You are on page 1of 21

1

Air Emission Control
CHE 435
Section 7
Team 1
Team Leader: Avery Carlson
Experimental Engineer: Ahmad Hazamuddin
Analyst: Nina Bragg

2

ABSTRACT
In this experiment, the team analyzed a packed-bed absorption column with the goal of
determining the height of gas transfer units (HOG) within the column. The height of transfer units governs
the effectiveness of mass transfer, and the extent of control the column has over ammonia emission to the
atmosphere. The equipment operated using standard absorption techniques, i.e. liquid water flowed down
the packing, while a vapor mixture of air and ammonia flowed counter-current to the water in the
packing. Depending on the quality of mass transfer and the extent of vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE),
some ammonia would be absorbed into the water and exit the system. An ammonia analyzer was used to
measure concentrations of unabsorbed ammonia in the effluent air stream, and titration methods were
used to measure absorbed ammonia in the effluent water stream. Using a combination of the HTU-NTU
method, mass balance, and Henry’s law equations, the team tested the effect of air flow rate on H OG. A
linear relationship was found to exist between the flow rate of inlet air and the height of the gas transfer
units. This conclusion was validated with the logic that as air flow rate increases, contact time between
water and ammonia decreases, and thus a higher HOG is needed for effective mass transfer to occur. Air
flow rate was found to be more significant than water flow rate.

3 Table of Contents Introduction Theory Apparatus  Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup Procedures Calibrations  Table 1: Water Calibration Data  Figure 2: Water Calibration Chart  Table 2: Range of Non-Flooding Combination of Air and Water Flow Rates  Figure 3: The relationship of Air Flow Rates and Pressure Drop  Table 3: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination  Figure 4: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination Results  Figure 5: Comparison of HOG values for multiple air and water flow rates  Table 4: Analysis of error calculations for each air flow rate  Table 5: Analysis of error calculations for each water flow rate  Table 6: Error propagation for each water flow rate.  Table 7: Error propagation for each air flow rate.  Table A-5: Error propagation of HOG for each water flow rate.  Table A-4: Error propagation of NOG for each air flow rate. Discussion Conclusions and Recommendations Notation References Appendix  Table A-1: Calculation for the amount of ammonia and the mole fraction of ammonia  Table A-2: Calculation of NOG and HOG  Table A-3: Error propagation of NOG for each water flow rate.  Table A-6: Error propagation of HOG for each air flow rate  Figure A-1: Comparison of NOG values for multiple air and water flow rates  Figure A-2: Graph of HOG at various water flow rates 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 I II II III IV IV IV V V .

