UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN KIMIA
HEAT & MASS TRANSFER LABORATORY
(CHE504)
NAME
STUDENT NO
GROUP
EXPERIMENT
DATE PERFORMED
SEMESTER
PROGRAMME / CODE
SUBMIT TO
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
: NURLINA SYAHIIRAH BINTI MD TAHIR
: 2017632214
: EH2204I
: GAS ABSORPTION (L8) (INDIVIDUAL REPORT)
: 5th APRIL 2018
:4
: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING / EH220
: MADAM SYAFIZA BINTI ABD HASHIB
Title
Abstract/Summary
Introduction
Aims
Theory
Apparatus
Methodology/Procedure
Results
Calculations
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations
Reference
Appendix
TOTAL MARKS
Allocated Marks (%)
Marks
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
20
10
5
5
5
100
Remarks:
Checked by:
Rechecked by:
---------------------------
---------------------------
Date:
Date:
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 2
2.0
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 3
3.0
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 4
4.0
THEORY ....................................................................................................................... 5
5.0
MATERIALS & APPARATUS ................................................................................... 7
6.0
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 8
7.0
RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 10
8.0
CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 14
9.0
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 17
10.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 19
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 20
12.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 21
13.0 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 22
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
1
1.0
ABSTRACT
Gas absorption is mass transfer operation where one or more species is removed from a gaseous
stream by dissolution in a liquid. Packed tower with Rashchig Rings packings is used in the
experiment. The main objective of the experiment is to examine the air pressure drop across
the column as a function of air flow rate for different water flow rates through the column. The
pressure drop is observed every 2 minutes at air flowrate of 20 LPM, 40 LPM, 60 LPM, 80
LPM, 100 LPM, 120 LPM, 140 LPM, 160 LPM and 180 LPM for water flowrate of 1 LPM, 2
LPM and 3 LPM, respectively. The experiment is ongoing for the respective water flowrate
until flooding occurs. Then, the water flowrate is changed. The pressure drop increases as the
air flowrate is increases. Comparing with their respective theoretical data, the pressure drop at
1 LPM and 2 LPM shows higher value but lower value at 3 LPM. The percentage error is
determined at 12.50%, 33.33% and 20.00% for water flow rate of 1 LPM, 2 LPM and 3 LPM,
respectively. Packing tower work efficiently at lower liquid flow rate. Low liquid flow rate
enabling the absorption rate to be maximize. The objectives are successfully obtained, thus the
experiment is successfully done.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
2
2.0
INTRODUCTION
Gas absorption is mass transfer operation where one or more species is removed from
a gaseous stream by dissolution in a liquid. The component that is extracted from the gaseous
stream is known as solute and the component that extracting the solute is known as solvent.
Packed column is one of the commonly used gas absorption equipment. Packed column can be
operated in co-current as well as counter currently. Counter-current flow is preferable since the
contact time between the liquid and gas is greater. This equipment usually consists of a
cylindrical column containing a gas inlet and distributing space at the bottom, a liquid inlet and
a packing or filing in the tower.
The packed column used in the experiment is SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column
BP751-B which used Raschig Rings as the packings medium. Air and water as the gas and
liquid, respectively. At low gas velocity, the pressure drop is proportional to the flow rate. At
loading point, the gas starts to hinder the liquid flow and accumulation occurs in the packings.
At the upper limit of the gas flow rate which is called flooding velocity, flooding occurs. The
operating packed column, in actual operating or industries should be well below flooding since
the equipment cannot operate above the flooding velocity. The pressure drop within the system
increases as the flow rate of the gas or liquid is increases.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
3
3.0
OBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives for the experiment:
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 as in Appendix.
4) To compare the experimental value and the correlated value.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
4
4.0
THEORY
Gas absorption is mass transfer operation where one or more species is removed from a gaseous
stream by dissolution in a liquid. The component that is extracted from the gaseous stream is
known as solute and the component that extracting the solute is known as solvent. Carrier gas
is the insoluble component present in the gas that is not absorbed by the solvent. The transfer
is based on the preferential solubility of solutes in the solvent (Gas Absorption And Desorption,
n.d.).
Packed towers are used for continuous countercurrent contacting of gas and liquid in
absorption (Geankoplis, 1993).The mechanism in packed tower is the gas and liquid phases
flows counter – currently where they interact on the packings interface. The liquid flows in
downward direction, over the surface of the packing, whereas the gas flows through the space
or voids of the packings in upward direction. The gas flow is driven by pressure while the liquid
flow is driven by the gravity force. The gas undergoes pressure drop due to the liquid occupied
some part of the open space and voids of the packing. Thus, reducing the area available for the
gas to flow. If the packing is dry with no liquid feed, then maximum flow gas is available. The
pressure drop increases as the liquid flowrate into the tower increases.
