This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
https://www.scribd.com/doc/106638038/Mass
09/22/2012
text
original
Synopsis
The Plant manager at the Anglo Platinum base metal refinery in Rustenburg is concerned about the poor recoveries
in the coppernickel leach autoclave. The manager is also concerned that the Smith turbine used in the process is not
efficient. In this report, the influence of impeller speed and on the oxygen mass transfer rate was investigated in
water using a three factorial design experiment. The oxygen mass transfer rate was measured at 200, 250 and 300
RPM and in a range of 3.9 – 7.8 L/min respectively .TwoWay ANOVA in statistica was implemented to study the
interactive effects of impeller speed and aeration rate on the mass transfer rate. Increasing the impeller speed and
aeration rate resulted in an increase in the oxygen transfer rate and the interaction between these factors is
significant. The pvalue for agitation is smaller than for aeration hence agitation has more effect on the oxygen
transfer rate than aeration rate. The power consumed by the impeller increased with the impeller speed. The
operational optimal conditions for this process would be higher agitation speed and aeration rate.
2  P a g e
Table of Contents
CHE3049W .................................................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Synopsis ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
List of figures .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of tables ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1Subject of Report ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Background to Report ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.3Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Objectives................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.5Scope and Limitations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Practical Background .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Mass transfer across a phase boundary ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 TwoFilm theory .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Mixing in a Stirred Tank Reactor ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.1 Power consumption .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Factors affecting k
L
a ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.1 Impeller type and speed ................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Aeration rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Factorial design experiment .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3 Experimental ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Experimental programme ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Apparatus .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 The experimental setup ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Experimental procedure ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12
5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
7 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
8 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
8.1 Raw data ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19
8.2 Sample calculations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 23
3  P a g e
List of figures
Figure 1: Two film theory for the gasliquid interface ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Radial flow patterns for disc turbine.................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3 The experimental setup ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 3.9 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM respectively. ............... 12
Figure 5: Residual plot for repeat 1. ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6: Residual plot for repeat 2. ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 7: Residual plot for repeat 3. ................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 8: Mass transfer coefficient against impeller speed at the required aeration rate. ............................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Mass transfer coefficient against aeration rate at the required impeller speed. ............................................................................... 15
Figure 10: Quadratic Surface plot of K
L
a coefficient against impeller speed and gas flowrate. ..................................................................... 16
Figure 11: Linear surface plot of K
L
a coefficient against impeller speed and gas flowrate. ........................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 5.85 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM respectively. ........... 20
Figure 13: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 5.85 L/min to determine K
L
a at from the slope at 250 RPM for error analysis. ..................... 21
Figure 14: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 7.8 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM respectively. ............. 22
List of tables
Table 1: Experimental determined mass transfer coefficients values ................................................................................................... 12
Table 2 KLa values for the three repeats performed at 5.85 L/min and 250 RPM.......................................................................................... 13
Table 3 Regression constants for the three repeats. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Table 4: TwoWay ANOVA table generated in statistica ............................................................................................................................... 15
Table 5 Confident intervals for TwoWay ANOVA. ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Impeller power number for the Smith turbine................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 7 Impeller power numbers for comparison purposes. ........................................................................................................................... 18
Table 8: Data for measurements at 3.9 L/min and the required impeller speeds. ........................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Data for measurements at 5.85 L/min and the required impeller speeds. ......................................................................................... 20
Table 10: Data for the three repeats at 5.85 L/min and 250 RPM. .................................................................................................................. 21
Table 11: Data for measurements at 7.8 L/min and the required impeller speeds .......................................................................................... 22
4  P a g e
Nomenclature
a  Area of the gas bubble per volume of reactor (m
2
.m
3
)
C
 Dissolve oxygen concentration in the liquid phase (mg.L
1
)
C
s
 Saturation concentration of oxygen (mg.L
1
)
D – Impeller diameter (m)
F Force (N)
K
L
a Volumetric mass transfer coefficient (s
1
)
ω  Impeller speed (RPM)
N
p
 Impeller power number ()
OTR – Oxygen transfer rate (mg.L
1
.s
1
)
RPM  Revolutions per minute
P – Power (Watts)
τ –Torque (N.m)
Cov Coefficient of variation ()
5  P a g e
Glossary
Autoclave: a strong, pressurized, steamheated vessel, as for laboratory experiments.
