AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Suzanne Snead Perry Kaster for the degree of Master of Science

in Chemical Engineering presented on

Title: ABSORPTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN WATER USING A MULTIPLE

STAGE CROSSCURRENT PACKED COLUMN

Abstract approved:
Redacted for Privacy
Dr. Charles E. Wicks

A cascade crosscurrent column, packed with Pall rings, was

employed for carbon dioxide absorption from a carbon dioxide-rich

air phase by contacting with water. Absorption efficiency was

presented as the percentage of CO2 removed versus gas flow rates for

constant liquid to gas ratios (L/G).

Curves were developed for an L/G molar flow ratio of 25 and 50.

The curve for an L/G ratio of 25 exhibited a distinct mass transfer

transition point which corresponded to the flow transition point, the

point when cross flow first appears. The curve for L/G ratio of SO

did not exhibit the mass transfer transition point, however, the

efficiency changes were small and the mass transfer transition point

though a flow
may well have been masked by experimental error even

transition point was observed.

The mass transfer data was found comparable to carbon dioxide-

air-water data obtained by another investigator using a countercurrent

column. This information coupled with the higher throughput and

lower pressure drop attributed to the crosscurrent column make it an

attractive alternative to conventional towers.

 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in Water
Using a Multiple Stage Cross Current Packed Column

by

Suzanne Snead Perry Kaster

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of

Master of Science

Completed June 1981

Commencement June 1982

APPROVED:

Redacted for Privacy

Head of Department of Chemical Engineering and Professor in charge
of major.

Redacted for Privacy

Dean of Graduate S of

Date thesis is presented j-Lxvt.c. 30 \96k

Typed by Michele Merfeld for Suzanne Kaster

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. LITERATURE SURVEY 4

III. EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE 5

A. The Crosscurrent Packed Column 5

Test Conditions 8

7
B. Measurement of CO Concentration 8
2

C. Working Equations to Calculate Flowrates 10

D. Operating Procedure 12 /1

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14

A. Modification of Column 14

B. Carbon Dioxide Removal Efficiency 15

V. CONCLUSIONS 20

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 21

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 22

VIII. APPENDICES 23

Sample Calculations 23
Appendix A:

Appendix B: Mass Transfer Data 26

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Schematic of Equipment Arrangement 6

2 Multiple Stage Crosscurrent Packed Column 7

3 Schematic of Mixing Section Modification 9

4 Absorption Efficiency versus Gas Rate for an L/G Ratio

of 50 16

5 Absorption Efficiency versus Gas Rate for an L/G Ratio

of 25 17
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 The Constants K and K Used in Calculating lair 11

1 2

2 Inlet Sample Size Data 26

3 Mass Transfer Data 27

 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide in Water
Using a Multiple Stage Cross Current Packed Column

I. INTRODUCTION

Mass transfer is a fundamental concept utilized in various indus-

trial operations and research. The mass transfer operation in which

a gas mixture is contacted with a liquid for the purpose of preferen-

tially dissolving one or more of the gaseous components into the

liquid is called gas absorption. Due to increased environmental

concerns and energy costs much effort is focussed on improving gas

absorption methods.

One of the most common pieces of absorption equipment is the

packed column. The column, being filled with a packing material,

promotes contact between the two phases, liquid and gas, therefore,

increasing the mass transfer.

Two types of flow patterns are most commonly found in industry,

countercurrent and cocurrent, with countercurrent being found most

often. In countercurrent flow the liquid phase falls down through the

column due to gravity while the gas phase rises through the column due

to an imposed pressure gradient. This is the most efficient arrangement,

requiring less packed height for a given mass transfer change and flow

rates. However, the gas throughout is limited. In countercurrent flow

there is a limit on upward gas velocity, above which the drag forces

imposed on the liquid exceed gravity forces. When this occurs an

unstable, undesirable condition known as flooding, is obtained. This

 2

throughput limit can be overcome by using cocurrent flow. With co-

current flow the liquid and gas both enter the top of the packed tower

and flow downward due to the combination of gravity and imposed

pressure gradient. There is no flooding present in cocurrent flow.

