Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solutionsmanual3ndedition 161013102255 PDF
Solutionsmanual3ndedition 161013102255 PDF
1.1-1.7 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 1.1-1.7 in the 2nd
edition Solutions Manual.
1.8 The washing machine is a batch reactor in which a first order decay of grease on the
clothes is occurring. The integrated form of the mass balance equation is:
C = C0 e - kt
First, find k:
1 C 1 C0 1 1
k = ln = ln = ln = 0.128 min -1
t C 0 1 min 0.88C 0 1 min 0.88
0.500 g - 0.264 g
Cw = = 0.00472 g/L
50.0 L
1.9 C.V.
Plateau Creek
Q0, C0 Qb, C0 Qs, Cs
Qf, C0 Qf/2, Cf
farm
(Q /2) Cf + Qb C0
= f =
(0.5 m /s)(1.00 mg/L) + (4.0 m /s)(0.0015 mg/L) = 0.112 mg/L
3 3
Cs
Qs (4.5 m /s) 3
Qf =
Q0 (Cs - C 0 )
=
(5.0 m /s)(0.04 - 0.0015 mg/L) = 0.371 m /s
3
3
⎛ Cf C ⎞ ⎛ 1.0 0.04 ⎞
⎜ - C0 + s ⎟ ⎜ - 0.0015 + mg/L ⎟
⎝ 2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 ⎠
1.10 Write a mass balance on a second order reaction in a batch reactor:
Accumulation = Reaction
dm
V = Vr(m) where r(m) = - km 2
dt
mt t
dm 1 1
∫m m 2 = - k ∫0 dt so, -
m0 m t
= - kt
0
1⎛ 1 1 ⎞
k = ⎜⎜ - ⎟ calculate mt=1 based on the equation’s stoichiometry that
t ⎝ mt m0 ⎟⎠
1 mole of methanol yields 1 mole of carbon monoxide
⎛ ⎞
(100 g CO )⎛⎜⎜ mole CO ⎞⎟⎟⎛⎜ 1 mole CH 3OH ⎞⎟⎜⎜ 32 g CH 3OH ⎟⎟ = 114.3 g CH 3OH
⎝ 28 g CO ⎠⎝ 1 mole CO ⎠⎝ mole CH 3 OH ⎠
1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
and k = ⎜⎜ - ⎟⎟ = 0.00667 d -1g -1
1 d ⎝ 85.7 g 200 g ⎠
1.11-1.13 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 1.8-1.10 in the
2nd edition Solutions Manual.
1.14 Calculate the pipe volume, Vr, and the first-order rate constant, k.
π (3.0 ft )2 (3400 ft ) ln 2 ln 2
Vp = 24,033 ft 3 and k = = = 0.0578 min -1
4 t 1/2 (12 min)
⎡ ⎞⎤
( )(
C0 = Ce -kt = (1.0 mg/L)exp⎢ 0.0578 min −1 24,033 ft 3 )⎛⎜⎜ 10mingal ⎞⎟⎟⎛⎜ 0.134
gal
⎟⎥ = 2.82 mg/L
⎠⎝ ⎠⎦
4 3
⎣ ⎝ ft
1.15 The stomach acts like a CSTR reactor in which a first order decay reaction is
occurring.
Stomach
Gastric Q, Ci
juices in Q, Ce Digested food
V, r(C) stream out
dC
V = QCi - QCe + Vr (C ) where r(C) = -kC, Ci = 0, and C = Ce
dt
⎛Q ⎞
C t
dC
so, ∫C C = - ⎜⎝ V + k ⎟⎠∫0 dt
0
1.21 a. Calculate the volume that 1 mole of an ideal gas occupies at 1 atm and 20 °C.
V= =
( )
nRT (1 mole) 0.082056 L ⋅ atm ⋅ mol -1 ⋅ K -1 (293.15 K )
= 24.04 L then
P 1 atm
= 11.0 ppmv
b. Draw a sketch of the valley as the CSTR, non-steady state control volume.
Coal Valley
Q, Ca Q, Ce
V, r(C), kd, ks
1 C 1 ⎛ 11.0 ⎞
t= ln 0 = ln ⎜ ppmv ⎟
⎛⎜ + k d + k s ⎞⎟ ⎛⎛ ⎞ ⎞ ⎝ 1 × 10 ⎠
-5
⋅
⎜ ⎜ 6 × 10 5 m ⎟ ⎛⎜ 60 24 min ⎞⎟
Q C 3
⎝ V ⎠ ⎟
⎜⎝⎜ ⎟ ⎟
min ⎠⎝ d ⎠
+ 0.0856d -1
+ 0.02d -1 ⎟
⎜
⎜ ( 2.0 × 10 6
m) 3
⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
b. The reaction (P1.3) is second-order (see the rate constant’s units) so that
dC H +
= - kC H + C OH- = - kC H +
2
dt
After integration and noting that at t = t1/2, C = C0/2, the equation can be written
1 1
t1/2 = = = 4.38 × 10 -8 seconds
kC0 ⎛ 11 mol ⎞
⎛ ⎛ 8.00 mg ⎞⎛ mmole ⎞ ⎞
⎜1.4 × 10 ⎟⎜⎜ 2⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ L ⋅ s ⎠⎝ ⎝ L ⎠⎜⎝ 98 mg ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
2.22 From Table 2.3, Ksp,CaSO4 is 2 x 10-5 and Ksp = [Ca2+] [SO42-] = [SO42-]2
⎛ 0.5 g ⎞ ⎛ mole ⎞
Check if saturation is exceeded: ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 0.00368 mol/L
⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ 136 g ⎠
At pH 8.5: Ctot ≈ [HCO3-] » [CO32-] (see Figure 2.5) and [H+] « [OH-]
Note this is less than the Ca2+ initially added, so CaCO3(s) has precipitated
b.
c.
[CaCO ] = ((2 × 10
3 (s)
-3
)
M - 10 -5.5 M ⎜ )
⎛ 100 g ⎞
⎟ = 0.19968 g/L = 0.20 g/L
⎝ mol ⎠
2.24 - 2.36 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 2.20 - 2.32 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
3.1 – 3.17 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 3.1 - 3.17 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
3.18 a.
K 3,500 rabbits
N* = = = 1,750 rabbits
2 2
dN 0 200 rabbits
dt yr
r= = = 0.635 yr -1
N 0 ⎛⎜1 - ⎞
(350 rabbits)⎡⎢1 - (350 rabbits) ⎤⎥
N0
K ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎣ (3,500 rabbits) ⎦
and = =
( )
dN * rK 0.635 yr -1 (3,500 rabbits )
= 556 rabbits/yr
dt 4 4
b.
⎡ (1,200 rabbits) ⎤
dN 0 ⎛ N ⎞
( )
= rN 0 ⎜1 - 0 ⎟ = 0.635 yr -1 (1,200 rabbits)⎢1 - ⎥ = 501 rabbits/yr
dt ⎝ K ⎠ ⎣ (3,500 rabbits)⎦
3.19 a.
K 7,000 deer
N* = = = 3,500 deer
2 2
b. Use the mean current population of deer during the year (2,350 deer) as N0
dN 0 300 deer
dt yr
r= = = 0.192 yr -1
N 0 ⎛⎜1 - ⎞
(2,350 deer )⎡⎢1 - (2,350 deer )⎤⎥
N0
K ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎣ (7,000 deer ) ⎦
and = =
(
dN * rK 0.192 yr -1 (7,000 deer ) )
= 336 deer/yr
dt 4 4
c.
3.20 – 3.28 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 3.18 - 3.26 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
4.1 – 4.10 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 4.1 - 4.10 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
4.11 a.
⎛ 0.12 rem ⎞ ⎛ 1 cancer death ⎞
Denver risk = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (70 yr ) ⎜ ⎟ = 1.05 × 10 -3
⎝ yr ⎠ ⎝ 8,000 rems ⎠
⎛ 189 deaths ⎞
⎜ yr ⎟
(
Expected = 0.57 × 10 people ⎜
6
) ⎟ = 1,077
deaths
yr
⎜ 100,000 people ⎟
⎝ ⎠
c.
⎛ 1 cancer death ⎞
Incremental risk = 10 -6 = ⎛⎜ 0.12 - 0.04 rem ⎞⎟ (N yr ) ⎜ ⎟
⎝ yr ⎠ ⎝ 8,000 rems ⎠
8,000 × 10 -6
N= = 0.1 yr (Table 4.3 suggests 2 months)
0.08
d.
⎛ 0.04 rem ⎞ ⎛ 1 cancer death ⎞
(300 × 10 6
people) ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 1,500 deaths yr
⎝ person ⋅ yr ⎠ ⎝ 8,000 rems ⎠
4.12 Radon exposure of 1.5 piC/L equivalent to 400 mrem/yr (0.4 rem/yr):
a.
⎛ 0.4 rem ⎞ ⎛ 1 cancer death ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (300 × 10 6 people) = 15,000 deaths yr
⎝ person ⋅ yr ⎠ ⎝ 8,000 rems ⎠
b.
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
= = 4.93 × 10 -4 mg/m 3
⎛ 2.9 × 10 kg ⋅ d ⎞ ⎛ 20 m ⎞ ⎛ 250 d ⎞ ⎛ 25 yr ⎞
-2 3
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ mg ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ yr ⎠ ⎝ life ⎠
⎛ 1 L ⎞ ⎡ 0.070 mg ⎛ kg ⋅ d ⎞ 0.560 mg ⎛ kg ⋅ d ⎞⎤
d ⎟ ⎛⎜ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
HI = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ = 3.5
70 kg ⎣⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ 0.0003 mg ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ 0.060 mg ⎠⎦
⎝ ⎠
c. Use Table 4.9 for PFs and Table 4.10 for other factors
risk = riskarsenic + riskmethylene chloride
⎛ 1 L ⎞⎛ 250 d ⎞⎛ 10 yr ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ d ⎠⎝ yr ⎠⎝ life ⎠ ⎡⎛ 1.75 kg ⋅ d ⎞ ⎛ 0.0700 mg ⎞ ⎛ 0.0075 kg ⋅ d ⎞ ⎛ 0.560 mg ⎞⎤
risk = ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎛ 70 yr ⎞⎛ 365 d ⎞ ⎣⎝ mg ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ mg ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠⎦
(70 kg )⎜ ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ life ⎠⎝ yr ⎠
risk = 1.8 × 10 -4 Since this risk is » 10-6, it would probably not be considered
acceptable
4.17 a.