Some unabsorbed ammonia exits the column through the top. the use of ammonia has certain drawbacks. and that the system is isothermal (3). The fundamentals of this method revolve around mass transfer between solute and solvent—in this case ammonia and water. and other waste products can have to ecology. the data varies little. mass transfer of ammonia occurs into the film of water. i. as air flow rate increased from two to four SCFM. the environment. At a water flow rate of 400 cubic centimeters per minute. Ammonia pollution is destructive to water ecosystems. 5): . Ammonia is a chemical that is commonplace in industrial processes. In today’s society.24 to 6. The underlying assumptions are that the molecules of water are not counter-diffusing into the ammonia vapor. Mass is conserved so the mass balance becomes (3. Industries ranging from agricultural to pharmaceutical to plastics utilize ammonia to design products (1).30 inches.71 inches. can toxify soil and groundwater. pg. while an air-ammonia mixture is fed through the bottom. The next two trials showed nearly the exact same data. and is a relatively simple process to understand. e. In the opposite manner. the design team looked at one such type of emission control using absorption method—the process of absorbing ammonia into water. the design team took measurements of the concentrations of ammonia entering and exiting the column in order to understand the extent of mass transfer within the packing. For every trial. especially when unused ammonia is released to the atmosphere. In this study. all water fed to the system ends up as liquid at the bottom of the column. This is concurrent with results found in a University of Florida (2. H OG increased. H OG increased from 4. industry understands the detrimental effects pollutants. Absorption into water allows for easier disposal of excess ammonia through means that are environmentally friendly. have been particularly effective in reducing the amount of undesired chemicals that are released to the atmosphere. As the water contacts the ammonia in the packing. and general public health.71 inches. THEORY The theory behind the calculation of HOG in packed-bed absorption columns is based off the HTU-NTU method described in Separation Process Engineering by Philip Wankat. The results of experiments demonstrated a positive linear relationship between the HOG and the air flow rate entering the column. H OG for both cases increases about 4. HOG increased from 4. “greenhouse gases”.85 inches to 6. pg. The first step in the analysis is performing the mass balance of ammonia around the column. and poses a health risk to humans (1). which shows that water flow rate is not as significant a variable as air flow rate. When the water flow rate increases from 500-600 cc/min.1 INTRODUCTION Researcher’s expanding knowledge of pollutants has led to air emission control becoming an increasingly important function on the industrial scale. Absorption methods. which falls to the bottom of the column for removal. As air flow rate increases from two to four SCFM. respectively. In order to complete this task.e.g as air flow rate increased so did HOG. The objective of this experiment was to calculate the height of gas transfer units (H OG) within a packed-bed absorption column as a function of the air flow rate entering the column. HOG is shown to not be heavily dependent on water flow rate. A diagram of a general absorption column is shown in Figure 1. Pure water enters the column through the top of the column. This is shown from the resulting data from the design of experiments. However. such as packed-bed absorption.24 to 5. 21).

The equation is simplified to: V y A =Lx +V y B [2] For this system. Taking the integral of the mole fractions in the inlet and outlet streams allows for this calculation: yA N OG=∫ yB dy ¿ y− y [4] where NOG = number of gas transfer units within the column [unitless] Essentially. pg. is the first step of the HTU-NTU method (4. The equation is below: H OG= ZT N OG [6] where HOG = height of the gas transfer units within the column [inches] ZT = height of packing within the column [inches] . Henry’s Law is described below: y ¿ =Hx [3] where y* = the vapor phase mole fraction that is in equilibrium [unitless] H = Henry’s Law Constant Using partial pressure data of ammonia in Perry’s Chemical Handbook. 5). the Henry constant can be found. therefore x B is equal to 0 (3. N OG. the team assumed—and later verified—that the amount of ammonia entering the column in the inlet was dilute compared to the overall air flow rate. The team determined that it was applicable for this dilute mass transfer problem to employ Henry’s Law to estimate the equilibrium between ammonia in the liquid and vapor (3. 686): ¿ N OG=log ⁡( y A− y ¿) y B− y [5] The final step in the method is to relate NOG to HOG. 687). and the mole fraction in equilibrium within the column or (4. According to Wankat. 686). there is no ammonia entering with the pure water. pg. pg. HOG is inversely proportional to the found value of NOG (4. 11).2 L x B + V y A =L x A + V y B [1] where L = liquid flow rate of water [mol/min] V = vapor flow rate of mixed air and ammonia [mol/min] xB = mole fraction of ammonia in water feed stream [unitless] xA = mole fraction of absorbed ammonia in liquid exit stream [unitless] yA = mole fraction of mixed ammonia in air inlet stream [unitless] yB = mole fraction of unabsorbed ammonia in exit air stream [unitless] In this case. this simplifies to the log mean difference between the inlet and outlet mole fractions. pg. pg. Calculating the number of gas transfer units.

