Project Report Assessment Sheet
Group No: Group leader: NICHOLAS ALEXANDRIDES
Criteria Excellent (100)
Title page & Clear objectives, brief methodology,
principal experimental outcomes and their
Abstract potential impact.
(5%)
Introduction The context of the investigation and the
key concept presented at an exemplary
and outstandingly high standard:
(10%) highlighting the importance of the
experiment, clearly specifying the aim and
hypotheses of the experiment, reviewing
of current progress and theoretical
models.
Equipment, Detailed and precise information on
experimental apparatus / flowsheet; An
Materials and excellent experimental procedure with
Methods accurate and detailed information on
(10%) variables; a comprehensive list of
chemicals and consumables
Results Exemplary analysis of quantitative raw
data, accurate and elegant presentation of
processed data and, where relevant,
(30%) including errors and uncertainties,
observations and unexpected
phenomena.
Discussion Comprehensive points of interests
discussed including evaluation of method /
data analysis weaknesses and limitations,
(20%) and explanations of uncertainties and
validity. Realistic improvements in respect
of identified weaknesses and limitations
suggested.
Conclusions A brief conclusion, with sound justification,
based on an exemplary interpretation of
(5%) the data.
Appendices An exemplary raw data sheet, accurate
factual record, detailed observations,
accurate step-by-step sample calculation,
(10%) and excellent error analysis
Layout and An excellent logical structure, physical
layout, and attention to detail. An accurate
standard of and coherent presentation with scientific
report and technical style, no or few spelling
(10%) mistakes or grammatical errors, a
complete and references list and correct
Harvard format
Project Experiment Code: SP2
Good (80)
Defined objectives, brief methodology,
and an acceptable summary of
outcomes and discussion
The context of the investigation and the
key concept presented at a high
standard: touching on the importance of
the experiment, specifying the aim and
hypotheses of the experiment, partially
reviewing of current progress and
theoretical models.
Sufficient information on experimental
apparatus/flowsheet with some data
missing; An excellent experimental
procedure with detailed information on
key variables; an adequate list of
chemicals and consumables
Excellent analysis of quantitative raw
data, appropriate presentation of
processed data and, where relevant,
including errors and uncertainties, some
of observations and unexpected
phenomena.
Adequate points of interests discussed
including evaluation of method / data
analysis weaknesses and limitations,
and explanations of uncertainties and
validity. Some of realistic improvements
in respect of identified weaknesses and
limitations suggested.
A brief conclusion, with justification,
based on an excellent interpretation of
the data.
An excellent raw data sheet, good
factual record, good observations, step-
by-step sample calculation, and good
error analysis
An acceptable logical structure, physical
layout. Some inaccuracies or lack of
details in presentation. Neat, few spelling
mistakes or grammar errors, few errors
in references.
Group member: Noè Caruso, James Ross-Naylor
Satisfactory (60)
Defined objectives, brief
methodology, and a good summary
of outcomes and discussion with
minor errors
The context of the investigation and
the key concept presented at an
acceptably high standard: touching
on the importance of the experiment,
specifying the aim and hypotheses of
the experiment, partially reviewing of
current progress and theoretical
models with some mistakes.
Correct description of the
experimental apparatus/flowsheet
with key data missing. An appropriate
experimental procedure with missing
information on some variables; most
of chemicals and consumables listed
but some information missing
Sound analysis of quantitative raw
data with some mistakes and/or
omissions, appropriate presentation
of processed data but with some
mistakes and/or omissions, few or no
observations.
Some weaknesses and limitations
are identified, but the evaluation is
weak or missing, some explanations
of uncertainties and validity are
provided, and only superficial
improvements are suggested.
An acceptable conclusion, partially
based on a reasonable interpretation
of the data
A good raw data sheet, factual record
with some editorial, some
observations, step-by-step sample
calculation with minor errors, and
acceptable error analysis
A detracted structure and physical
layout, a few inaccuracies or minor
lack of detail in presentation. A few
spelling mistakes or grammar errors,
a few errors in references.
Nicholas Alexandrides
Date of Submission: 25/08/2011
Unsatisfactory (40) Poor (20) 0 Mark
obtained
Some defined objectives and errors in the Poorly defined objectives, major errors No abstract 2.5/5
methodology, results and discussion. in the methodology, results and
discussion
The context of the investigation and the key The context of the investigation and the No 6/10
concept presented at low standard: partially key concept presented at unacceptably Introduction
reviewing of current progress and low standard, not including all
theoretical models with major mistakes. necessary information.
Incorrect description of the experimental Description of the experimental No 7/10
apparatus/flowsheet with most key data apparatus /flowsheet with no data, An Experimental
missing. An appropriate procedure with inappropriate procedure. apparatus,
missing information on key variables; Materials
some chemicals and consumables listed and
but key information missing Methods.
Poor analysis of quantitative raw data with Unacceptable analysis of quantitative No Results. 21/30
major mistakes, inappropriate raw data or with major mistakes,
presentation of processed data or inappropriate presentation of processed
incomprehensibly. data or incomprehensibly.
Few weaknesses and limitations are Irrelevant weaknesses and limitations No 14/20
identified, and the evaluation is weak or are identified, no explanations of Discussion
missing, few explanations of uncertainties uncertainties and validity are provided,
and validity are provided, and only unrealistic improvements are suggested
superficial improvements are suggested.
A poor conclusion, partially based on a An unacceptable conclusion based on No 3./5
reasonable interpretation of the data an unreasonable interpretation of the Conclusions
data.
An acceptable raw data sheet, some An unacceptable raw data sheet, No 7.5/10
editorial records, some observations, step- editorial records, some no observations, Appendices
by-step sample calculation with major completely wrong step-by-step sample
errors, and acceptable error analysis with calculation, and wrong error analysis.
major errors
A detracted structure and physical layout, A detracted structure and physical No report 7/10
many inaccuracies or considerable lack of layout, many inaccuracies or complete submitted,
detail in presentation. Several spelling lack of detail in presentation. Numerous very poor
mistakes or grammar errors, a few errors spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, layout
in references. several errors in references.
TOTAL MARK 68/100
1
 The University of Adelaide

SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Chemical Engineering Unit Operations Laboratory

CHEM ENG 3023

Major Laboratory Report

SP2: GAS ABSORPTION

Group 21: Nicholas Alexandrides, Noè Caruso, James Ross-Naylor

Group Leader: Nicholas Alexandrides – 1148546

3650 words
------------------------------------
Demonstrator: Steve Amos
Marker: Kinh Nguyen
Academic in charge: Dr Hu Zhang
Nicholas Alexandrides 2
Abstract
Commented [k1]: Highlight the significant impact of gas
absorption in the related industries; addressing its significant issues
A counter-current packed column system was used to determine the uni-directional mass transfer of carbon and provide the reasons why the experiment was conducted here.

dioxide gas into water as the liquid phase. The absorption of the gas was determined by changing the inlet
Commented [k2]: A brief but precise what you did in the
flow rates of the two phases and measuring the outlet flow rate of the gas. The transfer coefficient was found experiment

to increase for an increase in the inlet liquid flow rate, for a set inlet gas flow rate. The trends found in the
data were consistent with the reviewed theory, however some of the data did not adhere to expected Commented [k3]: Be more specific on what you found and
previous researches.
relationships. The apparatus used required many measurements to be taken, hence there was a large
propagation of error across the derived values and into the final values for the coefficients.
Commented [k4]: Recommendation?

Nicholas Alexandrides 3
1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
The objective of this experiment was to use the measured flow rates of a liquid and gas phase through a
counter-current packed column system to calculate the mass transfer coefficient based on the gas phase. It
was necessary to control the ingoing liquid and gas phase flow rates and measure the outgoing gas phase
flow rate to determine the amount the mass transfer. The mass transfer in this experiment is analogous to the
amount to gas absorbed by the liquid phase in the contact medium, being the packed column. This
experiment only considers one-way mass transfer of the gaseous phase into the liquid phase. It is expected
that an increase in the inlet liquid flow rate for a set inlet gas flow rate will result in a higher degree of
absorption of the gas into the liquid phase.

1.3 Relevant Theory

The transfer of a solute across a differential area of gas-liquid interface can be given by the equation (1)
below.

𝑑𝑁 = 𝐾𝑦 (𝑦 − 𝑦 ∗ ). 𝑑𝐴 = −𝐾𝑥 (𝑥 − 𝑥 ∗ ). 𝑑𝐴 (1)

The driving force for the mass transfer across the phases is a concentration difference, expressed by (y-y*)
and (x-x*) in the above equation. To give the total number of moles transferred, the equation below can be
considered.
𝑑𝑁 = −𝑑(𝐿𝑥) (2)
As absorption of the gaseous phase into the liquid phase is being measured, and little hold-up in the column
is expected given the fluid velocities, the change in the liquid flow rate will be small.
𝑑𝑁 = −𝐿𝑑𝑥 (3)
From this, the total number of moles transferred can be calculated.