⎛ 50 kg ⋅ d ⎞ ⎛ 0.00002 mg ⎞ ⎛ 20 m 3 ⎞ ⎛ 250 d ⎞ ⎛ 25 yr ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ life ⎠
3
⎝ mg ⎠ m ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ yr ⎠
risk = = 7 × 10 -5
⎛ ⎞
(70 kg ) ⎛⎜ 70 yr ⎞⎟ ⎜⎜ 365 d ⎟⎟
⎝ life ⎠ ⎝ yr ⎠
⎡ ⎛ 20 m 3 ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
HI = ⎢ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎥ ⎡⎛⎜ 0.00002 mg ⎞⎟ + ⎛⎜ 0.0001 mg ⎞⎟⎤ = 0.11
⎢ ⎛ 0.0003 mg ⎞ ⎥ ⎢⎣⎝ m3 ⎠ ⎝ m3 ⎥
⎠⎦
⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟(70kg ) ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ kg ⋅ d ⎠ ⎦⎥
4.27 260 million people, 2L/day, 360d/yr, 30yr, find risk and incremental cancers for,
4.28 – 4.33 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 4.25 - 4.30 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
5.1 – 5.33 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 5.1 - 5.33 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
5.34 On a molar basis the C:N:P ratio for algae is 106:16:1 and on a mass basis
it is 41:7.2:1
C 0.40 13.3
The mass ratio of the lake water is: = =
N 0.12 4
P 0.03 1
5.35 – 5.53 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 5.34 - 5.52 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
5.54 a. From Table 5.11, η = 0.34 for a sand aquifer
K=
v
=
ηv'
=
(0.34) 0.09 m d (
= 61.2 m
)
(dh
dL
) (
dh
dL
)(0.0005) d
m
v' v' 0.09 d
b. R = so vcontaminant = = = 0.015 m
vcontaminant R 6 d
(
mleaked = 100 mL )⎛1.63 g
d ⎜⎝
⎞ (365 d ) = 59,500 g
mL ⎟⎠
Since the mass leaked > soluble mass, the solubility limit is exceeded and the
guideline for the aqueous concentration in the presence of NAPLs (see page
258) is used: CPCE = 0.10 Aq SolPCE = 15 mg/L
d.
Q = wcapture 2 Bv = (2 m ) 2 (4 m )(0.34 ) 0.09 m ( d
)= 0.490 m 3
e.
t=
mPCE
=
(59,500 g ) = 8,100 d = 22.2 yr
(
QC PCE 0.490 m 3 )⎛15 mg ⎞⎟ 10 3 L
d ⎜⎝ L⎠
(m3 ⎝
)
⎛⎜10 −3 g ⎞
mg ⎟⎠
5.55 The solution for this problem is the solution for problem 5.53 in the 2nd edition
Solutions Manual.
6.1 a. A primary standard is an enforceable limit on the concentration of a
contaminant in water or an enforceable requirement that a particular treatment
technique be implemented. Primary standards apply only to contaminants that
impact human health. A secondary standard is a recommended limit on the
concentration of a water constituent or on the measured value of a water quality
parameter (e.g., turbidity). Secondary standards apply to factors that affect a
drinking water’s aesthetic but not human health attributes.
6.2 The CWA sets up a system by which the maximum concentration of contaminants
in discharges to surface waters and in the surface waters themselves are set and
enforced, while the SDWA provides the legislative mechanism necessary to set
and enforce the maximum contaminant concentrations in drinking water. The
CWA is designed to ensure that the quality of surface waters in the U.S. is, at a
minimum, appropriate for the beneficial uses for which the water is designated.
The SDWA is designed to ensure that water supplied by public water systems for
human consumption meets acceptable health standards at the point of use.
6.3 a. The hydraulic detention time is:
V π (43.0 ft ) (10.0 ft )
2
θ= = = 0.174 d = 4.17 hr
( )
Q 2.5 × 10 6 gal/d ⎛ ft 3
⎜ 7.4805 gal ⎟
⎝
⎞
⎠
Q ⎝
⎛⎜ 2.5 × 10 6 gal ⎞⎟⎛⎜ ft 3 (
⎞d
d ⎠⎝ 7.4804 gal ⎟⎠ 24 hr
) ft 3
vo = = = 2.40
Ab π (43.0 ft )2 ft 2 ⋅ hr
Q ⎝
⎛⎜ 2.5 × 10 6 gal ⎞⎟⎛⎜ ft 3 (⎞d
d ⎠⎝ 7.4804 gal ⎟⎠ 24 hr
) ft 3
weir loading rate = = = 51.5
Lw π ⋅ 2 ⋅ (43.0 ft ) ft ⋅ hr
6.4 From Appendix C: At 20°C, ρ = 998.2 kg·m-3 and μ = 0.00100 kg·m-1·s-1
b.
Q
(7,500 m / d )⎛⎜ 24 ⋅ 60d ⋅ 60 s ⎞⎟
3
vo = = ⎝ ⎠ = 2.89 × 10 -4 m
Ab (10 m )(30 m ) s
Since vo > vs, less than 100% of the particles will be removed.
c. The settling velocity of the smallest particle which is 100% removed is equal
to vo. So,
1
⎡ ⎛ kg ⎞⎛ -4 m ⎞ ⎤
2
1
⎡ ⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ kg ⎞ ⎤ 2
1
⎢ 18⎜
⎜ 0.100 ⎟⎟⎜ 0.00100 ⎟ ⎥
⎡ 18Qμ ⎤ 2
⎢ ⎝ s ⎠⎝ m ⋅s ⎠ ⎥
w=⎢ 2 ⎥
= = 42.7 m
⎣⎢ 5 g (ρ p - ρ )d ⎦⎥
⎢ ⎛ kg ⎞ −5 2 ⎥
m ⎞⎛
(
⎢ 5 ⎜ 9.807 2 ⎟⎜1,200 - 998.2 3 ⎟ 10 m ⎥)
⎣⎢ ⎝ s ⎠⎝ m ⎠ ⎥⎦
6.6 From Appendix C: At 15°C, μ = 0.00114 kg·m-1·s-1
P
a. G=
μVb
1
⎡ ⎤ 2
⎢ (186 W ) ⎥
G1 = ⎢ ⎥ = 50.0 s -1
⎢⎛ kg ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎜⎝ 0.00114 m ⋅ s ⎟⎠(4.17 m ) (3.75 m ) ⎥
2
⎣ ⎦
b.
Ω=
πd p3 N 0
=
(
π (20.0 × 10 -6 m ) (1.8 × 105 mL-1 )10 6 mL
3
)
m 3 = 7.54 × 10 -4
6 6
N0 α 4ΩGVb
=1+
N πQ
N0
=1+
( ( )( )
1.0) 4 7.54 × 10 -4 50.0 s -1 (4.17 m ) (3.75 m )
2
= 17.9
N ⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ d ⎞
π ⎜⎜16,000 ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ d ⎠⎝ 24 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 60 s ⎠
a.
dN
Accumulation = Reaction: V = Vr( N )
dt
α 4ΩGN
and r( N ) = -
π
N
dN α 4ΩG t
so, ∫N N = - π ∫0 dt
0
⎛ α 4 ΩGt ⎞
-⎜ ⎟
⎝ π
which yields: N = N 0e ⎠
b.
1
⎡ kg ⋅ m 2 ⎤ 2
⎢ 6.5 × 10 -5 ⎥
P s3
G= =⎢ ⎥ = 3.78 s -1
μV ⎢ ⎛ kg ⎞
⎢ ⎜⎝ 0.00114 m ⋅ s ⎟⎠ 0.004 m
3
( )⎥
⎥
⎣ ⎦
c.
⎛ 1.0 × 10 7 ⎞
π (5.0 × 10 -5 m ) ⎜⎜
3
⎟
3 ⎟
πd p3 N 0 ⎝ 0.0040 m ⎠
Ω= = = 1.64 ×10 -4
6 6
⎛ α 4 ΩGt ⎞
1.0 × 10 7 (
⎛ (1.0)4 1.64 × 10 -4 3.78 s -1 60 s )(
(30 min ) ⎞⎟ )( )
exp ⎜⎜ -
-⎜ ⎟
N = N 0e ⎝ π ⎠
= min
4.0 L π ⎟
⎝ ⎠
particles
N = 6.07 × 10 5
L
d.
⎛ 1.0 × 10 7 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟
N0 ⎝ 4.0 L ⎟⎠
= = 4.12 singlets
N 6.07 × 10 L 5 -1 aggregate
e.
⎛ α 4 ΩGt ⎞
-⎜
⎝ π
⎟ 1.0 × 10 7 ⎜ ( )( )(
⎛ (0.2)4 1.64 × 10 -4 3.78 s -1 60 s
min
)
(30 min ) ⎞⎟
N = N 0e ⎠
= exp ⎜ - ⎟
4.0 L π
⎝ ⎠
particles
N = 1.88 × 10 6
L
6.8
⎛ m⎞
( )
a. Q = va Af = ⎜ 8.0 ⎟ 80 m 2 = 640
hr ⎠
m3
hr
⎝
vf = =
(m )( 2
)
ref Af t c 7.7 hr 80 m (52 hr )
= 33,370 m 3 (per cycle)
ηf 0.96
( )
From (6.8.1): Vb + Vr = Vf (1 - η f ) = 33,370 m 3 (1 - 0.96) = 1,335 m 3 (per cycle)
Thus, the volume of water lost per cycle (Vb + Vr) is 1,340 m3.
6.9 Note that this problem incorporates a practically realistic, yet possibly confusing,
nuance in that the total backwash time per cycle (tb) is double the total time that
backwash water is flowing through the filter (tb’). Thus, calculation of the water
volume used in backwash is based on 8 minutes of flow per cycle, whereas the
time the filter is off-line for backwashing is 16 minutes.
a.
Vb =
Qb
Af
⎛ L ⎞
( )
Af t b' = ⎜10.0 2 ⎟ 64 m 2 (8.0 min ) 60 s
⎝ m ⋅s ⎠ min
(
= 307,200 L )
⎛
⎝
L ⎞
( )
Vr = va Af t r = ⎜ 5.50 2 ⎟ 64 m 2 (15 min ) 60 s
m ⋅s ⎠ min
(
= 316,800 L )
t f = t c − t b − t r = (24 ⋅ 60 min ) − (16 min ) - (15 min ) = 1,409 min
Vf =
Qf
Af
⎛ L ⎞
( )
Af t ' = ⎜ 5.50 2 ⎟ 64 m 2 (1,409 min ) 60 s
f
⎝ m ⋅s ⎠ min
(
= 2.98 × 10 7 L )
Vf − Vb − Vr 2.98 × 10 7 - 307,200 - 316,800 L
ηf = = = 0.979 = 98 %
Vf 2.98 × 10 7 L
⎛ hr ⎞
24 hr - (16 min )⎜ ⎟
tf + tr − t b ⎝ 60 min ⎠
= = 0.989
tc 24 hr
n=
Qplant
=
(2.40 m s ) 3
= 6.89
va Af (0.989 ) ⎛ m3 ⎞
⎛ L ⎞
(
⎜ 5.50 2 ⎟ 64 m
⋅
2
)
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟(0.989 )
⎝ m s ⎠ ⎝ 1000 L ⎠
Q N 0 0.20
so, Vb = * ln =
m 3 60 s
s
( )(
min ln (1,000 ) = 156 m 3
)
k N 0.53 min -1
QN0 = QN + k*NVb
Q ⎛ N 0 ⎞ 0.20
so, Vb = * ⎜ - 1⎟ =
m 3 60 s
s
( )(
min (1,000 - 1) = 22,600 m 3
)
k ⎝ N ⎠ 0.53 min -1 ( )
c. For a steady state series of CSTRs, the mass balance is:
Nm 1
=
(
N 0 1 + θk * ) m
Q ⎛⎛ N ⎞
so, Vb,1 = * ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟⎟
1
m
- 1⎟⎟ =
(
⎞ 0.20 m 3 60 s
s
)( )( )
min (1,000) 15 - 1 = 67.5 m 3
k ⎜⎝ Nm ⎠
⎝
⎟
⎠
(
0.53 min -1
)
and the total contactor volume is: mVb,1 = 5(67.50 m3) = 337 m3
d.
