Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A simplified model for air dehumidification

with liquid desiccant
P. Gandhidasan *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
Received 10 October 2002; received in revised form 10 April 2003; accepted 22 October 2003
Communicated by: Associate Editor William Duff

Abstract
This paper describes a relatively simple model for the preliminary design of an air dehumidification process
occurring in a packed bed using liquid desiccant through dimensionless vapor pressure and temperature difference
ratios. An expression is derived using the aforementioned ratios to predict the water condensation rate from the air to
the desiccant solution in terms of known operating parameters. The model predictions were compared against a reliable
set of experimental data available in the literature, with very good agreement. The effects of the cooling water inlet
temperature and the desiccant-to-water heat exchanger effectiveness on the performance of the dehumidifier are also
studied and the results are presented in this paper.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the concentration of the desiccant. A low moisture

Air dehumidification is an important operation not
only in industry but also in comfort cooling. Although
many methods are available for this operation, liquid
desiccant system is more attractive due to its flexibility in
operation along with an added benefit of absorbing
inorganic and organic contaminants in the air (Oberg
and Goswami, 1998a) and the ability of using a lower
regeneration temperature coming for example, from
solar energy. The schematic of the counterflow packed
bed air dehumidification process using low grade heat
for regeneration is shown in Fig. 1. The strong, cool
desiccant solution is sprayed at the top of the dehu-
midifier (absorber) after passing through a heat ex-
changer where it is precooled by the cooling medium
(water). The ambient humid air enters the dehumidifier
at the bottom. The moisture content of the process air in
the unit is controlled by either controlling the desiccant
temperature or by controlling both the temperature and
*
Tel.: +966-3-860-2950; fax: +966-3-860-2949.
E-mail address: pgandhi@kfupm.edu.sa (P. Gandhidasan).
0038-092X/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2003.10.001
content of the process air can be obtained at the outlet
of the absorber by maintaining a low desiccant tem-
perature or a high concentration at the inlet of the ab-
sorber (Khan, 1994).
Since the cool, strong desiccant solution vapor pres-
sure is less than the water vapor pressure in the air, the
moisture transfer takes place from the air to the desic-
cant solution. During this process heat is liberated due
to the latent heat of condensation of the water and the
heat of mixing. Since no cooling is provided, this leads
to an increase in the solution temperature and hence the
vapor pressure of the solution. The dehumidified air
exits at the top and warm, diluted (weak) solution that
leaves the bottom of the dehumidifier is pumped for
regeneration. The hot, concentrated solution that leaves
the regenerator passes through a heat exchanger where it
is first cooled by heat transfer to the diluted solution
leaving the dehumidifier and further cooled by a desic-
cant-to-water heat exchanger. Changing the flow rate of
cooling water could control the total amount of heat
removal. The performance of the desiccant cooling sys-
tem is related to the amount of water condensed from
the humid air in the dehumidifier. For each gram of
water condensed from the air to the desiccant solution in
410 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416
Nomenclature
cp specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/kg K)
C heat capacity rate (kW/C)
G mass flux or flow rate per unit cross-sec-
tional area (kg/m2 s)
h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
m water condensation rate (g/s) or per unit
cross-sectional area (g/m2 s)
M molar mass (kg/kmol)
p vapor pressure (mm Hg)
P total pressure (mm Hg)
t temperature (C)
W air humidity ratio (kg water vapor/kg dry air)
Greek letters
a dimensionless vapor pressure difference
ratio
Fig. 1. A simplified schematic of air dehumidification with
liquid desiccant.
the dehumidifier, one gram of water must be evaporated
from the solution in the regenerator.
The dehumidification process can be accomplished
using the equipment of various configurations such as a
finned-tube surface in a column (Johannsen, 1984;
Mahmoud and Ball, 1988), coil-type absorber (Khan,
1998), spray tower (Scalabrin and Scaltriti, 1990; Chung
and Wu, 1998) or packed tower (Factor and Grossman,
b dimensionless temperature difference ratio
e heat exchanger effectiveness
k latent heat of condensation (kJ/kg)
n concentration of the desiccant by mass (%)
Subscripts
a air
b barometric
c cooling medium (water)
HE heat exchanger
i inlet
min minimum
o outlet
s desiccant solution
w water vapor
1980; Lof et al., 1984; Gandhidasan et al., 1987; Sick
et al., 1988; Elsayed et al., 1993; Sadasivam and Bala-
krishnan, 1992; Khan, 1996; Oberg and Goswami,
1998b). Out of these basic configurations, the use of a
packed tower configuration may be advantageous be-
cause of a large rate of heat and mass transfer per unit
volume. The packings are of two major types namely
random and regular. The regular packings offer the
advantage of low pressure drop for the air stream at the
expense of more costly installation than random pack-
ing. Hence many researchers, as mentioned earlier, had
chosen random packing for their studies. The simulta-
neous heat and mass transfer between the air and the
desiccant have a large impact on the dehumidifier per-
formance. The thermal performance of the dehumidifier
is measured by the amount of water condensed from the
humid air. Three different theoretical models, namely
the finite difference model (Factor and Grossman, 1980;
Gandhidasan et al., 1987; Oberg and Goswami, 1998b),
the effectiveness-NTU model (Stevens et al., 1989; Sad-
asivam and Balakrishnan, 1992), and the model based
on fitted algebraic equations (Khan and Ball, 1992;
Khan, 1994), have been developed for the analysis of
