SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

SARAWAK CAMPUS

HEC4722 Process Mass Transfer

Lab Report

Prepared by:
Kong Zong Yang 4304497
Jolene Tan Hui Hoon 4310764
Raymond Chong 4304446
Ayna Toyjanova 4311574
Chang Ke Xin 7441398
26th November 2015

Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents
1.0

Experiment 1: Ebulliometer

1.1

Objectives

1.2

Theory

1.3

Experimental Procedure

1.4

Results

1.5

Calculations

1.6

Discussion

1.7

Conclusion

2.0

Experiment 2: Gas Absorption

2.1

Objectives

2.2

Theory

2.3

Experimental Procedure

2.4

Results

2.5

Calculations

2.6

Discussion

2.7

Conclusion

References

1.0 Experiment 1: Ebulliometer

1.1 Objectives

To determine the mole fraction of methanol and 1-propanol in order to construct

calibration curve of Refractive Index versus x B
To construct vapour-liquid equilibrium (VLE) for binary mixture, in this case the
methanol/1-propanol under atmospheric pressure by finding the saturated temperature
and compositions of both components using Antoine equation and Raoults Law
respectively
To construct isobaric phase diagram of methanol/1-propanol mixture

1.2 Theory
Distillation is a process commonly implemented in most chemical industries in which both
liquid or vapour mixture of two or more substances are separated into its component fractions
of desired purity by the application and removal of heat. In this experiment, the ebulliometer
is used to evaluate the boiling point of methanol/1-propanol mixture. The mixture liquid and
vapour are in equilibrium with each other under atmospheric pressure at temperature between
liquid and vapour phase. The refractive index is then determined from the boiling point
obtained.
In order to construct the calibration curve, the molar fraction and composition of each
components, methanol and 1-propanol have to be determined. The following equations are
used to determine the number of moles and mole fraction of component A respectively.
nA=
where n A

Volume of component A
Molar volume

is the number of moles of component A

x A=

where

.. (1)

nA
n A + nB

. (2)

x A is the mole fraction of component A

The calibration curve can then be used to determine the molar fraction of the two unknown
samples.
In addition to that, the Vapour-Liquid Equilibrium (VLE) data is calculated by using Antoine
equation and Raoults law.
Antoine equation, as shown below is used to calculate the saturated vapour pressure of each
component.
B
ln Psat
. (3)
i = A
C+T
where Psat
is the vapour pressure, kPa
i
1

T is temperature,oC.

The constants for the two compounds for the calculations of Antoine equation are given as
shown in table below.
Table 1: The Constants for methanol and 1-propanol (Poling et al. 2001)
Compound
Methanol (A)

A
16.578
5
16.1154

1-Propanol (B)

B
3638.27

C
239.5

3483.67

205.807

The expressions for molar fraction of liquid and vapour were derived from Raoults law and
are given as follow:
PP sat
x A= sat Bsat
P A P B
y A=

(4)

P sat
PPsat
A
sat Bsat
P
P A PB

. (5)

where P is the total pressure, kPa

Lastly, an isobaric phase diagram is constructed to study the behaviour of the binary solution.

1.3 Experimental Procedure

The general requirements for the boiling point apparatus was followed accordingly which are:
1. The minimum volume should be 250 ml which should allow electrical
resistance to be completely immerged.
2. The maximum volume must not go above the height of valve V2.
Experiment 1 used the sequential method at the atmospheric pressure.
1. 140 ml of Methanol and 180 ml of 1-Propanol mixture was prepared inside the
beaker.
2. It was checked that the steel vacuum trap was empty. Firstly, valve V3 and then
valve V6 was opened. Then, slowly the mixture was poured into the
ebulliometer.
3. The target temperature was adjusted to 100C and when the boiling started it
was reduced to 60C.
4. When the temperature became constant, the equilibrium temperature TI1 was
recorded
5. A beaker was placed under valve V1 and the hot sample was taken from the
boiling point apparatus.
6. The sample was cooled to room temperature and the refractive index was
measured.
7. The ebulliometer was cooled up to 40C and additional 70 ml of 1-Propanol
was filled into the apparatus. Then, the same procedure (from step 3 to step 6)
was repeated to record the equilibrium temperature and refractive index.
2

8. Lastly, the apparatus was emptied, rinsed and cleaned.

1.4 Results
Component A: Methanol
Component B: 1-Propanol
Table 2: Results of compositions component A and B

Sample no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Unknown 1
Unknown 2