𝑁 = 𝐿(𝑥1 – 𝑥2 ) (4)

Experimentally, however, the number of moles of CO2 absorbed by the liquid phase can be given by a molar
balance.
NCO2,absorbed = Nin - Nout (5)

Equations (1) and (3) can be combined to give

−𝐾𝑥 (𝑥 – 𝑥 ∗). 𝑑𝐴 = −𝐿. 𝑑𝑥 (6)
The definition of the differential area is
𝑑𝐴 = 𝑆. 𝑎. 𝑑ℎ (7)

Nicholas Alexandrides 4
Hence, combining (6) and (7)
𝐾𝑥 (𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥). 𝑆. 𝑎. 𝑑ℎ = −𝐿. 𝑑𝑥 (8)
Integrating equation (8) from 0 to Z (where Z is the height of the packing) and from x1 to x2 results in
expression (9).

𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥2 (9)
𝐾𝑥 . 𝑆. 𝑎. 𝑍 = 𝐿. 𝑙𝑛 [ ]
𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥1
Rearranging for L and combining equations (4) and (9), we end up with an expression for N in terms of the
experimental variables.
𝐾𝑥 . 𝑆. 𝑎. 𝑍. (𝑥1 − 𝑥2 ) (10)
𝑁=
∆𝑥
𝑙𝑛 [ 2 ]
∆𝑥1
This can be rearranged for Kxa.
∆𝑥2
𝑁. 𝑙𝑛 [ ] (11)
∆𝑥1
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 =
𝑆. 𝑍. (𝑥1 − 𝑥2 )

In order to make use of equation 11, the value of x* must be calculated. This can be done using Henry’s law
and determining liquid mole fraction in equilibrium with the vapour phase.
𝑦. 𝑃 = 𝐻. 𝑥 ∗ (12)

For the absorption of pure gases, there is no gas-flow resistance so the liquid film coefficient is equal to the
overall mass transfer coefficient based on the gas phase, kxA = Kxa (Zhang, 2011).

The symbols used are standard, but a definitive list of the symbols can be found in the Nomenclature section
of the report.
Commented [k5]: More researches is required; not just from
prac manual
1.4 Literature Review
Counter-current packed column systems use mass transfer as the basis of the unit operation in which mass is
transferred in a continuous contact operation. Packed columns used in continuous counter-current contact
operations with two phases are filled with a suitable material having a large surface area (Foust, Wenzel,
Clump, Maus and Andersen, 1980).

Generally, in a packed column operation a phase will enter the top and is distributed over the surface of the
packing. According to Foust et al (1980), in most mass transfer operations, this phase is a liquid. The liquid
then flows down through the column packing and by doing so exposes a large surface area for contact with
the rising phase. The rising phase enters through the bottom of the column and travels upward through the
column in a tortuous path, similar to the downward flowing liquid phase. For mass transfer, the total transfer
area required is given by equation (12). This is a functional design equation for mass transfer (Foust et al,
1980).

Nicholas Alexandrides 5
 2 2 𝑑(𝑉𝑐𝑎 ) 2 𝑑(𝐿𝑐 )
∫ 𝑑𝐴 = − ∫
𝑎 (12)
∗ = −∫ ∗
1 1 𝐾(𝑐𝑎 − 𝑐𝑎 ) 1 𝐾(𝑐𝑎 − 𝑐𝑎 )

The mass transfer coefficient is affected by many factors. Such factors include the type of packing, flow rates
of the fluid phases, properties of the fluid phases and the diffusion characteristics of the species being
transferred (Foust et al, 1980). Other factors influencing the transfer coefficient are the solubility of the
solute gaseous phase in the solvent (Coulson, Richardson, Harker and Blackhurst, 1985). Intuitively, a
gaseous phase which is less soluble in the liquid phase will exhibit a lower degree of absorption into the
liquid phase.

Equation (12) shows that the area is directly proportional to the desired composition change and inversely
proportional to the concentration driving force between phases, where the constant of proportionality is the
mass transfer coefficient (Foust et al, 1980). For a system which contains varying inlet liquid flow rates for a
constant inlet gas flow rate, the absorption of the gas into the liquid phase will increase as the liquid flow rate
increases.

Nicholas Alexandrides 6
2 Experimental Method
2.1 Equipment
The equipment used in this experiment consisted of a two-column system. The entire system contained the
following apparatus.
 Packed column: packed with 12.5mm ceramic Intalox saddles
 Two 26mm internal diameter bubble columns
 One manometer (2mm graduations): filled with dyed water
 Gas-phase Rotameter (0.1L/min graduations): Calibrated for air. Range 0 to 2.5 L air/min @ 15oC
 Liquid-phase Rotameter (1mm graduations): Metric Series Tube Size 7 Stainless Steel Float Type S.
Diameter: 7.6mm. Range 0 to 30cm. Calibrated for water at 20oC.
 Gas saturator
 CO2 supply cylinder
 Water pump
 CO2 pressure regulator: supply pressure 0.15 bar
 Thermocouple
 Stopwatch

These apparatus were arranged according to Figure 2.1 with accompanying list in Table 2.1.

to atmosphere

J ~ L
to atmosphere

F
E
K Exiting Flow
H I Column
Entering
Flow
Column
D

from water
column

G
from supply
cylinder
P
A B C

Figure 2.1- Schematic of Experimental Apparatus

Nicholas Alexandrides 7
Table 2.2- Specifications for the Experimental Apparatus

Component Description Component Function and Additional Info

A CO2 supply piping Supplies CO2 to the system

B Pressure Regulating Gauge
C CO2 isolation valve
D Gas phase Rotameter
E Liquid phase Rotameter
F Manometer
G Gas Saturator
H,K Bubble Columns
I Packed Bed
J Thermocouple
L Column Vent
Regulates entry pressure of CO2 to set value
Isolates/engages the supply of CO2 to the piping system
Allows variable flow of CO2 to the system. Etched with
graduations to indicate volumetric flow of passing fluid.
Accuracy: ±0.05 L air / min @ 15oC
Allows variable flow of water to system. Contains a ruler
to measure flow of passing fluid.
Accuracy: ±0.5mm
To measure pressure differential created by the saturated
CO2 gas
Accuracy: ±1 mmH20
Saturates the gas with water before entry to the bubble
meter
Used with a stopwatch to measure the entering and exiting
velocities of CO2 gas
Reaction vessel. Packed with 12.5 mm ceramic Intalox
saddles
Measures the temperature of the water stream entering the
packed column
Vents gas to the atmosphere

2.2 Materials
The materials used in this experiment were carbon dioxide and water. The calculations involving the flow of
carbon dioxide use the properties of this fluid at the ambient room temperature. The ambient temperature
was similar to the measured temperature of the water used in the experiment, obtained by the thermocouple.
Water was also used in manometer columns as the gauge fluid. The pressure calculations in our experiment
considered the gauge fluid’s properties to be similar to those at 277K (4°C), for which the manometer is
calibrated. This assumption is justified as the density of water does not change significantly for such a small
volume of water between this value and that of the ambient temperature (16°C). The water used in the
packed column system, however, had its properties determined at the ambient temperature which was
measured by the thermocouple.

Nicholas Alexandrides 8
 2.3 Experimental Technique
The procedure listed below was followed while data was recorded throughout the duration of the experiment.

Preparation and Start-up (from S.O.P)

1. The CO2 control valve was checked that it was fully closed.
2. The water level of the gas saturator was checked.
3. The CO2 cylinder valve was fully opened.
4. The CO2 delivery pressure was set to about 10-20 kPa using the CO2 pressure regulator.
5. The water pump was switched on at the wall switch and the timer switch on the pump was set to run
for two hours (maximum).
6. A flow of water was introduced and regulated using the water flow control valve.
7. A flow of CO2 was introduced using the CO2 flow control valve.
8. The flow of CO2 was confirmed using the bubble meter provided on the CO2 inlet.

Operation
1. The CO2 isolation valve was opened to introduce the gas to the system.
2. The entering and exiting bubble meters were used to sufficiently wet the sides of the column to
prevent bubbles popping for future trials.
For first flow rate of entering CO2
3. The CO2 flow rate was set to an arbitrary flow rate value of 0.5 L/min. This value of the gas flow
rate was recorded.
4. The entering flow bubble meter and digital stopwatch were used to measure the time taken for a
bubble to travel the length of the bubble column. This time was measured three times.
5. The water isolation valve was opened to an arbitrary (small) value. The height corresponding to this
flow rate on the Rotameter was recorded.
6. The temperature of the entering water stream was measured at 16oC and recorded using the
thermocouple.
7. The exiting gas bubble meter and digital stopwatch were used to measure the time taken for a bubble
to travel the length of the bubble column. This time was measured three times.
8. The water flow rate was increased and Steps 6 & 7 were repeated. The water Rotameter value was
noted.
9. Steps 6 to 8 were repeated for a total of three values of the water inlet flow rate.
For subsequent flow rates of entering CO2
10. Steps 3 to 9 were repeated for CO2 inlet flow rates of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 L/min (arbitrarily chosen).
Data were recorded for a total of five values of the water inlet flow rate for each subsequent trial. All
data were recorded as outlined in the procedure above.

The values of the water Rotameter height were usually within the ranges 30-50mm, 80-100mm, 130-
150mm, 170-190mm and 200-235mm with some outliers.

Shut Down (from S.O.P)

1. The water and CO2 isolation valves were closed to stop any flow entering the system.
2. The CO2 cylinder valve was fully closed.
3. The CO2 delivery pressure regulator was turned off.
4. The water pump was switched off at the wall switch.
5. The thermocouple was turned off.

