Gas Absorption
Noor Farah Hannah binti Wahab (2021868204)
Abstract—Gas absorption is a mass transfer unit operation
used to separated one or more species from a gas mixture by
dissolution in liquid. For this experiment, Raschig Rings is used as
the provided large surface area to for the contact time between gas
phase and liquid phase. The objective of this experiment is to
examine the pressure drop across the packed column as a function
of air flow rate through different water flow rates. The pressure
drop is observed for every 2 minutes at different air flow rates.
The experiment continued until flooding occurs and moving on to
the next water flow rate. When compared the data from
experimental results and theoretical result, it is shown that the
result differs at water flow rate of 2 LPM which pressure drop in
experimental data is higher compared to theoretical data. The
percentage error is determined 16.67% at 2 LPM thus proving
that the packed column works more efficiently at a lower flow rate.
I. INTRODUCTION
Gas absorption is a unit operation commonly used in the
chemical industry where one or more species is removed from
a gaseous stream by dissolution with a suitable liquid. Peyman,
et. (2020) stated that absorption usually is used to reduce the
impurities from the mixture to enhance the process efficiency
such as acid gas removal and separation of hydrocarbons by
water. The component that was removed from the gaseous
stream is called solute while the component that does the
extraction of solute is called solvent (TAHIR, 2018). This
process can happen due to different concentrations between the
two phases. For gas absorption experimentation, packed
column is usually used as the equipment. Packed column can
operate in both co-current and counter currently. Counter
current flow is preferred as the contact time between liquid and
gas is greater compared to co-current flow. The equipment
consists of a cylindrical column that contain the gas inlet and
space distribution on the bottom, liquid inlet, and a packing in
the tower.
The equipment used for this experiment is SOLTEQ-QVF
Absorption Column Unit (Model: BP751-B) with Raschig rings
as the packing medium. This equipment is utilized to measure
the pressure drop by using different air flow rate and water flow
rate and mix the air with carbon dioxide and water. Based on
this experiment, it is presumed that the pressure drop within the
system will increase as the water and air flow rate increases.
II. OBJECTIVES
1. To examine the air pressure drop across the column as a
function of air flow rate for different water flow rates
through the column.
2. To plot the graph of column pressure drop against the air
flow rate in a log-log graph.
3. To obtain the pressure drop from the generalized
correlation chart shown in the Appendix.
4. To compare the experimental value to correlated value.
III. THEORY
Gas absorption or known as scrubbing is a unit operation in
which a gas mixture is kept in contact with a suitable liquid with
the purpose of dissolving one or more component of the gas
mixture by dissolution in liquid (Whitman, 1924). The
component extracted from the gas mixture is called a solute
while the component that extract the solute is known as solvent.
The insoluble component present in the gas that is not absorbed
by the solvent is the carrier gas.
Packed column used counter current flow to maximize the
diffusion of CO2 into the water to achieve the optimum
operating condition. The mechanism of this equipment is that
both phases contact on the packing interface with the liquid
phase flow downward over the surface of the packing while as
the gas pass through the space between the packings in an
upward direction (Whitman, 1924). The gas flow is driven by
pressure given while the liquid flow by using gravity forces
(TAHIR, 2018). The gas flow experiences pressure drop due to
liquid that occupy some part of the spaces in the packing. This
will reduce the area available for the gas to flow through. If the
tower has no liquid flow, then the gas flow available will be
maximum (TAHIR, 2018). This shows that as the liquid flow
rates in the tower increases, the pressure drop also increases
(TAHIR, 2018).
A phenomenon called flooding could happen if the flux is
high. This development can happen at the upper limit of the gas
flow rate called flooding velocity as the liquid mixed with gas
passed through the flooding point (Whitman, 1924). As water
flows down a column, at a certain air flow rate, water will begin
to accumulate in the packings. This is called the loading point.
As air velocity is increased, more water will be accumulated.
Low flux can result in channeling or weeping. As shown below,
there are two types of packings which is random and structured.