However, the disadvantage of this type of flow arrangement is a much

reduced concentration driving force and therefore, reduced efficiency.

This means, that for the same mass transfer one would need a much

larger cocurrent packed column than one operated countercurrently.

The alternative to countercurrent and cocurrent flow is the cross-

current packed column. This flow pattern is essentially countercurrent

in that the liquid enters at the top of the column, the gas entering

at the bottom of the column. However, in a crosscurrent column,

baffles are placed to divert the gas and liquid flows from side to side

so that the two phases cross at right angles to each other. The

concentration driving force profile of crosscurrent flow has been found

to fall between that of countercurrent and crosscurrent towers. However,

at high gas rates liquid accumulates on the baffles where the gas

bubbles go through. This bubbling action coupled with the vigorous

mixing in the packing add to the column efficiency. The cross flow

columns enjoy higher throughput capacity than countercurrent, the low

pressure drop of cocurrent and the high mass transfer efficiency of

countercurrent. For these reasons, the crosscurrent column can be an

attractive alternative for gas-liquid contacting.

The objective of this study is to add to the information presented

in the literature survey by investigating the mass transfer of carbon

dioxide (CO 2 ) in air to water, carbon dioxide being only slightly

 3

soluble in pure water.

 4

II. LITERATURE SURVEY

An extensive literature survey was given by Ghawamedin Bayan

(1) covering the early development and up-to-date research concerned

with the crosscurrent packed column.

-

Bayan collected extensive mass transfer data for the ammonia-

air-water system in a cascade crosscurrent column. It was found that

the system exhibited a distinct transition point in the mass transfer

data illustrated by a sharp rise in the mass transfer efficiency versus

gas rate curve. This transition point corresponded to the point where

the gas flow rate was high enough, for a given liquid to gas ratio,

for the column to begin to exhibit cross flow. Number and spacing of

baffles as well as size of the packed core were varied, trends noted,

and models proposed. The theoretical model proposed was successful

in predicting column behavior.

The gas absorption of CO2 in air by water in a crosscurrent column

has received little attention. This system was studied utilizing a

) pi
countercurrent column by Koch, Stutzman, Blum, and Hutchings (2). Their

goal was to obtain mass transfer coefficients, however, data was pre-

sented from which mass transfer efficiencies could be calculated. With

an inlet gas CO2 concentration in the area of 13%, efficiencies cal-

culated varied between 4% to 11% depending on flow rates.

The desorption of oxygen in a single stage crosscurrent column was

studied by Pittaway and Thibodeaux (3). Oxygen, like CO2, is relatively

insoluble in water. Liquid phase mass transfer coefficients were mea-

sured and a correlating equation developed.

 5

III. EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE

The main pieces of equipment employed in this work were the

cascade crosscurrent packed column and the gas chromatograph. Detailed

information concerning construction and makeup of the column and re-

lated equipment, as seen in Figure 1, can be obtained from Bayan (1)

and Zuehlsdorff (4).

A. The Crosscurrent Packed Column

The crosscurrent packed column, as illustrated in Figure 2, is

essentially a rectangular box constructed of plexiglass and metal. A

central packed core was positioned in the column, held by screens from

the sides and top and bottom. Baffles were positioned at regular

intervals on opposite sides of the central packed section and attached

to the side walls. These baffles were used to divert the gas phase

into the packing affecting a crisscross gas-liquid flow pattern.

The column was designed to have the ability to change its internal

arrangements. The number and placement of baffles as well as the size

of the packed section were variables. In this experiment, six baffles

were placed on alternating side walls at a vertical distance between

baffles of 254 mm. The packing section configuration, to use Bayan's

(1) terminology, was "expanded" with a packed cross sectional area of

127 mm by 152 mm.