This experiment was repeated with higher water flow rates over the same increment. The team allowed a few minutes for a water seal to form at the bottom of the column. The set up also came with an ammonia analyzer with infrared continuously reading the amount of ammonia in air. was sent through water trap to filter the water out before it was sent to the ammonia analyzer. This was to ensure that no air exits through the bottom of the column. the relationship of pressure drop and air flow rate was investigated. Ammonia gas was mixed with air before entering the column. The water flow rate was calibrated. Figure 1 shows the equipment set up of the experiment. The flow rates of both water and air were controlled using rotameters. This was to ensure a consistent flow rate of effluent water. Calibration of water flow rotameter was executed. PROCEDURES The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of ammonia was studied to be aware of safety issues when handling aqueous ammonia. The water rotameter was opened to form a water seal at the bottom of the column. It was adjusted accordingly after changing the air flow rate to have the water seal at a constant height. Goggles were worn while being in the lab. The equipment set up was composed of a packed column absorber which was packed with approximately 5 L.3 kg of ceramics ½” Raschig rings. The time needed to collect 1000 mL of water in a flask was taken. The overhead product. Next. which was the unabsorbed ammonia. These flow rates were then compared to the flow rates set on the rotameter. The water flow rate was first set at a low value at 1 SCFM. 4. Water was fed to the top of the column while air to the bottom.3 APPARATUS Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup. The air flow rate was set starting from a low value at and then increased over the .

5 cm. The water seal was drained out and formed again to ensure the concentration of ammonia in the water was at equilibrium and not contaminated by accumulation of ammonia. which was the equivalence point. The experiment was then continued by following the same procedure with four larger water flow rates. The team allowed a few minutes to pass in order for a water seal to form at the bottom of the column at a constant height of 8. Three drops of methyl orange were added into the beaker. Hydrochloric acid was added drop by drop into the beaker until the color of methyl orange changes from yellow to red. Then. The pressure drop of all combinations of water and air flow rates were recorded. All combinations of water and air flow rates used in this experiment should not cause flooding and this can be referred to the data obtained in the previous flooding experiment. This data was to be used for the ammonia absorption experiment as a reference to avoid flooding. The experiment was repeated and data was taken for multiple air flow rates in a descending order. Gloves were worn throughout the whole experiment when handling ammonia.5 M HCl was prepared in the burette. The mixture was stirred throughout the process. the water flow rate was held constant and the air flow rate was increased by 0.4 same increment which. A sample of 50 mL effluent water was collected in a beaker for titration. . Flooding occurs when there is a big increase in pressure drop across the column after increasing the air flow rate. The water rotameter was first opened at a flow rate of 400 cc/min. The amount of HCl solution needed was recorded. 0. In this experiment. The rotameter of air flow rate was set at 4 SCFM and the ammonia rotameter was kept constant at 78 mm throughout the experiment. The range of flow rates that causes flooding was also obtained. 8-10 minutes were allowed for the system to achieve equilibrium.5 SCFM until flooding occurs. Any water left in the column was drained out of the column to assure that the initial water condition was not contaminated by ammonia from a previous trial. The team allowed the column to achieve a steady state. The pressure drop across the packed column measured by a computer software was recorded. For titration. the whole experiment was then repeated using higher water flow rates at 500 and 600 cc/min. These steps were repeated with increased air flow rates of 5 and 6 SCFM.

00086 725 0.87 0.00090 1250 0.00087 975 0.00058 500 0.90 0.4 0.91 0.00091 1150 0.90 0.2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Effluent Water Flow Rate (cc/min) Figure 2: Water Calibration Chart 1400 .58 0.59 0.63 R² = 0.5 CALIBRATIONS Table 1: Water Calibration Data Rotameter Reading Time Required to Effluent Water flow (cc/min) Collect 1000ml (min) Rate (cc/min) 275 0.6 Rotameter Reading (cc/min) 0.00090 Water Calibration 1 0.8 f(x) = 0x + 0.86 0.

6 Table 2: Range of Non-Flooding Combination of Air and Water Flow Rates Air Flow Rate (SCFM) Pressure Drop (cm H2O) 1 2.92 Effect of Air Flow Rates on Pressure Drop 12 10 8 Presuure Drop (cm H2O) 6 4 2 0 0.44 4 5.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2 2.69 3 3.5 3 3.05 5 10.08 2 2.5 Air Flow Rates (SCFM) Figure 3: The relationship of Air Flow Rates and Pressure Drop .5 1 1.