k* 0.53 min -1 L
k= = = 0.265
C n
⎛⎜ 2.0 mg ⎞⎟
1.0
mg ⋅ min
⎝ L⎠
6.11 For a steady state CSTR, the mass balance is:
QN0 = QN + k*NVb
Vb k * (2.00 L )(7.80 s -1 )
so, Q = = = 0.0156 L
⎛ N 0 - 1⎞
⎜ N ⎟
(1,000 - 1) s
⎝ ⎠
and the volume produced during ten hours of operation would be:
⎛ L⎞ ⎛ 60 ⋅ 60 s ⎞
Qt = ⎜ 0.0156 ⎟(10 hr )⎜ ⎟ = 562 L
⎝ s⎠ ⎝ hr ⎠
6.12 Hardness in meq/L:
150 mg/L
Ca 2+ = = 7.50 meq/L
20.0 mg/meq
60 mg/L
Mg 2+ = = 4.92 meq/L
12.2 mg/meq
Hardness as CaCO3:
meq mg as CaCO 3
Total hardness = 12.4 × 50.0 = 621 mg/L as CaCO 3
L meq
6.17
Component Concentration Equiv. Weight Concentration
(mg/L) (mg/meq) (meq/L)
CO2 14.5 22 0.6591
Ca2+ 110.0 20 5.500
Mg2+ 50.7 12.2 4.156
Na+ 75 23.0 3.261
HCO3- 350 61.0 5.738
SO42- 85.5 48.0 1.781
Cl- 16.2 35.5 0.4563
pH 8.2 - -
CH NCH
C a-C H M g-N C H
5.500
9.656
0
C a 2+ M g 2+
H C O 3-
5.738
0
CH NCH
C a-C H M g-N C H
2.500
4.139
0
C a 2+ M g 2+
H C O 3-
3.100
0
Table P6.18 Components, lime and soda ash dosage, and solids generated
Component (eq’n.) Concentration Lime Soda ash CaCO3(s) Mg(OH)2(s)
(meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L)
CO2(aq) (6.37) 0.2727 0.2727 0 0.2727 0
Ca-CH (6.38) 2.500 2.500 0 5.000 0
Mg-CH (6.39) 0.600 1.200 0 1.200 0.600
Ca-NCH (6.40) 0 0 0 0 0
Mg-NCH (6.41) 1.039 1.039 1.039 1.039 1.039
Excess 0.400
Totals 5.412 1.039 7.512 1.639
b. Sludge generated:
= 24,040 kg/d
6.19
Component Concentration Equiv. Weight Concentration Concentration
(mg/meq) (meq/L) (mg/L CaCO3)
Ca2+ 90 mg/L 20 4.500 225.0
2+
Mg 30 mg/L 12.2 2.4596 123.0
HCO3- 165 mg/L 61.0 2.705 135.3
pH 7.5 - - -
CH NCH
225.0
348.0
0
C a 2+ M g 2+
H C O 3-
135.3
0
Table P6.19 Components, lime and soda ash dosage, and solids generated
Component (eq’n.) Concentration Lime Soda ash CaCO3(s) Mg(OH)2(s)
(mg/L (mg/L (mg/L (mg/L (mg/L
CaCO3) CaCO3) CaCO3) CaCO3) CaCO3)
CO2(aq) (6.37) 19.14 19.14 0 19.14 0
Ca-CH (6.38) 135.3 135.3 0 270.6 0
Mg-CH (6.39) 0 0 0 0 0
Ca-NCH (6.40) 90.00 0 90.00 90.00
Mg-NCH (6.41) 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.0
Excess 20
Totals 297.4 213.0
6.21
Component Concentration Equiv. Weight Concentration Concentration
(mg/meq) (meq/L) (mg/L CaCO3)
Ca2+ 95 mg/L 20 4.75 238
2+
Mg 26 mg/L 12.2 2.13 107
HCO3- 160 mg/L 61.0 2.62 131
pH 7.0 - - -
CH NCH
4.75
6.88
0
C a 2+ M g 2+
H C O 3-
0
2.62
⎛ g ⎞⎛ mol ⎞⎛ −7 mol ⎞
⎜ 0.160 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎜10 ⎟
[CO ( ) ] = [HCOK ][H ] L ⎠⎝ 61.0 g ⎟⎠⎝
- +
⎝ L ⎠
2 aq
3
= = 5.868 × 10 -4 M = 1.17 meq/L
1 4.47 × 10 -7 M
Table P6.21 Components, lime and soda ash dosage, and solids generated
Component (eq’n.) Concentration Lime Soda ash CaCO3(s) Mg(OH)2(s)
(meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L)
CO2(aq) (6.37) 1.17 1.17 0 1.17 0
Ca-CH (6.38) 2.62 2.62 0 5.24 0
Mg-CH (6.39) 0 0 0 0 0
Ca-NCH (6.40) 2.13 0 2.13 2.13 0
Mg-NCH (6.41) 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13
Excess 0.400
Totals 6.32 4.26 10.67 2.13
⎛ 4.26 meq ⎞⎛ 53 mg ⎞
b. Soda Ash required = ⎜ ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 226 mg
⎝ L ⎠⎝ meq ⎠ L
6.22 The solution for this problem is the solution for problem 6.7 in the 2nd edition
Solutions Manual.
6.23
Component Concentration Equiv. Weight Concentration Concentration
(mg/meq) (meq/L) (mg/L CaCO3)
Ca2+ 40.0 mg/L 20 2.00 100
2+
Mg 10.0 mg/L 12.2 0.820 41.0
HCO3- 110 mg/L 61.0 1.80 90.2
pH 7.0 (assumed) - - -
CH NCH
Ca-NCH
Ca-CH M g-NCH
2.00
2.82
0
Ca 2+ M g 2+
HCO 3 -
1.80
0
⎛ g ⎞⎛ mol ⎞⎛ −7 mol ⎞
⎜ 0.110 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎜10 ⎟
[CO ( ) ] = [HCOK ][H ] L ⎠⎝ 61.0 g ⎟⎠⎝
- +
⎝ L ⎠
2 aq
3
= = 4.034 × 10 -4 M = 0.807 meq/L
1 4.47 × 10 -7 M
Table P6.23 Components, lime and soda ash dosage, and solids generated
Component (eq’n.) Concentration Lime Soda ash CaCO3(s) Mg(OH)2(s)
(meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L)
CO2(aq) (6.37) 0.807 0.807 0 0.807 0
Ca-CH (6.38) 1.80 1.80 0 3.60 0
Mg-CH (6.39) 0 0 0 0 0
Ca-NCH (6.40) 0.200 0 0.200 0.200 0
Mg-NCH (6.41) 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.820 0.820
Excess 0.400
Totals 3.83 1.02 5.43 0.82
⎛ 1.02 meq ⎞⎛ 53 mg ⎞
b. Soda Ash required = ⎜ ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 54.1 mg
⎝ L ⎠⎝ meq ⎠ L
c. Sludge generated:
= 41,400 kg/d
6.24
Qf = 5 ×106 L/d Qp = 3 ×106 L/d
Cf = 1,500 mg/L Cp = 75 mg/L
Qc, Cc
So,
(Q C
f f - Qp C p ) [(5 × 10 6
) ( ) ]
L/d (1,500 mg/L) - 3 × 10 6 L/d (75 mg/L)
Cc = = = 3,640 mg/L
(Q f - Qp ) ( )
5 × 10 6 - 3 × 10 6 L/d
6.25
Qf = 5 ×106 L/d Qp = 3 ×106 L/d
Cf = 1,500 mg/L Cp = 75 mg/L
Qc = 2 ×106 L/d
Cc = 3,640 mg/L
a. Water recovery:
6 L
QP 3 × 10 d
r= = = 0.60 or 60%
Q F 5 × 10 6 L
d
b. Salt rejection:
CP 75 mg
R =1- =1- L = 0.95 or 95%
CF 1,500 mg
L
6.28 – 6.29 The solutions for these problems are the solutions for problems 6.9 - 6.10 in
the 2nd edition Solutions Manual.
6.30
Q = 30 m3/d
Q, S0, X0 S0 = 350 mg/L BOD5
well-mixed Q, S, X S = 20 mg/L BOD5
aeration pond Ks = 100 mg/L BOD5
kd = 0.10 d-1
V, S, X, rg’, rsu μm = 1.6 d-1
Y = 0.60 mg VSS/mg BOD5
K s (1 + θk d )
S=
(θμ m - 1 - θk d )
θ=
Ks + S
=
(100 + 20 mg/L BOD 5 ) = 6.0 d
[ ]
[S (μ m - k d ) - K s k d ] 20 mg/L BOD 5 (1.6 - 0.1 d -1 ) - 100 mg/L BOD 5 (0.1 d -1 )
and at steady state with X0 = 0, the effluent flux of microbial mass must equal the
rate of microbial mass production in the pond:
QX = Vrg'
⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ L ⎞⎛ mg VSS ⎞⎛ kg ⎞ kg VSS
and, QX = ⎜⎜ 30 ⎟⎟⎜1,000 3 ⎟⎜ 7.07 ⎟⎜⎜ 6 ⎟⎟ = 0.212
⎝ d ⎠⎝ m ⎠⎝ L ⎠⎝ 10 mg ⎠ d
6.31 l = 60 m
w=5m
h=2m
Q, S0, X0 Q = 30 m3/d
well-mixed Q, S, X
aeration lagoon S0 = 350 mg/L BOD5
S = 20 mg/L BOD5
V, S, X, rg’, rsu Ks = 100 mg/L BOD5
kd = 0.10 d-1
μm = 1.6 d-1
K s (1 + θk d ) ⎝
⎛
⎜ 76.0
mg BOD5 ⎞
L
( (
⎟ 1 + (1.5 d ) 0.08 d))
-1
mg BOD 5
S= = ⎠ = 161
[ ( )
-1
(
(θμ m - 1 - θk d ) (1.5 d ) 1.10 d - 1 - (1.5 d ) 0.08 d)]
-1
L
⎛ mg BOD 5 ⎞
⎜ 336 - 161 ⎟
S0 - S ⎝ L ⎠ (100) = 52.2%
Eff = (100) =
S0 ⎛ mg BOD 5 ⎞
⎜ 336 ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ mg BOD 5 ⎞⎛ 1,000 L ⎞⎛ kg ⎞ kg O 2
Q(S 0 - S ) = ⎜⎜ 400 ⎟⎟⎜ 336 - 161 ⎟⎜ 3 ⎟⎜⎜ 6 ⎟⎟ = 70.2
⎝ d ⎠⎝ L ⎠⎝ m ⎠⎝ 10 mg ⎠ d
6.32
P.C. V, X, S S.C.
Q, S0 Qs Qe, Xe, S0
Act. Sludge Basin
RAS
Qr, Sr, Xr WAS
Qw, Sw, Xw
b. Noting that Xr = Xw, the cell retention time can be used to calculate the WAS
flow rate.
VX
(5220 m )⎛⎜ 2,100 mg LVSS ⎞⎟
3
3
Qw = = ⎝ ⎠ = 122 m
θc X w
(9.0 d )⎛⎜10,000 mg VSS ⎞⎟ d
⎝ L ⎠
c. From a hydraulic flow balance around the activated sludge basin, recycle line
and secondary clarifier,
⎛ m3 ⎞ ⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ d ⎞ m3
Qe = Q - Qw = ⎜⎜ 0.300 ⎟ - ⎜122 ⎟⎜ ⎟ = 0.299
⎝ s ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ d ⎟⎠⎝ 24 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 60 s ⎠ s
d. First, write a microbial mass balance around the secondary clarifier (S.C.).
⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ mg VSS ⎞
⎜⎜ 0.299 ⎟⎟⎜10,000 ⎟
Qe X w ⎝ s ⎠⎝ L ⎠ m3
Qs = = = 0.378
( X w - X ) ⎛10,000 - 2,100 mg VSS ⎞ s
⎜ ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
θ=
V
=
(
5220 m 3 ) = 0.160 d
Qs ⎛ m 3 ⎞⎛ 24 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 60 s ⎞
⎜⎜ 0.378 ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎝ s ⎟⎠⎝ d ⎠
6.33 Q, C0 Qe, Ce
Q = 20 MGD
Qs = 0.070 MGD
C0 = 800 mg TS/L
Ce = (1 – 0.18)C0 = 656 mg TS/L
Qs, Cs
Cs =
Q
(C0 - Ce ) + Ce = (20 ΜGD ) ⎛⎜ 800 - (0.82)800 mg TS ⎞⎟ + (0.82)⎛⎜ 800 mg TS ⎞⎟
Qs (0.070 MGD ) ⎝ L ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠
mg TS
Cs = 41,800
L
⎛ 0.04381 m 3 ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎛ 1,000 L ⎞⎛ mg ⎞⎛ kg ⎞⎛ 24 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 60 ⋅ 365 s ⎞
m = Qs Cs t = (0.070 MGD)⎜ s
⎟⎜ m 3 ⎟⎜ 41,800 L ⎟⎜⎜ 10 6 mg ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ MGD ⎟⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠⎝ yr ⎠
⎝ ⎠
kg TS
m = 4.04 × 10 6 = 4,040 tonne per year
yr
SOLUTIONS FOR CHAPTER 7
ppm x mol wt
7.1 From (1.9), mg / m 3 = (at 1 atm and 25 o C)
24.465
7.3 If all S converted to SO2 and now using a 90% efficient scrubber:
15,000x0.6
X= = 0.015 = 1.5% S fuel
0.3x2x106
X lbs S 0.3 lbs S out 2 lbs SO2 lb coal 0.6 lb SO2
b. x x x =
lbs coal 1 lb S in lb S 9, 000Btu 10 6 Btu
9, 000x0.6
X= = 0.009 = 0.9% S fuel
0.3x2x106
Pg. 7.1
7.5 Compliance coal:
1.2x12, 000
X= = 0.0072 = 0.7%S
2x10 6
7.6 Air Quality Index:
_________________________________________________________
Pollutant Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
_________________________________________________________
O3 , 1-hr (ppm) 0.15 0.22 0.12
CO, 8-hr (ppm) 12 15 8
3
PM2.5, 24-hr (µg/m ) 130 150 10
PM1 0, 24-hr (µg/m3 ) 180 300 100
SO2 , 24-hr (ppm) 0.12 0.20 0.05
NO2 , 1-hr (ppm) 0.4 0.7 0.1
___________________________________________________________
Using Table 7.3:
a. Day 1: Unhealthy, AQI 151-200 triggered by PM2.5.
b. Day 2: Very Unhealthy, AQI 201-300, triggered by both O3 and NO2
c. Day 3: Moderate, AQI 51-100, triggered by CO, PM1 0 and SO2
Pg. 7.2
7.10 RH = propene = CH2=CH-CH3 = C3H6 so, R = C3H5
C3 H6 + OH• → C3 H5 • +H 2 O
C3 H5 • +O 2 → C3 H5 O2 •
C3 H5 O2 • +NO → C 3 H5O • +NO2
C3 H5 O • +O 2 → HO2 • +C2 H 3CHO
7.11 A 20-µm particle blown to 8000 m. From (7.24) its settling velocity is
8000m
Time to reach the ground = = 4.87days
0.019m / s x 3600s/hr x 24hr/d
h 1000m
Residence time = τ = = = 87.6hrs
v 0.00317m / s x 3600s/hr
Pg. 7.3
ρair dv 1.29x103 g/ m 3 x 20x10-6 m x 0.0127m/s
Re = = = 0.02
η 0.0172 m/s
So for all of these particles, the Reynolds number is much less than 1, which means (7.24) is
a reasonable approximation to the settling velocity.
7.14 Finding the percentage by weight of oxygen and the fraction (by weight) of oxygenate
needed to provide 2% oxygen to the resulting blend of gasoline.
Oxygen 16
€ = = 0.157 = 15.7%
TAME 6x12 + 14 x1+ 1x16
TAME 2% 2%
= = = 0.127 = 12.7%
Fuel %O 15.7%
€
7.15 Ethanol fraction CH3 CH2 OH (sg = 0.791) in gasoline (sg = 0.739) to give 2% O2 :
€
Oxygen 16
= = 0.347 = 34.7%
Ethanol 2x12 + 6x1+ 1x16
Pg. 7.4
€
Y 0.2745 − 0.02x0.791
= = 17.50
X 0.02x0.739
1 mile
a. CAFE mpg = = 29.4 mpg
0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.15 gal gas
+ x
18 mile/gal gas 12 mile/gal alcohol 1 gal alcohol
1 mile
b. CAFE mpg = = 36.1 mpg
0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.15 gal gas
+ x
€ 22 mile/gal gas 15 mile/gal alcohol 1 gal alcohol
1 mile
c. CAFE mpg = = 44.1 mpg
0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.15 gal gas
+ x
€ 27 mile/gal gas 18 mile/gal alcohol 1 gal alcohol
7.17 At 25 miles/100 ft3 of natural gas, 0.823 gallons of gasoline equivalents per 100 ft3 ,
and each equivalent gallon counting as 0.15 gallons of gasoline gives a CAFÉ rating of
€ 100 ft 3 ngas 0.823 equiv. gal gasoline 0.15 gal gasoline
x 3
x = 0.004938 gal gasoline/mile
25 mile 100 ft ngas 1 equiv. gal gasoline
1
CAFE mpg = = 202.5 miles/gallon ≈ 203 mpg
0.004938 gal/mile
€ 7.18 The “break-even” price of E85 with gasoline at $3.50/gallon:
Pg. 7.5
7.20 With a 15-gallon fuel tank and 25 mpg on gasoline.
€
7.21 A 45-mpg PHEV, 30-mile/day on electricity at 0.25 kWh/mile; 50 mi/d, 5 days per
week, 2 days @ 25 mi /d .
€
Pg. 7.6
7.22 From Figure 7.28 the well-to-wheels CO2 /mile are:
Half gas, half electricity : 0.5 x 248 + 0.5 x 160 = 204 gCO 2 /mile
€
d.€ EV: electricity : 0.25 kWh/mi x 640 gCO 2 /mi = 160 gCO 2 /mile
7.23 At 0.25 kWh/mi from a 60%-efficient NGCC plant with a 96%-efficient grid, 14.4
€gC/MJ of n. gas and 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ:
a. The EV carbon emissions would be
€ Half gas, half electricity : 0.5 x 248 + 0.5 x 76 = 162 gCO 2 /mile
7.24 With 5.5 hr/day of sun, 17%-efficient PVs, 75% dc-ac, 0.25 kWh/mile, 30 mi/day:
€
Electricity needed = 0.25 kWh/mile x 30 miles/day = 7.5 kWh/day
7.5 kWh/d
Area = = 10.7 m2 = 116 ft 2
5.5 h/d x 1 kW/m2 x 0.17 x 0.75
€
Pg. 7.7
7.25 A 50%-efficient SOFC, 50% into electricity, 20% into useful heat, compared to 30%-
efficient grid electricity and an 80% efficient boiler:
Assume 100 units of input energy to the SOFC, delivering 50 units of electricity and 20
units of heat.
For the grid to provide 50 units of electricity: Input energy = 50/0.30 = 167 units
For the boiler to provide 20 units of heat: Input energy = 20/0.80 = 25 units
Total for the separated system = 167 + 25 = 192 units
Energy savings = (192-100)/192 = 0.48 = 48%
7.26 NG CHP versus separated systems; Natural gas 14.4 gC/MJ, grid 175 gC/kWh. The
joule equivalent of one kWh of electricity is 3.6 MJ.
a. CHP with 36% electrical efficiency and 40% thermal efficiency versus an 85%-
efficient gas boiler for heat and the grid for electricity.
CHP: Assume 100 MJ input to the CHP delivering 36 MJ electricity and 40 MJ heat.
b. CHP with 50% electrical & 20% thermal efficiency vs a 280 gC/kWh, coal-fired
power plant for electricity and an 80% efficient gas-fired boiler for heat.
Pg. 7.8
7.27 Power plants emitting 0.39 x 101 2 g particulates from 685 M tons coal with a heat content
of 10,000 Btu/kWh while generating 1400 billion kWh/yr.
lb Btu
heat input = 685x10 6 tons x 2000 x 10, 000 = 1.37x101 6 Btu
ton lb
At NSPS of 0.03 lb particulates per 106 Btu input, emissions would have been:
0.03 lb 1000g
emissions = 6 x 1.37x101 6 Btu in x = 1.87x101 1g
10 Btu heat input 2.2 lb
dQ = Cv dT + nRdT − VdP
dQ dP
= Cv + nR − V (2)
dT dT
at constant pressure :
dQ
= Cv + nR = C p
dT
putting that into (2) gives,
dQ dP
= Cp − V
dT dT
or,
dQ = C p dT − VdP which is (7.37)
Pg. 7.9
7.29 Plotting the data, extending from ground level to crossing with ambient profile at the
adiabatic lapse rate, and extending from the stack height gives:
800
600
(m)
400
Altitude
200
0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Temperature (C)
7.30 From Problem 7.29, projection from the ground at 22oC crosses ambient at 500m.
Need the windspeed at 250 m (halfway up) using (7.46) and Table 7.6 for Class C,
p
uH H u2 5 0 250m 0.20
= so, = = 1.90
u a za 4m / s 10m
u 2 5 0 = 1.90x4 = 7.6m / s
7.31 Below the knee, the plume is fanning which suggests a stable atmosphere, which could be
profile (a), (b) or (d).
Above the knee, the plume is looping, which suggests superadiabatic, which is d.
b. Clear sky, wind < 5m/s: Class is now A, B or C. At 50m, Class A, B, or C, Fig 7.52
shows us that the maximum point moves closer to the stack.
c. It will still be house at site "A” that gets the higher concentration of pollution.
Pg. 7.10
7.33 Bonfire emits 20g/s CO, wind 2 m/s, H=6m, distance = 400m. Table 7.7, clear night,
stability classification = F
Q H2
C(x, 0 ) = exp − 2 (7.49)
π uσ yσ z 2σ z
20x106 µg / s 62 3 3 3
C= exp − = 21x10 µg / m = 21mg / m
π 2m/s x15m x 7m 2x72
b. At the maximum point, Fig. 7.52 we can get a rough estimate of the key parameter
CuH
≈ 3.8x10−3 / m 2
Q max
The more unstable the atmosphere, the higher the peak downwind concentration (see Fig.
7.51). From Table 7.7, with wind > 3m/s, B is the most unstable.
