See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259666644

Evaluation of Mass Transfer Coefficient of Gas Absorption into Falling Liquid

Film

Article · December 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 167

1 author:

Kamal Al-Malah
Higher Colleges of Technology
52 PUBLICATIONS   614 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Proteins Behavior View project

Drug Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal Al-Malah on 13 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Central Chemical Engineering & Process Techniques
Research Article *Corresponding author
Kamal I. Al-Malah, Department of Chemical

Evaluation of Mass Transfer Engineering, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia,

Tel: +966-556334640; +962-795204340; E-mail:
almalak61@hotmail.com

Coefficient of Gas Absorption Submitted: 14 November 2013

Accepted: 10 December 2013

into Falling Liquid Film Published: 13 December 2013

Copyright
© 2013 Al-Malah
Kamal I. Al-Malah*
OPEN ACCESS
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia

Keywords
Abstract • Absorption
• Aeration
The analytic, open-form solution for the steady-state, 2-dimensinal partial
• Films
differential equation describing the concentration profile for the gas solute in a falling
• Laminar flow
liquid film flowing under a steady-state laminar condition was shown. The overall mass
• Mass transfer
transfer coefficient, kc , for a binary diffusion system, was evaluated in light of the
• Mathematical modeling
analytic solution and was tested for oxygen absorption into falling water film. kc was
expressed as a function of Reynolds number, Peclet number for mass transfer, and
geometrical properties of the film. A case study of O2/water system was examined
to validate the mass transfer based on the derived model for kc versus that given by
the bulk terms. It was found that the estimated value of kc predicted a mass transfer
rate that has about 10 % percent relative error (PRE) compared with that given by the
convective mass transfer.

Symbols used liquid; v: [m2 s-1] the kinematic viscosity or momentum diffusivity
of the falling liquid; ρ : [kg m-3] the density of the falling liquid;
CA: [mol L-1] concentration of solute (dissolved gas) A in τ ij : [N m-2] The shear stress which represents the force in the jth
falling liquid film; CAi: [mol L-1] interfacial concentration of A; direction divided by the ith unit surface area
CAo: [mol L-1] inlet concentration of A; C AL : [mol L-1] the average
outlet concentration of A: DAB: [m2 s-1] diffusivity of solute A in Introduction
medium B; Deq: [m] the equivalent diameter for a non-circular Thin falling liquid film, by gravity, has numerous applications;
area, defined as four times the hydraulic radius; kc : [m s-1] the for example, wetted-wall absorbers, falling film chemical
overall mass transfer coefficient; L: [m] length of the falling reactors, condensers, and vertical tube evaporators. Falling film
liquid film; NA: [mol m-2 s-1] the molar flux of solute A; n A : [mol absorbers may be used for dissolving gases in liquids, separating
s-1] the molar flow rate of A absorbing into the falling liquid film; gas mixtures, and removing unwanted species from a gas flow. A
N PeM : [dimensionless] Peclet number for mass transfer defined reliable design of such pieces of equipment mainly depends on
4δ u y
as: N PeM = N Re × N Sch = ; NRe: [dimensionless] Reynolds how accurately the designer will be able to predict the transport
DAB rates of heat and mass to the flowing film.
number; a dimensionless group; N Sch : [dimensionless] Schmidt
µ µ/ρ ν Chermiti et al. [1] analytically derived and graphically
number defined as: N Sch = = = ; uy: [m s-1] the
ρ DAB DAB DAB presented expressions of the liquid velocity, the gas
y-component velocity of the falling liquid; u y : [m s-1] the average concentration, the entropy generation rate as well as the main
y-component velocity of the falling liquid; W: [m] the width of the sources of irreversibility in the case of gas absorption (carbon
falling liquid film dioxide) into a laminar falling viscous incompressible liquid
film (water) without chemical reaction. Generally, their results
Greek Symbols showed that longitudinal mass transfer flux and transverse mass
Γ: [kg m-1 s-1] the mass velocity (i.e., mass flow rate of falling transfer flux decreased from the interface and dropped towards
liquid per unit width of solid boundary); δ: [m] the liquid film zero value near the liquid film diffusion thickness δ. From the
interface towards diffusion thickness, it was found that entropy
8 1
thickness; η : [dimensionless] defined as: η = × ; θ: generation increased towards a maximum value due to diffusive
3 δ 
N PeM   mass transfer, then decreased towards a minimum value by
L convective mode.
[dimensionless] dimensionless concentration of A, defined as:
C − C Ai Xu et al. [2] examined mass transfer across the falling film using
θ= A ; µ: [kg m-1 s-1] the dynamic viscosity of the falling
C Ao − C Ai both simulations and experiments. Based on the validity of the