Volume of
Methanol
(A) (mL)
300
280
210
140
70
0
221
129.
2

xA
1
0.88
0.66
0.44
0.22
0
0.65
0.38

Volume of
1Propanol
(B) (mL)
0
40
110
180
250
300
119
210.
8

xB
0
0.13
0.34
0.56
0.78
1
0.35
0.62

Temperature
( )
64.7
65.4
68.4
73.6
76.6
97.2
69.3
77.4

Refractive
Index at 20
(nl)
1.3288
1.3346
1.3452
1.3598
1.3687
1.3880
1.3464
1.3626

1.5 Calculations
Sample of Calculations
Determine the molar fraction of component A and B of sample no. 1
Since molar volume is same for both components, by using equation (2),
x A=

nA
300
=
=1
n A + nB 300+0

x B=

nB
=0
n B +n A

Calibration curve of Refractive Index versus

x B is plotted as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Graph of Refractive Index versus

xB

The compositions of unknown sample 1 and 2 can be obtained from Figure 1.

Unknown sample 1: knowing that nl= 1.3464, from Figure 1,

x B = 0.35

Unknown sample 2: knowing that nl= 1.3626, from Figure 1,

x B = 0.62

Sample of calculations for Unknown 1

Determination of

x A and volume of methanol and 1-propanol for unknown sample 1

x A=1x B=10.35=0.65
Volume of methanol=0.65 340=221 mL
Volume of 1 propanol=0.35 340=119 mL

Total volume of mixture = 340 mL

Calculation of saturated temperature (boiling points) of each component, under
atmospheric condition, Psat
i =101.325 kPa
By rearranging Antoine equation, equation (3),
T sat
A =

3638.27
239.5
16.5785ln 101.325

T sat
A =64.7
T sat
B =

3483.67
205.807
16.1154ln 101.325

T sat
A =97.2
5

Sample of calculation for Sample 1

For sample no. 1, T =64.7 ,
ln Psat
A =16.5785

3638.27
239.5+ 64.7

Psat
A 101.33
sat

ln PB =16.1154

3483.67
205.807+ 64.7

sat

PB 25.46
By using equation (4) and (5),
x A=

101.32525.46
101.3325.46

x 1=1
y A=

101.33
1
101.325

y 1=1
The calculations were repeated for temperature of all samples using Microsoft Excel
and the vapour pressure data and the value of x A liquid and y A gas and their
corresponding temperature are tabulated in Table 3.
Table 3: Vapour pressure and equilibrium mole fraction data for methanol and 1propanol system
Sample no.
1
2
3
Unknown 1
4
5
Unknown 2
6

Temperature
()
64.7
65.4
68.4
69.3
73.6
76.6
77.4
97.2

P A sat
101.3
104.2
117.0
121.1
142.4
159.0
163.6
321.4

PB sat
25.5
26.3
30.3
31.6
38.4
43.8
45.4
101.3

x A liquid
1
0.96
0.82
0.78
0.61
0.50
0.47
0

y A gas
1
0.99
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.78
0.76
0

Next, the Graph below shows the isobaric methanol/1-propanol mixture diagram

Isobaric methanol/1-propanol mixture Diagram

100
90
Equilibrium Temperature
( C)

80

XAliquid
YAgas

70
60
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Molar Fraction of Methanol

Figure 2: Vapour pressure and equilibrium mole fraction data for methanol and 1propanol system
From the graph, it can be seen that Azeotrope does not exist for the liquid mixtures of
component A and B.

1.6 Discussion
Based on the result of the experiment of table 2, it can be seen that the temperature
changes as the molar volume of the mixture of methanol and 1-propanol are altered.
The temperature increases as the molar volume of 1-propanol increases as well, this is
the same towards the refractive index as well. As for the refractive index graph, it does
not show a smooth curve, this could be the result of inaccurate recorded data. The
inaccuracy could be due to several that affect the final results. Since this Ebulliometer
device is considerably new, let assume that the errors occurred come from human error.
The first error that could come from is during the mixing of the mixture of methanol
and propanol; parallax error could have occurred when measuring the volumes and so
the ratio of the mixture might have been affected. Secondly, when pouring the mixture
in to the Ebulliometer, some of the mixture spilled and could not be recovered, the
experiment then continues as normal.
Thirdly, when collecting some of the mixture to be tested the mixture might not be
properly cooled, it took too long for the temperature mixture in the Ebulliometer to
reach constant and the sample that was taken did not reach constant temperature.
Finally, the collected mixture might not have reached room temperature before being
tested therefore the result might have been inaccurate. Recommendation to improve
experiment accuracy, firstly when pouring the mixture into the Ebulliometer it should
be done extremely slowly and carefully to avoid spilling, secondly insure the
temperature reach constant before collecting the sample and finally give the experiment
more time to be carryout to avoid rushing and causing mistake from happening.
7

1.7 Conclusion
In conclusion, the mole fraction of methanol and 1-propanol was determined and a
graph of refractive index versus the mole fraction of component B was plotted. Then,
the mole fraction of both unknown was determined by using the graph and it was found
that unknown 1 has a mole fraction of x B = 0.35 and unknown 2 has a mole fraction
of x B = 0.62. Next, the Vapor-liquid Equilibrium (VLE) for binary mixture was also
plotted and the composition of both the unknown was calculated using Antoine
Equation and Raoults law respectively.

