Result and Calculation:

i) Determination Of Flooding and Loading Point

Air Flow Rate,

20 30 40 70 90 110 130 150
Gx (m3/min)

∆P (mm
7.20 7.30 7.60 8.00 8.30 9.50 12.50 19.50
Water)

∆P/Z 543.13 550.68 573.31 603.48 626.11 716.64 942.94 1470.99

Log (∆P/Z) 2.73 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.86 2.97 3.17

Log (Gx) 1.30 1.48 1.60 1.85 1.95 2.04 2.11 2.18

Loading Point and Flooding Point Graph

3.20
3.15
3.10
3.05
3.00
Log (Gx)

2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.70
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Log (∆P/Z)
ii) Tiration of NaOH

Volume Total Mole of CO2 in Total Mole of CO2 in Total Mole of CO2
Air Flowrate Absorption Rate Absorption
of NaOH Air Flow CO2 Flow Out in Water
(m3/min) (mol/s) x 10-5 Efficiency (%)
(mL) (mol) (mol) (mol)

70 3.3 0.01090 0.58400 0.01219 2.03133 2.04873

80 3.1 0.01246 0.58400 0.01145 1.90822 1.91954

90 3 0.01402 0.58400 0.01108 1.84667 1.85278

100 3 0.01557 0.58400 0.01108 1.84667 1.84797

110 2.8 0.01713 0.58400 0.01034 1.72356 1.72030

120 2 0.01869 0.58400 0.00739 1.23110 1.22561

130 1.6 0.02025 0.58400 0.00591 0.98488 0.97796

 Absorption Efficiency vs Air Flow Rate
Absorption Efficiency, (%) 2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Air Flowrate (m3/min)
 Discussion.

Experiment B:
Problem Statement:
How air flow rate affect the absorption rate in gas-liquid absorption column.

Manipulated Variable: Air flow rate

Observed Variable: Absorption rate
Constant Variable: Water flow rate (2 Litre/Minute)

From graph iiii. The loading point and flooding point of this experiment was located and the
corresponding working air flow rates was determined. The experiment was conducted in this
range so that no flooding occur.
Based on the theory of gas-liquid absorption, it is expected that the absorption rate decrease
with the decrease in L/G ratio. L/G ratio is defined as the ratio of absorbent mole flow rate to
gas mole flow rate.[1]

From the data obtained, it shows that the absorption rate decrease with the increase of air
flow rates. This is in line with our theory stated above. The absorption rate decrease because,
at higher air flow rates, the pressure drop is high, therefore pressure decrease within the
column , as pressure affect the solubility of CO2 in water, lower pressure means less
solubility which contribute to lower absorption rate. [2]

The contacting time of air and water in the column also decrease with the increase of air flow
rates, the contacting time depends on the surface area of packing material and the air flow
rate.[3] In this experiment, the same packing material was used so that the surface area for
contact is preserved. This eventually makes (air flow rate) as the major factor involve in
determining the absorption rates .Based on observation, the contact time of gas and liquid
decrease with the increase of air flow rates, therefore, less time are given for CO2 to absorb
into water, making absorption process difficult thus lowering the absorption rate.
Calculation .

P=1 atm
T=40oC + 273 = 313 K
Mole of CO2 in Air.
Air flow rate : 70 L/min
mole fraction of CO2 in air : 0.04%
Volume of CO2 flow = 0.0004 * 70 L = 0.028 L/min

𝑃𝑉
𝑛=
𝑅𝑇
𝐿
(1 𝑎𝑡𝑚) (0.028
𝑛= min)
𝐿. 𝑎𝑡𝑚
0.08206 𝑥 313𝐾
𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝐾
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑛 = 1.090 𝑥 10−3 𝑥 10 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑛 = 0.0109 𝑚𝑜𝑙
Mole of CO2 in CO2 inlet
flow = 1.5L/min

𝑃𝑉
𝑛=
𝑅𝑇
𝐿
(1 𝑎𝑡𝑚) (1.5
𝑛= min)
𝐿. 𝑎𝑡𝑚
0.08206 𝑥 313 𝐾
𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝐾
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑛 = 0.0584 𝑥 10 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑛 = 0.5840 𝑚𝑜𝑙

Therefore total mole in inlet = 0.5949 mol

Total mole Co2 in outlet , Cco2,o
3.3𝑚𝐿 ∗ 0.02770 𝑀 𝑙
𝑁𝑐𝑜2, 𝑜 = ∗2 ∗ 10𝑚𝑖𝑛
150𝑚𝐿 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑁𝑐𝑜2, 𝑜 = 0.01219 𝑚𝑜𝑙

Absorption Eff = mol out/ mol in

0.01219
𝑛= 𝑥 100%
0.5949
𝑛 = 2.048%
Refference

[1] Sung-Youl Park, Byoung-Moo Min, Jong-Sup Lee, Sung-Chan Nam, Keun-Hee Han and
Ju-Soo Hyun , ABSORPTION CHARACTERISTIC OF CONTINUOUS CO2
ABSORPTION PROCESS, Pap.-Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem. 2004, 49 (1), 250

[2] H.M. Ndiritu_ , K. Kibicho, B. B. Gathitu, Influence of Flow Parameters on Capture of

Carbon Dioxide Gas by a Wet Scrubber, Journal of Power Technologies 93 (1) (2013) 9–
15
[3] L.S. Tan, A.M. Shariff *, K.K. Lau, M.A. Bustam , Factors affecting CO2 absorption
efficiency in packed column: A review, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
18 (2012) 1874–1883