Cite this article: Al-Malah KI (2013) Evaluation of Mass Transfer Coefficient of Gas Absorption into Falling Liquid Film. Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018.

Central
simulated results for wave parameters, numerical experiments
for mass transfer were carried out with the aim of comparing to
the empirical relation based on a single hydrodynamic parameter,
β, (the gradient of the vertical fluctuating velocity at the interface,
s-1). They concluded that β could be the all-important near surface
hydrodynamic parameter governing the scalar transport across
the interface. They suggested that the order of magnitude of the
k Sc 0.5
term: L − mean 0.5 = C ~ O (1.0) to be one; where, KL-mean is the
( β rmsν )
average liquid side mass transfer velocity; Sc Schmidt number,
and ν the kinematic viscosity.
Raisul Islam et al. [3] examined simplified models for coupled
heat and mass transfer in falling-film absorbers. They compared
the accuracy of a linearized coupled model for the heat and
mass transfer in falling-film absorbers with a non-linear model.
Under certain conditions, they found that the linearized model
may be reduced to the traditional logarithmic mean difference
(LMD) formulation. The analytical expressions resulting from
the linearized model, however, were used to extract the heat
and mass transfer coefficients from the experimental data for a
horizontal tubular absorber and a vertical tube absorber. The
mass transfer coefficients obtained using the linearized model
and the LMD formulation agreed within about 10% while the
heat transfer coefficients showed large differences.
Demirel and Sandler [4] examined the effects of concentration
and temperature on the coupled heat and mass transport using
published experimental data on heat and mass transfer aspects of
binary and ternary liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. Using the linear
non-equilibrium thermodynamics (LNET) and the dissipation-
phenomenological equation (DPE) approach, they managed
to assess the effects of concentration, temperature, molecular
weight, chain-size, solute, solvent, and degree of branching on the
degree of coupling between heat and mass flows.
Demirel and Sandler [5] exploited the linear non-equilibrium
thermodynamics (LNET) approach, combined with the
phenomenological theory, to express the entropy generation and
dissipation functions representing the true forces and flows for
heat and mass transport in a multi-component fluid. The LNET
theory utilizes the dissipation function or the entropy generation
equation, based on the Gibbs relation, which assumes that local
thermodynamic equilibrium holds for pseudo-equilibrium
processes. They have expressed the phenomenological equations
(PEs) with the resistance coefficients that are capable of
reflecting the extent of the interactions between heat and mass
flows. The use of the resistance type of the phenomenological
coefficients (PCs) in PEs, in which the conjugate forces and
flows are identified by the dissipation function were denoted by
the authors as the dissipation-phenomenological equation (DPE)
approach.
Leuthner et al. [6] studied heat and mass transfer of an
evaporating wavy falling film of a water–ethylene glycol mixture.
Transport rates could be predicted by a numerical procedure,
including flow, temperature and concentration field. Their
model included wave parameters, like base length of the average
wave and mean height of wave above wall. The accuracy of the