Figure 1: Types of Packings

The type of packing typically used for this experiment is
Raschig Rings as they provide a large surface area within the IV. PROCEDURES

column for the contact time between gas and liquid flow. The Materials
chart below is the generalized correlation for pressure drop in 1. Water
packed column.
2. Air

Apparatus
1. SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column Unit (Model: BP751-
B)

Figure 2: Generalized Correlation for Pressure Drop in Packed

Column

Figure 3: Equation used to compare between experiment value

and correlated value
Figure 4: SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column Unit
(Model: BP751-B)

GENERAL START UP

1. All valves are ensured to be closed except for the

ventilation valve, valve 13.
2. All the gas connections were ensured to be 6. All liquid from the receiving vessels B1 and B2
properly fitted. were drained by opening valve V7 and V8.
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was 7. All the liquid from pump P1 were drained by
opened. The supply pressure was set between 2 opening valve V10.
to 3 bar by turning the regulator knob clockwise. 8. The power for the control panel was turned off.
4. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder was
opened and checked to ensure if it was sufficient.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5. The power for the control panel was turned on.

The experiment was conducted to determine the air pressure

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
drop across the packed column as a function of air flow rate for
different water flow rates which can be shown in Fig. 6
1. The receiving vessel B2 was filled through the
meanwhile obtained the theoretical pressure drop from the
charge port with 50 L of water by opening valve
generalized correlation chart for packed column as seen in Fig.
V3 and V5. Valve V3 is then closed.
5. The air flow rate was modified from 20 L/min to 180 L/min
2. Valve V9 and V10 is opened slightly. The flow of
with the allocated time of 2 minutes for each flow rate to
water from vessel B1 is observed through pump
accumulate the pressure drop for each separate flow rate at 1
P1.
LPM, 2 LPM and 3 LPM. The data is collected until it reached
3. Pump P1 was switched on, slowly opened and
the flooding point before proceeding to the next flow rate.
valve V11 was adjusted to give a water flow rate
around 1 L/min. the water was allowed to enter
Below is the collected data for experimental data and
the top of column K1 and flown down the column
Theoretical data respectively. Based on the result below, it is
and accumulated at the bottom until it overflowed
shown that the experimental pressure drop is higher compared
back into vessel B1.
to the theoretical pressure drop due to how long it takes to reach
4. Valve V11 was opened and adjusted to give a
the flooding point. Theoretically, the flooding occurs at 160
water flow rate of 0.5 L/min into column K1.
LPM, 120 LPM and 100 LPM when the water flow rate at 1
5. Valve V1 was opened and adjusted to give an air
LPM, 2 LPM and 3 LPM respectively. The actual flooding
flow rate of 40 L/min into column K1.
occurs at 160 LPM, 140 LPM and 100 LPM respectively. At
6. The liquid and gas flow were observed in the
the rate of 1 LPM and 3 LPM, both theoretical and experiment
column K1, and the pressure drop across the
data share the same flooding point which is 160 LPM and 100
column at dPT-201 was recorded.
LPM. Percentage error for this experiment calculated is 16.67%
7. Step 6 to 7 was repeated with different values of
at 2LPM water flow rate.
air flow rate, each time increased by 40 L/min
while the same water flow rate was maintained. Table 1: Experimental pressure drop at different water and air
8. Step 5 to 8 was repeated with different values of flow rate
water flow rate, each time increased by 0.5 L/min Flow
by adjusting valve V11. rate Pressure Drop (mm H2O m)
(L/min)
SHUT DOWN PROCEDURES
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
1. Pump P1 was switched off. Water
2. Valve V1, V2 and V12 was closed. 1.0
3. The valve on the compressed air supply line was 0 2 5 8 13 18 31 F F
closed and the supply pressure was exhausted by
2.0
turning the regulator knob counterclockwise all 22 23 27 32 37 46 F F F
the way.
3.0
4. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder was 32 34 39 52 F F F F F
closed.
5. All liquid in the column K1 was drained by
opening Valve V4 and V5.
 From the graph on Fig.6, it is observed that as the water flow
Table 2: Theoretical pressure drop at different water and air rate become higher, the log air flow rate becomes lower. The
flow rate reason is due to water flowing downwards obstructed the flow
Flow of air flow rate upwards thus resulting in a higher pressure drop.
rate Theoretical Pressure Drop (mm H2O m)
It was depicted that the higher the higher the water flow rate,
(L/min)
the flooding will occur faster since the hindrance of water flow
Air rate to the air flow rate is more significant (TAHIR, 2018). This
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
can also be seen at the theoretical data and thus proven that both
Water experimental and theoretical share the same pattern.
1.0 7. 16 24
0 35.1 63.4 97.1 F F
6 .7 .5 For this experiment, it was found to have only one percentage
2.0 6. 21 33 41 error at 2 LPM water flow rate which was 16.67%. The
83.4 F F F F
5 .1 .2 .8 reasoning is due to human error in which the students may have
3.0 13 36 63 12 failed to control the valve from water exceeding the entrance of
F F F F F gas flow rate. There could also be due to parallax error where
.6 .4 .1 5
the equipment itself not maintaining the flow rate and showed
Fig. 5 display a generalized correlation chart for packed column different flow rate at the marking scale therefore giving the
to find the data for theoretical pressure drop while as the Fig. 6 wrong results (TAHIR, 2018).
depicts a graph that shows a relationship between log pressure
drop and log air flow rate. Based on the graph plotted below, it Table 6: Percentage Error of the Experiment
was indicated that the pressure drop increases as the air flow Water Theoretical Experimental Percentage
rate increases. Flow Flooding Air Flooding Air Error (%)
Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate
(L/min) (L/min) (L/min)
1 160 160 0
2 120 140 16.67
3 100 100 0