Cu
From Fig. 7.52, Xmax = 0.7 km; H ≈ 1.5x10 −5 / m 2
Q max
Q CuH Q 1.5x10 −5
C max = = 365x10−6 g / s = x
uH Q max 4m / s m2
4x365x10 −6
Q≈ = 97g / s
1.5x10 −5
MW
Maximum power plant size = 97 g/s x = 80MW
1.2 g/s
7.35 Atmospheric conditions, stack height, and groundlevel concentration restrictions same as
Prob. 7.34 so that:
Emissions Q ≈ 97 g/s
97x106 x0.35x3600x2.2
Pk W = = 131,000KW = 130MW
0.6x3412x1000
Pg. 7.11
7.36 H = 100m, ua = 4 m/s, Q = 80g/s, clear summer day so Class B:
First, find the windspeed at the effective stack height using (7.46) and Table 7.7:
p 0.15
H 100
u H = u a = 4m / s = 5.65m / s
za 10
Q H2
C(x, 0 ) = exp −
π uσ yσ z 2σ z 2
80x10 6 µg/ s 1002 3
C= exp − = 61µg / m
π 5.65m/s x290m x 234m 2x2342
CuH
≈ 1.5x10 −5 / m 2
Q max
Q H2 −y 2
C(x, y ) = exp − 2 exp 2
π uσ yσ z 2σ z 2σ y
-1002
= 61µg / m 3 x exp 3
= 57µg / m
2x2902
7.37 For class C, notice from (7.47) and (7.48) with Table 7.9 and f =0
Q H2 Q H2
a. C(x, 0 ) = exp − 2 = 2 exp − 2
π uσ yσ z 2σ z π ukσ z 2σ z
Pg. 7.12
H2 H2
dC Q 1 −H 2 −2 − 2σ z2 −
2σz 2
−2
= e +e 3 = 0
dσ z π uk σ z 2 2 σ z 3 σ z
2H2 2 H
− 2σ z = 0 or σ z = = 0.707H
2 2
Q H2 = Q −1 0.117Q
C max exp − π uσ yσ z e = uσ y σ z
=
π uσ y σ z
2 ( )
H2
2
c. Using σy = k σz
130 o C 20 m/s 10 oC
8 m/s
15.2m
380m
T m 15.2m 2 m 10 + 273
F = gr 2 vs 1− a = 9.8 2 x x20 x 1− = 3370m 4 / s3
Ts s 2 s 130 + 273
The distance downwind to final plume rise xf is given on page 464 (with F>55),
0. 4
x f = 120F0.4 = 120x(3370 ) = 3092 m
Pg. 7.13
7.39 Repeat Problem 7.38 with a stable, isothermal atmosphere:
F = 3370 m4/s3 from Prob. 7.38. For isothermal atmosphere we can use (7.51) along a
stability parameter to estimate plume rise. The stability parameter (7.53) is
g ΔTa 9.8m / s2
S= + 0.01K / m = (0 + 0.01K/ m) = 3.46x10 −4 / s2
Ta Δz (10 + 273)K
Putting that into (7.51) for plume rise under these conditions gives
13 13
F 3370m 4 / s3
Δh = 2.6 = 2.6 -4 2 = 278m
uh S 8m / s x 3.46x10 / s
(Notice the atmospheric stability lowered effective stack height vs Prob. 7.38)
2m
100m
T m 2m 2 m 6 + 273
F = gr 2 vs 1− a = 9.8 2 x x10 x 1− = 28.4m 4 / s3
Ts s 2 s 120 + 273
and distance downwind to final plume rise xf given on page 464 (with F<55),
58
x f = 50F5 8 = 50x(28.4 ) = 406
Pg. 7.14
7.41 Power plant, find groundlevel pollution 16 km away. Need first find H.
Class E
Q=300g/s SO2
5m/s
o
13.5 m/s lapse rate=5 C/km
145o C 15 oC
100m
r=2.5m
200 MWe
16km
g ΔTa 9.8m / s2 5o
S= + 0.01K / m = + 0.01K/ m = 5.1x10 −4 / s2
Ta Δz (15 + 273)K 1000m
Q H2
C(x, 0 ) = exp − 2 (7.49)
π uσ yσ z 2σ z
300x10 6 µg / s 2212 3
C= exp − 2 = 22µg / m
π 5 m/s x602m x 95m 2x95
Pg. 7.15
Cu
"A" H ≈ 6x10 −5 at 0.25km, C max = 4x106 x 6x10 -5 = 240 µg / m 3
Q
Cu
"C" H ≈ 5.8x10−5 at 0.55km, Cmax = 4x10 6 x 5.8x10-5 = 230µg / m 3
Q
Cu
"F" H ≈ 2.4x10 −5at 3.7km, C max = 4x106 x 2.4x10 -5 = 96 µg/ m 3
Q
240
230
C ( µ g/m3)
96
Q CuH 20x10 6 µg / s Cu H Cu
C max = = = 4x10 6 H µg / s
uH Q 5m / s Q Q
C(2H) 1 C(4H) 1
expectation is = and =
C(H) 4 C(H) 16
Pg. 7.16
7.44 Paper mill emitting H2S, 1km away want 0.1 x odor threshold:
40 g/s
4-10m/s
0.01 mg/m3
Class B
1 km
Q H2
C(x, 0 ) = exp − 2
π uσ yσ z 2σ z
−3 3 40g / s H2
0.01x10 g / m = exp −
π u m/s x156m x 110m 2x1102
H2
24,200 40 74.2
Rearranging: e = -3 =
π u 156 x 110 x 0.01x10 u
0. 5
74.2
or, H = 24, 200 ln
u
so, at each end of the wind speed range we can find the height needed:
0 .5
74.2
H u= 4 = 24, 200 ln = 265m
4
0. 5
says to be conservative use H=265m
74.2
H u=1 0 = 24, 200 ln = 220m
10
Therefore, with the peak occurring beyond the 1 km house, the concentration will rise for
buildings located > 1km away. YES there could be a problem.
150 g/s
5 m/s L=100m
45m Class C
XL
Pg. 7.17
For class C, σz = 26m at x = 0.4 km (Table 7.9), therefore XL = 0.4 km, and also
from Table 7.9, σy = 46m.
Q H2
At x = XL : C(X L ,0 ) = exp − 2 (7.49)
π uσ yσ z 2σ z
150x103 mg / s 452 3
= exp − 2 = 1.8mg / m
π 5 m/s x 46m x 26m 2x26
Q 150x10 3 mg / s
C(2XL , 0) = = = 1.4mg / m3
2π uσ y L 2π x 5m/s x 85m x 100m
80 g/s
5 m/s
L=250m
50m
4 m/s C=?
XL x=4km
We need the stability classification: Clear summer day, 4m/s, Table 7.7 says Class B.
a. From Table 7.9, at σz = 94m Class B, XL ≈ 0.9km. Since our point of interest is
at 4 km, we are well past the point at which reflections first occur so we can use
(7.55). We need σy at 4km, which is given in Table 7.9 as 539m:
Q 80x10 6 µg / s
C(4km, 0 ) = = = 47µg / m 3
2π uσ y L 2π x 5m/s x 539m x 250m
Q −H 2 80x10 6 µg / s −502 3
C(4km, 0 ) = exp 2 = exp 2 = 19µg / m
π uσ yσ z 2σ
z π x 5m/s x 539m x 498m 2x498
Pg. 7.18
7.47 Agricultural burn. Clear fall afternoon, winds 3 m/s, so stability class "C" (Table 7.7),
and σz = 26m (Table 7.9). Using (7.57),
2q 2x300mg / m − s
C(0.4km ) = = = 3.0mg / m 3
2π uσ z 2π x 3m/s x 26m
0.3g/s-m
u=3m/s
400m
10,000
vehicles/hr u=2m/s
1.5 g/mi
200m
At 0.2 km, σz = 29m for Class A; σz = 20m for Class B. What should we use? Since it
is somewhere between Class A and Class B, but closer to A, let's use σz ≈ 26m:
vehicles 1 hr 1.5g mi ft
q = 10, 000 x x x x
hr 3600s mi − vehicle 5280ft 0.3048m
−3
= 2.58x10 g / m − s = 2.58mg / m − s
2q 2x2.58mg / m − s
C(0.2km ) = = = 0.04mg / m 3
2π uσ z 2π x 2m/s x 26m
7.49 Box model, 250,000 vehicles between 4 and 6pm, driving 40km ea, emitting 4g/km
CO.
40km 4gCO 1 hr 1 −6 2
a. q s = 250, 000veh. x x x x x 6 2 = 4.6x10 gCO/ m s
veh km 2hrs 3600s 15x80x10 m
b. Using (7.61) with t= 2hrs x 3600s/hr =7200s,
qs L
C(t ) =
uH
(1 − e − ut / L )
Pg. 7.19
4.6x10−6 g / m 2 s x 15, 000m
=
0.5m / s x 15m
( 1− e −0.5m / s⋅7200s / 15000m ) = 0.002g / m 3 = 2mg / m 3
dC
LWH = qs LW
dt
q LW qs
dC = s dt so, C = t
LWH H
7.50 Box model, 105 m on a side, H=1200m, u=4m/s, SO2=20kg/s, steady state:
4m/s
Cin=0
1200m
10 5 m
105m
20 k g/s
kg 109 µg m
20
s
x
kg
=4
s
x 105 m x 1200m x C µg m 3 ( )
20x10 9
C= = 41.7µg / m3
4x105 x1200
7.51 Assume steady-state conditions were achieved by 5pm Friday so that from Problem
7.50, C(0) = 41.7 µg/m3.
− ut / L
With qs = 0, and Cin = 0, (7.60) gives us C(t) = C(0)e .
first check to see concentration left from Friday at 5pm (63 hrs earlier):
5
C(t) = C(0)e − ut / L = 41.7µg/ m 3 ⋅ e -4m/s ⋅ 63hrx3600s/ hr 1 0 m = .005µg / m 3 ≈ 0
Pg. 7.20
so we can ignore that and let C(0) = 0 at 8am Monday. First find the emissions per
unit area,
qs L
C(t ) =
uH
(1 − e − ut / L )
2.0 µg/ m 2 ⋅ s x 10 5 m
=
4m / s x 1200m
( 5
)
1 − e −( 4m / s x 9hr x 3600s/hr/10m) = 30.2µg / m3
7.52 Steady-state conditions from Prob 7.50, wind drops to 2 m/s, 2hrs later:
From Prob. 7.50, emission rate qs = 2.0 µg/m2-s, and C = 41.7µg/m3. Using (7.60),
qs L
C(t ) =
uH
(1 − e − ut / L ) + C(0)e −ut / L
)
1− e −( 2m / s x 2hr x 3600s/hr/10m) + 41.7e
= 47.3 µg/m3
7.53 Modified Prob. 7.50, now incoming air has 5 µg/m3 and there are 10 µg/m3 already
there at 8am. Find the concentration at noon:
4m/s
Cin=5 µ g/m3
1200m
10 5 m
105m
2 µ g/m2-s
q L
C(t ) = s + C in (1 − e − ut / L ) + C(0)e −ut / L (7.60)
uH
2.0 µg / m 2 ⋅s x 105 m
C(4hr) =
4m / s x 1200m
( 5
+ 5µg / m 3 1 − e −( 4 m/ s x 4hr x 3600s/hr/10m)
)
−( 4m / s x 4hr x3600s/hr /10
5
m)
+ 10e
Pg. 7.21
7.54 Now using conditions of Prob 7.50, but for a nonconservative pollutant with
K=0.23/hr:
S = uWHC + KCV
kg 109 µg m
20
s
x
kg
=4
s
x 105 m x 1200m x C µg m 3 ( )
0.23 µg 1hr
+ xC 3x x10 5 m x 105 m x 1200m
hr m 3600s
9 8 8
20x10 = 4.8x10 C + 7.6x10 C
C = 16 µg/m3
7.55 Starting with (7.64) and using the special conditions of this tracer-gas study; that is, a
conservative tracer (K=0), no tracer in the air leaking into the room (Ca=0), and the
tracer source turned off at t=0 (S=0) gives the exponential decay of tracer as:
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
ln C
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 1 2 3
time (hr)
( 2.1− 1.3)
From the graph, the slope is about: slope ≈ = 0.53
2.0 − 0.5
Thus, the infiltration rate is about 0.53 air changes per hour.