prediction compared with measurements was reasonably good
at Reynolds numbers above 250. For their binary mixture, the
Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)
Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
limit of laminar behavior was determined by both the water
concentration and the NRe number.
Yiğit [7] used numerical (Crank-Nichelson method; an
implicit numerical solution method) to study heat and mass
transfer in falling film absorber to solve the partial differential
equations with given boundary conditions. Such equations were
expressed in finite difference form in cylindrical coordinates.
The coolant side flow rate (or, heat transfer coefficient) effects
were found to be small on the values of mass absorbed, the outlet
film temperature, and also the outlet mass fraction. Moreover,
the inlet coolant temperature was found to influence the mass
absorbed.
Kamei and Oishi [8], based on their experimental results
concerning the rate of mass transfer in a falling liquid film,
concluded that there exists four regions. A first region where NRe
<35 for which the rate may be predicted by means of the equation
valid for the laminar steady flow. A second region 35 < NRe < 150
for which the rate may be predicted if one replaces the diffusion
coefficient D found in the equation valid for the steady laminar
case, by an apparent diffusion coefficient Da, independent of
x. A third region 150 < NRe < 1000 for which no correlation
was possible. The fourth corresponds to NRe > 1000 (turbulent
regime).
The Maxwell–Stefan diffusion is a model for describing
diffusion in multi-component systems. The basic assumption
of the theory is that a deviation from equilibrium between the
molecular friction and thermodynamic interactions leads to the
diffusion flux. The molecular friction between two components is
proportional to their relative velocities and their mole fractions.
The gradient of chemical potential is the driving force of diffusion;
nevertheless, for complex systems, such as electrolytic solutions,
the equation must be expanded to incorporate additional terms
for interactions other than chemical potential [9,10].
In the following study, an analytic, open-form (i.e., power
series) solution is presented for a steady-state mass transfer of
gas absorption into a falling liquid film under laminar condition.
Furthermore, an overall mass transfer coefficient is defined in
terms of an overall concentration difference. The objectives of
the study are to determine the overall mass transfer coefficient
which will enable the estimation of mass transfer rate and to
compare the estimated mass transfer rate with that given by the
convective mass transfer (bulk side mass transfer) as a means of
model testing.
Model Development
First, the momentum balance will be carried out to find
the velocity profile. Consider a falling liquid film, as shown in
Figure 1, flowing in the y-direction. The film has a thickness δ
that extends from z=0 at the liquid/gas interface to z=δ at the
solid/liquid interface. The film is infinitely wide with a width
W that extends in the page (i.e., x-direction). Such a thin liquid
film is made of a mixture of volatile A and nonvolatile B, falling in
laminar flow at steady state down one side of a vertical surface
and exposed to gas, A, on the other side of the film, as shown in
Figure 1. There is no bulk flow in the z-direction (i.e., the liquid
velocity in the z-direction, uz is assumed zero.
2/7
 Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
Central