packed bed absorption dehumidifiers. Out of these three
models, the finite difference model has received more
attention since this model gives accurate performance
predictions based on fundamental equations. For this
model, a step-wise heat and mass balance across the
dehumidifier is used to determine the performance of the
dehumidification process. Since the outlet conditions of
the desiccant are unknown, an iterative solution is nece-
ssary until the results converge to the known inlet
conditions at the top of the dehumidifier. Due to the
high number of variables involved in the process, the
analysis becomes increasingly complex and it mandates
 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416
the use of a numerical solution to handle the iterative
calculations.
In this paper, dimensionless vapor pressure and
temperature difference ratios, suitable for air dehumid-
ification using a liquid desiccant, are defined. Further-
more, a closed-form analytical solution is obtained to
predict the mass flow rate of water condensed (rate of
moisture removal) from the humid air to the desiccant
solution in terms of the heat capacity rates of the fluids,
a dimensionless temperature difference ratio and other
known inlet temperature of the air, desiccant solution
and the cooling water.
2. Dimensionless vapor pressure and temperature differ-
ence ratios for air dehumidification processes
During an air dehumidification process, the water
vapor from the humid air transfers to the desiccant
solution whereas the water vapor is removed from the
solution during the regeneration process. In the regen-
eration process, a high solution inlet temperature or a
low desiccant concentration results in more moisture
being removed from the solution to the regeneration air.
Hence, a dimensionless moisture difference ratio, suit-
able for the regeneration process in a packed bed is
defined as the ratio of the actual change in moisture
content of the regeneration air in the unit to the maxi-
mum possible change in moisture content under given
operating conditions (Gandhidasan, 1990). A similar
approach can be implemented for a typical packed bed
dehumidification system to estimate the mass flow rate
of water condensed from the process air and absorbed
by the desiccant solution.
It should be noted that the dimensionless moisture
difference ratio suitable for a dehumidification process is
different from that of regeneration process, since the
objective of the dehumidification process is to transfer
the water vapor from the process air to the desiccant
solution. Many design variables affect the performance
of the dehumidification process. The driving force for the
mass transfer between the liquid desiccant solution and
the air is the difference between the vapor pressure of the
desiccant and the partial pressure of water vapor in the
air. The desiccant solution vapor pressure is a function of
its concentration and temperature whereas the partial
pressure of water vapor in the air is a function of the air
humidity ratio. Analogous to the heat exchanger effec-
tiveness used in heat transfer studies, the concept of
effectiveness can be applied to the packed bed dehu-
midification process which involves simultaneous heat
and mass transfer (Martin and Goswami, 2000). The air
moisture removal effectiveness (Ullah et al., 1988; Oberg
and Goswami, 1998b) and the enthalpy effectiveness
(Elsayed et al., 1993; Khan, 1994, 1996) suitable for
dehumidification process are very well defined in the
411
literature as performance parameters. Elsayed et al.
(1993) used the finite difference model to calculate the
humidity effectiveness and the enthalpy effectiveness. The
results are presented in the form of charts. Martin and
Goswami (2000) used a large body of previously reported
experimental data in deriving closed-form performance
correlations to incorporate the design variables that
influence the humidity effectiveness and the enthalpy
effectiveness in a packed bed dehumidifier/regenerator.
Six constants used in the correlations were found
through fitting the correlation to experimental data via
regression. The correlations are valid for limited ranges
of the nondimensional variables. Elsayed et al. as well as
Martin and Goswami used the effectiveness to predict the
outlet conditions of air and the solution.
In the present study two dimensionless ratios, which
are not the fitting parameters, are defined. Assuming
constant values of these ratios, an expression is derived
to predict the water condensation rate in a packed bed
dehumidifier operating with liquid desiccant. If the
specific heat of the fluids is assumed to be constant, then
the temperature difference ratio can be used instead of
the enthalpy effectiveness. Hence, in order to fully
characterize the dehumidification process, two charac-
teristic parameters relating to the heat and mass transfer
as dimensionless ratios, one for the difference in mois-
ture content and the other for the temperature differ-
ence, must be specified. A dimensionless moisture
difference ratio, commonly known as air moisture re-
moval effectiveness, for the air dehumidification process
is defined in terms of the moisture content as
Wi
Wo
a¼ ð1Þ
Wi
Wo;min
The vapor pressure of the relatively warm and weak
solution at the outlet of the dehumidifier is higher than
that of the cool and strong solution at the inlet. As long
as the partial pressure of the water vapor in the air is
higher than the solution vapor pressure, dehumidifica-
tion can take place. Hence, the solution inlet conditions
set a theoretical limit on the minimum humidity ratio
that air can reach. Since the air humidity ratio (kg of
water vapor per kg of dry air) is a function of the partial
pressure of water vapor in the air, this can be written
accordingly as
pa;o;min ¼ ps;i ð2Þ
Eq. (1) can be rewritten in terms of the vapor pressure
difference ratio as
pa;i
pa;o
a¼ ð3Þ
pa;i
ps;i
In order to make the air dehumidification process
effective, the strong desiccant solution leaving the
regenerator passes through heat exchangers, so that the
cool and strong desiccant solution absorbs a maximum
412 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416