5 3000 6 3340 5 3610 5 Non-Flooding Air & Water Flow Rates 6.8 5.6 Maximum Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 5.2 5 4.8 2250 2750 3250 3750 Water Flow Rate (cc/min) Figure 4: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination .2 6 5.7 Table 3: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination H2O Flow Rate (cc/min) Maximum Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 2360 5 2760 5.4 5.

Calculated values correspond to Figure 5. Table 4: Analysis of error calculations for each air flow rate. Water Air Flow Flow HOG.285 6.576 4.exp Rate HOG.8 RESULTS Results for the experiments are shown in Figure 5 and Figure A-1.357 15. Figure 5: Comparison of HOG values for multiple air and water flow rates.610 0.285 5. Error Analysis Analysis of error was performed for HOG as a function of water flow rate and air flow rate.0173 0.002 9 14.576 5.calc % Rate HOG.93 4 6.239 0.283 1.calc HOG.0348 0.275 3 5.285 5.70 . An explanation for how the percent error values are calculated is included in the Appendix.exp Error (SCFM) (cc/min) 4 6. The tables below show the results.625 400 2 4.627 2 600 4 6.268 0.776 0.0174 0.799 8 12. H OG as a function of just water flow rate is shown in the Appendix (Figure A-2).88 2 4.849 0.866 4.866 4. Linear trendlines fit the data for all three water flow rates used in this experiment.987 15.298 0.33 500 3 5.

624 4 12.017 500 0.251 8 0. Instead of the effluent water flow rate .146 29 DISCUSSION The value for the water flow rate used in the calculations was the rotameter value.802 0.242 0.228 5.exp Error c (cc/min) 400 5. Values correspond to Figure A-2.866 4. Water σ(NOG Flow Rate σ(HOG) ) (cc/min) 0.867 0.348 6.cal HOG.81 600 4.008 4. Table 6: Error propagation for each water flow rate. Propagation of Error Below are the tables for the calculated propagation of error.166 07 0. Air Flow σ(NOG Rate σ(HOG) ) (SCFM) 0.calc % Flow Rate HOG.548 8 19.017 600 0.002 3 0.99 500 4.71 0 12. Water HOG. The trendline for the calibration curve did not fit the data well (see Figure 2).218 4.650 12.576 4.794 7 As the water flow rate increases.214 8 0.220 8 Table 7: Error propagation for each air flow rate.017 400 0. the percent error increases.002 4 0.766 0. See Appendix for further details on how error propagation was calculated.184 02 0.576 0.9 3 5.exp HOG.002 2 0.83 0 Table 5: Analysis of error calculations for each water flow rate.709 2 4.