The gas phase was air enriched with CO2, the liquid phase was city

water. The carbon dioxide was supplied as a liquid in a 110 kg capacity

CO and 4-----
2
Air Out

Cross Flow
Column

1
CO
2
In I L Liquid
I
Rotamete
I

1
I r-
I

P T J Water In
fice L J

Air Bypass
(:)

Air U
In
Air Blower Manometer Drain

V
Figure 1. Schematic of Equipment Arrangement

rn
 7

83 mm

Gas
Outlet
FRONT
VIEW
Ir"" Liquid De-
entrainer
SIDE
VIEW
Space (void)
Access Port

,.." Liquid Inlet

Shower Head

4..
TOP VIEW
I"414"%,

O 127 mm
I. Screen

1-254 mm-411

BOTTOM VIEW Tie Rods

1.."0

O 127 mm
P 4

1.0.254 mm

Gas Deflection I Packed Section

Baffles
F 4
I

Liquid Accumulator
Space (void) Access Port

Liquid Outlet

Figure 2. Multiple stage crosscurrent packed column.

 8

cylinder as welding grade CO and delivered through a regulator as gas.

2

Flow rate was roughly set by the regulator and fine controlled by a

needle valve. The CO entered the air stream through a plastic diffuser
2

extending the width of the air pipe and containing numerous holes on

the upstream side.

This experiment did require a major modification of the existing

column. In order to insure good mixing of CO2 and air, the section

of pipe immediately prior to the column was lengthened and baffles

installed. The baffles were made of 6.35 mm plexiglass and placed in

the airstream with silicone seal in the configuration shown in Figure 3.

A sample port with septum and thermometer was placed after the mixing

section and prior to the column. The CO2 diffuser was also part of

this modification.

Test Conditions

All of the tests for this study have been conducted within the

following range of conditions.

Molar Liquid to Gas (L/G) Ratio = 25 or SO

Gas Flow Rate = 44 - 152 kg mole/m2 hr

2
Liquid Flow Rate - 1,171 - 5,060 kg mole/m hr

Inlet Molar CO Concentration = 3.5% to 5.0% CO

2 2

B. Measurement of CO Concentration with the Gas Chromatograph

2

The concentration of CO was determined using a Basic Gas Chro-

2

matograph from Carle Instruments, Inc. The column was packed with

Porapak Q, the carrier gas was helium, the operating temperature varied
 9

Before Modification

Crosscurrent
CO In Column
2

4-- 90 mm --)

Air In --->

After Modification

(-.46mm--) Crosscurrent
Column

II
I I
Sample
Port

CO
on.411mm,

411 90
..
MMII

OOMPs00

2 HMI

Air
In
4- 64 mm-3

----Indicates baffle placement

Figure 3. Schematic of Mixing Section Modification

 10

slightly around 61°C. Inlet and outlet gas samples were taken with

a Hamilton 250 pl syringe. The inlet sample was obtained at the sample

port immediately prior to the column. The outlet sample was taken

at the end of the exit air stream pipe.

The outlet sample volume was arbitrarily set at 200 pl. The

inlet sample volume varied according to the sample point temperatures

as follows:

inlet (°K)
inlet sample volume (Al)) = 2000 ,inlet (1)

The chromatograph response was recorded on a Houston Instrument

Omniscribe Recorder. The area under the carbon dioxide peak was obtained

manually by assuming the peak to be a triangle. Carbon dioxide gas

standards were used to compute percent CO2 from peak areas.

C. Working Equations to Calculate Flow Rates

A theoretical development of the equations necessary to calculate

the flow rates were presented by Bayan (1) and Zuehlsdorff (4). A

summary is presented here.