Sample Calculation for Percentage Error

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
=| | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
140 − 120
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%) = | | × 100%
Figure 5: Generalized Correlation Chart for Packed Column 120
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%) = 16.67%

Log Pressure Drop vs Log Air Flow Rate

2.5 CONCLUSION
Log Pressure Drop, ∆P

2
It can concluded for this experiment that the pressure drop
Theoretical
1 LPM
increases as the air flow rate increases along with water flow
Theoretical rates increases as well. At water flow rate of 1 LPM and 3 LPM,
1.5
2 LPM
Theoretical both expeimental and theoretical share the same pressure drop
3 LPM
1
Experiment value and flooding point while at water flow rate of 2 LPM,
al 1 LPM experimental value is higher compared to theoretical value
0.5
Experiment
al 2 LPM which was 140 LPM and 120 LPM respectively thus having the
Experiment
al 3 LPM
percentage error of 16.67%. It was determined from this
0
1.301 1.60211.77821.9031 2 2.07922.14612.20412.2553 experiment that the packed column work more efficiently at low
Log Air Flow Rate, liquid flow rate rather than at high liquid flow rate (TAHIR,
2018). The absorption rate is maximised when using low liquid
Figure 6: Log Pressure Drop vs Log Air Flow Rate
flow rate and better utilize to ensure the optimization of the
packed column.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are a few recommendations that students need to take into
consideration to ensure the improvement of the experiment.
Firstly, the students should avoid making parallax error such as
making sure that their eyes are perpendicular to the marking
scale and examine the reading is correct before collecting the
data. The students also must ensure that the packing used is new
as the packing used for previous equipment from a different
group may have diminished the impact and give inaccurate
results. Lastly, before conducting the experiment, the students
must study the lab manual beforehand to ensure the experiment
is running smoothly.
VI. REFERENCES
Peyman Pakzad, C.-H. L. (2020, January 1). CO2 absorption
by common solvents. Retrieved from Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ga
s-liquid-absorption
TAHIR, N. S. (2018, april 5). CHE504-Lab Report on Gas
Absorption (L8)(2018). Retrieved from
Academia.edu:
https://www.academia.edu/36855621/CHE504_Lab_
Report_on_Gas_Absorption_L8_2018_
Whitman, W. K. (1924, December 1). Principles of Gas
Absorption. Retrieved from ACS Publications:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ie50180a002
 APPENDIX

THEORETICAL DATA

Table 3: Log Theoretical Pressure Drop

Flow rate
Log Theoretical Pressure Drop (mm H2O m)
(L/min)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water
1.0
- 0.8826 1.2240 1.3899 1.5459 1.8023 1.9877 F F

