Procedures

Experiment A (To determine the rate constant in a PFTR)

-

Firstly, the two feed tanks were filled up to the 5L mark with 0.05M Sodium
Hydroxide and 0.05M Ethyl Acetate in water with the tank lids in place. (Note:
Safety googles, gloves and lab coat were worn when handling these
chemicals)
Thereafter, the pump stroke rate was adjusted to give a flow rate of
80mL/min for both reactants. The valves V3 and V4 were open with valves
V1, V2, V5, V6, V7 left closed.
(Note: Care was ensured that the valve V6 and V7 were left closed)
Subsequently, both the feed pumps were turned on.
The conductivity data were monitored and recorded by clicking V3 and V4
on the Mimic Diagram screen for PFTR. The reaction was left to run until
steady state was achieved in the reactor which took approximately 30
minutes. The results were automatically recorded in tabular format and
exported out for results analysis.

Experiment B (To investigate the effect of residence time on conversion)

-

The experimental procedures for the experiment A was repeated with the
exception that flow rates were lowered to 60mL/min and 40mL/min for both
reactants.

Experiment D (To determine the rate constant in a CSTR)

-

The experimental procedures for experiment A was repeated with the

exception that flow rates were lowered to 40mL/min for both reactants.
Thereafter the valves V3, V4 and V5 were closed followed by switching on the
feed pumps.
The stirrer speed were switched on and set to be 150rpm.
Subsequently, the conductivity data was monitored and recorded via clicking
V1 and V2 for CSTR.

Experiment E (To determine the dynamic behavior in a CSTR)

-

Now, the 2 feed tanks (5L) were filled with 0.05M Sodium Hydroxide and the
other with Deionized Water.
Similarly, the stirrer were set at 150rpm and switched on. Valve V5 was also
closed.
The Sodium Hydroxide feed pump was switched on to a faster flow rate (e.g
200spm pump speed) to allow the reactor vessel to be quickly filled to the
overflow before turning down the flow rate to 40mL/min
The conductivity data was recorded until a steady state is reached.
Feed pump for Deionised water was then switched on to a flow rate of
50mL/min.
Also, the conductivity data was recorded.

Questions
3. If the reactor is replaced by CSTR, to reach the same conversion Xa, how
big should the reactor be? Explain why it is bigger than PFTR.
Volume of CSTR can be calculated based on the following:

V CSTR =

( F A + F B ) (C AOC A )
k C A2

Experi
ment

FA
(ml/m
in)

FB
(ml/m
in)

CAO
(mol/
L)

CA
(mol/L)

93.75

93.75

0.025

0.0231

66.67

66.67

0.025

0.0206

45.45

45.45

0.025

0.0182

k
(L/mo
l.s)

Volu
me
CSTR
(L)
0.025 0.432
8
0.047 0.486
7
0.056 0.550
8

Sample calculation for FA = 93.75ml/min

FA = FB = 93.75ml/min x 1min/60s x 1L/1000mL
= 0.00156L/s
Substituting the variables,

V CSTR =

( F A +F B )( C AO C A )
k CA2
L 0.00156 L 0.025 mol 0.0231mol
+
( 0.00156
)( L L )
s
s

0.0258 L 0.0231 mol 2

(
)
mol . s
L
0.432L

Due to the higher reaction rate occurring in the PFTR, the volume of CSTR will be
higher than that of the PFTR. For a PFTR, the reaction is driven by the high
concentration of reactants initially and slowly reduces across the PFTR. With the
stirring element of a CSTR, the well-mixed condition promote a slower reaction rate
due to its lower driving force. Therefore this signifies that the residence time of a
CSTR must be high enough to reach the same conversion in PFTR, in order to do
that a higher volume is required.

4. Comment on the effect of changes in flow rate on conversion and rate

constant for PFTR.
Flow
Rate
(ml/mi
n)

Steady State
Conversion
Factor, XA

Reside
nce
Time,
(s)

XA/
(1XA)

0.273

Rate
Consta
nt, k
(L/mol.
s)
0.0568

45.45

264

66.67

0.177

0.0477

180

93.75

0.076

0.0258

128

0.37
51
0.21
48
0.08
24

From the tabulated results above, it can be deduced that as the flow rate increases
from 45.45ml/min to 93.75ml/min, the conversion of A actually decreases from
0.273 to 0.076 for a PFTR. The reason for this inverse relationship could be
explained based on the residence time. Since residence time is obtained by using
the volume of reactor per volumetric flow rate fed inside the reactor, increasing flow
rate will decrease the residence time. The drop in residence time signifies that the
concentration at the exit (CA) will increase as lesser amount of A is reacted.
Therefore, this resulted in the inverse relationship as observed above.
Similarly, the rate constant also decreases from 0.0568L/mol.s to 0.0258L/mol.s
when the flow rate was adjusted from 45.45ml/min to 93.75ml/min. However in
actual, the rate constant is independent of flow rate and concentration but a strong
function of temperature as discussed in question 5 below. Mathematically, the drop
in rate constant was observed due to the contribution of a smaller value of

XA
1X A

when conversion decreased with respect to increasing flow rate.

5. Comment on the effect of changes in temperature on rate constant.

Write down the correlation between rate constant and temperature.
The experiment to determine the effect of changes in temperature on rate constant
was not done due to equipment fault. However, based on the Arrhenius equation:
E

k =A e RT
Where k is the rate constant, A is the pre-exponential factor, E is activation energy,
R is the gas constant, and T is the reaction temperature. To demonstrate the effect
of temperature, the above equation is manipulated as follows:
ln

k =ln A

E 1
.
R T

From the manipulated equation, it can be deduced that the temperature has an
inverse relationship with rate constant. As temperature increases, the reactant
molecules gets excited with the increase in kinetic energy and this promoted the
frequency of collision which ultimately increased the specific rate constant.
6. Compare and discuss the rate constant obtained from Experiments A
and B.
From experiments A and B, it was observed that there was a decrease in rate
constant from 0.0568 L/mol.s @ 45.45ml/min to 0.0477 L/mol.s @66.67ml/min and
then dropped further to 0.0258 L/mol.s @ 93.75ml/min. The decreasing trend of rate
constant with the impact from an increasing flow rate did not coincide with the
theoretical understanding that the temperature was the only function that could
affect the rate constant based on Arrhenius equation. Therefore, in order to
determine the actual rate constant from experiments A and B, a graph was plotted
as shown in Figure 1. The gradient determined was 0.0021 corresponding to kC AO,
and with a known concentration of CAO at 0.025mol/L, the rate constant was
determined to be 0.084L/mol.s.