ANOVA: a statistical method that yields values that can be tested to determine whether a significant relation exists
between variables.
STATI STI CA: a statistical software package developed by Stat Soft. It provides data analysis and data visualisation
functions.
Air sparger: a device of introducing air into fermenter.
6  P a g e
1 Introduction
1.1Subject of Report
The Plant manager at the Anglo Platinum base metal refinery in Rustenburg is concerned about the poor recoveries
in the coppernickel autoclave. It is indicated that the coppernickel leach kinetics are controlled by the mass
transfer rate of oxygen in the autoclave. The plant manager feels that the mass transfer is suboptimal and the Smith
turbine used in the process is not efficient. The task was to use a three level factorial design experiment to optimise
the oxygen transfer rate by varying the impeller speed and measure the impeller power number for comparative
purposes.
1.2 Background to Report
The kinetics of oxygen mass transfer will be investigated in a 60 litre pilot scale autoclave agitated by a Smith
turbine. The autoclaves for pressure leaching can divided into two types: the stirred tank reactor and tubular reactor.
In this practical, the OTR will be considered in a sparged tank reactor with water as the working fluid. Oxygen has a
low solubility in many aqueous systems; consequently the OTR is the limiting factor in my bio and leaching
processes.
Mass transfer in the autoclave is affected by the impeller type, impeller speed and aeration rate. The impeller speed
strongly affects the k
L
a, increased impeller speed leads to increased oxygenation (Manuel et al, 2011). The effect of
all these factors on K
L
a can be determined using a three level factorial design experiment. Fisher (1926) argued that
factorial design experiments were more efficient than studying the effect of one contributing factor at a time. He
suggested that this design allows the study of effect of all the potential contributing factors on the dependable
variable and even the interaction between these factors can be determined.
The concentration of the dissolved oxygen is also affected by the resistance at the gasliquid interface. By correctly
determining the k
L
a, one can design, scale up and operate bioreactors optimal for various practises (Applonia et al,
2011). The rate of oxygen mass transfer at the gasliquid interface depends on the thickness of the boundary layer,
and the gasliquid interface area (Cheng, 1994). Correlations have been proposed for the volumetric oxygen mass
transfer coefficient. In one of these correlations, k
L
a is directly proportional to the gassed power consumption per
volume of broth and to the superficial gas velocity (Cooper et al, 2001) as indicated in equation 1:
Equation
1
a
1
and b
1
are constants that vary with the systems geometry, and the experimental methodology used.
1.3 Hypothesis
Three hypotheses will be tested in this practical:
The aeration rate affects K
L
a.
The impeller speed affects K
L
a.
Effect of aeration rate on K
L
a depends on the impeller speed (there is an interaction between the aeration
rate and the impeller speed).
7  P a g e
1.4 Objectives
The objectives of practical are:
To optimise the oxygen transfer rate by varying the impeller speed and aeration rate.
To investigate the interactive effects of impeller speed and aeration rate on K
L
a using factorial 2way
ANOVA.
To determine the impeller power number for the Smith turbine.
1.5 Scope and Limitations
The oxygen mass transfer rate will be measured in a 60 litre pilot scale autoclave with water as a working
fluid. The aeration rate will be varied from 3.9 to 7.8 L/min and the impeller speed from 200 to 300 RPM.
The maximum concentration of dissolved oxygen that can be reached is 40 mg/L.
A factorial design experiment allows the approximation of an experimental error by repeating the
experiment. However, repetition is only common for small experiments, where the number of factors to be
considered is two or less. As the number of factors to be considered increases, it becomes operationally
demanding to repeat the experiment. In this practical, only three repeats will be performed at an aeration rate
of 3.9 L/min and 250 RPM due to time constraint.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Practical Background
Mass transfer is the transfer one substance through another on molecular or macroscopic scales. During this process,
a component moves from the region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration. Mass transfer can
take place in a gas, liquid and solid phase respectively. The rate in which the process occurs is affected by the
concentration gradient and the resistance on mass transfer. Some industrial processes which rely on mass transfer
are: fractional distillation, gas absorption, gas desorption and fractional liquid extractor.