Nicholas Alexandrides 9
This procedure was generally consistent with our experimental plan. The only differences were that the
column had to be initially wetted by the bubble detergent as the surface tension of the dry column would
cause the bubbles to pop. Another difference was the thermocouple was used to measure the temperature of
the inflowing water stream, rather than the entering and exiting CO 2 streams.

2.4 Safety Issues

Basic safety precautions were followed while the experiment was conducted. Safety glasses, close-
toed shoes and long sleeved attire were worn. The experiment did not involve any contact with hazardous
substances, though the carbon dioxide was stored under pressure. Supply pressure of carbon dioxide was
monitored using the regulator. The leaky fittings created spills and puddles which presented a slipping
hazard. Detergent used in the bubble columns was a source of spillage in the event of the connective piping
becoming loose. Any spillages were contained and mopped up.

Nicholas Alexandrides 10
3 Results
This experiment required the 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values of the gas to be determined. Data were recorded for five values of
the inlet carbon dioxide flow rate, hence five sets of data were obtained. The Raw Data recorded can be seen
in Appendix A and the processed data is shown in Appendix E.

As the liquid flow rate was increased for a set inlet gas flow rate, the outlet flow rate of the gas decreased.
The inlet and outlet flow rates were measured with bubble meters and a stopwatch. The flow rate was
indicated by the time taken for the bubbles to traverse the length of the column. It was a general trend in the
data that for an increase in the inlet water flow rate, the bubbles in the outlet column would take longer to
rise. This was true for all data points and can be observed in Appendix A.

In order to assess the degree of absorption of the gas phase into the liquid phase, the experimentally
determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values were compared to the ratio of the inlet flow of liquid to the inlet flow of gas. As the
inlet flow of gas was held constant per set of data, this would indicate whether an increased liquid flow rate
corresponds to an increase in the absorption of gas.

In the graph titles, note that

Gas Flow Rate 1 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 0.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 2 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 1.0 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 3 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 1.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 4 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 2.0 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 5 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 2.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Commented [k6]: You could have put them into 1 plot which
would be easier to follow up.
The data sets which produce expected results are mainly Data Set 1, Data Set 3 and Data Set 4 as shown in
Figures 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5, respectively. The significant data which was calculated can be shown in

In the first set of data, only three measurements were taken as the inlet flow rate of carbon dioxide was small,
which meant the outlet flow rate was even smaller. The time required for the bubble to travel the length of
the column was well over a minute for the outlet stream and taking these measurements became tedious.
Figure 3.1 shows a plot of the determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values against the ratio of inlet flow for the first set of data.

Nicholas Alexandrides 11
 Kxa vs. Flow Ratio for Gas Flow Rate 1
14
12
Kxa value (mol.m-3.s-1)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ratio of Inlet Liquid to Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Figure 3. 1 - Graph of K xa vs. Inlet Liquid-to-Gas Flow Ratio for First Data Set

From the second set of data and thereafter, five measurements were taken for a given gas inlet flow rate. The
plot produced does not show the relationship expected, rather a chaotic plot with no apparent trend. The
relevance of this will be discussed in the next section of this report. Figure 3.2 shows a plot of the
determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values against the ratio of inlet flow for the second set of data.

Kxa vs. Flow Ratio for Gas Flow Rate 2

20
18
16
Kxa (mol.m-3s-1)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ratio of Inlet Liquid to Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Figure 3. 2 – Graph of K xa vs. Inlet Liquid-to-Gas Flow Ratio for Second Data Set

The third set of data produced a plot which had trends similar to those in the first set of data. This trend is
characteristic of what is expected from the experimental data and indicates that gas absorption increases for
an increase in the liquid flow rate. Figure 3.3 shows a plot of the determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values against the ratio of
inlet flow for the third set of data.

Nicholas Alexandrides 12
 Kxa vs. Flow Ratio for Gas Flow Rate 3
25
Kxa value (mol.m-3.s-1 )

20

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Ratio of Inlet Liquid to Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Figure 3. 3 - Graph of K xa vs. Inlet Liquid-to-Gas Flow Ratio for Third Data Set

The fourth set of data exhibits an expected trend however the trend appears more linear than that of the third
data set. Figure 3.4 shows a plot of the determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values against the ratio of inlet flow for the fourth set
of data.

Kxa vs. Flow Ratio for Gas Flow Rate 4

25
Kxa value (mol.m-3.s-1)

20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Ratio of Inlet Liquid to Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Figure 3. 4 - Graph of K xa vs. Inlet Liquid-to-Gas Flow Ratio for Fourth Data Set

The fifth data set only contained two points which could be used and plotted. The tabulated data in Appendix
D can be observed for further explanation. The first two data points have corresponding values of 𝑥1 (mole
fraction of gas in liquid phase at bottom of column) which were higher than that of 𝑥 ∗ , which is the
equilibrium mole fraction of gas in liquid phase. This indicates that the actual degree of absorption was
higher than the equilibrium absorption. This is not realistic and indicates an error in practice.

Nicholas Alexandrides 13
The last data point could not be utilised as it was taken at an inlet water flow rate for which the Rotameter
was not calibrated (see Appendix C for calibration chart). This rendered the corresponding recorded data for
this given value of inlet water flow useless. Figure 3.5 shows a plot of the determined 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values against the
ratio of inlet flow for the fourth set of data.

Kxa vs. Flow Ratio for Gas Flow Rate 5

30
Kxa value (mol.m-3.s-1)

25

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Ratio of Inlet Liquid to Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Figure 3. 5 - Graph of K xa vs. Inlet Liquid-to-Gas Flow Ratio for Fifth Data Set

Nicholas Alexandrides 14
4 Discussion

The data generally show a correlation which is favourable to the hypothesis. Some of the derived data exhibit
unexpected behaviour and do not produce the desired relationship when plotted (Figures 3.2 and 3.5). The
cause of unfavourable data was the derived value for the mole fraction of the gas in the liquid phase being
higher than the equilibrium value. To achieve this is theoretically impossible and the cause of this could be
due to any one or more of a source of error or human malpractice. The sources of such error are discussed
further 4.4 Experimental Errors and Assumptions.

4.1 Significance of Results

The results indicate that an increase in the liquid flow rate for a set gas flow rate results in a higher 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
value. As is more evident in Figures 3.1 and 3.3, the absorption does not appear to be linear. This indicates
that for a set gas flow rate and smaller values of the liquid flow rate, the total number of moles absorbed is
small but that rate at which they are absorbed is higher. As the liquid flow rate is increased, the total Commented [k7]: ?

absorption of the gas increases but at some point the rate begins to decrease as there is less carbon dioxide
present to be absorbed. This trend is observed in Figures 3.1 and 3.3. Commented [k8]: ? The gas stream is just carbon dioxide only.

The data in Figure 4.4 appear to have a more linear relationship whereas in Figure 5.5 the relationship cannot
be determined as the amount data points are insufficient. The data in Figure 3.2 is not useful, but if the first
point is considered to be an outlier, the trend of the remaining three points is still positive.

4.2 Accuracy of Experimental Measurements

The experimental apparatus contained a saturator which loaded the inlet carbon dioxide stream with water.
This meant that the carbon dioxide entering the packed column system would be saturated with water, so
none of the water being used as a liquid phase in the column would be transferred to the gas phase. The
absence of this saturator would have further complicated the calculations as a two-way mass transfer system
would have to be considered.

For each bubble column rising time, three time measurements were taken and these were used to produce an
average. This procedure was followed to provide a more accurate value for the bubble column rising time.
As no error was present on the stopwatch, the only inherent error in taking these measurements was human
response time. Data for human reaction time was obtained from a study on Fingertip Reaction Time (Deng,
Javed, Tan and Weng, 2006). The mean response time for male students was ±0.20 seconds. This value was
used and the uncertainty of all the time measurements became ±0.40 seconds, as the error was present both
when starting and stopping the stopwatch.

Nicholas Alexandrides 15
The manometer used also caused problems as it had residue in the tube and the pressure would not self-
regulate after each gas flow. The attachments had to be loosened and re-fastened after each increment of the
gas flow rate.

During the experiment it was observed that the outlet flow rates would be inconsistent. The bubbles would
rise through the column at varying velocities. It is highly unlikely that this variance was caused by a change
in the inlet carbon dioxide flow rate, as this was supplied by a tank and then regulated by a valve. A possible
cause of this was channelling in the packed column. This could be a cause of the nonsense data which was
obtained.

4.3 Experimental Errors and Assumptions

Systematic errors in this experiment were presented by the calibration of the experimental apparatus. This
would have affected the obtained values by causing them to deviate from any true or expected values. A
significant source of random error is the error of fluctuation. This was present as the Rotameter flows varied
and though they were checked regularly for consistency, any fluctuation would vary the expected results and
even cause derived data to become incoherent. It was assumed that the change in the liquid content in the gas
throughout the column was negligible. This allowed the number of moles transferred to be calculated using a
simple mole balance.

The ambient temperature of the laboratory was assumed to be consistent with the thermocouple reading for
the inlet flow stream of water. The pressure at the top of the column was also unknown and had to be
approximated as an average of the vapour pressure of water at the measured temperature and the measured
pressure of the carbon dioxide gas pre-entry to the column.