∂ 2C A ∂ (CA )
DAB = uy (8)
∂z 2 ∂y
B.C. #1: @ z = 0, C A = C Ai (9a)
∂C A
B.C. #2: @ z = δ , =0 (9b)
∂z
B.C. #3: @ y = 0, C A = C Ao (9c)
Let us define the dimensionless concentration:
C A − C Ai
θ= (10)
C Ao − C Ai

∂ 2θ ∂ (θ )
DAB = uy (11)
∂z 2 ∂y
z = 0,θ = 0 (12a)
Figure 1 Mass transfer from a gas into a falling, laminar liquid film.
∂θ
z =δ, = 0 (12b)
∂z
Momentum balance in y-direction
y = 0,θ = 1 (12c)
By solving the ordinary differential equation that describes
the steady-state momentum balance in y-direction, found in DAB
Let C 2 = , Eq. (11) becomes:
many transport phenomena textbooks, the velocity in y-direction uy
is expressed as:
∂ (θ ) DAB ∂ 2θ ∂ (θ ) ∂ 2θ
ρ gδ 2   z  
2 = →→→ = C2 2 (13)
uy = 1 −    (1) ∂y u y ∂z 2
∂y ∂z
2 µ   δ  
Assume : θ ( z, y ) = F ( z ) × G ( y ) (14)
The mean flow velocity is given by:
δ Carrying out partial differentiation once with respect to y and
uy
∫ u dz = ρ gδ
= δ 0 y
2
(2) twice with respect to z:
∫ dz 3µ
0 ∂θ ∂ 2θ
= FG ' = GF "
mass flow rate mass flow rate ∂y ∂z 2
Let us define Γ = =
width W Substitute into Eq. (13) to get:
ρu yW δ Γ FG ' = C 2GF " (15)
Γ= = ρu yδ →→→ u y = (3)
W ρδ
Rearrangement of Eq. (15) results in:
Equate Eq. (2) with (3):
G' F"
1/3 = = φ = constant (16)
Γ ρ gδ 2
 3µΓ  C 2G F
uy = = →→→ δ =  2  (4)
ρδ 3µ ρ g In general, φ may assume zero; negative; positive; or even a
complex value. The physical problem at hand will determine the
Dequ y ρ potential value of φ.
N Re = (5)
µ
Case 1:
Deq = 4 × hydraullic radius = 4rH = 4 × φ =0
cross − sectional area for flow Wδ
= 4× = 4δ (6) The trivial case
wetted perimeter W

Case 2: φ >0
Dequ y ρ 4δ u y ρ 4Γ Solving for
N Re = = = (7)
µ µ µ G' (φ C 2 y ) will make θ ( z , y ) →↑ as y →↑
= φ ⇒ G = CI e
CG
2

 N Re < 8 − 25 The flow is laminar & the film is flat

This will violate the physical condition that θ (z,y) decreases

8 − 25 < N Re < 1200 The flow is laminar and the film is wavy with increasing y. In fact, as y increases, CA will approach CAi (i.e.
θ ( z, y) → 0 )
Steady-state molar balance of solute A
Carrying out a steady-state solute balance, we reach at: Case 3:

Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)

3/7
 Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
Central

φ <0 Combining the two constant as one constant such that bn = Bn

× Cn, then we have:
G' F"
= = φ = −P2
2
2  (2 n −1) π 
C 2G F  (2n − 1) π  − C  2 δ  y
θ ( z , y ) = bn sin  z×e n = 1,2,3,… (24)
 2 δ 
Determine solutions of the ordinary differential equation
Based on the fundamental theorem, the linear combination
(O.D.E.), which will satisfy the B.C.’s.
of such n solutions will also be a solution for the original P.D.E.
F" Thus,
= − P 2 ⇒ − P 2 F = F " ⇒ F "+ P 2 F = 0 (17) 2  (2 n −1) π 
2

F
∞
 (2n − 1) π  − C  2 δ  y
θ ( z , y ) = ∑bn sin  z×e 0 ≤ z ≤ δ (25)
Eq. (17) is considered a constant coefficient 2nd-order O.D.E. n =1  2 δ 
bn must be chosen such that θ(z, y) becomes equivalent to
with a characteristic equation:
f(z) present in the half-range expansion Fourier series, namely
Fourier sine series. Exploiting: @ y = 0, θ(z, 0) = 1 for all z, Eq. (25)
(D 2
+ P 2 ) F = 0 ⇒ D = ± − P 2 = ± Pi
becomes:
The solution for Eq. (17) will be of the form: 2  (2 n −1) π 
2
∞
 (2n − 1) π  −C   0
θ ( z ,0 ) = 1 = ∑bn sin  z×e  2 δ

F ( z ) = Acos ( Pz ) + Bsin( Pz ) (18) n =1  2 δ 

 (2n − 1) π
∞

Applying B. C. #1: @z = 0, θ(0, y) = 0 for all y > 0, one gets: 1 = ∑bn sin  z (26)
n =1  2 δ 
θ ( 0, y ) = 0 = F (0) × G ( y ) ⇒ F ( 0 ) = 0 ⇒ Acos (0) + δ
2  (2n − 1) π  2
Bsin(0) = 0 ⇒ A = 0 bn =
δ ∫1 × sin 
0 2 δ
z  dz = ×
 δ
(27)
F ( z ) = Bsin ( Pz )
0