1. Entering Air Flow Rate

Ap 1// P/ AP
K1 [1.0 - K2 TH (2)
thair
T1

where m = molar flow rate, g moles/sec

P1 = upstream pressure, Pa
AP = orifice pressure drop, Pa
T1 = orifice upstream temperature, °K
M = 28.97 + 18.01 (1.609)Z , average molecular weight
1.0 + 1.609Z
of gas stream, kg/kg mole
 11

Z = humidity, kg H20/kg dry air

Table 1
The Constants K and K Used in Calculating m air
1 2

Diameter K K Operating Range

1 2
mm moles/sec

-3
16.0 1.779 x 10 0.29321 0.159-0.393
-3
25.4 4.50 x 10 0.29510 0.393-1.172
-3
50.8 20.720 x 10 0.32871 0.975-4.891

2. Exit Air Flow Rate

Since the amount of water stripped from the air is negligible, a

good approximation is:

a (3)
air, n
in air-, out

where m = gmoles/sec

3. Entering Water Flow Rate

AH. . = F (% of scale) (4)

2u,

where F = 0.1574 for the small rotameter

F = 1.091 for the large rotameter
= gmoles/sec

4. Exit Water Flow Rate

A (5)
MH 20, out -1120, in

where th = gmoles/sec
 12

D. Operating Procedures

Preliminary operating procedure including baffle placement and

packing location have been previously explained. Carbon dioxide

standards were prepared.

1. Start Up Procedure

a) open liquid out valve

b) open manometer valves 1, 4, and 5

c) place appropriate orifice plate in the system

d) turn on air blower, allow air inlet temperature to

stabilize

e) turn on gas chromatograph, allow to stabilize

f) set approximate desired water flow rate

g) set approximate desired air flow rate

At this point the exact air flow rate was calculated. Knowing

the desired liquid to gas flow ratio (L/G), one could then set the

liquid flow rate. Ten minutes was allowed for flow patterns and tempera-

tures to stabilize. The CO flow was then adjusted, samples taken and
2

run on the gas chromatograph, until the inlet CO2 concentration was

approximately 4-4.5% CO Inlet sample volume was determined using

2'

equation (1). Five to ten minutes were allowed for the column to reach

equilibrium before actual CO2 concentration measurements were made.

Flow rates were checked during the run to make sure no major fluctua-

tions had occured. If needed, adjustments were made.

For each run the following information was recorded.

 13

= atmospheric pressure
P A TM
P = orifice upstream pressure
1
AP = pressure drop across orifice
T = orifice upstream air temperature
1
Tw, Td = wet and dry bulb temperatures of inlet gas stream
% of scale for water rotameter
Temperature at inlet gas sample port
Temperature at gas exit

During each run, repetitive samples were taken of the inlet and

outlet gas as quickly as possible. The normal sampling order was two

inlet samples followed by two outlet samples repeated three times.

Sampling was extended if needed to obtain reproducible data.

2. Shut Down Procedures

a) close the CO tank valve

2

b) turn off gas chromatograph

c) turn off main water supply

d) turn off air blower

d) close manometer valves

 14

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Modification of Column

The first major problem encountered in this investigation was

the inability to obtain a material balance around the column. The

inlet sample point was at the mouth of the inlet gas stream as it

flowed into the column. The outlet sample point was at the mouth of

the exiting gas stream pipe where it reentered the atmosphere.

Different volumes of gas were taken at the inlet and exit sample points

to compensate for temperature differences by using the ideal gas

equation. With the above system the exiting CO2 concentration was 7%

higher than the incoming concentration when only gas streams entered

and left the column.

Preliminary runs indicated that poor mixing of CO2 and air prior

to the column were causing inaccurate inlet concentration readings.

This was found to be true when inlet samples were taken at various

points within the inlet gas stream which showed up to a 10% variation

in CO concentration.
2

In order to promote better mixing the gas stream pipe just prior

to the column was replaced by a longer U-shaped pipe as previously

described (see Figure 3). A total of eight baffles were inserted

into this mixing section. The baffles plus the longer pipe, which

lengthened the available mixing time and provided turbulence due to

the three additional 90° elbows used in constructing the U-shape, did

promote good mixing. Inlet samples taken at different points within

 15

the gas stream showed 0.9% difference in CO concentration with no

2

consistant pattern.