4.4 Suggested Improvements

The experimental method could be improved by included more pressure measurements, particularly one at
the top of the column so that the exit pressure of the carbon dioxide could be measured as opposed to
approximated. It would also be beneficial to take temperature measurements of more streams using the
thermocouple. In this experiment, only the inlet water stream had its temperature measured. The temperature
of the inlet and outlet carbon dioxide streams was assumed to be consistent with the ambient temperature of
the laboratory. The use of a Rotameter calibrated for the gas phase would also be useful. Though the inlet
bubble column was present to measure the inlet flow of carbon dioxide, a known entering flow of the carbon
dioxide pre-saturation would indicate whether the gas is actually completely saturated before entry to the
column. This would justify whether the saturation assumption is valid or not.

Nicholas Alexandrides 16
5 Conclusions
In the processing of data, there was a consistency that an increase in the inlet liquid flow rate for a set inlet
gas flow rate lead to a decrease in the outlet gas flow rate. There was also a positive correlation between the
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 values and the increase in inlet liquid flow rates. The data, though not consistently, did demonstrate that Commented [k9]: Specifically and precisely describe what you
found not this general
the absorption coefficients are non-linear and exhibit differential behaviour in absorption across the tower
length. These findings were consistent with the hypothesis and relevant theory presented.

These observations allow us to conclude that there is a range for which the gas phase are more greatly
absorbed into the liquid phase in a counter-current packed column uni-directional mass transfer system. They
also indicate that the absorption coefficients increase with the ratio of liquid-to-gas inflow and do so in a
non-linear fashion.

Nicholas Alexandrides 17
6 Nomenclature
6.1 Symbols
Symbol Property Units (unless stated otherwise)
𝐴 interface area m2
𝑎 wetted area of packing m2.m-3
𝐻 Henry’s Law Constant for the solute atm
ℎ packing height m
𝐾𝑥 overall mass transfer coefficient (based on gas phase) mol.m-2.s-1
𝐾𝑦 overall mass transfer coefficient (based on liquid phase) mol.m-2.s-1
𝐿 liquid phase flow rate mol.s-1
𝑁 number of moles of solute transferred mol
𝑃 pressure atm
𝑆 cross-sectional area of column m2
𝑉 gas phase flow rate mol.s-1
𝑐𝑎 solute concentration mol.m-3
𝑛̇ molar flow rate mol.min-1
𝑚̇ mass flow rate kg.min-1
𝜌 density kg.m-3
𝑀 molar mass kg.mol-1
o
𝑇 temperature C or K
𝑅 Ideal Gas constant kPa.L.(mol.K)-1
𝑣⃗ superficial gas velocity mm.s-1
𝑥 solute mole fraction in liquid phase
𝑥∗ equilibrium solute mole fraction in liquid phase
𝑦 solute mole fraction in gas phase
∗
𝑦 equilibrium solute mole fraction in gas phase

6.2 Subscripts and Superscripts

1 refers to locale at bottom of column
2 refers to locale at top of column
abs absolute
sat saturation
H2O water
CO2 carbon dioxide

Nicholas Alexandrides 18
7 References

Coulson, J. M., Richardson, J. F., Harker, J.H. and Blackhurst, J. R. (1985) Chemical Engineering Volume 2,
5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deng, D. M., Javed, S., Tan, J. and Weng, N. (2006) Fingertip Reaction Time (edited), [Online],
Available: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/reactiontime.shtml [17 Aug 2011]

Foust, A. S., Wenzel, L. A., Clump, C. W., Maus, L. and Andersen, L. B. (1980) Principles of Unit
Operations, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Toronto.

Munson, B. R., Young, D. F. and Okiishi, T. H. (2006) Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 5th edition, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Smith, J. M., Van Ness, H. C. and Abbott, M. M. (2005) Introduction to Chemical Engineering
Thermodynamics, 7th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill

Zhang, H. (2011) Laboratory Projects Script for Chemical Engineering Unit Operation Laboratory, School
of Chemical Engineering, The University of Adelaide, unpublished.

Commented [k10]: Page number?

Nicholas Alexandrides 19
Appendix A – Verified Raw Data

Figure A. 1 - Raw Data for CO2 Flowrate of 0.5 L air/min

Figure A. 2 – Raw Data for CO2 Flowrate of 1.0 L air/min

Nicholas Alexandrides 20
Figure A. 3 – Raw Data for CO2 Flowrate of 1.5 L air/min

Figure A. 4 – Raw Data for CO2 Flowrate of 2.0 L air/min

Nicholas Alexandrides 21
Figure A. 5 – Raw Data for CO2 Flowrate of 2.5 L air/min

Nicholas Alexandrides 22
Appendix B – Tabulated Raw Data

Table B. 1 – CO2 Flowrate of 0.5 L air/min

CO2 Outlet Bubble Meter CO2 Inlet Bubble

Manometer Water Rising Time Meter Rising Time
Rotameter Water Inlet Trial 1 Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial
Z1 Z2 Height Temp. 2 3 1 2 3
(mm) (mm) (mm) (oC) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty: Uncertainty: ±0.4s Uncertainty: ±0.4s
±1mm ±1mm ±0.5mm -
22.40 23.16 22.26
50 24 53 16 42.14 39.44 39.24
59 31 83 16 55.21 51.16 50.06
Fluctuated Fluctuated 110 16 68.03 67.67 68.56

Independent Variables
CO2 Inlet Flow Rotameter Reading
Water Inlet Flow Rate: Rotameter Height

Dependent Variables
CO2 Inlet Bubble Column rising time (s)
CO2 Manometer Reading (mm)

Control Variables
Internal Diameter of CO2 Bubble Columns – 26mm
CO2 Entry Gauge Pressure – 0.15 bar
Height of CO2 Inlet Bubble Column – 445 mm ± 0.5mm
Height of CO2 Outlet Bubble Column – 500 mm ± 0.5mm

The collected data for the other constant flow rates of CO2 can be seen in Appendix A. These values have
not been digitally tabulated for the sake of space and repetition. They follow the same layout as the table
above.

Nicholas Alexandrides 23
Appendix C – Calibration for Metric 7S Water Rotameter

The water Rotameter had to be calibrated using the chart below. A table of the corresponding values can
be found on the next page.

Figure C. 1 - Calibration Chart for Water Rotameter

Nicholas Alexandrides 24
Table C. 1 - Rotameter Flowrates

Rotameter Height Flow Rate

(mm) (L/min)
Uncertainty: ±0.5mm Uncertainty: ±0.0125L/min

33 0.180
34 0.180
40 0.210
52 0.240
53 0.245
83 0.330
87 0.340
88 0.345
93 0.365
110 0.413
133 0.485
141 0.520
146 0.535
149 0.545
177 0.640
185 0.665
207 0.745
215 0.780
235 0.850
272 0.990
288 N/A

Nicholas Alexandrides 25
Appendix D – Derived Data and Sample Calculations

Sample calculations for purpose of the experiment will be detailed only for the first set of data, which is
that tabulated in Appendix B. All calculations for the subsequent flow rates were carried out using the same
procedure.

Uncertainties and errors are listed in these calculations, but more detailed error analysis and the
calculations of these values is shown in Appendix F. The tables where relative uncertainty is given in this
appendix show the highest calculated relative uncertainty for any one of the data points.

1- Determining Entering and Exiting Flow Rates

In order to determine the ingoing and outgoing flow rates of the carbon dioxide, the time taken for the
bubbles to travel up the bubble meter were recorded. To provide a more accurate result, three trials of the
time were measured and a numerical average was taken.

Table D. 1 - Inlet Bubble Meter Times

CO2 Inlet Bubble Meter Rising Time

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
(s) (s) (s) (s)
Uncertainty: ±0.4s
22.40 23.16 22.26 22.61

Table D. 2 - Outlet Bubble Meter Times

CO2 Outlet Bubble Meter Rising Time

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
(s) (s) (s) (s)
Uncertainty: ±0.4s
42.14 39.44 39.24 40.27
55.21 51.16 50.06 52.14
68.03 67.67 68.56 68.09

𝑠
The superficial gas velocities of the entering and exiting stream can be calculated as = 𝑡 . The inlet bubble
meter superficial velocity remains constant for a given inlet flow rate of carbon dioxide, hence this can be
given by

445 D.0
𝑣= = 19.68 𝑚𝑚. 𝑠 −1 ± 𝛿𝑣
22.61

The superficial gas velocities for the outlet stream can be shown below.

Nicholas Alexandrides 26
Table D. 3 - Superficial Gas Velocities for Outlet Stream

CO2 Outlet Bubble Superficial Gas

Meter Rising Time Velocity
Water Rotameter Height Average 𝑣⃗
Data point (mm) (s) (mm/s)
Uncertainty: ±0.4s Relative
Uncertainty ±0.5mm Uncertainty: 0.01

1 53 40.27 12.4 ± 0.14

2 83 52.14 9.59 ± 0.08
3 110 68.09 7.34 ± 0.05

The cross sectional area of the bubble column is required to determine the volumetric flow rate of the CO2.
As the diameter of both bubble columns is the same, the cross sectional area is used consistently for all
data processing.