2.2 Mass transfer across a phase boundary
Mass transfer can occur across a phase boundary where the concentrations on either side of the interface are related
by the phase equilibrium relationship (Richardson, 1999a). In a distillation column a vapour and liquid are brought
into contact and the more volatile substance is transferred from the liquid phase to the gas phase while the less
volatile substance is transferred in the opposite direction. In gas absorption, the soluble gas diffuses to the surface,
dissolves in the liquid and then passes into the bulk of the liquid (Coulson, 1999b). What distinguishes this mass
transfer process is the transfer of mass across an interface.
The general mass balance equation can be applied on the interface. Thus the mass balance for oxygen transfer from
the gas to the liquid phase is given by:
IN + FORMATION/DISAPPEARANCE = OUT + ACCUMULATION
Accumulation is the amount of oxygen that remains within the system =
8  P a g e
The FORMATION/DISAPPEARANCE term can be ignored in cases where there is no chemical reaction
occurring within the system.
OUT is the amount of oxygen that leaves the system = 0
IN is the rate of oxygen mass transfer from the gas to the liquid phase = OTR
The oxygen mass balance is: ACCUMULATION = IN
) Equation 2
Equation 2 can be integrated between appropriate boundary conditions to yield an expression for K
L
a
∫
∫
Substituting the boundary equations
(
)
Therefore (
)
Equation 3
It can be seen from equation 3 that a plot of
) against time will yield a straight line and the value of K
L
a can
be obtained from the slope of the graph.
2.2.1 TwoFilm theory
The conditions in the region of the phase boundary can be represented by the tofilm theory. Whitman (1923)
suggested that the resistance to transfer in each phase could be regarded as lying in a thin film close to the interface.
The turbulence in the bulk liquid is assumed to die out at the interface and that a laminar layer exits in each of these
two fluids.
Mass transfer in biological reactors involves the transfer of oxygen from the vapour to the liquid phase. The rate at
which the gas dissolve sin the liquid is proportional to difference between the saturation concentration and the
dissolved concentration at that time. The overall mass transfer coefficient covers both film resistances and utilise
both the liquid and gas phase concentrations in calculating the driving force.
Figure 1: Two film theory for the gasliquid interface
9  P a g e
2.3 Mixing in a Stirred Tank Reactor
Mixing plays a major role in increasing the rate diffusion. The objectives of agitation and effective mixing
are: to circulate the fluid for sufficient time, to break up the gas bubbles in the liquid, to have more small
bubbles with higher interfacial surface area and to maintain uniform conditions for mass transfer ((Najafpour,
2007a).
Coulson (1990) found that contacting processes are required for physical and chemical changes species
present or for the movement from one phase to the other. The energy can be supplied to the reactor
internally by mechanically agitated contactor in which the energy supply is through the rotating impeller
shaft. The main reactor variables that affect the energy dissipation are: the tank diameter and height,
impeller type, impeller diameter, impeller position and impeller speed.
2.3.1 Power consumption
The power required for rotating an impeller of diameter D at the speed N in a specified geometry and suspension is
given by:
Equation 4
It can be seen from equation 4 that the power input to the impeller is proportional to the impeller speed and
diameter. The power number is the strong function of Reynolds number, impeller type and weak function of vessels
geometry.
The torque is defined as the rotational force acting on the agitator shaft. The calculation torque is essential for the
selection of the drive used for the impeller and is given by:
Equation 5
A combination of equation 4 and 5 gives the expression for the impeller power number:
Equation 6
2.4 Factors affecting k
L
a
2.4.1 Impeller type and speed
Impellers are categorised based on the flow pattern as either radial flow or axial flow impeller. Radial flow
impellers include flat blade turbine, Smith turbine, Rushton turbine and baffles. The impeller blade is parallel to the
impeller shaft; hence the rotation causes the fluid to move radially towards vessel wall. It results in good turbulent
mixing and is highly recommended for gaseous diffusion.