Operating the column with only gas streams entering and leaving,

the inlet and outlet sample CO2 concentrations now matched within 0.5%

with no consistant pattern. To illustrate temperature effects, the

same volume for inlet and outlet samples was used. Measurements

showed 2% more CO exiting than entering. This shows the importance

2

of the mixing section as well as use of temperature compensation in

determining sample volumes. The discovery of the above lent additional

confidence to data obtained under these modified procedures.

B. Carbon Dioxide Removal Efficiency

Previous work studying the absorption of CO2 by water used

various liquid to gas ratios (L/G), ranging from about twenty to

several hundred. An initial L/G of SO was chosen with the idea of

decreasing or increasing it depending on the results obtained.

The first step was to locate the flow transition point, the point

where crisscross flow first develops, in order to define the area of

gas flow rates that needed to be studied. The CO removal efficiencies

2

versus gas rate for an L/G of 50 are shown in Figure 4. The lack of

any trend towards increasing efficiencies with increasing flow rates

indicated that flow rates would have to be decreased to decrease

initial efficiencies in order to see any changes in efficiency versus

flowrate. This was accomplished with an L/G of 25. A plot of CO2

removal efficiencies versus gas rate for an L/G of 25 is shown in

Figure 5.
a)

0
r:4

0
12 O 0
0 0
0
10 Iwo
0
a)
ri
O I o®
0 O
rl
8 I
4.4

Flow Transition
6
Point
4-)

0
In

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gas Rate, kg mole /hr m2

Figure 4. Absorption Efficiency versus Gas Rate for an L/G Ratio of 50

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Gas Rate, kg mole/hr m2

Figure 5. Absorption Efficiency versus Gas Rate for an L/G Ratio of 25

 18

For an L/G of 50, the efficiency of CO2 removal essentially did

not change with changing gas rate. Efficiencies were randomly scattered

between 8.4% and 11.8% with an average of 10.2%. The increased

contacting between the gas and water phases experienced after the flow

transition point, where cross flow first appeared, did not seem to be

a factor in the absorption of CO2 by water.

For an L/G of 25, the CO removal efficiencies remained essentially

2

constant at an average of 5.9% until the flow transition point was

reached. After the transition point, the efficiencies increased

markedly to about 8% and continued to rise with increasing gas rate

until a leveling off at about 10% efficiency.

Previous work (2) which studied the CO 2 absorption in water from

air for a countercurrent packed column presented data from which

efficiencies could be calculated. Efficiencies varied from 4.1% to

11.4% depending of flow rates. This observation coupled with our data

seems to show a practical maximum of water absorption of CO2 from air

in a packed bed in the area of 10-11%.

For an L/G of 50 the initial gas and water flow rates used resulted

in sufficient contacting between the phases to achieve this maximum

efficiency level. More than doubling the gas rate (and thereafter

the liquid rate to maintain an L/G of 50) had no effect on CO2

removal efficiencies. At the same initial gas rates for an L/G of 25,

the lowered water rate resulted in less contacting and lowered

efficiencies prior to the flow transition point. However, increased

phase contact after the transition point showed a sharp rise in

efficiencies which proceeded to level off around 10%. This corresponds

 19

well with the 10.2% average efficiency obtained for an L/G of 50.

The basic shape of the efficiency curve for L/G ratio of 25 was

proposed by Bayan (1). His data for an ammonia-air-water system in

a crosscurrent column yielded relatively flat curves followed by a

steeper curve at the flow transition point. It is supposed that for

an L/G of less than 25 for the carbon dioxide-air-water system, the

curves obtained would also follow the trend proposed by Bayan. It is

also possible that the curve for L/G of 50 follows this trend but that

the curves are so flat that the transition point is completely hidden

by our experimental error.

 20

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

This study began the investigation of the performance of cross

flow columns in the absorption of relatively insoluble gases.

Continuing the study of the carbon dioxide-air-water system would

not be profitable without making several changes as listed below:

1) use of gas chromatograph system with automatic integration

of peak areas,

2) expansion of the column water drain so that higher L/G

ratio studies can be made,

3) at L/G ratios lower than 25 the gas rate required to reach

the flow transition point is not attainable with the

present air supply system.

