From the graph, it can be seen that the pressure drop in the column is a

function of both the gas and liquid flowrate. An increase in either of the flow rates
will bring an increase in the pressure in the column. Here, the pressure drop is a
combination of both the skin friction and form drag where form drag is predominant
at higher velocities.
At low air flow rates, dependency of the pressure drop can be expressed
linearly. However, an increase in dependency can be seen at higher air flow rates
and this can be attributed to the loading and flooding points during the operation.
Theoretically, the graph constructed should show a line with two evident slopes
changes wherein the first change in slope is the loading point and the second
change in slope is the flooding point.
At loading points, the increase in slope is due to the liquid hold-up in the
column, the voids will be filled with liquid which reduces the area available for the
gas flow. As seen in the graph, loading points are reached at low gas velocities for
high liquid flow rates and high gas velocities for low liquid flow rates. Loading points
are reached when drag form predominates the skin friction. For a good mass
transfer operation, pressure drop should be greatly caused by skin friction, the
friction between the fluid and a moving fluid through it, which suggests that there is
good contact between both phases. At higher velocities, form drag predominates
since there is liquid holdup in the packed column.
The flooding point is characterized by the second change in slope and
bubbling in the top part of the bed in the column. Here, the form drag largely
contributes to the increased dependency of pressure drop in air flow rates.

Volumetric Flow Rate of Water, VL (L/min)

1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
5

Visual
110
100
95
80
80
60
60

Loading
Graphical
86.26
80.47
70.64
60.94
49.90
38.45
37.62

Visual
150
125
115
105
85
85
75

Flooding
Graphical
141.56
123.19
114.92
103.54
97.43
82.37
77.84

From table __, it can be seen that visual loading flow rates are higher than the
graphical flow rates while the flow rates for the loading point are relatively similar.
The significant difference in loading and may be caused by the nature of identifying
the loading and flooding points. Visual identification of loading air flow rates may be
erroneous because it may be hard to locate since a significant liquid hold-up level
should be seen for it to be deemed as the loading point while graphical
identification allows better reading due to the pressure drop vs. gas flow rate curves
which does not limit the flow rates available for investigation.
The flooding point are somewhat similar and easily identified in both visual
and graphical methods. In visual methods, once the liquid hold-up level reaches the

top of the column, bubbling occurs which is easily seen and anticipated due to the
gradual increase of liquid hold-up level in the column.