Figure 2: Radial flow patterns for disc turbine
10  P a g e
2.4.2 Aeration rate
Aeration is used as an oxygen source in most fermentation processes. The size of the air bubbles affects the rate of
mass transfer (Najafpour, 2007b). Smaller bubbles are more efficient than large bubbles are they have more surface
area. The gas exposure into the liquid is increased and thus increases the rate of mass transfer. Gas diffusion is not
mainly related to the type of sparger used but to the impeller type used for agitation (Najafpour, 2007c)
.
2.5 Factorial design experiment
A factorial design experiment is defined as an experiment whose design consists of two or more factors,
each with distinct possible values or levels. It can be written in the form k
n
, where: k is the number of levels
and n is the number of the factors to be considered. This design allows investigation of the effect of each
potential contributing factor on the dependable variable, as well as the effects of the interactions between
these factors on the dependable variable.
In this practical, two factors will be considered: impeller speed and aeration rate. The effects of these factors
on the dependable variable K
L
a will be considered at three levels: low, medium and high. Thus this
experiment is an example of a 3
2
experiment. Three factorial design experiments can be analysed using two
way ANOVA with two independent variables.
3 Experimental
3.1 Experimental programme
The aim of this experiment is to determine the effect of the impeller speed and aeration rate on the oxygen transfer
rate. In this experiment, a three level factorial design experiment will be performed to consider the effect of these
factors on the oxygen transfer rate at three levels: low, medium and high. The factorial design helps in finding the
optimal conditions and to identify the critical conditions.
3.2 Apparatus
The apparatus consists of:
A 60 litre pilot scale autoclave agitated by a Smith turbine.
Oxygen meter
Oxygen electrode
Nitrogen and compressed air
Variable speed motor
Torque transducer
Rotameter
Stopwatch
Pure liquid water
11  P a g e
3.3 The experimental setup
Figure 3 The experimental setup
3.4 Experimental procedure
The following procedure was followed:
The tank was filled with pure liquid water.
The impeller was set at an initial speed reading of 200RPM.
The nitrogen gas was sparged to deoxygenate the water.
Once the oxygen concentration decreased to less than 2.0L/min, the nitrogen gas flow was stopped and
oxygen was sparged at an initial flowrate of 3.9L/min.
The dissolved oxygen concentration was recorded in mg/L every ten seconds until the concentration of
oxygen approached the saturation concentration of 40 mg/L.
The procedure was repeated at 250 and 300 RPM, keeping the oxygen flowrate constant at 3.9L/min.
The gas flowrate was then changed 5.85 L/min and the procedure was repeated at 200, 250 and 300 RPM,
spurging the nitrogen gas before changing the speed everytime.
Three repeats were performed at 5.85L/min and 250RPM to calculate the experimental error.
The procedure was repeated at 7.8 L/min and 200, 250 and 300 RPM respectively.
The mass displaced at each speed setting was recorded and the power input was calculated by calculating the
torque.
A graph of
) against time was plotted in excel and the K
L
a values were obtained from the slope.
Twoway ANOVA in statistica implemented used to investigate the interactive effects of impeller speed and
aeration rate on K
L
a.
Autoclave
Nitrogen gas
Oxygen gas
Oxygen electrode
Speed
motor
P14
12  P a g e
4 Results and Discussion
Impeller speed k
L
a
L/min RPM 1/s
3.9 200 0.0064
3.9 250 0.0075
3.9 300 0.0102
5.85 200 0.0068
5.85 250 0.0092
5.85 300 0.0141
7.8 200 0.0078
7.8 250 0.0118
7.8 300 0.0172
Table 1: Experimental determined mass transfer coefficients values
Figure 4: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 3.9 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM
respectively.