This is consistent at all water flow rates. Figure 4 revealed the range of allowable air and water flow rates that limit the occurrence of flooding. It is observed that the air flow rate has more of an impact on NOG and HOG than the water flow rate. at the air flow rate of 3 SCFM. This indicates that the separation occurs more efficiently at smaller air flow rates and higher air flow rates induce resistance to mass transfer. The maximum air flow rate before flooding is 6 SCFM whereas the larger flow rates of water max out at 5 SCFM. There is an inverse relationship between the height of a gas-phase transfer unit and the number of gas phase transfer units. since titration is part of this process. Any larger or smaller water flow rates than 3000 cc/min would require smaller air flow rates than 5 SCFM to avoid flooding. The location of the level-indicator piece fluctuated from the set value during the experiment. Moreover. This occurred most often .05 cm H 2O to 10. The rotameter readings kept fluctuating that needed to be adjusted accordingly most of the time. When NOG decreases. This large fluctuation of error could be due to fluctuations in the ammonia rotameter or the water rotameter. 4. affect the error associated with the team's calculation method. The error analysis calculations show a wide range of percent error.10 continually increasing with increasing rotameter flow rate. HOG increases. The pressure drop increases exponentially with the air flow rates. and in turn. The air flow rates indicated in the chart are the maximum air flow rate for respective water flow rates before flooding. As the air flow rate becomes larger. However. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The height of a gas-phase transfer unit in a packed-bed absorber is affected by the air flow rate and the water flow rate. the number of gas-phase transfer units (N OG) decreases (see Figure A-1). as shown in Figure 3. Fluctuations in flow rates would change the amount of ammonia coming out of the bottom and top of the absorber. This concludes increasing the water flow rate above 500 cc/min does not result in a significant decrease to H OG. then the transfer unit has to be larger in order for the desired absorption to occur. The increasing pressure from an increased water flow rate should have made the effluent flow rate larger. This might be the result of few errors during the experiment. the effluent water flow rate started to decrease after around 900 cc/min. Since this was not the case for the calibration data. As the air flow rate increases. the height of a gas-phase transfer unit increases as well. 2. If there is a smaller number of transfer units. In the second experiment of calibration. The opposite trend is shown in Figure 5 for the height of a gas-phase transfer unit (HOG). This occurs because there is less contact time between the water and ammonia at higher air flow rates. It is recommended that the knobs on the rotameters either be tightened or changed. the amount of HCl added to achieve the equivalence point might have exceeded the actual amount required. it can be concluded that changing air flow rate has a significant effect on the pressure drop. NOG and HOG have an inverse relationship. This data proves that increasing air flow rates above 4 SCFM would cause flooding. HOG increases by a small amount when increasing the water flow rate from 500 to 600 cc/min. At water flow rates of 500 cc/min and 600 cc/min the values for H OG varied little. indicating flooding occurred. the height of a gas-phase transfer unit increases. This is shown in the results and by Equation 6.92 cm H2O when increasing the air flow rate from 4 SCFM to 5 SCFM. The value of pressure drop escalated significantly from 5. 3. it was decided to use the value from the rotameter instead of the calibrated value for the N OG and HOG calculations. the height of a gas-phase transfer unit decreases. As the air flow rate increases. 1. The ammonia and water flowrate are assumed to be constant for each trial. A significant difference of HOG can be observed when changing the water flow rate from 400 to 500 cc/min compared to that when increasing it from 500 to 600 cc/min. As the water flow rate increases.

. Available: http://apps. J. [2] McCabe. It is also recommended that a more dilute acid be used for the titrations..). Fundamentals Laboratory Booklet: CHE 34800.C. Retrieved from http://www. Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory. McGrawHill.sepa. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering.D. 3rd ed.org. Gabriella. Prentice Hall. [PDF]. 2015. NOTATION              cc/min = Cubic centimeters per min H = Henry’s Law Constant HOG = height of the gas transfer units within the column [inches] L = liquid flow rate of water [mol/min] NOG = number of gas transfer units within the column [unitless] SCFM = Standard cubic feet per min V = vapor flow rate of mixed air and ammonia [mol/min] xB = mole fraction of ammonia in water feed stream [unitless] xA = mole fraction of absorbed ammonia in liquid exit stream [unitless] yA = mole fraction of mixed ammonia in air inlet stream [unitless] yB = mole fraction of unabsorbed ammonia in exit air stream [unitless] y* = the vapor phase mole fraction that is in equilibrium [unitless] ZT = height of packing within the column [inches] REFERENCES [1] Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Ammonia Gas Absorption.edu/itc/seas/E3810-lab/pbd. & Harriott. P. Massachusetts. M. The flow rate used for calculations may not be the real flow rate of ammonia being mixed with air. P. Packed Bed Fluid Dynamics and Ammonia Absorption. therefore making the team's calculations not as accurate.L.aspx?pid=1. Retrieved from http://www. [4] Crisalle. & Odian. S.edu/unit-ops-lab/experiments/GA/GA-NH3/GA-NH3-Manual. W. Smith.ufl. 7th ed.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation. If a more dilute acid was used there would be less moles going into the sample at any one point in time. Purdue University. [3] Wankat. Adding one drop of acid when the sample was near equivalence brought the sample past its equivalence point and by the looks of the indicator into the acidic range. 2005. Columbia University.. .C. Separation Process Engineering. (n.pdf. [Online]. [5] Barton.d. 2012. (2013).11 with the ammonia rotameter. [6] Nagy.che.columbia. making the titration more accurate. [Online]. New York. O.html. University of Florida.). (n.d.C.