amount of water vapor from the air due to the high 5. The warm ðts;o Þ, weak desiccant ðno Þ leaving the dehu-
potential for mass transfer. As expected, the value of pa;o midifier is reconcentrated in the regenerator to the re-
is greater than ps;i . Hence, the value of a is always po- quired concentration ðni Þ and it is cooled to the
sitive and less than 1. temperature of ðts;o Þ before it enters the desiccant-
In summer, it is expected that the temperature of the to-water heat exchanger.
ambient humid air that enters the dehumidifier is higher
than the solution inlet temperature. Hence, in addition Eq. (5) can be written as
to moisture transfer, heat transfer will also occur due to Gs
the temperature difference. The primary objective of the cp;a ðta;i
ta;o Þ þ yðpa;i
pa;o Þ ¼ cp;s ðts;o
ts;i Þ ð6Þ
Ga
dehumidification process is the transfer of water vapor
where y ¼ MMwa Pkb for small vapor pressures. Eq. (6) can be
from the ambient humid air, and hence the temperature
written in terms of dimensionless vapor pressure and
difference ratio can be defined in accordance with the
temperature difference ratios as
dimensionless vapor pressure difference ratio as given by
Eq. (3), to obtain a simple relationship. Accordingly, Gs
cp;a bðta;i
ts;i Þ þ yaðpa;i
ps;i Þ ¼ cp;s ðts;o
ts;i Þ ð7Þ
this can be defined as Ga
ta;i
ta;o The effect of desiccant flow rate on the rate of conden-
b¼ ð4Þ sation of water is given in terms of the desiccant con-
ta;i
ts;i
centration at the inlet and outlet of the dehumidifier as
The air outlet temperature is expected to be lower than (Kim et al., 1997)
that of the inlet air due to the contact of the air stream  
1 1 m
with the cool and strong desiccant solution. This is ¼ 1þ ð8Þ
no ni Gs
confirmed with the experimental data given by Chung
et al. (1993). If the desiccant inlet temperature is higher The mass flow rate of water condensed from the humid air
than the air inlet temperature, then it is expected that the and absorbed by the strong desiccant solution is given by
air outlet temperature is higher than that of the inlet, as Ga y
shown by Chung and Wu (1998). In both cases b is m¼ ðpa;i
pa;o Þ ð9Þ
k
positive. However, the air outlet temperature depends
on the heat capacity rate as well as the inlet conditions of The partial pressure of water vapor in the desiccant
both the air and the desiccant solution. Hence, rarely the solution at the inlet of the dehumidifier is given in terms
value of b may be less than zero (Fumo and Goswami, of the water vapor pressure in the humid air entering the
2002) but still Eq. (4) can be used in the analysis. In this dehumidifier by combining Eqs. (3) and (9) as
paper, these two dimensionless difference ratios are mk
combined with the energy balance equation to obtain a ps;i ¼ pa;i
ð10Þ
Ga ya
simple expression to predict the mass rate of water vapor
condensed from the humid air to the desiccant solution In order to obtain the desiccant solution temperature at
in terms of known inlet temperatures and heat capacity the outlet of the dehumidifier in terms of the known
rates of the fluids. solution temperature at the inlet, the effectiveness of the
heat exchanger is defined as
ts;o
ts;i
3. System analysis eHE ¼ ð11Þ
ts;o
tc;i
The overall energy balance for the dehumidifier can The desiccant outlet temperature in terms of the inlet
be written as temperature is given by
Ga ha;i þ Gs hs;i ¼ Ga ha;o þ Gs hs;o ð5Þ ts;i
eHE tc;i
ts;o ¼ ð12Þ
ð1
eHE Þ
The following assumptions are made for the analysis:
By substituting the values for ps;i and ts;o from Eqs. (10)
1. The water condensation rate is negligible compared and (12), respectively, in Eq. (7), the mass flow rate of
to the flow rate of fluids. water condensed from the humid air to the desiccant
2. The specific heat of the fluids with respect to the tem- solution can be obtained. Accordingly, this is given by,
perature is constant.  
1 Cs eHE
3. The latent heat of condensation is constant with re- m¼ ðts;i
tc;i Þ
Ca bðta;i
ts;i Þ ð13Þ
k ð1
eHE Þ
spect to the temperature and concentration of the
desiccant encountered in the system. where Cs ¼ Gs cp;s and Ca ¼ Ga cp;a . It is to be noted that
4. The desiccant inlet temperature is different from the the dimensionless vapor pressure difference ratio, a is
inlet temperature of air. not directly involved in estimating m. However, in using
 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416 413