2.0 Experiment 2: Gas Absorption

2.1 Objectives

To determine the mass transfer coefficient

To study the adsorption of oxygen from air into de-oxygenated water

2.2 Theory
Gas absorption has been widely used in the industry where a gaseous mixture is
brought into contact with a liquid and during this period, a component is transferred
between the gas and liquid stream. This was achieved by means of mass transport of
gas into a suitable liquid. The sizing of the tower would normally depend on the height
of the transfer unit which is a function of transfer coefficient that is normally
determined experimentally by means of wetted wall absorption column.
The rate of mass transfer can be given as

( kH )( p p

N A =k g ( p A p Ai )=k L ( C AiC A ) =

Ai

AL

In addition, the dimensionless number below will be used in the lab analysis as from
the mechanism of mass transfer, it can be expected that the liquid film mass transfer
coefficient would depend on the diffusivity, liquid flowrate, liquid viscosity, liquid
density, acceleration of gravity and length.
8

Sh=

kLL
D

Sc=

L
L D

4 w /W
L
2

Ga=

gh
2
L

2.3 Experimental Procedure

1. Gas absorption device was turned on
2. Valve 1 was connected with pressure reducer and nitrogen gas cylinder and the
pressure reducer was set to 0.5 bar in the nitrogen cylinder.
3. Tank D1 was filled with tap water
4. E.L.C.B was inserted and the pump for G1 was turned on and valve V3 was
adjusted slowly and carefully
5. Pump G2 was then turned on and the flow rate was adjusted using the micro
valve on the flow meter F11 12 1/h.
6. Using the brush, the wetted-wall was uniformly wet.
7. The compressor P1 was turned on and flow rate was adjusted using flow meter
F12 to 60 1/h.
8. Nitrogen flow to deoxgenator column was started and valve V1 was slowly and
carefully opened
9. The experiment was repeated from step 5 to 7 for water flow rate l/h at 4,8,12
and 16 for air flow rate l/h at 60. Then repeating the different water flow rate
again for air flow rate l/h of 120 and 180

2.4 Results
Column diameter = 3.4 cm
Column height, H = 90 cm
Wetted perimeter, P = 10.7 cm
Gas/liquid interface area, A = 960.84 cm2
Diffusivity, D = 2.510-5 cm2/s
Table 4 demonstrates the obtained results for the temperature and concentration
Table 4: Results of the Experiment 2
Air flow
rate
(L/h)
60

Water
flow rate
(L/h)
4
8

Water
flow rate
(cm3/s)
1.11
2.22

Tin
(C)

Tout
(C)

Cin
(mg/L)

Cout
(mg/L)

28.1
28.3

27
27.2

0.45
0.23

8.61
8.19

Csat, in @
1 atm
(mg/L)
9.99
10.17

Csat, out
@ 1 atm
(mg/L)
8.87
9.06
9

3.33
4.44
1.11
2.22
3.33
4.44
1.11
2.22
3.33
4.44

12
16
4
8
12
16
4
8
12
16

120

180

28.3
28.3
26.5
27.3
28.2
28.4
28.5
29
29.4
29.1

27.1
27
26.1
25.7
26.2
26.7
26.7
26.8
27.4
27.8

0.12
0.11
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.12
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.06

7.88
7.57
7.57
7.97
7.8
7.76
7.48
7.85
7.57
7.2

10.27
10.34
10.35
10.44
10.47
10.4
10.31
10.13
10.01
10.1

9.14
9.21
9.06
9.16
9.28
9.31
8.89
9.04
9.11
9.04

2.5 Calculations
A sample calculation was performed at air flow rate of 60 L/h and water flow rate of 4 L/h.

T ave=

T +T out (28.1+27) C
=
=27.6 C
2
2

The values for kinematic viscosity and density were interpolated and converted to cm2/s and
g/cm3.
c m2
g
v =0.0085
, =0.9964
s
c m3
3

cm
Water flowrate
s
c m2
Wetting rate , W =
=
=0.104
Wetted Perimeter 10.7 cm
s
1.11