In figure 4, the linear plot of
) against time was produced using equation 3 and the K
L
a values were obtained
from the slope of the graph. The R
2
values at the different impeller speeds are closer to one hence the data can be
model as linear. Table 1 show that both an increase in the impeller speed and the aeration rate results in an increase
in the K
L
a value as predicted. Increasing the aeration rate, increases gas exposure into the liquid is increased and
thus increases the rate of mass transfer.
y = 0.0064x + 0.0687
R² = 0.9835
y = 0.0075x + 0.0269
R² = 0.994
y = 0.0102x  0.0737
R² = 0.9822
0.5000
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L
n
(
C
s
/
(
C
s

C
)
Time (s)
Ln(C
s
/(C
s
C) versus Time at 3.9 L/min
200 RPM 250 RPM 300 RPM
13  P a g e
Run K
L
a
1 0.00900
2 0.00930
3 0.00950
Table 2 KLa values for the three repeats performed at 5.85 L/min and 250 RPM.
Mean 0.00927
Standard deviation 0.000252
Standard deviation of the mean 0.000145
Coefficient of variance (%) 2.716
Lower 95% confidence interval of the standard deviation 0.000131
Upper 95% confidence interval of the standard deviation 0.001582
Lower 95% confidence interval of the mean 0.008365
Lower 95% confidence interval mean 0.010168
Table 3 Regression constants for the three repeats.
Figure 5: Residual plot for repeat 1.
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 50 100 150
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
X Variable 1
X Variable 1 Residual Plot
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0 50 100 150
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
X Variable 1
X Variable 1 Residual Plot
14  P a g e
Figure 6: Residual plot for repeat 2.
Figure 7: Residual plot for repeat 3.
Three repeats were performed for data at 5.85 L/min and 250 RPM to determine the experimental error. The K
L
a
values for these repeats are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that these values are not the same. Repeat 1 and 2 seem
to be close whereas repeat 3 is different. This is confirmed by the residual plots of all repeats. A residual is the
difference between the observed and the predicted variable. In figure 4 and 5, the points in the graphs are randomly
dispersed around the axis hence a linear regression model is appropriate for the data. In figure 6, the points are non
randomly distributed hence nonlinear model is more appropriate.
Table 3 presents the regression constants and the confident intervals for the three repeats. It is observed that both the
mean and the standard deviation are within the lower and the upper limit at 95 % confidence level. Hence there are
no outliers in the data.
Figure 8: Mass transfer coefficient against impeller speed at the required aeration rate.
Gas flowrate*Impeller speed; LS Means
Current effect: F(4, 3)=46.971, p=.00488
Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
Aeration rate 50
Aeration rate 75
Aeration rate 100
200 250 300
Impeller speed (RPM)
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
k
L
a
(
1
/
s
)
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 50 100 150
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s
X Variable 1
X Variable 1 Residual Plot
15  P a g e
Figure 9: Mass transfer coefficient against aeration rate at the required impeller speed.
Table 4: TwoWay ANOVA table generated in statistica
Uni vari ate Resul ts for Each DV (prAC 3 (1))
Si gmarestri cted parameteri zati on
Effecti ve hypothesi s decomposi ti on
Effect
Degr. of
Freedom
kLa
SS
kLa
MS
kLa
F
kLa
p
Intercept
Gas fl owrate
Impel l er speed
Gas fl owrate*Impel l er speed
Error
Total
1 0.0010050.00100523189.100.000001
2 0.0000270.000013 310.45 0.000333
2 0.0000720.000036 830.60 0.000077
4 0.0000080.000002 46.97 0.004879
3 0.0000000.000000
11 0.000108
Gas flowrate*Impeller speed; LS Means
Current effect: F(4, 3)=46.971, p=.00488
Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
Impeller speed
200
Impeller speed
250
Impeller speed
300
50 75 100
Aeration rate (L/min)
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
k
L
a
(
1
/
s
)
16  P a g e
Table 5 Confident intervals for TwoWay ANOVA.
Figure 10: Quadratic Surface plot of K
L
a coefficient against impeller speed and gas flowrate.
