Bubbling mass transfer coefficients

FIG. 17-15 Bubbling-bed model of Kunii and Levenspiel. db = effective bubble diameter, Cab = concentration of A in bubble, CAc = concentration of A in cloud, CM = concentration of A in emulsion, q = volumetric gas flow into or out of bubble, = mass-transfer coefficient between bubble and cloud, and kce = mass-transfer coefficient between cloud and emulsion. (From Kunii and Levenr spiel, Fluidization Engineering, Wiley, New York, 1969, and Krieger, Malabar, Fla., 1977.)... 

Figure 9.9. Characterization of the bubble mass transfer coefficients for Tank tests. Coarse bubble (CB) j6i = 1/36, and fine bubble (FB) = 1/6. The 95% confidence interval is included (Cl) (Schierholz et al. 2006).

Obviously, model identification is not possible under this condition. Another extreme is k much larger than the bubble mass-transfer coefficient. The extremes differ from (me another, as follows ... 

As explained in Section VI, the bubble mass-transfer coefficient /tob b is given by... 

Example 8 Calculation of Rate-Based Distillation The separation of 655 lb mol/h of a bubble-point mixture of 16 mol % toluene, 9.5 mol % methanol, 53.3 mol % styrene, and 21.2 mol % ethylbenzene is to be earned out in a 9.84-ft diameter sieve-tray column having 40 sieve trays with 2-inch high weirs and on 24-inch tray spacing. The column is equipped with a total condenser and a partial reboiler. The feed wiU enter the column on the 21st tray from the top, where the column pressure will be 93 kPa, The bottom-tray pressure is 101 kPa and the top-tray pressure is 86 kPa. The distillate rate wiU be set at 167 lb mol/h in an attempt to obtain a sharp separation between toluene-methanol, which will tend to accumulate in the distillate, and styrene and ethylbenzene. A reflux ratio of 4.8 wiU be used. Plug flow of vapor and complete mixing of liquid wiU be assumed on each tray. K values will be computed from the UNIFAC activity-coefficient method and the Chan-Fair correlation will be used to estimate mass-transfer coefficients. Predict, with a rate-based model, the separation that will be achieved and back-calciilate from the computed tray compositions, the component vapor-phase Miirphree-tray efficiencies. 

Two complementai y reviews of this subject are by Shah et al. AIChE Journal, 28, 353-379 [1982]) and Deckwer (in de Lasa, ed.. Chemical Reactor Design andTechnology, Martinus Nijhoff, 1985, pp. 411-461). Useful comments are made by Doraiswamy and Sharma (Heterogeneous Reactions, Wiley, 1984). Charpentier (in Gianetto and Silveston, eds.. Multiphase Chemical Reactors, Hemisphere, 1986, pp. 104—151) emphasizes parameters of trickle bed and stirred tank reactors. Recommendations based on the literature are made for several design parameters namely, bubble diameter and velocity of rise, gas holdup, interfacial area, mass-transfer coefficients k a and /cl but not /cg, axial liquid-phase dispersion coefficient, and heat-transfer coefficient to the wall. The effect of vessel diameter on these parameters is insignificant when D > 0.15 m (0.49 ft), except for the dispersion coefficient. Application of these correlations is to (1) chlorination of toluene in the presence of FeCl,3 catalyst, (2) absorption of SO9 in aqueous potassium carbonate with arsenite catalyst, and (3) reaction of butene with sulfuric acid to butanol. 

The bubbles shapes in gas purging vary from small spherical bubbles, of radius less than one centimen e, to larger spherical-cap bubbles. The mass transfer coefficient to these larger bubbles may be calculated according to the equation... 

To apply the mass transfer equation for design, the interfacial area, a, and mass transfer coefficient kL must be calculated. The interfacial area is dependent upon the bubble size and gas hold-up in the mixing vessel as given by ... 

Oxygen transfer rate (OTR) The product of volumetric oxygen transfer rate kj a and the oxygen concentration driving force (C - Cl), (ML T ), where Tl is the mass transfer coefficient based on liquid phase resistance to mass transfer (LT ), a is the air bubble surface area per unit volume (L ), and C and Cl are oxygen solubility and dissolved oxygen concentration, respectively. All the terms of OTR refer to the time average values of a dynamic situation. 