4W
=
v

( 4 ) 0.104

cm
s

cm
0.0085
s

) =48.9
3

4 L ( 8.610.45 ) 10 g
1h
6 g
Absorption rate , N A =Water flow rate ( C out C )=

=9.07 10
h
L
3600 s
s

g
9.07 106
NA
s
g
=
=9.44 109
2
A
960.84 c m
s c m2
C =C sat C =( 9.990.45 )

mg
mg
=9.54
L
L

C out =C sat outCout =( 8.878.61 )

mg
mg
=0.26
L
L
10

 C ln =

C Cout
=
C
ln
C out

( 9.540.26 )
ln

mg
L

9.54
0.26

=2.576

mg
L

NA
g
g
9.44 109
996.4
2
L
A
sc m
g
Kr=
=
=3.65 103
2
C ln
g
sc m
2.576 103
L
g
s c m2
cm
=3.66 103
g
s
0.9964
3
cm
3

K c=

Kr
=

3.65 10

(3.66 10

K H
Sh= c =
D

cm
( 90 cm )
s

cm
2.5 1 0
s
5

=13176

Sh=aR e n +b
ln ( Sh )=an ln ( )+b
Y =mX +c

Sh= ln 13176=9.49
ln
= ln 48.9=3.89
ln

11

All calculations for different air and water flow rates were calculated in Excel and shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Calculation from Excel
Air flow
rate
(L/h)

Tave
(C
)

at
Tave
(cm2/s)
0.0085

27.6
60

27.8
27.7
27.7
26.3

120

26.5
27.2

at
Wetting
Tave
rate, W
(g/cm3) (cm2/s)
0.9964

0.0084
6
0.0084
8
0.0084
8
0.0087
6
0.0087
2
0.0085
8
0.0085

27.6

0.9964
0.9964
0.9964
0.9968
0.9967
0.9965
0.9964

180

27.9
28.4
28.5

0.9964
0.0084
4
0.0083
3
0.0083
1

0.9963
0.9962
0.9962

NA (g/s)

NA/A
(g/scm2)

48.9

9.0710-6

9.4410-9

0.104

0.312
0.415

98.2

1.7710-5

1.8410-8

146.
9
195.
9
47.4

2.5910-5

2.6910-8

3.3210-5

3.4510-8

8.8210-6

9.1810-9

95.3

1.7210-5

1.7910-8

145.
2
195.
5
48.9

2.5510-5

2.6510-8

3.2710-5

3.4010-8

8.6910-6

9.0410-9

98.4

1.6710-5

1.7410-8

149.
6
199.
9

2.4510-5

2.5510-8

3.1710-5

3.3010-8

3.724

0.00493

1.26

4.261

0.00630

1.64

4.692

0.00733

1.09

4.106

0.00223

1.36

4.435

0.00402

1.52

4.606

0.00574

1.83

4.896

0.00693

1.04

4.033

0.00223

1.47

4.472

0.00387

1.7

4.672

0.00544

1.84

4.833

0.00681

10.32
10.37
10.36
10.28
10.28

0.208

0.415

0.87

10.23

0.104

0.312

Cln
Kr
(mg/L
(g/scm2)
)
2.576 0.00365

10.15

0.208

0.415

Cout
(mg/L
)
0.26

9.94

0.104

0.312

Cin
(mg/L
)
9.54

0.208

0.0085
27.6

Re

10.08
9.96
10.04

Kc
(cm/s)

Sh

0.0036 13187.
6
5
0.0049 17798.
4
8
0.0063 22744.
2
7
0.0073 26473.
5
7
0.0022 8050.2
4
0.0040 14511.0
3
0.0057 20742.
6
9
0.0069 25032.
5
4
0.0022 8071.7
4
0.0038 14000.
9
7
0.0054 19674.
7
2
0.0068 24602.
3
9

ln
Re

ln Sh

3.8 9.49
9
4.5 9.79
9
4.9 10.03
9
5.2 10.18
8
3.8 8.99
6
4.5 9.58
6
4.9 9.94
8
5.2 10.13
8
3.8 9.00
9
4.5 9.55
9
5.0 9.89
1
5.3 10.11
0
12

13

Then, ln (Sh) vs ln (Re) graph was plotted for air flow rates of 60 L/h, 120 L/h, and 180 L/h
to find the value for n.

