Condensation coefficients

Keywords Accommodation coefficients Condensation Evaporation Free-molecule regime Gas phase transport Knudsen regime Non-continnum regime... 

Mechanisms of condensation. Condensation of a vapor to a liquid and vaporization of a liquid to a vapor both involve a change of phase of a fluid with large heat-transfer coefficients. Condensation occurs when a saturated vapor such as steam comes in contact with a solid whose surface temperature is below the saturation temperature, to form a liquid such as water. 

It is strictly for convenience that certain conventions have been adopted in the choice of a standard-state fugacity. These conventions, in turn, result from two important considerations (a) the necessity for an unambiguous thermodynamic treatment of noncondensable components in liquid solutions, and (b) the relation between activity coefficients given by the Gibbs-Duhem equation. The first of these considerations leads to a normalization for activity coefficients for nonoondensable components which is different from that used for condensable components, and the second leads to the definition and use of adjusted or pressure-independent activity coefficients. These considerations and their consequences are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

For such components, as the composition of the solution approaches that of the pure liquid, the fugacity becomes equal to the mole fraction multiplied by the standard-state fugacity. In this case,the standard-state fugacity for component i is the fugacity of pure liquid i at system temperature T. In many cases all the components in a liquid mixture are condensable and Equation (13) is therefore used for all components in this case, since all components are treated alike, the normalization of activity coefficients is said to follow the symmetric convention. ... 

In a binary liquid solution containing one noncondensable and one condensable component, it is customary to refer to the first as the solute and to the second as the solvent. Equation (13) is used for the normalization of the solvent s activity coefficient but Equation (14) is used for the solute. Since the normalizations for the two components are not the same, they are said to follow the unsymmetric convention. The standard-state fugacity of the solvent is the fugacity of the pure liquid. The standard-state fugacity of the solute is Henry s constant. 

The standard-state fugacity of any component must be evaluated at the same temperature as that of the solution, regardless of whether the symmetric or unsymmetric convention is used for activity-coefficient normalization. But what about the pressure At low pressures, the effect of pressure on the thermodynamic properties of condensed phases is negligible and under such con-... 

When a condensable solute is present, the activity coefficient of a solvent is given by Equation (15) provided that all composition variables (x, 9, and ) are taicen on an (all) solute-free basis. Composition variables 9 and 4 are automatically on a solute-free basis by setting q = q = r = 0 for every solute. 

To illustrate calculations for a binary system containing a supercritical, condensable component. Figure 12 shows isobaric equilibria for ethane-n-heptane. Using the virial equation for vapor-phase fugacity coefficients, and the UNIQUAC equation for liquid-phase activity coefficients, calculated results give an excellent representation of the data of Kay (1938). In this case,the total pressure is not large and therefore, the mixture is at all times remote from critical conditions. For this binary system, the particular method of calculation used here would not be successful at appreciably higher pressures. 

Table 3 shows results obtained from a five-component, isothermal flash calculation. In this system there are two condensable components (acetone and benzene) and three noncondensable components (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane). Henry s constants for each of the noncondensables were obtained from Equations (18-22) the simplifying assumption for dilute solutions [Equation (17)] was also used for each of the noncondensables. Activity coefficients for both condensable components were calculated with the UNIQUAC equation. For that calculation, all liquid-phase composition variables are on a solute-free basis the only required binary parameters are those for the acetone-benzene system. While no experimental data are available for comparison, the calculated results are probably reliable because all simplifying assumptions are reasonable the... 

Activity coefficients for condensable components are calculated with the UNIQUAC Equation (4-15)/ and infinite-dilution activity coefficients for noncondensable components are calculated with Equation (4-22). ... 

Example 16.4 The stream data for a process are given in Table 16.5. Steam is available condensing between 180 and 179°C and cooling water between 20 and SO C. All film transfer coefficients are 200Wm C For lO C, the... 

Not all molecules striking a surface necessarily condense, and Z in Eq. VII-2 gives an upper limit to the rate of condensation and hence to the rate of evaporation. Alternatively, actual measurement of the evaporation rate gives, through Eq. VII-2, an effective vapor pressure Pe that may be less than the actual vapor pressure P. The ratio Pe/P is called the vaporization coefficient a. As a perhaps extreme example, a is only 8.3 X 10" for (111) surfaces of arsenic [11]. 

It is known that even condensed films must have surface diffusional mobility Rideal and Tadayon [64] found that stearic acid films transferred from one surface to another by a process that seemed to involve surface diffusion to the occasional points of contact between the solids. Such transfer, of course, is observed in actual friction experiments in that an uncoated rider quickly acquires a layer of boundary lubricant from the surface over which it is passed [46]. However, there is little quantitative information available about actual surface diffusion coefficients. One value that may be relevant is that of Ross and Good [65] for butane on Spheron 6, which, for a monolayer, was about 5 x 10 cm /sec. If the average junction is about 10 cm in size, this would also be about the average distance that a film molecule would have to migrate, and the time required would be about 10 sec. This rate of Junctions passing each other corresponds to a sliding speed of 100 cm/sec so that the usual speeds of 0.01 cm/sec should not be too fast for pressurized film formation. See Ref. 62 for a study of another mechanism for surface mobility, that of evaporative hopping. 