(19) 2δ   2n − 1  π  4
cos    z =
(2n − 1)π  2  δ  δ (2n − 1)π
∂θ
Applying ⇒ B.C.# 2 : @ z = δ , =0
∂z z =δ Eq. (25) becomes:
for all y > 0 ⇒ GF ' z =δ = 0 ⇒ F ' z =δ = 0 2  (2 n −1) π 
2

4 ∞
1  (2n − 1) π  −C   y
θ ( z, y ) = ∑ sin
π n =1 (2n − 1)  2 δ
z×e

 2 δ
(28)
Keep in mind that G(y) for all y>0 cannot be zero; else the
solution will become trivial. The final solution is:
F ( z ) = Bsin( Pz ) ⇒ F ' ( z ) = BPcos ( Pz ) ⇒ BPcos ( Pz ) z =δ = 0
2
DAB  (2 n −1) π 
C A − C Ai 4 ∞ 1  (2n − 1) π  −   y
= ∑
uy  2 δ 
sin  z×e (29)
This implies that ⇒ BPcos ( Pδ ) = 0 C Ao − C Ai π n =1 (2n − 1)  2 δ 

Again, notice that neither P nor B can be set to zero; otherwise The flux of A, NA can be evaluated at z=0.
a trivial solution is obtained.
∂C A ∂θ
π N A = − DAB = − DAB (C Ao − C Ai ) =
Thus, cos ( Pδ ) = 0 ⇒ Pδ = (2n − 1) (20) ∂z z =0 ∂z z =0
2 (30)
Notice that Equation (20) gives us a formula for defining the ∂θ
DAB (C Ai − C Ao )
parameter P. ∂z z =0

(2n − 1) π
P= (21) ∂θ 4 ∞
1 (2n − 1)π  ( 2n − 1) π 
2 δ = ∑ (2n − 1) × cos  (0)  ×
∂z π 2δ  2 δ 
Substituting P in Eq. (19), we get: z =0 n =1
(31)
2 2
DAB  (2 n −1) π  DAB  (2 n −1) π 
 (2n − 1) π  −   y 2 ∞ −   y
F ( z ) = Bsin  z ⇒ F ( z) = uy  2 δ 
= ∑e
uy  2 δ 

δ 
e
 2 δ n =1

 (2n − 1) π 
Bn sin  z n = 1, 2,3,… (22)
δ 
2
DAB  (2 n −1) π 
∞ −   y
 2
NA =
2 DAB
(C Ai − C Ao )∑e (32)
uy  2 δ 

δ
G' n =1
= − P 2 ⇒ G ' = −C 2 P 2G ⇒ G ' + C 2 P 2G = 0 Equation (32) gives the local flux evaluated at a given value of
C 2G
Let us define β2 = C2P2 which implies that: G′ = β 2G = 0 and the y. To find the total molar flow rate of A, then we need to integrate
solution will be: this over dA, that is, Wdy.
2 2
 (2 n −1) π   (2 n −1) π  DAB  (2 n −1) π 
2

(−β y) −C 2   y −C 2   y L L ∞ −  y
G ( y ) = CI e ⇒ G ( y ) = Cn e
2
 2 δ  2 δ 2 DAB 
= CI e (23) (C Ai − C Ao )∑e
uy  2 δ 
n A = ∫N AWdy = ∫ Wdy (33)
δ n =1
Since in the first step, it was assumed that θ ( z , y ) = F ( z ) × G ( y )
0 0

2
DAB  (2 n −1) π 
then we have: 2WDAB
L ∞ −   y
(C Ai − C Ao ) ∫ ∑e
uy  2 δ 
 (2 n −1) π 
2
n A = dy =
 (2n − 1) π  −C 2   y
δ
θ ( z , y ) = F ( z ) × G ( y ) = Bn sin  z  × Cn e  2 δ  0 n =1
 2 δ 

Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)

4/7
 Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
Central

 C − C Ao 
0
  − DAB  (2 n −1) π 
2

2WDAB 4u yδ 2  = − ln ( 0.7857 ) − 5.1213η  = ( 0.241 + 5.1213η ) (45)