12 .

5 moles of water=50 mL × x= mol min mol 1L × ×8.22 mol/min min g 18 mol 1 3 g cm 3 ( Flow Rate )ammonia =1555 SCCM × =0.01372 dy dy 0.7863 ∫ y− y ¿ 0.0667 +22.016 g 0.01372 129 =0.001531=1.001531 0.00425 moles =0.000 moles of acid=moles of ammonia=0.000.00073 0.000129 y−1.0667 y A= mol mol 0.7753 moles mL 18.031 mol 0.966 mol 0.5 mL=0.4637 ×10−5 = =ln =4.00425 moles L 1000 mL 1g 1 mol × =2.4637 ×10−5 ( ) .1 APPENDIX Sample Calculations The following is a sample calculation for how to determine the height of a gas-phase transfer unit.01372−1.000129−1.22 min min yB= =0.001225 3 g 3 cm cm ( Flow Rate ) water=400 × =22.4637 ×10−5 0.79 mol/min SCFM g 29.7753 moles y ¿ =0.4637 ×10−5 yA N OG=∫ yB 0.00425 moles+2. g 3 28320 cm cm ( Flow Rate )air =4 SCFM × × =4.009558× 0.000129 1.0667 mol/min g 17.

00119 0 0.00008 66 NOG HOG (in) 4.59 0.2 3.0182 yB x y* yA-y* yB-y* 0.79 0.0667 0.0667 0.2 30∈ ¿ =6.00159 0 0.000048 27.00012 9 0.78 0.79 0.00440 2.0667 0.00153 0.0667 0.3 3.0667 0.8 2.79 6.7868 Z H OG= T =¿ N OG Calculation Tables Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Table A-1: Calculation for the amount of ammonia and the mole fraction of ammonia.000073 22.3 2.00340 2. yA Trial 1 0.000059 33.000061 27.001 53 0. Water Air Ammoni Amoun Amou Mole Mole Flow Flow a Flow t of nt of Fraction Fraction Rate Rate Rate NH3 H2O of NH3 of NH3 (mol/min (mol/mi (mol/min (mol) (mol) (Bottom) (Top) ) n) ) 22.8 3.001 71 1.0667 0.00475 2.78 0.013 7 0.35 5.000035 33.2679∈¿ 4.59 0.27 5.00123 0 0.00425 2.79 0.59 0.00330 2.78 0.40 0.78 0.00350 2.018 2 0.00505 2.78 0.0667 0.00126 0 Table A-2: Calculation of NOG and HOG.0137 0.00011 4 0.2 4.00148 0 0.0667 0.40 0.61 .000129 22.64E05 0.000050 33.00405 2.78 0.40 0.00010 3 0.78 0.8 4.000038 27.78 0.0667 0.00410 2.00146 0 0.000103 0.00182 0 0.46E05 1.78 0.2 2.00171 0.3 4.

16 4.001 48 0.0271 0.30 6.00005 90 0.0271 0. yA N OG=∫ yB N OG=ln ( dy [ A 3] y−Hx y A−Hx [A 4] y B−Hx ) d N OG 1 = [ A 5] d yA y A −Hx d N OG 1 = [A6] d y B Hx− y B .0137 Trial 2 0.013 7 0.0182 0.28 6.00004 69 0. The experimental value for H OG was subtracted from the calculated value to find the difference between the two.00004 76 0.027 1 0.3 0.00006 10 0. H OG was calculated using the trendline equations for a given flow rate.24 Error Analysis After the data was plotted.68 5.001 23 0.00002 28 0. p.001 59 0.41E05 1.66 5. the following equation was used (6.00005 56 0.78 7.0137 Trial 3 0. To determine the values for error propagation.0271 0.001 19 0.00003 83 0.001 82 0.87 7.24 5.001 46 0.52E05 1.19 4.00003 80 0. %Error= |theoretical−experimental| theoretical ×100 [ A 1] Error Propagation The error propagation for NOG and HOG are calculated.74E05 1.21E05 0.00003 41 0.027 1 0.14E05 1.00005 00 0.018 2 0.39E05 1. yB.018 2 0.00007 30 0. 11) n σ ( y )=∑ a 2i σ 2( xi )[ A 2] 2 i=1 In order to find NOG. This difference was divided by the calculated HOG value and multiplied by 100 percent in order to find the percent error.001 26 1.00003 50 0.17E05 1. three variables were used: yA. a trendline was fitted to the data for each air and water flow rate.00002 29 6.07 4.0182 0.08 4.85 5.00004 80 0. It was assumed that the value for H remained constant throughout the experiment.027 1 0. The detailed equations used to find the error values for N OG and HOG are shown below.013 7 0. and x.28 4.