Air Flow Rate at 60 L/h

10.40
10.20
f(x) = 0.5x + 7.51
R = 0.99

10.00
9.80

ln (Sh)

9.60
9.40
9.20
9.00
3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

ln (Re)

Figure 3: Plot at air flow rate of 60 L/h

Air Flow Rate at 120 L/h

10.40
10.20
f(x) = 0.81x + 5.87
10.00
R = 1
9.80
9.60
ln (Sh) 9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
8.40
3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20 5.40

ln (Re)

Figure 4 Plot at air flow rate of 120 L/h

14

Air Flow Rate at 180 L/h)

10.20
10.00

f(x) = 0.79x + 5.91

R = 1

9.80
9.60

ln (Sh)

9.40
9.20
9.00
8.80
8.60
8.40
3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

ln (Re)

Figure 5: Plot at air flow rate of 180 L/h

From the graph, the value of n was obtained based on the gradient of the line and the
results are summarise in table 5 below.
Table 5: Results for n value
Air flow rate (L/h)

60

120

180

0.50

0.81

0.79

2.6 Discussion
There are a few factors that affect the mass transfer coefficient which are mixing speed,
pressure and temperature. The mass transfer coefficient increases with increasing speed,
pressure and temperature (Rakymkul 2011). From Table 4 and 5, it can be seen that the
mass transfer coefficient increases with temperature and water flow rate but not the air
flow rate. In addition to that, it is known that Reynolds number is affected by water
flow rate and its kinematic viscosity from the equation. It is proven from the results that
when kinematic viscosity decreases with increasing temperature and water flow rate
increases, Reynolds number increases. In this experiment, the Reynolds numbers for all
water flow rates at air flow rates of 60,120 and 180L/h are below 2000, which means
the flows are all laminar flows.
The literature of the value of n is found to be 0.4 (ElettronicaVeneta n.d.). The
percentage of error is calculated to compare with the three experimental values of n
found. The equation for percentage of error and the calculations are as shown.
Percentage of error =

value
|True valueexperimental
|
true value

100%

For n = 0.5,

15

Percentage of error =

|0.40.5
0.4 |

100% = 25%

For n = 0.6,
Percentage of error =

|0.40.81
0.4 |

100% = 102.5%

Percentage of error =

|0.40.79
0.4 |

100% = 97.5%

The percentage errors calculated are relatively high. This means that the experimental
results show disagreement with the literature review. From all the graphs, it is clearly
seen that the value of R2 is close to 1, which means the experimental values obtained
are consistent to each other. This shows that the coefficients are not able to be
determined when high air flow rates are involved. This is because the layer thickness is
higher when the flow rate of air is high. Moreover, equilibrium may have not reached at
high air flow rates in this experiment. Hence, it is recommended that the data is to be
collected after some time to allow the mixture to reach its equilibrium state. In addition
to that, errors are present in this experiment are systematic errors. This disagreement
may be caused by the presence of rippling, formation of small waves on the surface.
Not just that, the rippling conditions changes widely among the experimental columns
and hence the errors calculated vary as well.
Besides that, the relatively high error may be due to instrumental error and sensitivity
(Lab 1:Gas Absorption Column 2015). When the experiment was carried out, there was
large fluctuation in the flow meter and this may contribute to inaccuracy in the actual
flow rate of water. Hence, it is recommended that an automatically controlled flow
meter or mass flow meter of higher sensitivity to be used in this experiment so that
more accurate results can be obtained. Furthermore, the error may also occur due to the
insufficient brushing process carried out on the inside of the column by the team that
conducted the experiment and hence, the wetted-wall column may not be uniformly
wet. Hence, it is recommended that the brush is wet with distilled water containing a
small amount of soap as it is very crucial that the wetted-wall column to be uniformly
wet so that the data obtained is valid.

2.7 Conclusion
In conclusion, mass transfer coefficient of the liquid phase wetted column and the
adsorption of oxygen from air into de-oxygenated water were studied. ln (Sh) vs ln (Re)
graph was plotted for various air flow rates of 60 L/h, 120 L/h, and 180 L/h to find the
value for Reynolds number, n. The percentage of error was calculated to compare
between literature value and the three experimental values of n found. The percentage
errors were calculated to be huge. This showed that experimental results showed
disagreement with the literature review. Thus, the mass transfer coefficient values
obtained might not be accurate.
16

References
ElettronicaVeneta n.d., Wetted Wall Absorption Column, p.1-18.
Lab 1:Gas Absorption Column 2015, viewed 22 November 2015, <
http://www.slideshare.net/errafatiha/full-report-gas-absorption>.
Poling, BE, Prausnitz, JM and Connell, PO 2001, The properties of gases and liquids, 5th edn,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Rakymkul, Y 2011, Solubilities and Mass Transfer Coefficients of Gases in Heavy Synthetic
Hydrocarbon Liquids, Master degree thesis, University of Pittsburgh, United States.

17