical Report No. TR96002.
10.Pujadas, F., Fukomoto Y. and Isobe K. (1991) Performance Test of Antiscalant
Aquakreen KC-550 under a wide range of temperature conditions at the MSF
Desalination Plant in Abu Dhabi, Desalination, 83, 65-75.

1390

Table 1. Technical specifications of BCC-74M and AF-2

S.No.
1
2
3
4

Properties
Specific gravity (20 0C)
pH(1%aqueous
dispersion)
Solubility in water
Appearance

Odor

AF-2
1.02
7

BCC-74M
1.02
7

Dispersible
Pale amber
liquid
Faint

Dispersible
Pale yellow liquid
Oily

Table 2. Test Conditions

S.N
o.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9

Parameters

AF-2
PP
7

Ph II
30

BCC-74M
PP
7

Ph I
7

Ph II
21

Test duration
(days)
No. of units
1
10 (11-20)
1
1(5)
10 (11-20)
(distiller no.)
TBT ( 0C)
112
105/92
112
88
105/92
Concentration
1.38-1.4 1.34-1.41 1.38-1.4 1.391.34-1.41
ratio
1.41
Antiscalant used DSB(M) BEV2000 DSB(M) DSB(M) DSB(M)
Antiscalant dose
2.0
1.5/1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5/1.0
rate (ppm)
Antifoam dose
0.04 .05/.04/.035 0.04
0.15/0.1 .05/.04/.035
rate (ppm)
Antifoam tank
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
0.5%
conc.

1391

Table 3. Typical Plant Performance Data

Parameters

Unit

m3/hr

0.35
6.53

AF2
U12,
PhII
125
9200

Production
Make up

1.15
2.15

1060
3025

945
2500

1.15
2.15

970
2750

1121
3175

Blow down

2100

1725

1750

2190

Inlet to Brine Heater

Outlet of Brine Heater
Condensate
Recovery tube inlet
Make up
Seawater
Brine Heater HTC

90
112
117
35
34
18
4030

96.3
103.1
108.8
34.5
34
28
2662

88.2
94.8
100.3
36
36
28
2800

90
112
117
35
34
18
2850

80.6
88
92
34
34
24
3715

96
104
109
35
35
27
2914

2.8

8.77

7.77

2.4

7.84

8.76

PP

Flow
Rate

Temp.

Condensate
Brine recycle

GOR (kg distillate/ kg

steam

W/m2 C

1392

U13,
PhII
125.8
10000

PP
0.35
6.53

BCC-74M
U5,
U12,
PhI
PhII
128
132
10800
9210

U13,
PhII
117-136
1030010500
900-1050
21002650
17002150
84-88
92-95
95-100
34
34
27
25004200
7.6-8.17

Table 4. Typical Chemical Analysis Data

Parameters

Unit

AF-2
PP

Sea water

Make-up
Recycle
Brine

Blow down

Distillate

Chlorides
Conductivity
M-alkalinity as CaCO3
pH
Residual chlorine
Dissolved oxygen
Chlorides
Conductivity

ppm
S/cm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppm
S/cm

22727
59600
129
8.36
6-9
31148
73800

U12,
PhII
23550
60200
131
8.24
0.3
10-17
31553
76400

pH
Conc. ratio
Dissolved oxygen
Chlorides
Conductivity
pH
Conductivity
pH

ppb
ppm
S/cm
S/cm
-

8.68
1.38
34953
80100
8.8
23.1
6.62

8.64
1.34
35375
83600
8.85
1.89
6.82

1393

BCC-74M
U13,
PhII
23500
60200
131
8.24
0.3
10-17
32834
79500

PP
22350
59350
130
8.23
5-9
31273
76837

U5,
PhI
23700
61200
131
8.35
0.25
33200
80450

U12,
PhII
23660
60786
131
8.27
0.25
12
31684
76717

U13,
PhII
23660
60783
131
8.27
0.25
12
33019
79950

8.61
1.4
36250
85700
8.75
9.97
6.76

8.61
1.39
34820
84890
8.71
25-27
6.67

8.71
1.4
45-47
36268
86040
8.78
1.55
6.75

8.72
1.34
36096
85200
8.85
2.57
6.75

8.65
1.39
36383
86000
8.75
1.53
6.73

Table 5. Mean counts of bacterial growth and after growth

Potential (N=9) of various samples on day 2
Sample

Bacterial Count (cfu/ml)