The study of the oxygen-air-water system is also difficult because

available city water is almost saturated with oxygen. It is

recommended that another relatively insoluble gas be selected for

future studies, the study being performed such that data can be

compared with the work done by Bayan (1).

 21

V. CONCLUSIONS

Mass transfer data for the carbon dioxide-air-water system

were obtained for flow rates both before and after the flow transi-

tion point, the point where cross flow first occurs within the tower.

For an L/G ratio of 25 the system exhibited a distinct mass transfer

transition point which corresponded with the flow transition point.

This curve supports the work performed by Bayan (1). For an L/G

ratio of 50 the mass transfer transition point was not apparant but

might have been masked by the experimental error present.

The mass transfer data obtained with the cascade crosscurrent

column was comparable to countercurrent data (2) for the carbon

dioxide-air-water system. Therefore, the higher throughput and lower

pressure drop experienced by the cross flow packed column make it

an attractive alternative to industry.

 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bayan, Ghawamedin, "Mass Transfer in a Multiple Stage Crosscurrent

Column," Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon (1980).

2. Koch, H. A., Stutzman, L. F., Blum, H. A., and Hutchings, L. E.,

"Gas Absorption - Liquid Transfer Coefficients for the Carbon
Dioxide-Air-Water System," Chem. Eng. Prog., 45 (11), 677 (1949).

3. Pittaway, K. R., and Thibodeaux, L. J., "Measurement of the Oxygen

Desorption Rate in a Single Stage Cross-Flow Packed Tower,"
Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 19, 40-46 (1980).

4. Zuehlsdorff, D. A., "Absorption of Ammonia in Water Using a Multiple

Stage Crosscurrent Packed Column," M.S. Thesis, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon (1979).
APPENDICES
 23

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

The following data and calculations are from Run #71.

Run #71 Date:

Orifice Diameter - 2.0 inches L/G = 25

= 29.87 in. Hg.

PA TM
(25.08)-(11.61) Pa
]3386.4 104,506 Pa
P1 [PATH 13.6 in Hg

Pa
AP = [(25.00)-(23.5)1249. 373.65 Pa
Iin.H 0
2

T = 41°C = 314°K
AIR

Air In Td = 95°F Tw = 72.5°F Z = 0.012

28.97 + 28.98Z kg
M1 1.0 + 1.609Z kg mole

-3
For orifice diameter of 2.0 inches: K = 20.721 x 10
1

K2 = 0.32871

'hair in
373.65 /(104 506)(37365)
20.721 x 10-3 [1.0 - (0.32871) 104,506-1 (28.76)(314)
1,.
moles
= 1.361
sec

moles
= (L/G)(G) = (25)(1.361) sec
water in

34.02
34.
Rotameter Setting 31.2% of large rotameter
1.091
(273 + 36.
Inlet Sample Size = 200 pl 214 pl
)°K
(273 + 16.47)°K
 24

At this point in a run, inlet and outlet samples are taken

and analyzed by the gas chromatograph. The following method is used

to determine the CO peak area. All peak dimensions are relative

2

to the recorder chartpaper. Peak areas are reported as "squares."

1. Determine the widths of the peaks at the baseline.

Assume that peaks of the same general height have the

same baseline width. Average the widths for all CO2

inlet peaks and record. Average the widths of all the

CO outlet peaks and record.

2

inlet CO peak width = 3.03

2
outlet CO peak width = 2.93
2

2. Determine peak heights.

inlet samples outlet samples

68.9 64.9
69.3 65.6

71.3 65.1
70.9 65.9

71.6 66.1
71.1 66.5

Average Heights 70.5 65.7

3. Assume peak areas are represented by a triangle and that

Area = 1(base)(height).