Table 1
Comparison of experimental results (Fumo and Goswami, 2002) with the present study
Experimental results Present study with % difference
2 2
Case (1) Ga ¼ 1:18 kg/m s, ta;i ¼ 30:1 C, Wi ¼ 0:0181 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:227 kg/m s, ts;i ¼ 30:3 C, ni ¼ 34:7% by
mass, b ¼ 10:5
tc;i ¼ 29:6 C
no (% by mass) 34.6 34.65 0.14
ts;o (C) 32.6 31.35 3.83
m (g/s) 0.40 0.372 7.00
Case (2) Ga ¼ 1:513 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 30:2 C, Wi ¼ 0:0181 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:113 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:0 C, ni ¼ 34:3% by
mass, b ¼
10:0
tc;i ¼ 29:1 C
no (% by mass) 34.1 34.24 0.41
ts;o (C) 32.7 31.38 4.04
m (g/s) 0.52 0.476 8.46
Case (3) Ga ¼ 1:189 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 35:5 C, Wi ¼ 0:0188 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:29 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:3 C, ni ¼ 34:5% by
mass, b ¼ 0:52
tc;i ¼ 29:3 C
no (% by mass) 33.7 34.45 2.20
ts;o (C) 32.6 31.73 2.67
m (g/s) 0.42 0.389 7.38
Case (4) Ga ¼ 1:183 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 40:1 C, Wi ¼ 0:018 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:287 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:5 C, ni ¼ 34:4% by
mass, b ¼ 0:73
tc;i ¼ 29:5 C
no (% by mass) 34.3 34.36 0.17
ts;o (C) 32.9 32.05 2.58
m (g/s) 0.36 0.332 7.78