∞ y
ln  Ai
n A = (C Ai − C Ao )∑   e uy  2 δ  (34)  C Ai − C AL 
δ n =1  DAB ( π ( 2n − 1) ) 
2
  L
Finally, it should be noticed that the molar flow rate of
 ∞  D  (2 n −1) π 
− AB  
2
L absorption of A, n  A, from the gas into the liquid film for height
1  1 − e u y  2 δ   (35)
n A = 8W δ u y (C Ai − C Ao ) ∑  L and width W may also be given by the difference between the
n =1 ( π ( 2n − 1) )
 2
  
   outlet and inlet bulk values of flow rate of A:
If we define an overall mass transfer coefficient as follows:
(
n A = u yδ W C AL − C Ao ) (46)
n A = kc ( C Ai − C Ao )WL (36)
Results and Discussion
Then equating Eq. (35) with Eq. (36), we reach at: For the sake of testing the proposed model for evaluating the
mass transfer coefficient, kc , which is given by either Eq. (37)
  
2
D  (2 n −1) π 
8δ u y ∞
1− AB   L
or Eq. (41), the following example was taken from Seader and
kc = ∑   1 − e u y  2 δ   (37)
L n =1 (π ( 2n − 1) )   2
 Henley [11].
  
Eq. (37) allows the calculation of the overall mass transfer Example:
coefficient, kc , based on the overall concentration difference, Let us estimate the rate of absorption of pure oxygen at 10
that is, between the interface (CAi) value and the initial (CAo) atm and 25°C into water flowing as a film down a vertical wall
value, which exist at the plane z=0 and plane z=δ, respectively. 1 m high and 6 cm in width at a Reynolds number of 50 without
Let us introduce some dimensionless numbers surface ripples. Assume the diffusivity of oxygen in water is 2.5
µ µ/ρ ν × 10-5 cm2/s and that the mole fraction of oxygen in water at
N Sch = Schmidt number = = = (38) saturation for the above temperature and pressure is 2.3 × 10-4.
ρ DAB DAB DAB
N PeM = Peclet number for mass transfer =
Table 1: Summary of the oxygen absorption process into the falling water film.
4δ u y ρ µ/ρ 4δ u y (39) P=10 atm T=25°C=298K L=1.00 m W=6 cm NRe=50
N Re × N Sch = × =
µ DAB DAB A=Oxygen B=Water DAB=2.5 × 10-5 cm2/s yAi=2.3 × 10-4

The first term on the left hand side of Eq. (37) becomes:
From Eq. (7):
8δ u y 2 × 4δ u y  ρ  µ  2ν
=    = N Re Dequ y ρ 4δ u y ρ 4Γ
L L  ρ  µ  L N Re = = = →
µ µ µ
The exponential term in Eq. (37) can now be put in the form of: (47)
N × µ 50 × 0.9 × 10−3 kg
Γ = Re = = 0.01125
DAB (π ( 2n − 1) )
2
DAB  (2n − 1) π 
2
4 4 m.s
−   L=− × L=
uy  2 δ  uy 4δ × δ From Eq. (4):
(40)
(π ( 2n − 1) ) L
2 1/3
D 2 L  3µΓ 
1/3
 3 × 0.9 × 10−3 × 0.01125 
− AB × (π ( 2n − 1) ) =− δ = =  =
4δ u y δ δ 2   
N PeM
ρ g ( 996 ) × 9.8
2
  (48)
1/3
Eq. (37) becomes:  0.000030375 
  = 0.000146m
∞   (π ( 2 n −1) )
2
L   9721756.8 
2ν 1 −
1 − e N PeM 
N Re ∑   δ
kc = 2   (41) From Eq. (3):
L n =1  ( π ( 2 n − 1) )   
  