Average Inlet Peak Area = 1(3.03)(70.5) = 106.8 squares

Average Outlet Peak Area = 1(2.93)(65.7) = 96.2 squares

Inlet-Outlet 106.8-96. 2 )100% -

= 9.93%
Efficiency ( )100, = (
Inlet 106.8
 25

4. Determine inlet and outlet concentrations.

The Standard Factor (SF) was determined as follows:

concentration of standard 4.0%

SF = = 0.0396%/square
standard peak area (squares) 101.0 squares

Inlet Concentration = (106.8 squares)(0.0396%/squares) = 4.23%

Outlet Concentration = (96.2 squares)(0.0396%/squares) = 3.81%

 26

Table 2. Inlet Sample Size Data

Temperature Temperature
Run Size Outlet Size Inlet
Inlet Sample Outlet Sample
Number Sample (11) Sample (il)
(°F) (°F)

31 88 69 200 207
32 88 69 200 207
33 86 66 200 208
34 88 67 200 208
35 91 65 200 210
36 93 66 200 210
37 94 66 200 211
38 95 66 200 210
39 96 65 200 212
40 97 66 200 212
41 96 66 200 211
42 98 66 200 212
43 100 65 200 213
44 98 66 200 212
45 99 66 200 212
46 88 67 200 208
47 91 67 200 209
48 93 67 200 210
49 89 68 200 208
SO 94 68 200 210
51 95 67 200 211
52 94 68 200 210
53 99 67 200 212
61 106 66 200 213
62 102 66 200 214
63 102 66 200 214
64 96 64 200 212
65 98 64 200 213
66 98 64 200 213
67 96 63 200 213
68 97 64 200 213
69 99 64 200 213
70 98 62 200 214
71 99 61 200 215
72 94 65 200 211
73 96 65 200 212
74 96 65 200 212
 27

Table 3. Mass Transfer Data

1
Run air 11-120 CO In CO Out
L/G Efficiency
Number mole/sec mole/sec
0 0
% CO Removed
2

-31 50 0.407 20.33 5.10 4.62 9.26

32 50 0.397 19.84 4.27 3.86 9.70
33 50 0.482 24.09 3.94 3.61 8.39
34 50 0.480 24.01 4.28 3.76 12.00
35 SO 0.587 29.34 4.14 3.72 10.17
36 50 0.588 29.41 4.18 3.72 11.1
, 37 50 0.675 33.76 4.15 3.72 10.35
38 50 0.684 34.74 4.27 3.88 9.14
39 50 0.678 34.52 4.35 3.95 9.02
40 50 0.767 39.01 4.21 3.80 9.83
41 50 0.766 38.31 4.12 3.66 11.29
42 50 0.840 41.99 4.28 3.81 10.96
43 50 0.907 45.34 4.27 3.77 11.59
44 50 0.897 44.85 4.09 3.67 10.24
45 50 0.835 41.76 4.01 3.53 11.85
46 SO 0.420 10.49 3.95 3.72 5.82
47 25 0.524 13.10 3.87 3.65 5.78
48 25 0.615 15.39 4.18 3.91 6.43
49 25 0.421 10.54 4.03 3.78 6.18
50 25 0.514 12.86 4.45 4.21 5.59
51 25 0.616 15.40 4.34 4.04 6.95
52 25 0.761 19.05 4.29 4.05 5.63
53 25 0.888 22.21 4.44 4.19 5.55
61 25 1.136 28.40 4.28 3.95 7.70
62 25 1.027 25.67 3.72 3.45 7.30
63 25 1.027 25.67 4.01 3.68 8.26
64 25 1.116 27.90 4.91 4.48 8.71
65 25 1.208 30.19 4.83 4.37 9.63
66 25 1.192 29.79 4.25 3.88 8.91
/ 67 25 1.286 32.15 3.92 3.57 8.88
68 25 1.260 31.50 4.21 3.86 8.29
69 25 1.335 33.37 4.23 3.85 9.08
70 25 1.212 30.29 4.43 4.09 7.78
71 25 1.361 34.02 4.23 3.81 9.93
72 25 0.896 22.40 3.81 3.61 5.35
73 25 0.893 22.32 4.44 4.18 5.81
74 25 0.757 18.92 4.38 4.15 5.40