𝜋𝑑2 D.1
𝐴=
4
𝜋(26𝑚𝑚)2
= = 530.93 𝑚𝑚2
4

The superficial gas velocity is a function of volumetric flow rate and cross sectional area of flow, hence:
𝑉̇
𝑣⃗ =
𝐴

The volumetric flow rate can then be given by

𝑉̇ = 𝑣⃗. 𝐴 D.2

Once the volumetric flow rate is known, the molar flow rate can be determined using the Ideal Gas Law.

𝑃𝑉̇ = 𝑛̇ 𝑅𝑇

𝑃𝑉̇ D.3
𝑛̇ =
𝑅𝑇

The other variables are either known or measured. These equations can be used to find the molar flow rate
of both the entering and exiting gas streams.

Volumetric and Molar Flow Rate Calculation s for Exiting CO 2 Stream –

Example

For Data point 1, 𝑣⃗ = 12.4𝑚𝑚/𝑠

𝑉̇ = 12.4 × 530.93 = 6590 𝑚𝑚3 . 𝑠 −1 ± 𝛿𝑉̇ = 0.00659 𝐿. 𝑠 −1 ± 𝛿𝑉̇

So then,
101.325 × 0.00659
𝑛̇ = = 0.00027797𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑠 −1 ± 𝛿𝑛̇ = 0.0167𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1 ± 𝛿𝑛̇
8.314 × 289

Nicholas Alexandrides 27
Table D. 4 - Molar Flow Rates of CO2 Outlet Stream

CO2 Outlet Superficial Volumetric Molar Flow Volumetric Molar Flow

Water Bubble Meter Gas Flow Rate Rate In Flow Rate Rate Out
Rotameter Rising Time Velocity In Out
Data Height Average 𝑣⃗ 𝑉̇ 𝑛̇ 𝑉̇ 𝑛̇
point (mm) (s) (mm/s) (L/min) (mol/min) (L/min) (mol/min)
Uncertainty: Relative Relative Relative Relative Relative
Uncertaint ±0.4s Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty: Uncertainty:
y ±0.5mm : 0.01 : 0.02 : 0.02 0.01 0.01

1 53 40.27 12.4 0.395 0.0167

2 83 52.14 9.59 0.627 0.0265 0.305 0.0129
3 110 68.09 7.34 0.234 0.00987

2. Entering Flow Rate of CO 2

The molar flow rate of the inlet CO2 stream can be calculated using equation D.3. The inlet pressure,
however, is not atmospheric, rather the partial pressure of the CO2. This is measure by the manometer and
is constant for a given CO2 flow rate. Data is shown in Table D.6

Table D. 6 - CO2 Inlet Pressure

CO2 Inlet Manometer Reading

Right Column Difference Difference
Left column
(mm.H20) (Pa.g)
Uncertainty: ±1mm Uncertainty: ±1mm Relative
Lower Uncertainty: Uncertainty:
Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit Limit ±2mm 0.07
59 50 31 24

Average 54.5 27.5 27 264.8

The gauge pressure measured can give us the absolute pressure of the inlet carbon dioxide stream, by
adding the reference pressure (atmospheric pressure).

𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠 = 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 + 𝑃𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒 D.4

𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠 = 264.8 + 101325 = 101590 𝑃𝑎 ± 𝛿𝑃

This value for the pressure of the entering CO2 stream is used to calculate the volumetric flow rate.

The volumetric flow rate needs to be calculated and the superficial gas velocity and cross sectional area of
the bubble column can be used for this, as per equation D.2.

𝑉̇ = 𝑣⃗. 𝐴
= 19.68 𝑚𝑚. 𝑠 −1 × 530.93𝑚𝑚3

Nicholas Alexandrides 28
 = 10450 𝑚𝑚3 𝑠 −1 = 0.627𝐿. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1

Now the entering flow rate of the carbon dioxide can be calculated using equation D.3

Entering Flow Rate of CO 2 Calculation Example

𝑃𝑉̇
𝑛̇ =
𝑅𝑇

101.590 × 0.627
𝑛̇ =
8.314 × 289

= 0.0265 𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1 ± 0.0005 𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1

3. Entering Flow Rate of H 2 0

A different procedure can be followed to calculate the flow rates for the inlet flow stream of water as the
volumetric flow rate is already known. The density relation can be used.

𝑚̇ D.5
𝜌=
𝑉̇

𝑚̇ D.6
𝑛̇ =
𝑀

Combining D.4 and D.5, we get

𝜌𝑉̇ D.7
𝑛̇ =
𝑀

For the entering stream , the pressure was measured by the manometer to indicate the pressure of the gas.
The pressure of the inlet stream was given by the manometer, which was measured in Δmm.H20.

Entering Flow Rate of H 2 0 Calculation Example

For Data point 1, where 𝑉̇ = 0.245 𝐿. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1 ± 𝛿𝑉̇ = 0.245 × 10−3 𝑚3 . 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1 ± 𝛿𝑉̇ , equation D.7 gives
the molar flow rate.

999 × 0.245 × 10−3

𝑛̇ =
0.018

= 13.60 𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1 ± 𝛿𝑛̇

Note the nominal density of water is taken at 999 kg.m-3 for 16oC (Munson, Young and Okiishi, 2006).

The water inlet volumetric, mass and molar flow rates are shown in Table D.5 in their respective units.

Nicholas Alexandrides 29
Table D. 5 - Inlet Water Flow Rates

Vol. Flow Rate Vol. Flow Rate Mass Flow Molar Flow
Rate Rate
Water Rotameter Height 𝑉̇ 𝑉̇ 𝑚̇ 𝑛̇
Data L/min m3/min kg/min mol/min
point (mm)
Uncertainty: ± Rel. Rel. Rel.
0.0125 L/min Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty:
Uncertainty ±0.5mm 0.05 0.05 0.05

1 53 0.245 2.45E-4 0.245 13.5975

2 83 0.33 3.3E-4 0.330 18.315
3 110 0.413 4.13E-4 0.413 22.9215

4. Molar Flows Rates of Streams

The molar flow rates of all the streams are now known. The molar flow rates were calculated using the
volumetric flow rates and the experimentally measured variables. A compilation of this data can be found
in Table D.6.

The total number of moles absorbed, N, can be calculated using equation (5) as the difference in the molar
flow rates of CO2 in and CO2 out.

Table D. 6 - Molar Flow Rates of Inlet and Outlet Streams

Water Molar Flow CO2 Molar Flow CO2 Molar Flow Moles of CO2 Absorbed
Rate In Rate In Rate Out by Liquid Phase
𝑛̇ 𝑛̇ 𝑛̇ N
Data mol/min mol/min mol/min mol/min
point
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Uncertainty: Relative Relative Uncertainty: 0.03
0.05 0.02 Uncertainty: 0.01

1 13.5975 0.0167 0.00983

2 18.315 0.0265 0.0129 0.0136
3 22.9215 0.00987 0.0166

As the liquid flow rates are known, using equation (4) can give the (x1-x2) which represents the difference in
the mole fractions of the gas phase present in the liquid phase from the bottom to the top of the tower.
𝑁
(𝑥1 − 𝑥2 ) =
𝐿

Nicholas Alexandrides 30
Mole Fractions x 1 , x 2 and x* Calculation - Example

For Data Point 1, again using basis of one minute for molar flow in of water stream,

0.00983
(𝑥1 − 𝑥2 ) =
13.59
= 7.233 × 10−4

As the fluid introduced at the top of the column is pure water, x2=0. So (x1-x2) becomes x1 . Hence,
𝑥1 = 7.233 × 10−4

The equilibrium value of the gas phase mole fraction in liquid phase is represented by x* and is given by
equation (12).
𝑦. 𝑃 = 𝐻. 𝑥 ∗

Before the equilibrium mole fraction gas in liquid phase can be calculated, the relevant value for Henry’s
Law must be calculated.

Values for CO2 at 16oC are not given explicitly, but values for 10oC and 20oC are given by Foust et al. (1980:
734).
For 10oC, H = 1040 atm/mole frac
For 20oC, H = 1420 atm/mole frac
By linear interpolation, the value for Henry’s constant can be found using equation D.8.

(𝑇 − 𝑇0 ) × 𝐻(20𝑜 𝐶) − (𝑇 − 𝑇0 ) × 𝐻(10𝑜 𝐶) D.8

𝐻(16𝑜 𝐶) = 𝐻(10𝑜 𝐶) +
(20 − 10)

(16 − 10) × 1420 − (16 − 10) × 1040

= 1040 +
(20 − 10)

𝑎𝑡𝑚
= 1268
𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐

The pressure term, P, in equation (12) can be approximated the pressure drop across the column, which
will be given by taking the average of the inlet pressure of the carbon dioxide and the vapour pressure of
water at the measure temperature.
The vapour pressure of water 16oC can be given by the Antoine Equation (Smith, Van Ness and Abbott,
2005).
D.9
Nicholas Alexandrides 31
 3885.70
ln 𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) = 16.3872 −
𝑡(℃) + 230.170
3885.70
ln 𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 (𝑘𝑃𝑎) = 16.3872 −
16 + 230.170

ln 𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 0.60258
𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 𝑒 0.60258

𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 1.810 𝑘𝑃𝑎

But this must be relative to atmospheric pressure, hence

𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝐻20
𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠 = 𝑃 𝑠𝑎𝑡 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚 D.10

𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝐻20
𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠 = 101.325 + 1.810

= 103.126 𝑘𝑃𝑎

An average of the vapour pressure of water and the inlet pressure of CO2 can be calculated.