Here, if Z is expressed in moles of collisions per square centimeter per second, r is in moles per square centimeter. We assume the condensation coefficient to be unity, that is, that all molecules that hit the surface stick to it. At very low Q values, F as given by Eq. XVII-3 is of the order expected just on the basis that the gas phase continues uniformly up to the surface so that the net surface concentration (e.g., F2 in Eq. XI-24) is essentially zero. This is the situation... 

Explain on what basis the condensation coefficient, c, might be expected to depend on cos 6, where 6 is the angle from the normal of an incident beam of particles (note Ref. 122). 

The introductory remarks about unimolecular reactions apply equivalently to bunolecular reactions in condensed phase. An essential additional phenomenon is the effect the solvent has on the rate of approach of reactants and the lifetime of the collision complex. In a dense fluid the rate of approach evidently is detennined by the mutual difhision coefficient of reactants under the given physical conditions. Once reactants have met, they are temporarily trapped in a solvent cage until they either difhisively separate again or react. It is conmron to refer to the pair of reactants trapped in the solvent cage as an encounter complex. If the unimolecular reaction of this encounter complex is much faster than diffiisive separation i.e., if the effective reaction barrier is sufficiently small or negligible, tlie rate of the overall bimolecular reaction is difhision controlled. 

In the sections below a brief overview of static solvent influences is given in A3.6.2, while in A3.6.3 the focus is on the effect of transport phenomena on reaction rates, i.e. diflfiision control and the influence of friction on intramolecular motion. In A3.6.4 some special topics are addressed that involve the superposition of static and transport contributions as well as some aspects of dynamic solvent effects that seem relevant to understanding the solvent influence on reaction rate coefficients observed in homologous solvent series and compressed solution. More comprehensive accounts of dynamics of condensed-phase reactions can be found in chapter A3.8. chapter A3.13. chapter B3.3. chapter C3.1. chapter C3.2 and chapter C3.5. 

Because of the general difficulty encountered in generating reliable potentials energy surfaces and estimating reasonable friction kernels, it still remains an open question whether by analysis of experimental rate constants one can decide whether non-Markovian bath effects or other influences cause a particular solvent or pressure dependence of reaction rate coefficients in condensed phase. From that point of view, a purely... 

The relation between the microscopic friction acting on a molecule during its motion in a solvent enviromnent and macroscopic bulk solvent viscosity is a key problem affecting the rates of many reactions in condensed phase. The sequence of steps leading from friction to diflfiision coefficient to viscosity is based on the general validity of the Stokes-Einstein relation and the concept of describing friction by hydrodynamic as opposed to microscopic models involving local solvent structure. In the hydrodynamic limit the effect of solvent friction on, for example, rotational relaxation times of a solute molecule is [ ]... 

The electronic transitions which produce spectra in the visible and ultraviolet are accompanied by vibrational and rotational transitions. In the condensed state, however, rotation is hindered by solvent molecules, and stray electrical fields affect the vibrational frequencies. For these reasons, electronic bands are very broad. An electronic band is characterised by the wave length and moleculai extinction coefficient at the position of maximum intensity (Xma,. and emai.). 

Numerous mathematical formulas relating the temperature and pressure of the gas phase in equilibrium with the condensed phase have been proposed. The Antoine equation (Eq. 1) gives good correlation with experimental values. Equation 2 is simpler and is often suitable over restricted temperature ranges. In these equations, and the derived differential coefficients for use in the Hag-genmacher and Clausius-Clapeyron equations, the p term is the vapor pressure of the compound in pounds per square inch (psi), the t term is the temperature in degrees Celsius, and the T term is the absolute temperature in kelvins (r°C -I- 273.15). 

If the fraction of sites occupied is 0, and the fraction of bare sites is 0q (so that 00 + 1 = 0 then the rate of condensation on unit area of surface is OikOo where p is the pressure and k is a constant given by the kinetic theory of gases (k = jL/(MRT) ) a, is the condensation coefficient, i.e. the fraction of incident molecules which actually condense on a surface. The evaporation of an adsorbed molecule from the surface is essentially an activated process in which the energy of activation may be equated to the isosteric heat of adsorption 4,. The rate of evaporation from unit area of surface is therefore equal to... 

If solvent recovery is maximized by minimizing the temperature approach, the overall heat-transfer coefficient in the condenser will be reduced. This is due to the fact that a large fraction of the heat transfer area is now utilized for cooling a gas rather than condensing a Hquid. Depending on the desired temperature approach the overall heat-transfer coefficients in vent condensers usually range between 85 and 170 W/m K (ca 15 and 30 Btu/h-ft. °F). 

---