3D Surface Plot of kLa against Gas flowrate and Impeller speed
prAC 3 (1) 3v*12c
kLa = 0.03280.0002*x0.0002*y+2.8E7*x*x+1.12E6*x*y+3.9E7*y*y
> 0.022
< 0.021
< 0.019
< 0.017
< 0.015
< 0.013
< 0.011
< 0.009
< 0.007
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
G
a
s
flo
w
r
a
t
e
(
L
/
m
in
)
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
Im
p
e
lle
r
s
p
e
e
d
(
R
P
M
)
0
.0
0
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.0
1
0
0
.0
1
2
0
.0
1
4
0
.0
1
6
0
.0
1
8
0
.0
2
0
0
.0
2
2
0
.0
2
4
k
L
a
(
1
/
s
)
Gas fl owrate*Impel l er speed; LS Means (prAC 3 (1))
Current effect: F(4, 3)=46.971, p=.00488
Effecti ve hypothesi s decomposi ti on
Cel l No.
Gas fl owrate Impel l er speed kLa
Mean
kLa
Std.Err.
kLa
95.00%
kLa
+95.00%
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
50 200 0.0064000.0002080.0057380.007062 1
50 250 0.0075000.0002080.0068380.008162 1
50 300 0.0102000.0002080.0095380.010862 1
75 200 0.0068000.0002080.0061380.007462 1
75 250 0.0092500.0001040.0089190.009581 4
75 300 0.0141000.0002080.0134380.014762 1
100 200 0.0078000.0002080.0071380.008462 1
100 250 0.0118000.0002080.0111380.012462 1
100 300 0.0172000.0002080.0165380.017862 1
17  P a g e
Figure 11: Linear surface plot of K
L
a coefficient against impeller speed and gas flowrate.
In table 4 and 5, the results obtained using the statistica program are presented. TwoWay factorial ANOVA was
used to the effect of the impeller speed, aeration rate and the interaction between the two factors on K
L
a. The idea is
that there two independent factors which affects the dependent variable. Each factor will have two or more levels
within it, and the degrees of freedom of each factor is one or less than the number of levels.
The pvalue for the impeller speed and the aeration rate is less that 0.05 hence both factors affect the value of K
L
a.
However, agitation has more effect on K
L
a than the aeration rate since the pvalue of agitation is the smallest. The
pvalue of the interaction of the factors is also less than one hence the interactions are also significant. This can also
be seen in figure 7 and 8. K
L
a was plotted against the impeller speed at required aeration rate vice versa. In both
graphs the lines are not parallel to one another hence there is interaction between the two factors.
Figure 9 and 10 shows both the quadratic and linear 3D surface plots generated in statistica. The dependable
variable on the zaxis K
L
a is plotted against the impeller speed and the aeration rate.
ω Force τ Power N
P
RPM rev/s N N.m Watts 
200 3.33 8.82 0.88 18.47 4.76
250 4.17 14.06 1.41 36.82 4.85
300 5.00 19.16 1.92 60.19 4.59
Table 6: Impeller power number for the Smith turbine
3D Surface Pl ot of kLa agai nst Gas fl owrate and Impel l er speed
prAC 3 (1) 3v*12c
kLa = 0.0135+8.4667E5*x+6.8333E5*y
> 0.016
< 0.015
< 0.013
< 0.011
< 0.009
< 0.007
< 0.005
< 0.003
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
G
a
s
flo
w
ra
te
(L
/m
in
)
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
Im
p
e
lle
r
s
p
e
e
d
(
R
P
M
)
0
.0
0
2
0
.0
0
4
0
.0
0
6
0
.0
0
8
0
.0
1
0
0
.0
1
2
0
.0
1
4
0
.0
1
6
0
.0
1
8
0
.0
2
0
k
L
a
(
1
/
s
)
18  P a g e
D N
p
0.634 3.16 ± 0.11
0.288 2.29 ± 0.10
Table 7 Impeller power numbers for comparison purposes.
Adamiak and karcz (2007) determined power numbers for Smith turbine under turbulent conditions and their results
are presented in table 7.
5 Conclusion
The objectives of practical were to optimise the oxygen transfer rate by varying the impeller speed and aeration rate,
to investigate the interactive effects of impeller speed and aeration rate on K
L
a using factorial 2way ANOVA and
to determine the impeller power number for the Smith turbine.
An increase in impeller speed and aeration rate resulted in an increase in the K
L
a value. The results in TwoWay
factorial ANOVA shows that the impeller speed and aeration rate both affect the K
L
a and the interaction between
these factors is significant. Hence all tested hypotheses are true.