985E-05 3.0137 0.00679 0.00679 54. Water Flow Rate (cc/min) 400 500 600 Avg yA σ(yA) dNOG/dyA Avg yB σ(yB) dNOG/dyB 0. Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 4 3 2 Avg yA σ(yA) dNOG/dyA Avg yB σ(yB) dNOG/dyB 0. Below are detailed tables of the intermediate steps of the error propagation calculations.666 -35111.00151 0.212E-05 -12756.249E-18 72.532 -30229.0197 0. Table A-3: Error propagation of NOG for each water flow rate. in this experiment there were a total of nine samples.00123 0.0178 Table A-4: Error propagation of NOG for each air flow rate.337 -31489.0178 0.0000830 0.948 54.945 0.000319 0.603E-05 121.87E-05 3.317 .953 54.821E-05 3.0271 0 0 4.000146 6.887 Table A-3 continued Water Flow Rate (cc/min) 400 500 600 Avg x σ(x) dNOG/dx σ2(NOG) σ(NOG) 0.0182 0.000318 0.000102 0.000318 0.0197 0.950 36.958 54.416 0.4 H ( yB− y A ) d N OG = [ A 7] dx ( y A −Hx ) ( Hx− y B ) σ 2 ( N OG ) = [ ] d N OG 2 d N OG 2 d N OG 2 1 σ ( y A)+ σ ( y B)+ σ ( x) [ A 8 ] N −1 d y A d yB dx H OG= ZT [ A 9] N OG d H OG −Z T = [ A 10 ] d N OG N 2OG [ ] d H OG 2 1 σ ( N OG ) [ A 11] N −1 d N OG σ 2 ( H OG ) = In the above equations N represents the number of samples.959 0.456 288.401 300.00169 0.153E-05 1.0000480 2.0000670 4.802E-05 1.0178 0.0000490 0.773 -22341.00679 0.119E-05 2.0197 0.113E-05 -17022.

376 5.245 4.0214 0.512 -1.00207 0.00147 0.0458 0.000184 0.5 Table A-4 continued Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 4 3 2 Avg x σ(x) dNOG/dx σ2(NOG) σ(NOG) 0.00229 Table A-5: Error propagation of HOG for each water flow rate.293E-06 5.009 213.00156 0.255E-06 0.146 Plots Not Included in the Results Section Figure A-1: Comparison of NOG values for multiple air and water flow rates. Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 4 3 2 Avg NOG σ(NOG) dHOG/dNOG σ2(HOG) σ(HOG) 5. Water Flow Rate (SCFM) 400 500 600 Avg NOG σ(NOG) dHOG/dNOG σ2(HOG) σ(HOG) 5.853 -0.000280 162. .931 6.440 6.0276 0.214 0.00202 0.019 335.220 Table A-6: Error propagation of HOG for each air flow rate.779 0.0338 0.0483 0.745 -0.000243 0.715 -1.705 0.509 0.065E-06 4.184 0.300 0.014 -0.653 0.166 0.0630 0.510 0.756 0.038 -0.345 6.00140 0.702 0.251 0.

. A polynomial trendline provided the best fit for HOG as a function of water flow rate.6 Figure A-2: Graph of HOG at various water flow rates.