Adsorption fluid flow, effect

The form of the effective mobility tensor remains unchanged as in Eq. (125), which imphes that the fluid flow does not affect the mobility terms. This is reasonable for an uncharged medium, where there is no interaction between the electric field and the convective flow field. However, the hydrodynamic term, Eq. (128), is affected by the electric field, since electroconvective flux at the boundary between the two phases causes solute to transport from one phase to the other, which can change the mean effective velocity through the system. One can also note that even if no electric field is applied, the mean velocity is affected by the diffusive transport into the stationary phase. Paine et al. [285] developed expressions to show that reversible adsorption and heterogeneous reaction affected the effective dispersion terms for flow in a capillary tube the present problem shows how partitioning, driven both by electrophoresis and diffusion, into the second phase will affect the overall dispersion and mean velocity terms. 

To determine the adsorption kinetics, the effective age of the drop interface must be calculated. However, experimental data yield only interfacial tension values as a function of drop formation time. To determine the true age of the interface, both the fluid flow within the droplet and the dilation of the droplet interface must be interpreted using appropriate models. Miller et al. (1992) showed that the drop formation time, r op, can be converted into the effective age of the drop interface ... 

In many industrial reactions, the overall rate of reaction is limited by the rate of mass transfer of reactants and products between the bulk fluid and the catalytic surface. In the rate laws and cztalytic reaction steps (i.e., dilfusion, adsorption, surface reaction, desorption, and diffusion) presented in Chapter 10, we neglected the effects of mass transfer on the overall rate of reaction. In this chapter and the next we discuss the effects of diffusion (mass transfer) resistance on the overall reaction rate in processes that include both chemical reaction and mass transfer. The two types of diffusion resistance on which we focus attention are (1) external resistance diffusion of the reactants or products between the bulk fluid and the external smface of the catalyst, and (2) internal resistance diffusion of the reactants or products from the external pellet sm-face (pore mouth) to the interior of the pellet. In this chapter we focus on external resistance and in Chapter 12 we describe models for internal diffusional resistance with chemical reaction. After a brief presentation of the fundamentals of diffusion, including Pick s first law, we discuss representative correlations of mass transfer rates in terms of mass transfer coefficients for catalyst beds in which the external resistance is limiting. Qualitative observations will bd made about the effects of fluid flow rate, pellet size, and pressure drop on reactor performance. 

There is a tendency for both axial and radial dispersion of mass to occur when a fluid flows through a packed bed. Since the bed diameter is normally far greater than the particle diameter in an adsorption bed, it is common not to have to consider the effects of radial dispersion. Hence the prevalence of plug and axially dispersed plug flow models in rigorous design methods. 

In a detersive system containing a dilute surfactant solution and a substrate bearing a soHd polar sod, the first effect is adsorption of surfactant at the sod—bath interface. This adsorption is equivalent to the formation of a thin layer of relatively concentrated surfactant solution at the interface, which is continuously renewable and can penetrate the sod phase. Osmotic flow of water and the extmsion of myelin forms foHows the penetration, with ultimate formation of an equdibrium phase. This equdibrium phase may be microemulsion rather than Hquid crystalline, but in any event it is fluid and flushable... 

The performance of adsorption processes results in general from the combined effects of thermodynamic and rate factors. It is convenient to consider first thermodynamic factors. These determine the process performance in a limit where the system behaves ideally i.e. without mass transfer and kinetic limitations and with the fluid phase in perfect piston flow. Rate factors determine the efficiency of the real process in relation to the ideal process performance. Rate factors include heat-and mass-transfer limitations, reaction kinetic limitations, and hydro-dynamic dispersion resulting from the velocity distribution across the bed and from mixing and diffusion in the interparticle void space. 

When chemisorption is involved, or when some additional surface chemical reaction occurs, the process is more complicated. The most common combinations of surface mechanisms have been expressed in the Langmuir-Hinshelwood relationships 36). Since the adsorption process results in the net transfer of molecules from the gas to the adsorbed phase, it is accompanied by a bulk flow of fluid which keeps the total pressure constant. The effect is small and usually neglected. As adsorption proceeds, diffusing molecules may be denied access to parts of the internal surface because the pore system becomes blocked at critical points with condensate. Complex as the situation may be in theory,... 

The continuous formation of drops, however, can lead to substantial errors in obtained adsorption kinetic data. For short drop formation times, hydrodynamic effects have to be taken into account. At large flow rates, the measured drop volume at the moment of detachment must be corrected. This is because a finite time is required for the drop meniscus to be disrupted and the drop to detach. Even though the volume has already reached its critical value, fluid may still flow from the reservoir into the drop. The volume of the drop is thus larger than its measured value, which leads to larger calculated interfacial tension values. The shorter the drop formation time is, the larger the error w i 11 be. K1 oubek et al. (1976) were the first to quantify this effect by introducing a corrected critical drop volume, Vc ... 

---