Pg. 7.22
7.56 Infiltration 0.5ach, 500m3 volume, 200 m2 floor space, radon 0.6pCi/m2s:
0.5 ach
V=500m3
0.6pCi/m 2 s
K=7.6x10 - 3/hr
0.6pCi / m 2 s x 200m 2
3
( )
S
S= V =
500m
= 1700pCi / m 3 = 1.7pCi / L
I + K (0.5 / hr + 7.6x10 / hr )x
−3 1hr
3600s
7.57 Same as Problem 7.56 but have half as much ground-floor area to let radon in, so:
0.6pCi / m 2 s x 100m 2
3
( )
S
S= V =
500m
= 850pCi / m 3 = 0.85pCi / L
I + K (0.5 / hr + 7.6x10 −3 / hr )x 1hr
3600s
7.58 From Problem 7.56, the radon concentration is 1.7 pCi/L. Using a residential
exposure factor of 350 days/yr from Table 4.10
day
1.7pCi/L x 350 x30yr
yr
Exposure = = 0.70 pCi/L average over 70 yrs
365day/yr x 70yr
From Problem 4.10 we are given a cancer death rate of 1 per 8000 rems exposure. From
Problem 4.12 a 1.5 pCi/L radon concentration yields an exposure of about 400 mrem/yr.
€
400mrem/yr 1 cancer death rem
Risk = 0.70 pCi/L x x x 3 x70yr = 0.0016 ≈ 0.16%
1.5pCi/L 8000 rem 10 mrem
Pg. 7.23
7.59 A 300m3 house, 0.2ach, oven+2burners 6pm to 7pm, find CO at 7pm and and 10pm.
For these circumstances, (7.65) is appropriate:
S
C(t ) =
IV
(1− e−n t ) (7.65)
5580mg/hr
3 (1− e )
−0.2 / hr x 1hr
C(1hr, 7pm ) = = 16.8mg / m 3
airchange m
0.2 x300
hr ac
Now turn off the burners and watch CO coast down until 10pm, 3hrs later:
7.60 n = 0.39 ach, V = 27m3, after 1-hr NO = 4.7ppm. Find source strength, S:
€
First convert NO in ppm to mg/m3 using (1.9) and assuming T=25oC,
ac m3 mg
nVC 0.39 x27 x5.76 3
S= = hr ac m = 188 mgNO/hr
(1− e−n t ) (1− e −0.39/hr x 1hr
)
b. 1-hr after turning off the heater,
Pg. 7.24
€
7.61 Find the settling velocity of 2.5-micron particles having density 1.5x106 g/m3 . In a
room with 2.5-meter-high ceilings, use a well-mixed box model to estimate the
residence time of these particles.
v= = = 2.97x10−4 m/s
18η 18x0.0172g/m⋅ s
€ h 2.5 m
τ= = −4
= 2.3 hours
v 2.97 x 10 m/s x 3600 s/hr
3 kWht in 3412Btu
b. heat input = 613x106 kWh / yr out x x = 6.28x101 2 Btu / yr
1 kWhe out kWh
€
c. Shut it down and sell the allowances,
Pg. 7.25
SOLUTIONS FOR CHAPTER 8
( ⎡ 18 O
⎢ ) ⎤
⎥ ⎡ 0.0020150 ⎤ 3
( )
16
O
δ18O o oo = ⎢ 18 sample
−1⎥ x10 3 = ⎢ −1 x10 = 4.9
( ⎢
⎣
O 16 )
O standard ⎥⎦
⎣ 0.0020052 ⎥⎦
Since the sample has more 18O in it, there would be more glaciation since ice
selectively accumulates 16O, increasing the concentration of 18O left behind in
seawater.
.
As shown, δD changes by 6.19 per mil per oC.
b. With δD(0/00) = –435 per mil, and 6 per mil change in δD(0/00) per oC, the rise in
δD from –479.8 to – 435 (44.8 per mil) gives a temperature rise of 44.8/6 = 7.5oC.
( )
T (o C) = 1.5 δ 18O o oo + 20.4 = 1.5x(−35) + 20.4 = −32.1o C
Pg. 8.1
notice, by the way, that since this sample is for glacial ice, not ocean water or sediment,
( )
the negative sign on δ 18O o oo means colder temperatures.
R
1370W/m 2
E absorbed = E radiated
Sπ R = σ T A = σ T (2π R )
2 4 4 2
1 1
⎛ S⎞ 4 ⎛ 1370W / m 2 ⎞ 4
T =⎜ ⎟
o
=⎜ 2 4⎟ = 331.5K - 273.1 = 58.4 C
⎝ 2σ ⎠ −8
⎝ 2x5.67x10 W / m K ⎠
k
8.7 The basic relationship is S = 2 . Using d and S for Earth from Table 8.2 lets us find k:
d
k 3.083x10 25 W 2
a. Mercury: S = = 2 = 9163W / m
d
2
(58x10 km x 10 m / km )
6 3
Pg. 8.2
b. The effective temperature (8.7) of Mercury would be:
1 1
⎡ S(1− α ) ⎤ 4 ⎡ 9163W / m 2 (1− 0.06) ⎤ 4
o
Te = ⎢ =⎢ = 441K (168 C)
⎣ 4σ ⎥⎦ ⎣ 4x5.67x10−8 W / m 2 K4 ⎥⎦
c. Peak wavelength:
2898 2898
λmax = = = 6.6 μm
T (K) 441
1 1
⎡ S(1− α )⎤ 4 ⎡1415.2W / m 2 (1 − 0.31)⎤ 4
Te ,max = ⎢ =⎢ = 256.2K (-17o C)
⎣ 4σ ⎥⎦ ⎣ 4x5.67x10−8 W / m 2 K4 ⎥⎦
1 1
⎡ S(1− α )⎤ 4 ⎡1324.8W / m 2 (1 − 0.31)⎤ 4
o
Te ,min = ⎢ =⎢ = 252K (-21 C)
⎣ 4σ ⎥⎦ ⎣ 4x5.67x10 −8 W / m 2 K4 ⎥⎦
The variation from –17oC to –21oC is a difference of about 4oC, or about ± 2oC.
a. Surface temperature,
σ Ts4 = 240W / m 2
Pg. 8.3
1
⎡ 240W / m 2 ⎤ 4
o
Ts = ⎢ −8 2 4⎥ = 255K (-18 C)
⎣ 5.67x10 W / m K ⎦
X T1
W Z
Y 24 78 350 T2
168
390 Z
c. Lower atmosphere:
14
⎛ 195W / m 2 ⎞
σ T = W = 195
1
4
T1 = ⎜ −8 2 4⎟
o
= 242K (-31 C)
⎝ 5.67x10 W / m K ⎠
Pg. 8.4
14
⎛ 324W / m 2 ⎞
σ T2 = Z = 324
4
T2 = ⎜ −8 2 4⎟
o
= 275K (2 C)
⎝ 5.67x10 W / m K ⎠
1J/s s hr d
78W / m 2 x5.1x1014 m 2 x x3600 x24 x365
W hr d yr 14 3
evaporation = 3 3 3 = 5.1x10 m
2465kJ / kg x 10 kg/ m x 10 J / kJ
Averaged over the globe, with area 5.1x1014 m2, annual precipitation is very close to 1 m
67 24 78 X
Y
W
291K
or, 67 + 24 + 78 + X = Y + Z
8.13 CO2 from 10 GtC/yr to 16 GtC/yr over 50 years, with initial 380 ppm and
A.F. = 40%. Since it is linear, the total emissions would be those at constant level
plus the area of a triangle rising by 6 Gt/yr:
Pg. 8.5
50 yrs x10 Gt/yr + 1/2 x 50 yrs x 6 GtC/yr = 575 GtC.
Using the 2.12 GtC/ppm ratio and the 0.40 A.F. gives
8.14 CO2 growing at 2 ppm/yr, fossil fuel and cement emissions at 9 GtC/yr, and A.F. of
38%. The remaining emissions due to land use changes are:
2 ppm/yr x 2.12GtC/ppm
Cemissions = = 11.15 GtC/yr
0.38
8.16 With resources from Table 8.4 and LHV carbon intensities from Table 8.3, A.F. = 50%:
a. All the N. Gas: 15.3 gC/MJ x 36,100 x 1012 MJ = 552,330 x 1012 gC = 552 GtC
552 GtC x 0.5
ΔCO 2 = = 130 ppm CO 2
2.12 GtC/ppmCO 2
Pg. 8.6
492 GtC x 0.5
ΔCO 2 = = 116 ppm CO 2
2.12 GtC/ppmCO 2
d. All three: 130 + 116 + 382 = 628 ppm CO2. From (8.29) with ΔT2X = 2.8oC:
8.17 Out of oil and gas, demand = 2 x 330 EJ/yr, 28%coal, 60% syn gas/oil@44gC/MJ,
1 ⎛ 22.2 ⎞
r= ln ⎜ ⎟ = 0.013 = 1.3%/ yr
100 ⎝ 6.0 ⎠
1369GtC
(CO2 ) = = 646ppm
2.12GtC/ ppmCO2
Pg. 8.7
8.18 Repeat of Prob. 8.17, but now conservation scenario:
Avg carbon intensity = 0.20 x 25.8 + 0.30 x 15.3 + 0.10 x20 = 11.75 gC/MJ
1 ⎛ 3.88 ⎞
r= ln ⎜ ⎟ = −0.0044 = −0.44% / yr
100 ⎝ 6.0 ⎠
992GtC
(CO2 ) = = 468ppm
2.12GtC/ ppmCO2
8.19. Finding LHV efficiency of a condensing furnace with 95% HHV efficiency.
From Example 8.4, HHV = 890 kJ/mol and LHV = 802 kJ/mol. The output of a HHV
95% efficient furnace burning 1 mole of methane is 0.95 x 890 kJ = 845.5 kJ. On an LHV
basis, you still get the same output, but the efficiency is now
845.5 kJ delivered
LHV efficiency = = 1.054 = 105.4%
802 kJ LHVinput
Pg. 8.8
This over 100% efficiency is one reason LHV values are sometimes avoided in the U.S.
2 x 12 gC/mol 10 3 kJ
a. Ethane, C 2H 6 : x = 15.56 gC/MJ
1542 kJ/mol MJ
3 x 12 gC/mol 10 3 kJ
b. Propane, C 3H 8 : x = 16.36 gC/MJ
2220 kJ/mol MJ
4 x 12 gC/mol 10 3 kJ
c. n - Butane, C 4 H10 : x = 16.68 gC/MJ
2878 kJ/mol MJ
8.21 Using HHV carbon intensities from Table 8.3, the four options are:
95MJ
delivered
1) pulse
100MJ η =0.95
1380gC
=14.5gC/MJ
1380gC 95MJ
70MJ
delivered
2) conv gas
100MJ η =0.70
1380gC
=19.7gC/MJ
1380gC 70MJ
35MJ
4)resistance 100MJ η =0.35
2420gC
=69.1gC/MJ
2420gC 35MJ
power plant
Notice the tremendous range: 14.5 to 69.1 gC/MJ, almost 5:1 !