Γ 0.01125 m
Seader and Henley [11] showed an approximate value for kc uy = = = 0.0773 (49)
ρδ 996 × 0.000146 s
for a value of η >0.1, given as:
From Eq. (37) while retaining the first two terms in the power
δ uy
kc = ( 0.241 + 5.1213η ) (42) series:
L
     
8δ u y  1  
D  π  D  3π 
2 2
− AB   L − AB   L
Where u y  2δ      1  u y  2δ      (50)
kc = 1 − e + 1 − e
2D L 8 8 1 1 L  π  2
    9π 
2
   
η = 2AB = × = × (43)         
3δ u y 3 δ  3 δ 
( Re )( Sch )  
N N N PeM  
L L  1   1  
They also showed the concentration profile as a function of kc = 9.0286 × 10−5  2 (1 − e −3.744 )  +   2 (1 − e −33.69 )   
  π    9π  
η given by:
 C − C AL   1   1  
 = ln ( 0.7857e ) = ln ( 0.7857 ) − 5.1213η (44) kc = 9.0286 × 10−5  2 (1 − 0.02367 )  +   2 (1 − 2.34 × 10−15 )   
−5.1213η
ln  Ai
 C Ai − C Ao   π   9π  

Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)

5/7
 Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
Central

 1   1   True − Estimated
kc = 9.0286 × 10−5  2 (1 − 0.02367 )  +   2 (1)    = × 100% =
 π   9π   True
9.0286 × 10−5 ( 0.0989 + 0.01126 ) 0.815 × 10−5
mol
− 0.734 × 10−5
mol (58)
s s
m × 100% = 9.9%
kc = 9.0286 × 10−5 ( 0.11016 ) = 0.9946 × 10−5 (51) −5 mol
s 0.815 × 10
s
Based on solubility data of oxygen in water at room Seader and Henley [11] quoted: “Although this is the most
mol widely used approach for defining a mass-transfer coefficient,
temperature and 1 atm: C Ao = 4.6 × 10−4 .
L ∂C A
in this case of a falling film it fails because at z = 0 is not
∂z
g 1000cm3 mol H 2O mol defined. Therefore, for this case we use another approach as
Ctot ≅ 1 × × = 55.5
cm 3
L 18.02 g L follows …”. In their context, the phrase “is not defined” means
that there is no analytic (closed- or open-form) solution available
mol mol to estimate the flux (i.e., the gradient) at z=0.
C Ai = y Ai × Ctot = 2.3 × 10−4 × 55.5 = 0.0127636 (52)
L L
With this approach, the derivative can now be defined and is
To find C AL , Eq. (28) will be used to evaluate θ (z,y) at z = δ / 2 given by Eq. (30) as an analytic, open-form solution.
and y=L. The first two terms of the power series will be retained
and the rest will be ignored as their contribution is negligible. Let us also compare our solution by that of Seader and Henley
[11].
 D  π 
2
  From Eq. (43):
 sin  1 π × δ  × e u y  2δ   + 
− AB   L

  2 δ 2    
C − C Ai 4    (53) 2 DAB L 2 × 2.5 × 10−9 × 1.00
θ (δ / 2, L ) = AL =   η= =η = = 1.0115 > 0.1 (59)
C Ao − C Ai π  3δ u y 3 × ( 0.000146 ) × 0.0773
2
L 
2
DAB  3π 
2

