5.

0 Discussion
5.1 CSTR
5.2 PFR
5.2.1 Effect of the Manipulation of Flowrates on the Conversion of Reactants

Residence Time and Fractional Conversion against Volumetric Flowrate

(Run0.640
1 - 3)
Fractional Conversion of Reactants, X

350

0.620 Fractional 300

Conversion

Residence Time, tR (s)

0.600
Residence Time 250
0.580
200
0.560
150
0.540
100
0.520

0.500 50

0.480 0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Volumetric Flowrate (mL/min)

Figure 5.2.1: Graph of residence time and fractional conversion against the volumetric
flowrate of reactants from run 1-3.

Based on the first run up to the third run, the volumetric flowrate of the reactants (ethyl
acetate & sodium hydroxide) was increased from 40 mL/min to 60 mL/min by an increment
of 10 mL/min while maintaining a constant temperature. Figure 5.2.1 (left vertical axis)
shows that when the volumetric flowrate of the reactants increases throughout every run, the
fractional conversion drops rapidly from 0.627 to 0.592 followed by 0.536 finally. Similarly,
this figure (right vertical axis) also illustrates that the residence time decreases almost linearly
with increasing volumetric flowrate of reactants. Residence time can be defined as the
amount of time the reactants spend in the reactor for the reaction to take place. Thus, when
the flowrate of the reactants is increased, the reactants spend a shorter time in the reactor for
the reaction to take place. Since the residence time decreases, the number of molecules that
will take part in the reaction to produce products decreases due to the high rate the reactants
are leaving the reactor which leads to the low conversion of reactants. Hence, these runs
depict that the volumetric flowrate and residence time shows an inversely proportional
relationship against the conversion of reactants in this reaction.

5.2.2 Effect of the Manipulation of Temperature on the Specific Rate Constant

Specific Reaction Rate against Temperature

0.3000
Reaction Rate Constant (L/mol.sec)

0.2500
f(x) = 0 exp( 0.08 x )
0.2000 R² = 1
0.1500

0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
296 298 300 302 304 306 308 310
Temperature (K)

Figure
5.2.2: Graph of specific reaction rate constant against temperature during runs 3-5

The temperature of the reactor from run three to five were manipulated while maintaining the
volumetric flowrate and other parameters. In reference of Table 4.2.1 from Section 4.2, the
temperatures were set at 297.5 K, 302.5 K and 307.5 K and their corresponding reaction rate
constant were 0.1154 L/mol.sec, 0.1712 L/mol.sec and 0.2461 L/mol.sec respectively. Based
on Figure 5.2.2, it can be observed that as temperature pf the reactor increases, the reaction
rate constant increases accordingly as well. The rate constant (k) is related temperature (T)
−E
through the Arrhenius equation that shows that k = A e RT . According to the equation, it

translates that the specific rate constant has a directly proportional relationship against
temperature. The molecules of the reactants in the reactor gain kinetic energy as the
temperature increases and this leads to an increase in the rate of effective collision between
the molecules thus the rate of reaction increases. Theoretically in most chemical reactions,
with an increment of every 10 ℃, the reaction rate will double accordingly as a rule of
thumb. Therefore, the outcome of this portion of the experiment obeys the Arrhenius
equation in terms of increasing temperature.
5.2.3 Differences in the Specific Rate Constant Values Obtained through Two Methods
Based on Table 4.2.1 from runs one to three, the reaction rate constants determined were
0.1120 L/mol.sec, 0.1208 L/mol.sec and 0.1154 L/mol.sec with varying flowrates of 40
mL/min to 50 mL/min followed by 60 mL/min respectively. By employing the graphical
method, the reaction rate constant that was determined for all three runs was 0.104 based on
Figure XX in the appendix that shows the graph of conversion factor against the residence
time. The percentage error between both values of reaction rate constants lies in the range of
7.14 % to 13.91 % which is an acceptable width of differences. Although, there is still a gap
of difference that occurred by employing these two methods of determination and this could
have been caused by errors and limitations that took place during the experiment. As
discussed earlier, the reaction rate is easily affected by the slightest change in temperature
and the temperature of the reactor may have been fluctuating a little that caused these
discrepancies in the reaction rate constant values. It is also important to highlight that for
each run from one to three, it was a challenge to maintain a constant temperature due to the
temperature dropping with increasing reaction time. This fluctuation may have been caused
due to the lack of heat exchange between the hot water in the reactor jacket and the reactants
thus creating a delayed response in the change in temperature and the temperature factor has
its own dead time when transferring information. In accordance to one of the key
assumptions made during this experiment, it was assumed that there was no heat lost to the
surrounding air in order to simplify the calculations and study of this experiment which
unfortunately cannot be applied to real life occurrences. Therefore, an inaccuracy in the
results determine is present when we ignore any heat losses to the surroundings.

5.2.4 Differences in the Activation Energy Values Obtained through Two Methods
The activation energy determined using the formula was 56099.08 J/mol and the activation
energy determined using the graph of log K plotted against 1/T that can be observed from
Figure YY in the appendix was 57632.90 J/mol. The percentage error was found to be 2.66 %
and this value lies in a highly acceptable range of deviation but the difference in value of the
activation energy still needs to be justified. There may have been an error using the graphical
method due to the fact that line of best fit was estimated using Microsoft excel and the
residual squared value, R2 achieved was 0.9998. This shows that the use of the graphical
method might be less accurate in comparison by calculating the activation energy using the
equations given.