According with the results shown in table 2, exists a big perceptual error between the
theoretical value and the experimental value of the conversion. Conversion was calculated for each
reactor of the system, and compared with the experimental result. For the first reactor, the
theoretical conversion have a value of 0,25, while the experimental have a value of 0,124. This
values give a perceptual error of 50,4%. On the other hand, the second reactor have a theoretical
conversion of 0,42, and an experimental of 0,33. It gives an error of 21,4%. As mentioned, this errors
are big, and it could be produced by experimental errors when the measurements are taken.
In addition, it is possible observe that the experimental conversions are lower than the
theoretical conversions. It was expected, because the assumptions to obtain the theoretical values
include that the concentration inside the reactor are the same in all the points inside. This is reached
with a perfect agitation in the reactor. In reality this agitation is not perfect, because the absence of
baffles inside the reactor could produce dead zones, which are zones without reaction. So, the
volume of reaction is less and, thus, the time of residence decreases. Thus, the conversion obtained
is lower than the conversion calculated with the ideal assumptions.
According with the results shown in table 3, the conversion reached in just one reactor are
lower than the conversion reached in a system of two reactor. The reactor have the same volume
that the sum of the volumes of the two reactors of the system. In fact, one reactor of 4,6 liters
reached a conversion of 0,38, while a system of two reactors of 2,3 liters of volume each one
obtained a conversion of 0,42. These results were expected because, when the reaction proceeds,
the conversion increases and the reaction rate decreases. In other words, the reaction becomes
slower with time. Hence, in a system of a serial reactors, each one operates with a different rate
reaction. In this case, the rate of the first reactor is greater than the second. Thus, the conversion at
the end of the second reactor is greater than the conversion obtained by just one reactor.
The errors exposed above have a multiple sources. First, can be produced by human errors,
which includes errors in the preparation of the solution of sodium hydroxide, because of the
precision of the scale of the instruments, like the volume of the container where the solution is
prepared. In the measurement of the caudal the error was probably produced by the people who
took the data, because a great precision between the person who measures the volume with the
test tube and the person who take the time with the chronometer is necessary.
Moreover, as feeding in the first reactor was entered by the surface, it is possible that the
reaction could not be realized in the totality of the reactor, because the distribution of
concentrations inside the reactor could not be homogeneous. In this case, the conversion at the end
of the first reactor is far to the theoretical value.
On the other hand, the kinetic constant used in this report was obtained in the first report,
which have an error associated. So, this error could affect the results obtained in this report.
In addition, the concentrations of NaOH inside the reactor were calculated in base of
different parameters, including 𝐾∞ . This variable was obtained in the stationary state when the
bombs were shut down, and represent an aproximation of the real value. So, it induced an error
that can affect the results in this report.
Lesser extent, the possible errors in the instruments, like the rotameter, the temperature
sensor and the conductivity sensor could have an effect in the measurements.