2.0
0.8099 1.3252 1.5213 1.6207 1.9213 F F F F

3.0 1.1360 1.5616 1.800 2.0969 F F F F F

Table 4: Data Calculation to Determine Theoretical Pressure Drop

Air Gas Liquid Mass Velocity (Gx)
Flow Parameter, x-axis
Flow Mass Capacity kg/m2s
Rate Velocity Parameter
(Vy) (Gy) y-axis 1 LPM 2 LPM 3 LPM 1 LPM 2 LPM 3 LPM
LPM kg/m2s
20 0.0783 0.0012 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 1.4572 2.9171 4.3758
40 0.1567 0.0046 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.7288 1.4577 2.1865
60 0.2350 0.0104 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.4860 0.9720 1.4580
80 0.3133 0.0186 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.3645 0.7291 1.0936
100 0.3917 0.0290 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.2916 0.5831 0.8747
120 0.4700 0.0418 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.2430 0.4860 0.7290
140 0.5483 0.0569 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.2083 0.4166 0.6249
160 0.6267 0.0743 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.1822 0.3645 0.5467
180 0.7050 0.0940 3.3200 6.6400 9.9600 0.1620 0.3240 0.48860
 EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Table 5: Log Experimental Pressure Drop

Flow rate
Log Experimental Pressure Drop (mm H2O m)
(L/min)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water
1.0
0 0.3010 0.6990 0.9031 1.1140 1.2553 1.4914 F F

2.0
1.3424 1.3617 1.4314 1.5051 1.5682 1.6628 F F F

3.0 1.5051 1.5315 1.5911 1.7160 F F F F F

CALCULATIONS

Density of Air, 𝜌𝑦 = 1.175 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

Density of Water, 𝜌𝑥 = 996 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Packing Factor, F = 900 m
Column Diameter, D = 800 mm
Water Viscosity, 𝜇 = 0.0008 𝑘𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠

Sample Calculation for Kinematic Viscosity of Water, 𝒗𝒙

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝜇
Kinematic Viscosity of Water, 𝑣𝑥 = 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝜌𝑥
𝑥

0.008 𝑘𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠
𝑣𝑥 =
996 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑣𝑥 = 0.8032 × 10−6 𝑚2 /𝑠
Sample Calculation for Cross Sectional Area of Packed Column, Ac
𝜋𝐷 2
Cross Sectional Area, 𝐴𝑐 = 4

𝜋(0.08)2
𝐴𝑐 =
4
𝐴𝑐 = 0.005 𝑚2

Sample Calculation for Gas Mass Velocity, 𝑮𝒚

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑉𝑦 × 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑠, 𝜌𝑦
𝐺𝑦 =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐴𝑐
𝐿
50 𝑚𝑖𝑛 × 1.175 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝐺𝑦 =
0.005 𝑚3
 𝐺𝑦 = 0.1567 𝑘𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠 2
Sample Calculation for Liquid Mass Velocity, 𝑮𝒙
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑉𝑥 × 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑠, 𝜌𝑥
𝐺𝑥 =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐴𝑐
𝐿
0.5 × 996 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝐺𝑥 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛
0.005 𝑚3
𝐺𝑥 = 1.66 𝑘𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠 2
Sample Calculation for Capacity Parameter, y-axis
𝐺𝑦2𝐹𝑝 𝑉𝑥0.1
𝑦 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 =
𝑔𝑐(𝜌𝑥 − 𝜌𝑦 )𝜌𝑦

(0.1567)2 (900)(0.8032 × 10−6 )0.1

𝑦 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 =
1(996 − 1.175)(1.175)

𝑦 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 = 0.0046
Sample Calculation for Flow Parameter, x-axis

𝐺𝑥 𝜌𝑦
𝑥 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 = √
𝐺𝑦 𝜌𝑥− 𝜌𝑦

1.66 1.175
𝑥 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 = √
0.1567 996 − 1.175

𝑥 − 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠 = 0.3641
Sample Calculation for Percentage Error
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%) = | | × 100%
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
140 − 120
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%) = | | × 100%
120
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 (%) = 16.67%