𝑠𝑎𝑡,𝐻20 𝐶𝑂2
𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠 + 𝑃𝑎𝑏𝑠
𝑃=
2
103.126 + 101.590
=
2
= 102.358 𝑘𝑃𝑎 ± 𝛿𝑃

Henry’s Law constant can now be used to find x* for the system by rearranging equation (12).

𝑦. 𝑃
𝑥∗ =
𝐻

As the pressure will only vary for each increment of the inlet flow rate of CO2, the x* value remains
constant for a set gas phase flow rate. P is in atmospheres and as the entry gas is pure carbon dioxide, y =1.

1 × 1.0102
𝑥∗ =
1268

= 7.967 × 10−4

The mole fractions are now known for the given inlet gas flow rate.

Nicholas Alexandrides 32
Table D. 7 – Mole Fractions for Outlet Stream

Water Molar CO2 Molar CO2 Molar Moles of Mole Fraction of Gas Equilibrium
Flow Rate In Flow Rate In Flow Rate CO2 in Liquid Phase at Mole
Out Absorbed by Bottom of Column Fraction of
Data Liquid Phase Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
𝐿 𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 N 𝑥1 𝑥∗
mol/min mol/min mol/min mol/min - -
Rel. Uncertainty: Relative Relative Relative Uncertainty: Uncertainty:
Uncertainty: ± 5.3E-4 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: 0.08 ± 1.59E-5
0.05 0.01 0.03

1 13.5975 0.0167 0.00983 7.23E-4

2 18.315 0.0265 0.0129 0.0136 7.44E-4 7.9672E-4
3 22.9215 0.00987 0.0166 7.26E-4

Log Mean Driving Force and K x a

As the mole fractions are known at either extreme of the column and the equilibrium mole fraction has
been calculated, the log mean driving force can be calculated.

(𝑥1 − 𝑥2 ) D.11
∆𝑥𝐿𝑀 =
𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥2
𝑙𝑛 [ ]
𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥1

Log Mean Driving Force and K x a Calculation Example

For Data Point 1, where x1 = 7.23 x 10-4, x2 = 0 and x* = 7.9672 x 10-4.

(7.23 × 10−4 )
∆𝑥𝐿𝑀 =
7.9672 × 10−4
𝑙𝑛 [ ]
7.9672 × 10−4 − 7.23 × 10−4

= 3.03 × 10−4 ± 3.5 × 10−5

Finally, the Kxa values can be calculated using equation (11) which can be simplified to equation D.12 as
x2=0.

∆𝑥2 D.12
𝑁. 𝑙𝑛 [ ]
∆𝑥1
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 =
𝑆. 𝑍. 𝑥1

S and Z represent the packed column cross sectional area and the length of the packing, respectively. These
values were supplied on the apparatus.

Nicholas Alexandrides 33
 0.00983 × 3.03 × 10−4
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 =
𝜋(38.1)2
× 1170 × 7.23 × 10−4
4

4.05 × 10−7 ± 0.59 × 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚𝑚−3 . 𝑚𝑖𝑛−1

This can then be converted to standard units of mol.m-3.s-1 using an appropriate conversion factor.

𝑚𝑜𝑙 1000000000 𝑚𝑚3 𝑚𝑖𝑛

4.05 × 10−7 ×
𝑚𝑚3 𝑚𝑖𝑛 60 𝑚3 𝑠

= 6.75 𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝑚−3 . 𝑠 −1

Table D. 8 - Kxa values for set Inlet Gas Flow Rate

Mole Fraction of Gas Equilibrium Log Mean Driving Kxa value Kxa value
in Liquid Phase at Mole Force
Bottom of Column Fraction of
Data Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
𝑥1 𝑥∗ ∆𝑥𝐿𝑀 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
- - - mol.mm-3.min-1 mol.m-3.s-1
Relative Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Relative Relative Relative
0.08 ± 2.95E-5 Uncertainty: 0.10 Uncertainty: 0.16 Uncertainty: 0.16

1 7.23E-4 3.03E-4 4.05E-07 6.75

2 7.44E-4 7.9672E-4 2.74E-4 6.23E-07 10.4
3 7.26E-4 2.99E-4 6.95E-07 11.6

All relevant data has been processed and necessary values calculated.

Nicholas Alexandrides 34
Appendix E – Calculated Data for Varying Flow Rates

This appendix contains he significant data which is scrutinised in the Results and Discussion section of this
report. Please note for the table titles:
Gas Flow Rate 1 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 0.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 2 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 1.0 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 3 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 1.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 4 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 2.0 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter
Gas Flow Rate 5 refers to Inlet CO2 Flow Rate corresponding to 2.5 L air/min @ 15oC on Rotameter

Table E. 1 - Data for Gas Flow Rate 1

Molar Flow Rate of Molar Flow Rate Pressure of Molar FlowEquilibrium Kxa value
H20 In of CO2 Gas In CO2 at Inlet to Rate of CO2
Mole
Packed Gas Out Fraction of
Data Column Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
L Vin P Vout 𝑥∗ 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol/min mol/min kPa mol/min - mol.m-3.s-1
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Rel. Rel. Uncertainty Relative
0.05 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty: : ± 1.59E-5 Uncertainty:
0.02 0.07 0.01 0.16

1 13.5975 0.0167 6.75

2 18.315 2.65E-2 0.0129 7.9672E-4 10.4
101.589
3 22.9215 0.00987 11.6

Table E. 2 - Data for Gas Flow Rate 2

Molar Flow Rate of Molar Flow Rate Pressure of Molar FlowEquilibrium Kxa value
H20 In of CO2 Gas In CO2 at Inlet to Rate of CO2
Mole
Packed Gas Out Fraction of
Data Column Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
L Vin P Vout 𝑥∗ 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol/min mol/min kPa mol/min - mol.m-3.s-1
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Rel. Rel. Uncertainty Relative
0.05 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty: : ± 2.21E-5 Uncertainty:
0.03 0.06 0.02 0.16

4 13.32 0.0317 -
5 18.315 0.0288 7.9706E-4 14.96773301
0.0431 101.678
6 26.9175 0.0241 12.10630321
7 35.52 0.0202 12.18101591
8 43.29 0.0157 14.304246

Nicholas Alexandrides 35
Table E. 3 - Data for Gas Flow Rate 3

Molar Flow Rate of Molar Flow Rate Pressure of Molar FlowEquilibrium Kxa value
H20 In of CO2 Gas In CO2 at Inlet to Rate of CO2
Mole
Packed Gas Out Fraction of
Data Column Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
L Vin P Vout 𝑥∗ 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol/min mol/min kPa mol/min - mol.m-3.s-1
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Rel. Rel. Uncertainty Relative
0.06 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty: : ± 1.68E-5 Uncertainty:
0.04 0.04 0.03 0.28

11 11.7 0.0528 4.03

12 19.1 0.0471 8.17
101.786 7.9044E-4
13 28.9 0.0403 12.43
0.0603
14 36.9 0.0360 13.72
15 47.2 0.0315 14.56

Table E. 4 - Data for Gas Flow Rate 4

Molar Flow Rate of Molar Flow Rate Pressure of Molar FlowEquilibrium Kxa value
H20 In of CO2 Gas In CO2 at Inlet to Rate of CO2
Mole
Packed Gas Out Fraction of
Data Column Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
L Vin P Vout 𝑥∗ 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol/min mol/min kPa mol/min - mol.m-3.s-1
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Rel. Rel. Uncertainty Relative
0.07 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty: : ± 1.02E-5 Uncertainty:
0.05 0.03 0.04 0.32

16 9.99 0.0701 4.30

17 18.87 0.0649 7.48
102.090 7.91627E-4
18 30.2475 0.0572 10.3
7.76E-2
19 41.3475 0.0526 13.6
20 54.945 0.0444 15.9

Nicholas Alexandrides 36
Table E. 5 - Data for Gas Flow Rate 5

Molar Flow Rate of Molar Flow Rate Pressure of Molar FlowEquilibrium Kxa value
H20 In of CO2 Gas In CO2 at Inlet to Rate of CO2
Mole
Packed Gas Out Fraction of
Data Column Gas in
point Liquid
Phase
L Vin P Vout 𝑥∗ 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol/min mol/min kPa mol/min - mol.m-3.s-1
Rel. Uncertainty: Rel. Rel. Rel. Uncertainty Relative
0.07 Uncertainty: Uncertainty: Uncertainty: : ± 7.48E-6 Uncertainty:
0.07 0.02 0.05 0.29

21 10.2675 0.088098 -
22 20.2575 0.080372 -
9.66E-2 102.365 7.92696E-4
23 29.6925 0.074682 16.5
24 41.3475 0.067155 19.6
25 - - -

Nicholas Alexandrides 37
Appendix F – Error Calculations

All error analysis is performed for the second set of data, this being those recorded for a Inlet gas Flow Rate
of 1.0 L min/air @ 15oC according the Rotameter. This corresponds to Data Points 4 through 8 inclusive. A
comprehensive list of all the data is given in the tables below. No uncertainties are listed as they are all
calculated.