Case (5) Ga ¼ 1:214 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 30:3 C, Wi ¼ 0:0142 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:273 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:1 C, ni ¼ 33:9% by
mass, b ¼
4:0
tc;i ¼ 29:7 C
no (% by mass) 33.8 33.88 0.24
ts;o (C) 31.5 30.70 2.54
m (g/s) 0.23 0.206 10.4
Case (6) Ga ¼ 1:187 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 29:9 C, Wi ¼ 0:0215 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:272 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:3 C, ni ¼ 33:9% by
mass, b ¼ 8:75
tc;i ¼ 29:4 C
no (% by mass) 33.7 33.84 0.41
ts;o (C) 33.1 31.60 4.53
m (g/s) 0.53 0.483 8.87
Case (7) Ga ¼ 1:19 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 30:1 C, Wi ¼ 0:018 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 5:019 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:2 C, ni ¼ 34:4% by
mass, b ¼ 21
tc;i ¼ 29:4 C
no (% by mass) 34.2 34.35 0.44
ts;o (C) 32.7 31.39 4.01
m (g/s) 0.38 0.344 9.47
Case (8) Ga ¼ 1:198 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 29:9 C, Wi ¼ 0:0177 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:269 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 25:0 C, ni ¼ 34:7% by
mass, b ¼ 0:35
tc;i ¼ 23:9 C
no (% by mass) 34.5 34.64 0.40
ts;o (C) 28.4 26.62 6.27
m (g/s) 0.50 0.466 6.80
Case (9) Ga ¼ 1:176 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 29:9 C, Wi ¼ 0:0178 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:309 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 35:2 C, ni ¼ 34:9% by
mass, b ¼ 1:1
tc;i ¼ 35:06 C
no (% by mass) 34.8 34.88 0.23
ts;o (C) 36.2 35.41 2.18
(continued on next page)
414 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416

Table 1 (continued)
Experimental results Present study with % difference
m (g/s) 0.21 0.192 8.57
2 2
Case (10) Ga ¼ 1:182 kg/m s, ta;i ¼ 29:9 C, Wi ¼ 0:0179 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:164 kg/m s, ts;i ¼ 30:1 C, ni ¼ 33:1% by
mass, b ¼ 12:5
tc;i ¼ 29:5 C
no (% by mass) 33.0 33.06 0.18
ts;o (C) 32.2 31.00 3.73
m (g/s) 0.36 0.331 8.06