3 x 12 gC/mol 10 3 kJ
a. Carbon intensity C 3H 8 : x = 16.36 gC/MJ
2220 kJ/mol MJ
Pg. 8.9
c. Savings versus 32.5 gC/MJ with a n. gas electric water heater in Example 8.6:
8.23 Initial CO2 = 356 ppm, 6 GtC/yr and 750 GtC; want 70 year scenario. Do it by scenario:
ΔT2x ⎡ CO ⎤ 3 ⎛ 404 ⎞
ΔT = ⋅ln ⎢ 2
⎥= ⋅ ln ⎜ ⎟ = 0.55o C
ln 2 ⎣ (CO2 )0 ⎦ ln 2 ⎝ 356 ⎠
C0 r T 6.0GtC/yr 0.032/yr x 70 yr
C tot =
r
(e −1)=
0.032
(e −1)= 1574 GtC
Pg. 8.10
ΔT2x ⎡ CO ⎤ 2 ⎛ 725⎞
ΔT = ⋅ln ⎢ 2
⎥= ⋅ ln ⎜ ⎟ = 2.05o C
ln 2 ⎣ ( 2 )0 ⎦
CO ln 2 ⎝ 356 ⎠
1 ⎢
Td = ln
⎡ 750
(
AF
r ⎤
⎥
+1 =
)1
ln
⎡ 750
⎢ 0.5 (
0.032 ⎤ )
+ 1⎥ = 69 yrs
r ⎢ 6.0 ⎥ 0.032 ⎢ 6.0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
1 ⎢
Td = ln
⎡ 750
(
AF r ⎤
⎥
+1 =
)1
ln
⎡ 750
⎢ 0.5 (
0.012 ⎤ )
+ 1⎥ = 116yrs
r ⎢ 6.0 ⎥ 0.012 ⎢ 6.0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
8.24 With 1990 6.0 GtC/yr + land use 2.5 GtC/yr and the following growth rates to 2100
Pg. 8.11
c. The increase in CO2 concentration with A.F. = 0.5:
1742 GtC x 0.5
ΔCO 2 = = 410 ppm CO 2
2.12 GtC/ppmCO 2
d. Estimated 2100 CO2 concentration = 360 + 410 = 770 ppm
ln 2 ⎣ (CO )
2 0⎦ ln 2 ⎣ 360
8.26 a. HCFC-225, 225 + 90 = 315 (3C, 1H, 5F), 8 sites - (1+5) = 2 Cl, ∴ C3HF5Cl2
Pg. 8.12
b. For ΔT2X = 3.5 oC
ΔT2X 3.5 o λB 0.27 0.27
λ= = = 0.833 C g =1- = 1− = 1− = 0.676
4.2 4.2 W m2 λ λ 0.833
If g increases to 0.776, then
λB 0.27
λ= = = 1.205 o C (W m2 ), ΔT2 X = 4.2λ = 4.2x1.205 = 5.1o C
1− g 1− 0.776
Notice ΔT2X becomes more sensitive as the feedback factor increases (0.7oC increase when g
changes from 0.546 to 0.646 versus 1.9oC increase when g changes from 0.676 to 0.776).
Pg. 8.13
8.29. Radiative forcing for N2O,
ΔF = k2 ( C − C0 )
ΔF 0.14
k2 = = = 0.133
( C − C0 ) ( 311 − 275 )
If N2O reaches 417 ppb, added forcing would be:
ΔFCO2 = 6.3 ln
[(CO )] = 6.3 ln ⎛⎜ 356 ⎞⎟
2
= 1.558 W/m
2
[(CO ) ]
2 0
⎝ 278 ⎠
(
ΔFN2 O = 0.133 N 2 O − (N2 O)0 )= 0.133( )
311 − 275 = 0.140W / m 2
Pg. 8.14
Combined forcing = 1.558 + 0.463 + 0.140 + 0.059 + 0.141 = 2.36 W/m2
ΔFCO2 = 6.3 ln
[(CO )] = 6.3 ln ⎛⎜ 710 ⎞⎟
2
= 4.35 W/m
2
[(CO2 )0 ] ⎝ 356 ⎠
(
ΔFN2 O = 0.133 N 2 O − (N2 O)0 )= 0.133( 417 − 311) = 0.370W / m 2
⎛ 710 ⎟⎞
ΔF = 6.3 ln ⎜
⎝ 278⎠
+ 0.031( 3616 − 700 )+ 0.133 417 − 275 ( )
+ 0.22x0.040 + 0.28x0.207 = 7.53 W/m2
20 100 500
8.32 Using ∫ RCO 2 (t )dt ≈ 13.2 yrs; ∫ RCO 2 (t )dt ≈ 43.1yrs; ∫ R (t )dt ≈ 138 yrs and forcing
CO 2
0 0 0
ratios of HFC-134a to CO2 of (Fg/FCO2) = 4129 and τ = 14 yrs. First simplify GWP to
Pg. 8.15
T
⎛ F ⎞ ∫e −t / τ
⎛ F ⎞ τ (1− e−T / τ )
dt
GWPg = ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟ ⋅ T
0
= ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟ ⋅ T
⎝ FCO2 ⎠
∫ RCO2 (t)dt ⎝ CO2 ⎠ ∫ RCO2 (t )dt
F
0 0
8.33 For a greenhouse gas with τ = 42 years and a relative forcing of 1630 times that of CO2.
GWP20 = 1630 ⋅
− 20
42 1− e 42 (
= 1965
)
13.2
GWP100 = 1630 ⋅
−100
42 1− e 42 (
= 1440
)
43.1
GWP500 = 1630 ⋅
(
42 1 − e
−500 42
)= 495
138
8.34 Applying GWPs from Table 8.7 to the emission rates given:
Pg. 8.16
8.35 Using 100-year GWPs from Table 8.7 with emission rates of 6,000 million metric tons
(Mt) of CO2, 26.6 MtCH4, and 1.2 Mt N2O. gives
6000 x 1(CO2) + 26.6 x 23(CH4) + 1.2 x 296(N2O) = 6967 MtCO2 = 6.967 GtCO2-eq
Adjusting for the ratio of C to CO2 gives
6.967 GtCO2 x (12gC/44gCO2) = 1.9 GtC-eq/yr
8.36 The actual ΔTrealized is estimated to be 0.6oC, which is 75% of the equilibrium ΔT
0.8 2
that is, ΔFactual = = = 1.40W / m
0.57
The direct forcing is 2.45 W/m2, so aerosols etc. are 2.45 - 1.40 = 1.05 W/m2
8.37 Repeating Example 8.12 with the 100-yr GWP for CH4 = 23. With 1.5 MJ of
leakage, 15.3 gC/MJ we get
16 gCH 4 23 gCO 2
1.5 MJ x 15.3 gC/MJ x x = 703 gCO 2 − eq
12 gC 1 gCH 4
8.38 Using Table 8.3 for the LHV carbon intensity of coal (25.8 gC/MJ), (3.18) to find
σ, and (3.20) to find tm, then plotting (3.17) gives for (a):
25.8 gC 1 GtC 1012 MJ
Q∞ = 200,000 EJ x x 15 x = 5160 GtC
MJ 10 gC EJ
Q∞ 5160 GtC
σ= = = 93.57 yr
Pm 2π 22 GtC/yr 2π
Pg. 8.17
Pm 22 GtC/yr
t m = σ 2ln = 93.57 yr 2 ln = 150.8 yr
P0 6.0 GtC/yr
⎡ 1 ⎛ t − t ⎞2 ⎤
then put these into P = Pm exp⎢− ⎜ m
⎟⎥
⎣ 2⎝ σ ⎠ ⎦
Putting this into a spreadsheet so it can be plotted yields…
Pg. 8.18
$20
Carbon tax = 1.08 x10 5 mtC/yr x = $2.16 million/yr
mton
8.40 Landfill leaking 10 tonnes (1 tonne = 1 mt = 1000 kg) CH4 per year
12tonneC
as C : 592.5 tonne CO 2 /yr x = 161.5 tonneC/yr saved
44tonneCO 2
d. Carbon tax saved = 161.5 tonne C/yr x $20/tonneC = $3232/yr saved
e. Same thing, 592.5 tonne CO2/yr x $5.45/tonneCO2 = $3229/yr saved
a. Gasoline =
6.15 lbgas
x
(7x12 = 84) lbsC = 5.22 lbs C/gal
gal (7x12 + 15x1 = 99) lb gas
40,000 miles 5.22 lbsC
C= x = 17,394 lbsC that will be released
12 miles/gal gal
b. 4000 lb car, 10,000 miles/yr
Pg. 8.19
17,394 lbs C 10,000 miles
C= x = 4348 lbsC/yr
40,000 miles yr
Carbon/yr 4348 lbsC/yr
= = 1.09
Vehicle weight 4000 lbs
the car emits slightly more carbon per year than it weighs!
12,000kJ 24 gC MJ kWh
Coal plant emissions = x x x = 57.6 gC/mi
kWh MJ 10 3 kJ 5mi
So, more than half of the carbon can be saved with electric cars when efficient
natural gas power plants are assumed. There is even a slight advantage with an
old, inefficient coal plant.
8.43 NO2 + hv Æ NO + O
306,000
From (8.48): E (J/photon) = 23
= 5.08x10−19 J/photon
6.02x10
Pg. 8.20
hc 6.626 x10−34 Js x 2.998x108 m/s
and from (8.46): λmax = = −19
= 390x10−9 = 390 nm
E 5.08x10 J
Pg. 8.21
SOLUTIONS FOR CHAPTER 9
9.1 Analysis of the recycling rates using Table 9.8 data and prices from Table 9.18
d. With a carbon tax of $50 per metric ton of carbon-equivalents, savings due to
recycling would be
9.2 Analyzing the energy side of the airport recycling program described in Problem 9.1
using Table 9.9
9.1
9.3 Spreadsheet analysis for the recycling program using Tables 9.8 and 9.18.
a. Avoiding $120/ton for pick up and selling these recyclables at half the Table 9.18
market price for recyclables saves
9.4 Comparing a 10,000mi/yr, 20 mpg SUV burning 5.22 lbs C//gal at 125,000 Btu/gal
to cardboard recovery savings.
a. How many tons of CO2 will be emitted per SUV per year?
10,000 miles x x 5.22 lbsC/gal 44 tonCO 2
CO 2 = x = 4.35 ton CO 2 /yr
20 miles/gal x 2200 lbs/ton 12 tonC
b. Btus for those SUVs
10,000 miles x 125,000 Btu/gal
Energy = = 62.5 million Btu/yr
20 miles/gal
c. From Table 9.10, 42 million tons of cardboard are kept out of landfills. And from
Table 9.8, each ton saves 0.96 metric tons of carbon
9.2
42x10 6 ton/yr x 0.96 mtonC/ton x 1.1 ton/mton 44 tonCO 2
Car equivalents = x
4.32 tonCO 2 /yr − SUV 12 tonC
= 37.6 million SUVs taken off the road in carbon savings
d. From Table 9.9, cardboard recycling saves 15.65 million Btu/ton. So,
42x10 6 ton/yr x 15.65 x10 6 Btu/ton
Car equivalents = = 10.5 million SUVs
62.5 x 10 6 Btu/yr/SUV
9.5 A 0.355-L (12 oz) 16 g aluminum can with 70% recycling. Need to adjust Table
9.13 which was based on 50% recycling. Each can now has 0.7x16 = 11.2 g of
recycled aluminum and 0.3 x 16 = 4.8 g of new aluminum from bauxite.