The error analysis of all the derived values calculated in Appendix D will be detailed in this appendix.
Derivations of the obtained uncertainties of equations D.0 through D.12 will be shown.

Superficial Gas Velocities, Volumetric and Molar Flow Rates

The first value calculated was the superficial gas velocity of the inlet and outlet CO2 streams, given by
equation D.0.
𝑠
𝑣=
𝑡
As per the quotient rule for the propagation of errors:

𝛿𝑣 𝛿𝑠 𝛿𝑡
= +
𝑣 𝑠 𝑡

Let the outlet bubble column be considered first, using Data Point 4 for the basis of the calculations. Hence
the relative uncertainty in 𝑠 and 𝑡 are used to find the relative uncertainties in 𝑣.

𝛿𝑣 0.5𝑚𝑚 0.04𝑠
= +
𝑣 500𝑚𝑚 21.21𝑠

= 0.0298

𝛿𝑣 = 0.955𝑚𝑚

Similarly for Data Points 5, 6, 7 and 8 and the entering flow bubble column, which is constant for a givenCO2
inlet flow rate.

Nicholas Alexandrides 38
Table F. 1 - Uncertainties for Entering Bubble Column Superficial Gas Velocity

Data Average Time of Distance Superficial Relative Absolute

Point Rising Gas Velocity Uncertainty of 𝑣 Uncertainty
of 𝑣
𝑡̅ s 𝑣⃗ 𝛿𝑣 𝛿𝑣
𝑣
seconds mm mm/s - mm/s
Uncertainty: Uncertainty:
±0.40s ±0.5mm

4 21.21 23.573 0.02031 0.468152

5 23.3667 21.398 0.01832 0.387697
6 27.89 445 17.927 0.01555 0.27504
7 33.23 15.046 0.01260 0.196167
8 42.9667 11.636 0.01022 0.1199

Inlet 13.92 500 31.976 0.02986 0.955

Equation D.1 gives the cross sectional area of the bubble columns.

𝜋𝑑2
𝐴=
4

The given diameter of the bubble columns was given on the apparatus. This was assumed to have no
inherent error as these figures were supplied by the manufacturer and no visible uncertainties were
specified.
𝛿𝐴 = 0

The volumetric flow of the CO2 in the inlet and outlet streams is given by equation D.2. Consider Data Point
4, where A is a constant calculated at 530.93mm2 and 𝑣⃗ is

𝑉̇ = 𝑣⃗. 𝐴

𝛿𝑉̇ 𝛿𝑣⃗ 𝛿𝐴
= +
𝑉̇ 𝑣⃗ 𝐴

𝛿𝑉̇ 0
= 0.02031 +
̇𝑉 𝐴

𝛿𝑉̇
= 0.02031
𝑉̇

𝛿𝑉̇ = 254 𝑚𝑚/𝑠

Table F.2 shows the volumetric flow rates for the inlet and outlet streams and their respective uncertainties.

Nicholas Alexandrides 39
Table F. 2 - Uncertainties for Entering and Exiting Volumetric Flow Rates of CO2

Data Superficial Gas Volumetric Flow Relative Uncertainty Absolute Uncertainty

Point Velocity Rate Outlet Bubble of 𝑉̇ of 𝑉̇
Meter
𝑣⃗ 𝑉̇ 𝛿𝑉̇ 𝛿𝑉̇
𝑉̇
mm/s mm3/s - -
Uncertainty:
see Table F.1

4 23.573 12516 0.02031 254

5 21.398 11361 0.01832 208
6 17.927 9518 0.01555 148
7 15.046 7988 0.01260 100
8 11.636 6178 0.0102 63.2

Inlet 31.976 16977 0.0298 507

The pressure measured at the inlet of the packed column contains an uncertainty which was introduced by
the resolution of the manometers. The manometer used to measure the pressure had 2mm graduations,
making the uncertainty present in each measurement 1mm. A difference in the manometer readings is
what is used to determine the pressure of the column.
As the readings of the manometer fluctuated, the upper and lower limits of the fluctuations were recorded
and an average was taken.

Table F. 3 - Manometer Readings for CO2 Inlet Pressure

Left column (open to atm) Right Column (attached to bottom of column)

Upper limit (mm) Lower limit (mm) Upper limit (mm) Lower Limit (mm)
60 58 24 22

Let the left column pressure be 𝑃1 and the right column be 𝑃2 .

60 + 58
𝑃1 =
2
= 59𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
𝛿(𝑃 = 60) + 𝛿(𝑃 = 58)
𝛿𝑃1 =
2
= 1𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
𝑃1 = 59 ± 1 𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
Similarly for 𝑃2
𝑃2 = 23 ± 1 𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
Finding the uncertainty in the pressure difference
∆𝑃 = 𝑃1 −𝑃2
Nicholas Alexandrides 40
 𝛿∆𝑃 = (𝛿𝑃1 + 𝛿𝑃2 )𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
= (1 + 1)𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
= 2𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
For Gas Flow Rate 2, where P1=59mm and P2=23mm
∆𝑃 = 59 − 23
= 36 ± 2 𝑚𝑚. 𝐻2 𝑂
𝛿∆𝑃 2
=
∆𝑃 36
= 0.06
Equation D.3 gives the molar flow rate if the volumetric flow rate is known.
For the inlet CO2 stream
𝑃𝑉̇
𝑛̇ =
𝑅𝑇
𝛿𝑛̇ 𝛿𝑃 𝛿𝑉̇ 𝛿𝑅 𝛿𝑇
= + + +
𝑛̇ 𝑃 𝑉̇ 𝑅 𝑇

𝛿𝑅 𝛿𝑇
= =0
𝑅 𝑇
𝛿𝑛̇ 𝛿𝑃 𝛿𝑉̇
= +
𝑛̇ 𝑃 𝑉̇

= 0.06 + 0.02986
=0.09
𝛿𝑃
For the outlet CO2 stream, the 𝑃 value is approximated to atmospheric, so = 0 and the only error
𝑃

present is from the volumetric flow rates.

Table F. 4 - Uncertainties for Entering and Exiting Molar Flow Rates of CO2

Data Volumetric Molar Flow Rate of Relative Uncertainty Absolute Uncertainty

Point Flow Rate Outlet CO2 Stream of 𝑛̇ of 𝑛̇
Outlet Bubble
Meter
𝑉̇ 𝑛̇ 𝛿𝑛̇ 𝛿𝑛̇
𝑛̇
mm3/s mol/min - -
Uncertainty: see
Table F.2

4 12516 3.172E-2 0.02031 6.4E-4

5 11361 2.880E-2 0.01832 5.2E-4
6 9518 2.413E-2 0.01555 3.7E-4
7 7988 2.025E-2 0.01260 2.5E-4
8 6178 1.566E-2 0.01022 1.6E-4

Inlet 16977 4.311E-2 0.09 3.7E-3

Nicholas Alexandrides 41
Volumetric Flow of Inlet Water Stream

The uncertainty in the volumetric flow of the water stream originates not only from reading the Rotameter,
but also from the resolution in reading the calibration chart (Appendix D). In reading this chart, the smallest
graduation is 0.025 L/min. The margin of error is half of his graduation, 0.0125 L/min.
Considering Data Point 4, which corresponds to a volumetric flow rate of 0.24 L/min.

𝛿𝑉̇ = 0.0125 𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝛿𝑉̇ 0.0125
= = 0.0521
𝑉̇ 0.24

This propagates through to the calculation for molar flow rate as per equation D.7.

𝜌𝑉̇
𝑛̇ =
𝑀

𝛿𝑛̇ 𝛿𝜌 𝛿𝑉̇ 𝛿𝑀
= + +
𝑛̇ 𝜌 𝑉̇ 𝑀

0 𝛿𝑉̇ 0 𝛿𝑉̇
= + + =
999 𝑉 ̇ 0.018 𝑉̇

= 0.0521

𝛿𝑛̇
𝛿𝑛̇ = × 𝑛̇ = 13.32 × 0.0521
𝑛̇

= 0.694 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑚𝑖𝑛

Errors are shown for all the water inlet flow rates in Table F.5.