AF-2

BCC-74M

Zero hour

24 hours

72 hours

Zero hour 24 hours

72 hours

Raw Seawater

4.2 x 103

8.1 x 104

1.9 x 105

4.2 x 103

8.1 x 104

1.9 x105

Mixing tank

3.9 x 102

3.2 x 105

5.1 x 105

3.9910 5

1.82 x 105

Make-up feed

4.9 x 103

3.9 x 105

3.9 x 105

4.7 x 105

1.82 x 105

Product water

3.0

3.0

Table 6. Mean counts of bacterial growth and after growth

Potential (N=9) of various samples on day 7
Sample

Bacterial Count (cfu/ml)

AF-2
Zero hour
3

BCC-74M

24 hours

72 hours

Zero hour

24 hours

72 hours

3.17 x 106

Raw Seawater

3.7 x 10

7.9 x 10

1.8 x 10

Mixing tank

2.9 x 103

1.3 x 104

1.0 x 105 5.73 x 104

2.8 x 103

Make-up feed

2.9 x 103

1.0 x 105

2.2 x 105 2.93 x 103

4.07 x 105

1394

1.67 x 10

Conductivity, uS/cm

BCC(Cond)

30

AF2(Cond)

28
26
24
22

Graph (a)

20
50

100

150

200

BCC(DO)

20

AF2(DO)

15
10
5

Graph (b)

0
0

50

100

150
BCC(HTC)

Heat Transfer
Coeff., kW/m 2 K

Dissolved Oxygen, ppb

200
AF-2(HTC)

4
3
2
1

Graph (c)

Gain Output Ratio

50

100

150
BCC(GOR)

200
AF2(GOR)

3
2

Graph (d)

1
0

50

100

150

Time, Hours

Figure 1. Performance of Antifoaming Agents in RDC Pilot

Plant at Al-Jubail

1395

200

BCC(Cond)

Conductivity, uS/cm

4
3
2
1

Graph (a)

Dissolved Oxygen, ppb

50

Heat Transfer
Coeff., kW/m 2 K

50

100

150

200
BCC(DO)

45

Graph (b)

40
0

50

100

150

200
BCC(HTC)

Graph (c)
3

Gain Output Ratio

50

100

150

10

200

BCC(GOR)

9
8

Graph (d)

7
0

50

100

150

Tim e,H ours

Figure 2. Performance of Antifoaming Agent BCC-74M

in Al-Jubail Phase I Unit 5

1396

200

Conductivity, uS/cm

BCC(cond)

5
4
3
2
1

Graph (a)

Dissolved Oxygen, ppb

Heat Transfer
Coeff., kW/m 2 K

AF2(cond)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BCC(DO)

20

AF2(DO)

15
10
5

Graph (b)

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BCC(HTC)

700
AF2(HTC)

4
3
2
1

Graph (c)

Gain Output Ratio

100

200

300

400

500

BCC(GOR)

10

600

700

AF2(GOR)

Graph (d)

8
7
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time, Hours

Figure 3. Performance of Antifoaming Agents in Al-Jubail

Plant Phase II Unit 12

1397

700

Conductivity, uS/cm

BCC(Cond)

20
15
10
5

Graph (a)

Heat Transfer Coeff.,

kW/m K

Dissolved Oxygen, ppb

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BCC(DO)

20

AF2(DO)

15
10
5

Graph (b)

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BCC(HTC)

700
AF2(HTC)

4
3
2
1

Graph (c)

0
0

Gain Output Ratio

AF2(Cond)

100

200

300

400

500
BCC(GOR)

10

600

700
AF2(GOR)

Graph (d)

8
7
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time, Hours

Figure 4. Performance of Antifoaming Agents in Al-Jubail

Plant Phase II Unit 13

1398

700

BCC-74M

AF-2

Figure 5. Chromatograms of distillate samples

1399