1765 kJ
New aluminum from bauxite = 4.8g x = 1059 kJ
8g
40 kJ
Recycled cans to make 11.2 g of Al =11.2g x = 56 kJ
8g
The remaining energy for can production is the same as Table 9.13:
Total for 16g (0.355L) can = 3188 – (1765 + 40) + (1059 + 56) = 2498 kJ/can
Per liter of can = 2498 kJ/0.355L = 7037 kJ/L
9.6 Heavier cans from yesteryear, 0.0205 kg/can and 25% recycling rate.
New aluminum per can was 0.75 x 0.0205 kg = 0.015375 kg
Recycled aluminum per can was 0.25 x 0.0205 kg = 0.005125 kg
9.7 Using 1.8 million tons/yr of aluminum cans, 63 percent recycled, and Table 9.12:
a. The total primary energy used to make the aluminum for those cans.
kg 2000 lb
New aluminum = 0.37 x 1.6x10 6 tons x 220,600 kJ/kg x x = 118.7 x1012 kJ
2.2 lb ton
9.3
kg 2000 lb
Old aluminum = 0.67 x 1.6x10 6 tons x 5060 kJ/kg x x = 4.9 x1012 kJ
2.2 lb ton
Total = (118.7 + 4.9) x 1012 = 123.6 x 1012 kJ
b. With no recycling:
kg 2000 lb
All new aluminum = 1.6x10 6 tons x 220,600 kJ/kg x x = 320.9x1012 kJ
2.2 lb ton
c. Using Table 9.8 CO2 emissions that result from that recycling.
Recycling = 0.67 x 1.6x106 tons Al x 3.71 MTCE/ton = 3.97 x 106 MTCE
44 tons CO 2
As CO2: 3.97x10 6 metric tonsC x = 14.6x10 6 metric tons/yr
12 tons C
With pickups on one-side only on the 1-way street, need to make 2 passes
9.9 A 30 yd3 packer truck, 750 lb/yd3, 100 ft stops, 5 mph, 1 min to load 200 lbs:
ft mi hr 60 min
time/stop = 100 x x x + 1 min = 1.227 min/stop
stop 5280 ft 5 mi hr
9.4
9.10 Route timing:
9.11 To avoid overtime pay, working 8 hrs/day and needing 165 min to make runs back
and forth to the disposal site, breaks, etc (Problem 9.2):
9.5
9.12 So, with 8-hr days a smaller truck can be used. As in Problem 9.11:
Collection time = 8 hr/d x 60 min/hr – 165 min/d = 315 min/day
With 2 truckloads per day,
315 min stop 4 customers
Customers = x x = 840 customers/day
day 1.5 min stop
or 420 customers per truckload. At 2 loads per day and 5 days per week, that would
give 4200 customers once a week service. Truck size needed is therefore,
9.6
240 customers 0.4 min 3 loads
(B) 15 m3 truck: x x = 288 min
truckload customer day
288 min + 215 min(misc.)
Crew : = 8.38 hr/day
60 min/hr
c. Cost per customer:
(A) 27 m3 truck:
$40 8.43hr 5 day 52 week
Cost : x x x + $120,000/yr = $207,672/yr (27m3 )
hr day week yr
$207,672/yr
Customer$ = = $48.07/yr (27m3 )
4320 customers
(B) 15 m3 truck:
$40 8.38hr 5 day 52 week
Cost : x x x + $70,000/yr = $157,152/yr (15 m3 )
hr day week yr
$157,152/yr
Customer$ = = $43.65/yr (15 m 3 )
3600 customers
Cheaper to run 3 trips a day in the smaller 15 m3 truck.
9.15 Reworking Examples 9.5 – 9.7 to confirm the costs in Table 9.17:
9.7
5.75 hr/d x 3600 s/hr
N= = 206 stops/load
100.5 s/stop x 1 load/day
Truck volume need is,
4 can/stop x 4 ft 3 /can x 206 stop/load
V= 3 3 3 3
= 34.9 yd 3
27ft /yd x 3.5 yd curb/yd in truck
With economics,
Labor = $99.840/yr as in Example 9.7
Truck = $25,000/yr + 4000$/yd3yrx34.9 yd3=$164,600/yr
206 stops x 2 cust/stop x 1 load/d x 5 d/wk = 2060 customers
2060 homes x 60 lb/home x 52 weeks/yr
Refuse = = 3214 tons/yr
2000 lb/ton
(164,600 + 99,840) $/yr
Cost/ton = = $82.25/ton (OK)
3214 ton/yr
b. Three-runs per day: 100.5 s/stop
9.16 Transfer station: 200 tons/day, 5d/wk, $3 million, $100,000/yr, trucks $120,000,
20 ton/trip, $80k/yr, 4 trip/day, 5d/wk, 10%, 10-yr amortization.
i(1+ i) 0.10(1+ 0.10)
n 10
9.8
$3 million x 0.16275/yr + $100,000/yr = $588,236/yr
to handel: 5 ton/d x 5 d/wk x 52 wk/yr = 52,000 tons/yr
$588,236/yr
which is cost = = $11.31/ton
52,000 tons/yr
Truck costs:
Depreciation = $120,000 x CRF = $120,000 x 0.16275 = $19,530/yr
(Driver+Maint)+Depreciation = $80,000 + $19,530 = $99,530
to haul: 20 tons/trip x 4 trip/d x 5 d/wk x 52 wk/yr = 20,800 ton/truck-yr
$99530/yr
which is total truck cost = = $4.79/ton
20,800 ton/yr
for a total of $4.79/ton (truck) + $11.31/ton (station) = $16.10/ton
9.9
9.18 Newsprint: 5.97% moisture, HHV = 18,540 kJ/kg, 6.1% H.
Starting with 1 kg of “as received” waste:
Energy to vaporize moisture = 0.0597 kg H2O x 2440 kJ/kg = 145.6 kJ
Dry weight = 1 – 0.0597 = 0.9403 kg
Hydrogen in the dry waste = 0.061 x 0.9403 = 0.0574 kg
As H becomes H2O = 0.0574 kgH x 9 kgH2O/kgH x 2440 kJ/kgH2O = 1259.6 kJ
Total energy lost in water vapor = 145.6 + 1259.6 = 1405 kJ per kg of newsprint
LHV = HHV – 1405 = 18,540 – 1,405 = 17,135 kJ/kg
9.19 Corrugated boxes, 5.2% moisture, HHV = 16,380 kJ/kg, 5.7% H in dried material:
Could use the procedure shown in Prob. 9.18, or use (9.7)
LHV = HHV – 2440(W+9H)
W = 0.052 kgH2O/kg waste
H = (1-0.052)x 0.057 = 0.054 kgH/kg waste
LHV = 16,380 – 2440 (0.052 + 9x0.054) = 16380 – 1313 = 15,067 kJ/kg
9.20 2 L PET bottle, 54 g, 14% H, HHV = 43,500 kJ/kg,
QL = energy lost in vaporized H2O
2440 kJ 18 kgH 2O 0.14 kgH 54g PET
QL = x x x = 166 kJ/bottle
kg H 2O 2 kgH kg PET 10 3 g/kg
43,500 kJ 54 gPET/bottle
LHV = x −166 kJ/bottle = 2183 kJ/bottle
kgPET 10 3 g/kg
9.21 Energy estimates based on HHV = 339(C ) + 1440 (H) – 139 (O) + 105 (S)
a. Corrugated boxes: based on dry weight,
HHV(dry)= 339x43.73 + 1440x5.70 –139x44.93 + 105x0.21 = 16,809 kJ/kg
There are (1-0.052) = 0.948 kg dry material per kg “as received”
HHV as received = 0.948 kg(dry) x 16,809 kJ/kg(dry) = 15,935 kJ/kg
b. Junk mail:
HHV(dry)= 339x37.87 + 1440x5.41 –139x42.74 + 105x0.09 = 14,697 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.0456) x 14,697 = 15,935 kJ/kg
c. Mixed garbage:
HHV(dry)= 339x44.99 + 1440x6.43 –139x28.76 + 105x0.52 = 20,568 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.72) x 20,568 = 5,759 kJ/kg
9.10
d. Lawn grass:
HHV(dry)= 339x46.18 + 1440x5.96 –139x36.43 + 105x0.42 = 19,218 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.7524) x 19,218 = 4,758 kJ/kg
e. Demolition softwood:
HHV(dry)= 339x51.0 + 1440x6.2 –139x41.8 + 105x0.1 = 20,417 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.077) x 20,417 = 18,845 kJ/kg
f. Tires:
HHV(dry)= 339x79.1 + 1440x6.8 –139x5.9 + 105x1.5 = 35,944 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.0102) x 35,944 = 35,578 kJ/kg
g. Polystyrene:
HHV(dry)= 339x87.10 + 1440x8.45 –139x3.96 + 105x0.02 = 41,147 kJ/kg
HHV as received = (1 - 0.002) x 41,147 = 41,064 kJ/kg
b. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
c. Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
d. 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran
9.11
e. 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran
9.23 U.S. 129 million tons, 800 lb/yd3, cell 10-ft, 1 lift/yr, 80% is MSW, 1000 people:
129x10 6 ton 2000 lb yd 3
VMSW = x x 3
= 8.71x10 9 ft 3 /yr
yr ton 27 ft
@ 80% per cell,
8.71 x 109 ft 3 /yr
Vlandfill = = 10.9x10 9 ft 3 /yr
0.80
10.9 x 109 ft 3 /yr acre
Alift = x = 24,987 acres/yr
10 ft/lift 43,560 ft 2
No population is specified, but at roughly 300 million people, the area per 1000
people would be about
24,987 acres/yr
Alift per 1000 = ≈ 0.08 acre/yr per 1000 people
300,000 thousand people
9.24 50,000 people, 40,000 tons/yr, 22% recovery, 1000 lb/yd3, 10-ft lift, 80% MSW:
9.12
40 acre/lift x 2 lifts remaining
time remaining = = 21.5 yrs
3.72 acre/yr
So the landfill will last 5 more years because of the program (21.5 – 16.5 yrs).
9.26 Lawn trimmings: Per kg, 620g moisture and 330g decompostables represented by
C12.76H21.28O9.26N0.54.
1 mol trimmings = 12x12.76 + 1x21.28 + 16x9.26 + 14x0.54 = 330.2 g//mol
That is, 1 kg of as received trimmings has 330g of decompostibles, which turns
out to be1 mole of decompostibles. Using (9.8) gives
a. Volume of methane:
0.0224 m3CH 4 6.5225 molCH 4
VCH 4 = x = 0.146m3CH 4 /kg lawn trimmings
mol CH 4 kg"asreceived"
6.5225 molCH 4 890 kJ
b. Energy content: CH 4 energy = x = 5,805 kJ/kg
kg "as received" mol
9.13
where n = (4x10.5 – 17.92 – 2x5.04 + 3x0.66)/4 = 3.995
m = (4x10.5 + 17.92 – 2x5.04 –3x0.66)/8 = 5.9825
s = (4x10.5 – 17.92 + 2x5.04 + 3x0.66)/8 = 4.5175
d = 0.66
Methane producing reaction is therefore:
C10.5H17.92O5.04N0.66 + 3.995 H2O Æ 5.9825 CH4 + 4.5175 CO2 + 0.66
NH3
9.14