Table F. 5 - Uncertainties for Entering Molar Flow Rates of H2O

Data Volumetric Molar Flow Rate of Relative Uncertainty Absolute Uncertainty

Point Flow Rate Inlet Water Stream of 𝑛̇ of 𝑛̇
Outlet Bubble
Meter
𝐻2𝑂
𝑉̇ 𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 𝛿𝑛̇ 𝛿𝑛̇
𝑛̇
L/min mol/min - -
Uncertainty:
±0.0125 L/min

4 0.24 13.3 0.05208 0.69

5 0.33 18.3 0.03788 0.69
6 0.485 26.9 0.02577 0.69
7 0.64 35.5 0.01953 0.69
8 0.78 43.3 0.01603 0.69

Nicholas Alexandrides 42
Gas Phase Absorbed into Liquid Phase

The total number of moles of gas absorbed by the liquid phase is given by the difference in the entering and
exiting molar flow rates of CO2.
𝑁 = 𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 − 𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝛿𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 𝛿𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝛿𝑁 = +
𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑢𝑡

For Data Point 4,

𝛿𝑁 = 0.09 + 0.02031

= 0.11
Equation (4) gives the relation to find the difference in mole fraction of the gas absorbed in liquid phase. 𝐿
𝐻2𝑂
represents the liquid phase flow rate, expressed as 𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 in Table F.5.
𝑁
(𝑥1 − 𝑥2 ) =
𝐿

𝛿(𝑥1 −𝑥2 ) 𝛿𝑁 𝛿𝐿
= +
(𝑥1 −𝑥2 ) 𝑁 𝐿

= 0.11 + 0.05208

= 0.162
As 𝑥2 = 0, the expression can be simplified.
𝛿𝑥1
𝑥1
Hence,
𝛿𝑥1
= 0.162
𝑥1
Table F. 6 – Uncertainties in Molar Flow Rate of Moles Absorbed in Liquid Phase from Gas Phase

Data Molar Flow Molar Flow Molar Flow Number of Relative Absolute
Point Rate of Inlet Rate of Inlet Rate of moles Uncertainty Uncertainty
Gas Stream Water Outlet Gas absorbed by in N in N
Stream Stream Liquid Phase
𝐶𝑂2 𝐻2𝑂 𝐶𝑂2 N 𝛿𝑁 𝛿𝑁
𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 𝑛̇ 𝑖𝑛 𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑁
mol/min mol/min mol/min mol/min - mol/min
Uncertainty: See Table F.5 See Table F.4
± 3.7E-3 for for
mol/min uncertainties uncertainties

4 13.3 3.172E-2 1.896E-4 0.1057 2.005E-5

5 18.3 2.880E-2 2.384E-4 0.1037 2.474E-5
4.311E-2
6 26.9 2.413E-2 3.163E-4 0.1009 3.194E-5
7 35.5 2.025E-2 3.809E-4 0.09802 3.734E-5
8 43.3 1.566E-2 4.574E-4 0.09565 4.375E-5

Nicholas Alexandrides 43
Equation (12) can be rearranged to express 𝑥 ∗ in terms of Henry’s Law constant, the mole fraction of gas
present in the gas phase and the pressure of the column.
𝑦. 𝑃
𝑥∗ =
𝐻

The uncertainty present in 𝑥 ∗ can be quantified.

𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑦 𝛿𝑃 𝛿𝐻
= + +
𝑥∗ 𝑦 𝑃 𝐻

Henry’s Law constant is calculated and the mole fraction do not have any inherent error. Only the pressure
term introduces error to the 𝑥 ∗ value.
The pressure is taken as an average of the vapour pressure of water and the atmospheric pressure.

𝑠𝑎𝑡
𝑃𝐻20 + 𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑃=
2
𝑠𝑎𝑡
𝛿𝑃𝐻20 𝛿𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝑠𝑎𝑡 + 𝑃
𝑃𝐻2𝑜 𝑎𝑡𝑚
𝛿𝑃 =
2

No error is present in the value for the atmospheric pressure, so

𝑠𝑎𝑡
𝛿𝑃𝐻20
𝑠𝑎𝑡
𝑃𝐻2𝑜
𝛿𝑃 =
2

0.06
𝛿𝑃 = = 0.03
2

This uncertainty is constant for a set flow rate (i.e. Gas Flow Rate 2).

𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑃
=
𝑥∗ 𝑃

= 0.03

𝛿𝑥 ∗ = 2.214 × 10−5

Nicholas Alexandrides 44
 Table F. 7 – Uncertainties in Mole Fractions x1 and x*

Data Number of Mole Frac Relative Absolute Equilibrium Relative Absolute

Point moles absorbed of Gas in Uncertainty Uncertainty Mole Uncertainty Uncertainty in
by Liquid Phase Liquid in 𝑥1 in 𝑥1 Fraction of in 𝑥 ∗ 𝑥∗
Phase at Gas Phase
Bottom of Absorbed
Column by Liquid
N 𝑥1 𝛿𝑥1 𝛿𝑥1 𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑥 ∗
𝑥1 𝑥∗ 𝑥∗

mol/min - - - - - -
See Table F.6
for uncertainties

4 1.896E-4 8.545E-4 0.1578 1.348E-4

5 2.384E-4 7.813E-4 0.1416 1.106E-4
6 3.163E-4 7.051E-4 0.1267 8.93E-05 7.9706E-4 0.03 2.214E-5
7 3.809E-4 6.435E-4 0.1175 7.56E-05
8 4.574E-4 6.334E-4 0.1116 7.08E-05

Now the mole fractions 𝑥1 and 𝑥 ∗ are known the error present in the log mean driving force can be
calculated. The log mean driving force is given by equation D.11.

(𝑥1 − 𝑥2 )
∆𝑥𝐿𝑀 =
𝑥∗ − 𝑥
𝑙𝑛 [𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥2 ]
1

∆𝑥2 1 ∆𝑥2
𝛿𝑙𝑛 [ ]= ×𝛿[ ]
∆𝑥1 ∆𝑥2 ∆𝑥1
[ ]
∆𝑥1

1 𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑥1
= × [ ∗ + ∗ + ]
∆𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥1
[∆𝑥2 ]
1

1 𝛿𝑥 ∗ 𝛿𝑥1
= × [2 ∗ + ]
𝑥∗ 𝑥 𝑥1
[𝑥 ∗ − 𝑥 ]
1

Consider Data Point 5, where 𝑥1 = 7.813 × 10−4 , 𝑥2 = 0 and 𝑥 ∗ = 7.9706 × 10−4

∆𝑥2 1
𝛿𝑙𝑛 [ ]= × [2 × 0.03 + 0.1416]
∆𝑥1 7.9706 × 10−4
[ −4 ]
(7.9706 − 7.813) × 10
= 3.986 × 10−3

Nicholas Alexandrides 45
Table F. 8 - Uncertainties in Mole Frac Ratios

Data Mole Frac of Equilibrium Mole Relative Nat log Mole Absolute Relative
Point Gas in Liquid Mole Fraction of Uncertainty Frac of Uncertainty Uncertainty
Phase at Fraction of Deviation in Deviation ∆𝑥2 ∆𝑥2
in 𝑙𝑛 [ ] in 𝑙𝑛 [ ]
∆𝑥2 ∆𝑥1 ∆𝑥1
Bottom of Gas Phase from from
Column Absorbed by Equilibrium ∆𝑥1 Equilibrium
Liquid Absorption Absorption
𝑥1 𝑥∗ ∆𝑥2
𝛿[
∆𝑥2
]
∆𝑥2 ∆𝑥2
𝛿𝑙𝑛 [
∆𝑥2
]
∆𝑥1 𝑙𝑛 [ ] 𝛿𝑙𝑛 [ ] ∆𝑥1
∆𝑥1 ∆𝑥1 ∆𝑥1
∆𝑥2 ∆𝑥2
[ ] 𝑙𝑛 [ ]
∆𝑥1 ∆𝑥1
- - - -
See Table F.7 See Table F.7
for for
uncertainties uncertainties

4 8.545E-4 -13.878 0.2178 undefined - -

5 7.813E-4 50.625 0.2016 3.92443 0.00398 0.001014
6 7.051E-4 7.9706E-4 8.6690 0.1867 2.15975 0.02154 0.009974
7 6.435E-4 5.1903 0.1775 1.64679 0.03421 0.020773
8 6.334E-4 4.8878 0.1716 1.58673 0.03512 0.022135

Equation D.12 is used to calculate 𝐾𝑥 𝑎

∆𝑥
𝑁. 𝑙𝑛 [∆𝑥2 ]
1
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 =
𝑆. 𝑍. 𝑥1

∆𝑥2
𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎) 𝛿𝑁 𝛿𝑆 𝛿𝑍 𝛿𝑥1 𝛿𝑙𝑛 [∆𝑥1 ]
= + + + +
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 𝑁 𝑆 𝑍 𝑥1 ∆𝑥
𝑙𝑛 [∆𝑥2 ]
1

The quantities S and Z are given by the apparatus manufacturer and no uncertainty was observed. Hence, it
will be assumed that there is no uncertainty relating to these values and the equation then simplifies.

∆𝑥2
𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎) 𝛿𝑁 𝛿𝑥1 𝛿𝑙𝑛 [∆𝑥1 ]
= + +
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 𝑁 𝑥1 ∆𝑥
𝑙𝑛 [ 2 ]
∆𝑥1
Consider Data Point 5,
𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎)
= 0.10375 + 0.1416 + 0.001014
𝐾𝑥 𝑎
= 0.24638

Nicholas Alexandrides 46
Table F. 9 - Uncertainties in Kxa values

Data 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 value Relative Absolute 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 value Absolute

Point Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty
in 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 in 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 in 𝐾𝑥 𝑎
𝐾𝑥 𝑎 𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎) 𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎) 𝐾𝑥 𝑎 𝛿(𝐾𝑥 𝑎)
𝐾𝑥 𝑎
mol.mm- - mol.mm- mol.m-3.s-1 mol.m-3.s-1
3
.min-1 3
.min-1

4 - - - - -
5 8.9E-07 0.246 2.21E-07 14.97 3.7
6 7.2E-07 0.238 1.72E-07 12.11 2.9
7 7.3E-07 0.236 1.72E-07 12.18 2.9
8 8.5E-07 0.229 1.96E-07 14.30 3.3

This is the extent of the error analysis and uncertainty calculations which were performed on each set of
the processed data.

Nicholas Alexandrides 47