Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

CDB 3082

Chemical Engineering Laboratory IV


Long Report
MAY 2016

EXPERIMENT : SPRAY CHAMBER

GROUP : A8

GROUP MEMBERS : KOI ZI KANG 18868

MASRIHAN BIN ABU HASAN 19454

NOOR HAFIZAINIE BINTI MOHD ZOHAN 19323

SITI NUR AISYAH BINTI AHMAD 19353

LAB INSTRUCTOR : MR MOHSIN

DATE OF EXPERIMENT : 21 JULY 2016


Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 4: Results and Discussions


Results ............................................................................................................................ 5
Discussions .................................................................................................................... 7
Error and Recommendation ........................................................................................... 8

Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 9

References ................................................................................................................................ 10

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 10
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary

An air pollutant is defined as an occurrence of a constituent in the atmosphere above its


geochemical mean value, as a result of anthropogenic activities, and which remains in the
atmosphere long enough to produce an adverse effect. Scrubbers are air pollution control
devices that use liquid to remove particulate matter or gases from an industrial exhaust or flue
gas stream. An experiment regarding spray chamber was conducted to determine the effect of
nozzle particle size and sample size upon separation efficiency of the spray chamber unit. As
a result, the smaller the nozzle particle size, the higher the separation efficiency. Also, the
bigger the sample size, the higher the spray chamber collection efficiency. However, due to
systematic errors, the accuracy of the results obtained was affected.

1.2 Problem Statement


- What is the effect of nozzle particle size and particle size upon separation efficiency of the
spray chamber unit?

1.3 Objectives

1) To determine the effect of nozzle particle size upon separation efficiency of the spray
chamber unit

2) To determine the effect of sample size upon separation efficiency of the spray chamber
unit

1|Page
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW (THEORIES)

2.1 Spray Chamber

Spray chamber is used to remove air pollutants by inertial or diffusional impaction, reaction
with a sorbent or reagent slurry, or absorption into liquid solvent. It can remove particle from
gas stream by capturing particle in liquid droplet and then separating the droplet from the gas
stream. According to McIlvaine Company (1974), there are many nozzles placed across the
spray tower to maximize the number of fine droplet impacting the particulate matter and also
to provide larger surface area for absorbing gas.

Figure 2.1: Spray Tower System.

Collection efficiencies for wet scrubbers are very variable. Most conventional scrubbers can
achieve high collection effectiveness for particles greater than 1.0: m in diameter; however
they are ineffective collection devices for sub-micro meter particles (Sun, Liu, McMurry, and
Greenwood, 1994). Spray chamber basically are not intended to collect small particulate
matter because they are low energy scrubber and low contacting power.

Spray chamber collection efficiency, can be calculated using formula below:


= 100%

According to AWMA (1992), the advantages of spray chamber are relatively low pressure
drop, can handle flammable and explosive dusts with little risk, low capital cost, free from
plugging, small space requirement and ability to collect particulate matter. While the

2|Page
disadvantages of spray chamber are it may create liquid disposal problem, waste product
collected wet, inefficient at removing fine particulate matter and high operating cost
(AWMA, 1992).

2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Scrubbers

According tp IEEE, scrubbers are very multidisciplinary, with the ability to remove solids,
mists, and gases simultaneously while also providing cooling. Also, they are capable of
handling explosive and flammable gases safely. However, scrubbers suffer from high levels
of corrosion and produce slurry waste streams which are less convenient for recycling and
disposal.

Advantages Disadvantages
Can handle flammable and High potential for corrosion
explosive dusts with little risk. problems.
Provides gas absorption and dust Collected particulate may be
collection in a single unit. contaminated and unrecyclable.
Protection against freezing required.
Provides cooling of hot gases. Certain streams may require reheating
to avoid visible plume.
Compact; can often be retrofitted Disposal of waste sludge can be very
into existing collection systems. expensive.
Corrosive gases and dusts can be Requires makeup water to replace
neutralized. purged liquid and disposed sludge

Table 2.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Scrubbers

3|Page
3.0 METHODOLOGY

1. The water source valve was opened.


2. All the valve was closed except V9.
3. The Centrifugal Water Pump, P1 was switched on.
4. The frequency of the air pump was set to 20 Hz.
5. V1 (N1, 520 m) was opened and the pressure was adjusted until 2 bar and the
pressure gauge was monitored to maintain its pressure at 2 bar.
6. The water flow rate was recorded.
7. V9 was closed until the water level is in between the marks on the equipment and the
level was maintain for the whole experiment by adjusting V9.
8. 100 g of 300 m sample was weight and poured into the device feed vessel. V11 was
opened slowly for the sample to flow into the equipment.
9. The equipment was left for 3 minutes after all the sample has been fed into the
equipment.
10. The water pump was stopped and V9 was opened to collect the sample. The collected
sample was transferred to a tray container and it was put into an oven for 2 hours to
remove the water.
11. After 2 hours, the sample was cooled down and weighed.
12. The experiment was repeated for 300 m with V4 (N4, 1000 m) opened, 600 m
with V1 (N1, 520 m) opened and 600 m with V4 (N4, 1000 m) opened. The
frequency is the same for the whole experiment.