The determined power numbers for the Smith turbine were found to be comparable to those found in literature.
6 Recommendations
I recommend that more repeats should be performed for all set of data for determination of experimental
error.
The impeller speed and aeration rate should be set on their optimal levels to optimise the oxygen mass
transfer rate in the autoclave.
19  P a g e
7 References
1. Vogelaar, J.C.T., Klapwijk, A., Van Cier, J.B. and Rulkens, W.H., 1998, Temperature effects on
the oxygen transfer rate between 20 and 55°C, Water Research, 34(3), 10371041.
2. Chavan, A. and Mulkherji, S., 2008, Dimensional analysis for modelling oxygen transfer rate in
rotating biological contactor, Bioresources Technology, 99,37213728.
3. Juarez, P. and Orejas, J., 2001, Oxygen transfer in a stirred reactor in laboratory scale, Latin
American Applied research, 31, 437439.
4. Badino, A.C., Facciotti, M.C.R. and Jchmidell, W., 2001, Volumetric oxygen transfer coefficients
(k
L
a) in batch cultivations involving nonNewtonian broths, Biochemical Engineering Journal , 8,
111119.
5. Coulson, J.M. and Richardson, J.F., 1991, Fluid flow, Heat Transfer and Mass transfer , Chemical
Engineering, 1, sixth ed, 573620.
8 Appendix
8.1 Raw data
O
2
flowrate = 50 = 3.9 L/min
Impeller
speed
(RPM) 200 250 300 200 250 300
Time (s) mg/L mg/L mg/L ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC)
0 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.0487 0.0460 0.0487
10 3.3 5.1 2.4 0.0861 0.1364 0.0619
20 7.4 7.0 4.3 0.2046 0.1924 0.1137
30 10.8 8.3 6.9 0.3147 0.2326 0.1893
40 12.2 10.5 9.9 0.3638 0.3045 0.2844
50 12.8 12.7 12.6 0.3857 0.3820 0.3783
60 14.6 15.0 15.3 0.4541 0.4700 0.4821
70 16.4 16.6 17.9 0.5276 0.5361 0.5933
80 16.8 18.3 20.7 0.5447 0.6116 0.7288
90 17.7 19.8 22.8 0.5843 0.6832 0.8440
100 20.6 21.6 24.9 0.7236 0.7765 0.9742
110 21.7 23.5 26.4 0.7820 0.8855 1.0788
120 22.6 24.7 28.0 0.8324 0.9610 1.2040
Table 8: Data for measurements at 3.9 L/min and the required impeller speeds.
20  P a g e
O
2
flowrate = 75 = 5.85 L/min
Impeller
speed
(RPM) 200 250 300 200 250 300
Time (s) mg/L mg/L mg/L ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC)
0 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487
10 3.7 2.6 4.1 0.0971 0.0672 0.1081
20 7.6 3.7 7.3 0.2107 0.0971 0.2015
30 8.5 6.2 10.2 0.2389 0.1684 0.2944
40 10.5 8.9 13.9 0.3045 0.2517 0.4269
50 10.9 11.7 16.4 0.3181 0.3460 0.5276
60 14.3 14.7 20.3 0.4424 0.4581 0.7083
70 16.9 18.2 23.2 0.5490 0.6070 0.8675
80 18.1 19.8 25.5 0.6024 0.6832 1.0147
90 20.1 20.9 27.5 0.6982 0.7392 1.1632
100 21.0 22.7 29.6 0.7444 0.8382 1.3471
110 21.6 24.9 31.3 0.7765 0.9742 1.5256
120 22.5 26.2 32.7 0.8267 1.0642 1.7010
Table 9: Data for measurements at 5.85 L/min and the required impeller speeds.