Case (11) Ga ¼ 1:192 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 29:9 C, Wi ¼ 0:0179 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:267 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:2 C, ni ¼ 33:8% by
mass, b ¼ 8:67
tc;i ¼ 29:6 C
no (% by mass) 33.7 33.76 0.18
ts;o (C) 32.6 31.12 4.54
m (g/s) 0.38 0.344 9.47
Case (12) Ga ¼ 1:176 kg/m2 s, ta;i ¼ 30:0 C, Wi ¼ 0:0181 kg water vapor/kg dry air, Gs ¼ 6:206 kg/m2 s, ts;i ¼ 30:2 C, ni ¼ 34:8% by
mass, b ¼ 10:0
tc;i ¼ 29:5 C
no (% by mass) 34.7 34.75 0.14
ts;o (C) 32.5 31.29 3.72
m (g/s) 0.41 0.376 8.29

Eq. (13), care should be exercised in accordance to the
following:
• The value of b and the cooling water inlet tempera-
ture must be selected so that pa;o is always greater
than ps;i .
• The desiccant inlet temperature to the dehumidifier
may be either lower or higher than the air inlet tem-
perature, but the cooling water inlet temperature must
always be lower than the desiccant inlet temperature.
• The desiccant flow rate cannot be increased beyond
the flooding velocity and the minimum desiccant flow
rate must be sufficiently high enough to ensure wet-
ting of the packing.
4. Results and discussion
In order to use Eq. (13) with confidence for predicting
the mass flow rate of water condensed from the air to the
liquid desiccant during the dehumidification process,
validation is needed. A comparison was made between
the predicted values acquired from the above equation
and experimental values available in literature. Reliable
sets of experimental data for dehumidification of air
using lithium chloride (LiCl) as the liquid desiccant are
presented by Fumo and Goswami (2002). A comparison
of typical experimental results for twelve cases as pre-
sented by Fumo and Goswami, with the results obtained
from the current study, is given in Table 1. Since Fumo
and Goswami provide no information about the heat
exchanger used in their experimental facility, the effec-
tiveness of the heat exchanger is assumed as 0.6. The
experimental results are used to calculate the dimen-
sionless temperature difference ratio ðbÞ. It may be noted
that two values of b are less than zero. The cooling water
inlet temperature is adjusted to obtain the same air
humidity ratio at the outlet of the dehumidifier. The la-
tent heat of condensation is assumed as constant at
2430.0 kJ/kg. According to the results given in Table 1,
there is a very good agreement between the experimental
data of Fumo and Goswami and the theoretical results of
this study for the desiccant outlet temperature and the
water condensation rate. In all cases, the predicted values
for the above parameters are lower than the experimental
data and the maximum difference is less than 10.5%. An
attempt was also made to perform a sensitivity analysis,
with respect to the heat exchanger effectiveness. Accord-
ingly, its value was increased to 0.8 and it was found that
the same results were obtained with higher cooling water
inlet temperatures of 30.0, 29.7, 29.9, 30.1, 30.0, 30.0,
30.0, 24.6, 35.15, 29.9, 30.0, and 29.9 C, respectively for
the same 12 cases presented in Table 1. Based on this
preliminary comparison, it is believed that the simplified
model described herein gives good predictions and added
confidence that this model may be used to make a first
estimate of the water condensation rate.
Fumo and Goswami (2002) studied the effects of
various design variables such as air flow rate, humidity
ratio, inlet air temperature, desiccant flow rate, desiccant
concentration, and inlet desiccant temperature on the
performance of the dehumidifier in detail. Hence, in this
paper, the effects of cooling water inlet temperature and
the heat exchanger effectiveness are investigated using
Eq. (13). The parameters that have been kept constant
are listed in Table 2.
 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416 415

Table 2 14
Dehumidifier parameters for the parametric investigation
Desiccant Lithium chloride
εHE = 0.6
12 εHE = 0.65