4|Page
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Results
Experiment: To study the effect of nozzle particle size and sample size upon separation
efficiency

i) Tables

Nozzle Particle Isolation Set pressure, Sample Mass Mass sample


Size (m) valve PT1 size sample used remain after
(bar) (m) (g) drying
(g)
N1 520 V1 2 300 100 90.25
N4 1000 V4 2 300 100 81.12

Table 4.1: Data collected for sample size of 300 m with different nozzle sizes

Nozzle Particle Isolation Set pressure, Sample Mass Mass sample


Size (m) valve PT1 size sample used remain after
(bar) (m) (g) drying
(g)
N1 520 V1 2 600 100 89.78
N4 1000 V4 2 600 100 89.09

Table 4.2: Data collected for sample size of 600 m with different nozzle sizes

ii) Calculations for spray chamber collection efficiency:


= 100%

i) For 300 m sample using N1,

90.25
= 100% = 90.25%
100

5|Page
ii) For 300 m sample using N4,

81.12
= 100% = 81.12%
100

iii) For 600 m sample using N1,

89.78
= 100% = 89.78%
100

iv) For 600 m sample using N4,

89.09
= 100% = 89.09%
100

iii) Graphs

Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency vs Nozzle


Particle Size
92
Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency (%)

90

88

86
300m
84 600m

82

80
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Nozzle Particle Size (m)

Graph 4.1: Graph of Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency vs Nozzle Particle Size

6|Page
Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency vs Sample Size
Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency (%) 92

90

88

86
N1
N4
84

82

80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Sample Size (m)

Graph 4.2: Graph of Spray Chamber Collection Efficiency vs Sample Size

4.2 Discussion

In this spray chamber experiment, the purpose is to determine the effect of sample size and
different nozzle particle size upon separation efficiency. The nozzle particle sizes used in this
experiment are 520m and 1000m. From graph 4.1, nozzle particle size of 520 m shows
higher collection efficiency which is 90.25% as compared to droplet of 1000 m which gives
efficiency of 81.12 % when using sample size of 300 m. The same trend was discovered
when using sample size of 600 m where 520 m droplets gives a higher collection
efficiency of 89.78 % as compared to 1000 m with efficiency of 89.09 %. Thus, it can be
summarised that smaller nozzle particle size will give higher collection efficiency compared
to larger size of droplets. This is due to the fact that smaller and denser droplets will have
high efficiency in capturing smaller sized particles that is induced by diffusion and impaction.
Impaction will increase as the size of the liquid droplets decreases as the presence of more
droplets within the vessel increases the likelihood that particles will impact on the droplets.
As more particles hit the droplet, collection efficiency will also increase as more particles can
be collected. However, diffusion is not being considered in this experiment as it is only
effective for particles sized less than 0.5 m. The results obtained in this experiment suits the
theory which stated that collection efficiency increases with an increase in relative velocity
and a decrease in liquid-droplet size. In terms of sample size, from graph 4.2, we can see that

7|Page
the bigger the sample size, the higher the collection efficiency. This is because the bigger the
sample size, the easier it will be for the water droplets to capture the sample. However, this
trend was not shown when we used a sample size of 600 m with nozzle particle size 520 m
which might be due to systematic error as some of the sample were stuck in the channel
towards spray chamber.

Errors and Recommendations


i) Instrumental error:
1. Error : Connection between parts of the device is not tight.
Recommendations : Check the connection before the experiment started.

2. Error : The product cannot be fully collected from the spray


chamber due to the structure of the equipment and leakage in the product
collector.
Recommendations : Rinse the equipment before the experiment started.

3. Error : Residues from previous group still remain in the spray


chamber.
Recommendations : Clean the equipment before using it.

ii) Human Errors


1. Error : Spilling the sand during sample transfer.
Recommendations : Make sure the sample or product input and collected from the
spray chamber is not spill.

8|Page
5.0 CONCLUSION

Spray chamber experiment was conducted to determine the effect of nozzle particle size and
sample size onto collection efficiency of the spray chamber unit. From this experiment, it can
be concluded that the collection efficiency increases with decreasing size of the droplets or
nozzle particle size. In our case, nozzle particle size of 520 m shows a higher collection
efficiency of 90.25% as compared to droplet of 1000 m which gives efficiency of 81.12 %
when using sample size of 300 m. The same trend was discovered when using sample size
of 600 m where 520 m droplets gives a higher collection efficiency of 89.78 % as
compared to 1000 m with efficiency of 89.09 %. This complies with the theory where small
droplets and more densely packed droplet can achieve high efficiency in capturing smaller
sized particles. Also, bigger sample size will have a higher collection efficiency as it allows
water droplets to capture more effectively. However, some errors were encountered while
conducting the experiment which are due to the faultiness of the equipment. Thus, the
objectives of this experiment were achieved.

9|Page
REFERENCES

AWMA. (1992). Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

de Nevers, N. (2000). Air Pollution Control Engineering, 2nd Edition, Mc Graw Hill, pp. 249
314.

IEEE. (n.d.). Air Scrubbers, Wet Scrubbers, and Gas Scrubbers Information. Retrieved 26
July 2016, from
http://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/manufacturing_process_equipment/air_quality/
scrubbers

McIlvaine Company. (1974). The Wet Scrubber Handbook. Northbrook, IL: McIlvaine
Company.

Sun, J., B.Y.H Liu, P.H. McMurry, and S. Greenwood. (n.d.). A Method to Increase Control
Efficiencies of Wet Scrubbers for Submicron Particles and Particulate Metals. J. Air
& Waste Management Association. 44:2. February 1994.

Wark, K., Warner, C.F., Davis, W.T., and Wayne, T.D. (1998). Air Pollution Engineering
Manual, 3rd Edition, Addison Wesley, pp. 188 291.

APPENDICES

Figure 1: Spray Chamber Unit

10 | P a g e