Figure 12: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 5.85 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM
respectively.
y = 0.0068x + 0.0416
R² = 0.9878
y = 0.0092x  0.0461
R² = 0.9873
y = 0.0141x  0.0832
R² = 0.986
0.5000
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L
n
(
C
s
/
(
C
s

C
)
Time (s)
Ln(C
s
/(C
s
C) versus Time at 5.85 L/min
200 RPM 250 RPM 300 RPM
21  P a g e
Impeller
speed
(RPM)
250
(Rep1)
250
(Rep2)
250
(Rep
3)
250
(Rep1)
250
(Rep2)
250 (Rep
3)
Time (s) mg/L mg/L mg/L
ln(Cs/Cs
C)
ln(Cs/Cs
C)
ln(Cs/Cs
C)
0 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487
10 2.4 3.2 3.0 0.0619 0.0834 0.0780
20 3.9 5.2 4.1 0.1026 0.1393 0.1081
30 5.7 7.7 6.6 0.1537 0.2138 0.1803
40 8.6 11.3 9.8 0.2421 0.3320 0.2810
50 11.2 13.4 12.1 0.3285 0.4080 0.3603
60 14.3 15.8 14.9 0.4424 0.5025 0.4660
70 18.7 17.9 18.3 0.6302 0.5933 0.6116
80 20.0 20.0 20.2 0.6931 0.6931 0.7032
90 21.2 22.0 21.5 0.7550 0.7985 0.7711
100 22.5 24.2 23.5 0.8267 0.9289 0.8855
110 24.4 26.1 25.5 0.9416 1.0570 1.0147
120 26.0 27.5 26.7 1.0498 1.1632 1.1011
Table 10: Data for the three repeats at 5.85 L/min and 250 RPM.
Figure 13: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 5.85 L/min to determine K
L
a at from the slope at 250 RPM for error
analysis.
y = 0.009x  0.0549
R² = 0.9795
y = 0.0095x  0.0373
R² = 0.9881
y = 0.0093x  0.0512
R² = 0.9851
0.2000
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
1.4000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L
n
(
C
s
/
(
C
s

C
)
Time (s)
Ln(C
s
/(C
s
C) versus Time at 5.85 L/min
Repeat 1 Repeat 2 Repeat 3
22  P a g e
O
2
flowrate = 100 = 7.8 L/min
Impeller speed
(RPM) 200 250 300 200 250 300
Time (s) mg/L mg/L mg/L ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC) ln(Cs/CsC)
0 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487
10 3.6 4.1 5.5 0.0943 0.1081 0.1479
20 7.3 7.1 9.4 0.2015 0.1954 0.2679
30 10.6 9.8 13.4 0.3079 0.2810 0.4080
40 11.7 10.8 16.8 0.3460 0.3147 0.5447
50 12.6 16.0 20.2 0.3783 0.5108 0.7032
60 14.0 19.5 23.9 0.4308 0.6685 0.9101
70 16.1 22.0 26.5 0.5150 0.7985 1.0862
80 17.9 23.7 28.5 0.5933 0.8977 1.2465
90 19.6 25.5 30.6 0.6733 1.0147 1.4482
100 21.9 27.1 32.5 0.7930 1.1317 1.6740
110 24.7 28.9 33.7 0.9610 1.2819 1.8483
120 25.6 30.4 35.1 1.0217 1.4271 2.0996
Table 11: Data for measurements at 7.8 L/min and the required impeller speeds
Figure 14: Plot of ln(C
s
/C
s
C) versus time at 7.8 L/min to determine K
L
a from the slope at: 200, 250 and 300 RPM
respectively.
y = 0.0078x + 0.0193
R² = 0.9759
y = 0.0118x  0.0531
R² = 0.9888
y = 0.0172x  0.0768
R² = 0.9905
0.5000
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
L
n
(
C
s
/
(
C
s

C
)
Time (s)
Ln(C
s
/(C
s
C) versus Time at 7.8 L/min
200 RPM 250 RPM 300 RPM
23  P a g e
8.2 Sample calculations
The following calculations were performed to calculate the Impeller power number:
Data
m = mass displaced in each speed setting = 0.90 kg
D = 16 cm = 0.16 m
x = distance for mass displaced = 10 cm = 0.1 m
g = gravitational constant = 9.8 m/s
2
ρ = 1000 kg/m
3
ω = 200 RPM
8.82 N
Equation 5 was used to calculate the power input.
Equation 6 was then used to calculate N
p
The same calculations were performed at 250 and 300 RPM respectively.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?