Rate of water condensed, g/m2s

Inlet desiccant concentration, ni 35% by mass εHE = 0.7
Inlet Desiccant temperature, ts;i 30 C
10
Air flow rate, Ga 1.5 kg/m2 s
Inlet air temperature, ta;i 35 C
Inlet air humidity ratio, Wi 0.018 kg water vapor/ 8
kg dry air
Inlet cooling water temperature, tc;i 29 C
Heat exchanger effectiveness, e 0.6 6
Dimensionless temperature differ- 0.6
ence ratio, b
4

Fig. 2 illustrates the results obtained for the water 2

condensation rate for different flow rates of the solution 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
and the cooling water inlet temperatures. The lowest Desiccant flow rate, kg/m2s
potential cooling water inlet temperature is, as antici-
Fig. 3. Influence of heat exchanger effectiveness on condensa-
pated the ambient wet bulb temperature that is usually tion rate.
high in humid climates. Accordingly, the cooling water
inlet temperature is varied from 28.5 to 29.5 C to
lower cooling water inlet temperature and the effect is
investigate this effect. The water condensation rate de-
insignificant at higher cooling water inlet temperature.
creases linearly as a function of the cooling water inlet
The influence of heat exchanger effectiveness on the
temperature. For a particular desiccant flow rate, as the
water condensation rate is illustrated in Fig. 3. As the
cooling water inlet temperature increases, the water
heat exchanger effectiveness increases, the rate of con-
condensation rate decreases. The lower cooling water
densation of water also increases for the given operating
inlet temperature yields the greater rate of water con-
conditions. This is due to the fact that as the heat ex-
densation. This is due to the fact that, by the definition of
changer effectiveness increases, the desiccant tempera-
heat exchanger effectiveness, when the cooling water inlet
ture at the outlet of the dehumidifier also increases and
temperature decreases the desiccant temperature at the
hence there is increase in the condensation rate of water.
outlet of the dehumidifier increases. This implies that
the desiccant has a longer period of contact with air for
the given operating conditions and hence the water con-
densation rate increases. The desiccant flow rate causes 5. Conclusions
significant variation in the water condensation rate at
An analytical investigation of air dehumidification
with liquid desiccant is carried out through dimension-
less vapor pressure and temperature difference ratios.
14
o The performance of the dehumidifier predicted with the
tc,i = 28.5 C
o simplified model described in this paper shows a very
12 tc,i = 29 C good agreement with some experimental data available
Rate of water condensed, g/m2s

o
tc,i = 29.5 C in the literature. It is found that the lower cooling water
10
inlet temperature and the higher heat exchanger effec-
tiveness increase the rate of moisture removal. The effect
8
of changing the desiccant flow rate on the water con-
6
densation rate is more pronounced at low cooling water
inlet temperature than at high tc;i . For preliminary de-
4
sign purposes, the simple expression derived in this pa-
per can be used to estimate the water condensation rate.
2