Agitation of fermentation broth creates a uniform distribution of ah in the media. Once you mix a solution, you exert an energy into the system. Increasing power input reduces the bubble size and this in turn increases the interfacial area. Therefore the mass transfer coefficient would be a function of power input per unit volume of fermentation broth, which is also affected by the gas superficial velocity.2,3 The general correlation is expected to be as follows ... 

The mass transfer coefficient is expected to relate gas power per unit volume and gas terminal velocity. Measurement of gas bubble velocity is troublesome in the experimental stage of aeration. Extensive research has been conducted for an explanation of the above correlation. Gas-liquid mass transfer in low viscosity fluids in agitated vessels has been reviewed and summarised as stated in (3.5.1.7)—(3.6.2) 3... 

The mass transfer coefficient for non-coalescing air bubbled in the fermentation broth in turbulent regime is frequently discussed in the literature.6 The volumetric mass transfer coefficient is defined by the following correlation ... 

Coppock and Meiklejohn (C9) determined liquid mass-transfer coefficients for the absorption of oxygen in water. The value of k, was observed to vary markedly with variations of bubble velocity, from 0.028 to 0.055 cm/sec for a velocity range from 22 to 28 cm/sec. These results appear to be in general agreement with the results obtained by Datta et al. (D2) and by Guyer and Pfister (G9) for the absorption of carbon dioxide by water. 

Yoshida and Akita (Yl) determined volumetric mass-transfer coefficients for the absorption of oxygen by aqueous sodium sulfite solutions in counter-current-ffow bubble-columns. Columns of various diameters (from 7.7 to 60.0 cm) and liquid heights (from 90 to 350 cm) were used in order to examine the effects of equipment size. The volumetric absorption coefficient reportedly increases with increasing gas velocity over the entire range investigated (up to approximately 30 cm/sec nominal velocity), and with increasing column diameter, but is independent of liquid height. These observations are somewhat at variance with those of other workers. 

Later publications have been concerned with mass transfer in systems containing no suspended solids. Calderbank measured and correlated gas-liquid interfacial areas (Cl), and evaluated the gas and liquid mass-transfer coefficients for gas-liquid contacting equipment with and without mechanical agitation (C2). It was found that gas film resistance was negligible compared to liquid film resistance, and that the latter was largely independent of bubble size and bubble velocity. He concluded that the effect of mechanical agitation on absorber performance is due to an increase of interfacial gas-liquid area corresponding to a decrease of bubble size. 

The results of Massimilla et al., 0stergaard, and Adlington and Thompson are in substantial agreement on the fact that gas-liquid fluidized beds are characterized by higher rates of bubble coalescence and, as a consequence, lower gas-liquid interfacial areas than those observed in equivalent gas-liquid systems with no solid particles present. This supports the observations of gas absorption rate by Massimilla et al. It may be assumed that the absorption rate depends upon the interfacial area, the gas residence-time, and a mass-transfer coefficient. The last of these factors is probably higher in a gas-liquid fluidized bed because the bubble Reynolds number is higher, but the interfacial area is lower and the gas residence-time is also lower, as will be further discussed in Section V,E,3. 

The results reported for beds of small particles (1 mm diameter and less) are in substantial agreement on the fact that the presence of solid particles tends to decrease the gas holdup and, as a consequence, the gas residencetime. This fact may also support the observations of gas absorption rate by Massimilla et al. (Section V,E,1) if it is assumed that a decrease of absorption rate caused by a decrease of residence time outweighs the increase of absorption rate caused by increase of mass-transfer coefficient arising from the increase in bubble Reynolds number. These results on gas holdup are in... 

Yoshida and Miura (Y3) reported empirical correlations for average bubble diameter, interfacial area, gas holdup, and mass-transfer coefficients. The bubble diameter was calculated as... 

For the mass-transfer coefficient of a bubble in a group of bubbles, Ruckenstein (R9) assumes that... 

---