 1  3 π δ  −  
u y  2δ  
 × ×
  
sin e
Since η  0.1 ,
 3  2 δ 2   
From Eq. (45):
  1 π δ   
 sin  ×  × 0.02367  + 
C − C Ai 4   δ    C − C Ao 
 = ( 0.241 + 5.1213η ) = ( 0.241 + 5.1213 × 1.0115 ) = 5.42
2 2  (54)
θ (δ / 2, L ) = AL = ln  Ai
C Ao − C Ai π  1  3 π δ  −15 
  C Ai − C AL 
 sin  ×  × 2.34 × 10  
 3  2 δ 2   
C Ai − C Ao 0.01276 − 4.6 × 10−4
= e5.42 = 226 → = 226
C AL − C Ai 4   π    C Ai − C AL 0.01276 − C AL
θ (δ / 2, L ) = =  sin   × 0.02367  + 0  = 0.02131 (60)
C Ao − C Ai π   4    (55) 0.012304 mol
= 226 C AL = 0.01271
mol 0.01276 − C AL L
→→→ C AL = 0.012501
L
From Eq. (46):
From Eq. (46): n A = u y × δ × W × ( C AL − C Ao )
(
n A = u y × δ × W × C AL − C Ao )
m
n A = 0.0773 × 0.000146m × 0.06m × m
s n A = 0.0773 × 0.000146m × 0.06m ×
s
( 0.012501 − 4.6 × 10−4 ) mol  1000 L 
× =
( 0.01271 − 4.6 × 10−4 ) mol  1000 L 
× −5 mol
(61)
L  m3   = 0.83 × 10
L  m3  s
mol mol
8.153 × 10−6 = 0.815 × 10−5
s s The answer has a percent relative error of 1.84% to that given
by our model and shown in Eq. (56).
mol
n A = 0.815 × 10−5 (56) Finally, from Eq. (42):
s
From Eq. (36): δ uy 0.000146 × 0.0773
kc = ( 0.241 + 5.1213η ) =
L 1
n A = kc ( C Ai − C Ao )WL (62)
−5 m
m mol
( 0.241 + 5.1213 × 1.0115) = 6.12 × 10
n A = 0.9946 × 10−5 × ( 0.0127636 − 4.6 × 10−4 ) × s
s L Consequently, kc given by Seader and Henley [11] will
(57)
 1000 L  −5 mol overestimate the amount of A transferred from the gas into the
  × 0.06m × 1m = 0.734 × 10
 m  s
3
falling liquid film if an attempt is made to define the molar flow
rate of A as either n A = kc ( C Ai − C Ao )WL = kc ( C AL − C Ao )WL .

Percent Relative Error (PRE) =

Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)

6/7
 Al-Malah (2013)
Email: almalak61@hotmail.com
Central
Conclusion
3. Raisul Islam Md, Wijeysundera NE, Ho JC, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer.
The overall mass transfer coefficient kc , for a binary 2004; 47: 395–406.
diffusion system, was evaluated in light of the analytic, open-
4. Demirel Y, Sandler SI, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 2002; 45: 75-86.
form solution and was tested for a gas absorption case. The
amount of absorbed A given by the mass transfer coefficient 5. Demirel Y, Sandler SI, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 2001; 44: 2439-2451.
being multiplied by the area available for mass transfer and by 6. Leuthner S, Maun AH, Fiedler S, Auracher H, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 1999;
38, 937–943.
the overall concentration difference,  n A = kc ( C Ai − C Ao )WL 


  7. Yiğit A, A., Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer. 1999; 26: 269-278.
, is essentially the same as that given by the bulk terms on the
liquid side,  n A = u yδ W C AL − C Ao  . The bulk transport rate of
8. Kamei S, Oishi I, Mem. Fat. Engng Kyoto Univ. 1955; 17, 227-239.
( )


  9. Taylor R, Krishna R. Multicomponent Mass Transfer. John Wiley &

gas solute was compared with that given by Seader and Henley Sons, Inc. 1993.
[11] and the results were in agreement.
10. Rehfeldt S, Stichlmair J, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 2007; 256: 99–104.
References 11. Seader JD, Henley EJ. SEPARATION PROCESS PRINCIPLES, 2nd ed.,
1. I. Chermiti, N. Hidouri, A. Ben Brahim, Mechanics Research John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2006.
Communications. 2011; 38: 586– 593.
2. Xu ZF, Khoo BC, Wijeysundera NE. Chemical Engineering Science.
2008; 63, 2559 – 2575.

Cite this article

Al-Malah KI (2013) Evaluation of Mass Transfer Coefficient of Gas Absorption into Falling Liquid Film. Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018.

Chem Eng Process Tech 1(3): 1018 (2013)

7/7

View publication stats