0 Acknowledgement
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Desiccant flow rate, kg/m2s
The author is grateful for the financial support and
Fig. 2. Influence of cooling water inlet temperature on con- facilities provided by the King Fahd University of
densation rate. Petroleum and Minerals for this research.
416 P. Gandhidasan / Solar Energy 76 (2004) 409–416
References
Chung, T.W., Ghosh, T.K., Hines, A.L., 1993. Dehumidifica-
tion of air by aqueous lithium chloride in a packed column.
Separation Science and Technology 28, 533–550.
Chung, T.W., Wu, H., 1998. Dehumidification of air by
aqueous triethylene glycol solution in a spray tower.
Separation Science and Technology 33, 1213–1224.
Elsayed, M.M., Gari, H.N., Radhwan, A.M., 1993. Effective-
ness of heat and mass transfer in packed beds of liquid
desiccant system. Renewable Energy 3, 661–668.
Factor, H.M., Grossman, G., 1980. A packed bed dehumidifier/
regenerator for solar air conditioning with liquid desiccants.
Solar Energy 24, 541–550.
Fumo, N., Goswami, D.Y., 2002. Study of an aqueous lithium
chloride desiccant system: air dehumidification and desic-
cant regeneration. Solar Energy 72, 351–361.
Gandhidasan, P., 1990. Reconcentration of aqueous solutions
in a packed bed: A simple approach. Transactions of the
ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 112, 268–272.
Gandhidasan, P., Ullah, M.R., Kettleborough, C.F., 1987.
Analysis of heat and mass transfer between a desiccant air
system in a packed tower. Transactions of the ASME
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 109, 89–93.
Johannsen, A., 1984. Performance simulation of a solar air-
conditioning system with liquid desiccant. International
Journal of Ambient Energy 5, 59–89.
Khan, A.Y., 1994. Sensitivity analysis and component model-
ing of a packed-type liquid desiccant system at partial load
operating conditions. International Journal of Energy
Research 18, 643–655.
Khan, A.Y., 1996. Parametric analysis of heat and mass
transfer performance of a packed type liquid desiccant
absorber at part-load operating conditions. ASHRAE
Transactions 102, 349–357.
Khan, A.Y., 1998. Cooling and dehumidification performance
analysis of internally-cooled liquid desiccant absorbers.
Applied Thermal Engineering 18, 265–281.
Khan, A.Y., Ball, H.D., 1992. Development of a generalized
model for performance evaluation of packed-type liquid
sorbent dehumidifiers and regenerators. ASHRAE Trans-
actions 98, 525–533.
Kim, K.J., Ameel, T.A., Wood, B.D., 1997. Performance
evaluation of LiCl and LiBr for absorber design applica-
tions in the open-cycle absorption refrigeration system.
Transactions of the ASME Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering 119, 165–173.
Lof, G.O.G., Lenz, T.G., Rao, S., 1984. Coefficients of heat and
mass transfer in a packed bed suitable for solar regeneration
of aqueous lithium chloride solutions. Transactions of
ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 106, 387–392.
Mahmoud, K.G., Ball, H.D., 1988. Liquid desiccant systems
for cooling applications. In: Goswami D.Y. (Ed.), Proceed-
ings of the 23rd IECEC, Denver, CO, vol. 4, pp. 149–152.
Martin, V., Goswami, D.Y., 2000. Effectiveness of heat and
mass transfer processes in a packed bed liquid desiccant
dehumidifier/regenerator. HVAC&R Research 6, 21–39.
Oberg, V., Goswami, D.Y., 1998a. A review of liquid desiccant
cooling. In: Boer, K.W. (Ed.), Advances in Solar Energy,
vol. 12. American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO, pp.
431–470.
Oberg, V., Goswami, D.Y., 1998b. Experimental study of heat
and mass transfer in a packed bed liquid desiccant air
dehumidifier. Transactions of the ASME Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 120, 289–297.
Sadasivam, M., Balakrishnan, A.R., 1992. Effectiveness-NTU
method for design of a packed bed liquid desiccant
dehumidifiers. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers 70, 572–577.
Scalabrin, G., Scaltriti, G., 1990. A liquid sorption–desorption
system for air conditioning with heat at lower temperature.
Transactions of ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering
112, 70–75.
Sick, F., Buschulte, T.K., Klein, S., Northey, P., Duffie, J.A.,
1988. Analysis of the seasonal performance of hybrid liquid
desiccant cooling systems. Solar Energy 40, 211–217.
Stevens, D.I., Braun, J.E., Klein, S.A., 1989. An effectiveness
model of liquid desiccant system heat/mass exchangers.
Solar Energy 42, 449–455.
Ullah, M.R., Kettleborough, C.F., Gandhidasan, P., 1988.
Effectiveness of moisture removal for an adiabatic counter-
flow packed tower absorber operating with CaCl2 –air
contact system. Transactions of ASME Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 110, 98–101.