High flux will resulting in flooding. This occurrence happen at the upper limit of the
gas flow rate called flooding velocity since the liquid is blown out with the gas at the flooding
point. The gas start to hinder the liquid flow at loading point where accumulation of liquid start
appearing in the packing. Low flux will resulting in channelling or weeping. There are two
types of packings types which is random and structured.
Figure 1 - Typical Packed Tower Packings: (a) Raschig ring, (b) Lessing ring, (c) Berl
Saddle, (d) Pall Ring (Geankoplis C. J., 1993)
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
5
One of the oldest specially manufactured types of random packings are Raschig rings
and still in general use. (Separation Columns (Distillation, Absorption and Extraction)) They
provide a large surface area within the volume of the column for the interaction between liquid
and gas. They also enhance the contact time between liquid and gas. (iitb.vlab.co.in, 2011) The
generalized correlation for pressure drops in packed column (Eckert, 1970)
Figure 2 - Generalized Correlation for Pressure Drop in Packed Columns
(Eckert, Chem. Eng. Prog., 66(3), 39 (1970)
y − axis =
x − axis =
Where,
Gy
Gy 2 FP vx 0.1
g C (ρx − ρy )ρy
ρy
Gx
√
Gy ρx − ρy
(Equation 1)
(Equation 2)
= Gas Mass Velocity, kg/m2.s
Gx
= Liquid Mass Velocity, kg/m2.s
ρy
= Density of Gas, kg/m3
ρx
= Density of Liquid, kg/m3
FP
= Packing Factor, m-1
vx
= Kinematic Viscosity of Liquid, m2/s
gC
= gravitational constant,
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
6
5.0
MATERIALS & APPARATUS
5.1
Materials
1) Water.
2) Air.
5.2
Apparatus
1) SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column BP751-B
Figure 3 - The Packed Column Used in The Experiment with Raschig Rings as The
Packings
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
7
6.0
METHODOLOGY
6.1
Start-Up Procedures
1) All the valves are ensured to be closed except for the ventilation valve, V13.
2) All the gas connections are checked to be properly fitted.
3) All the valve on the compressed air supply line is opened. The supply pressure is set
to between 2 to 3 bars by turning the regulator knob clockwise.
4) The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder is opened and the pressure is checked.
5) The power for the control panel is turned on.
6.2
Experimental Procedures: Hydrodynamics of a Packed Column (Wet Column
Pressure Drop)
1) The receiving vessel B2 is filled through the charge port with 50L of water by
opening valve V3 and V5. Then, valve V3 is closed.
2) Valves V9 and V10 is opened slightly. The flow of the water from vessel B1 through
pump P1 is observed. Pump P1 is switched on.
3) Valve V11 is slowly opened and adjusted to give a water flowrate of around 1L/min.
4) The water is allowed to enter the top of the column K1, flow down the column and
accumulated at the bottom until it overflows back to vessel B1.
5) The valve V11 is opened and adjusted to give a water flow rate of 1 L/min into
column K1.
6) The valve V1 is opened and adjusted to give and air flow rate of 20L/min into column
K1.
7) The liquid and gas flow in the column K1 is observed. The pressure drop across the
column at dPT-201 is recorded.
8) Steps 3 to 5 is repeated with different values of air flow rate, each time increasing
by 20 L/min each time after two minutes while maintaining the same water flow rate.
9) Steps 3 to 6 is repeated with different values of water flow rate, each time increasing
by 1 L/min by adjusting valve V11.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
8
6.3
Shut-Down Procedures
1) Pump, P1 is switched off.
2) Valves, V1, V2 and V12 is closed.
3) The valve on the compressed air supply line is closed and the supply pressure is
exhausted by turning the regulator knob counter clockwise all the way.
4) The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder is closed.
5) All the liquid in the column K1 is drained by opening valve V4 and V5.
6) All the liquid from the receiving vessels, B1 and B2 is drained by opening valves,
V7 and V8.
7) All the liquid from the pump P1 is drained by opening valve V10.
8) The power for the control panel is turned off.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
9
7.0
RESULTS
Table 7.1: Pressure Drop At Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.
Flow rate
Pressure Drop
(L/min)
(mBar)
Air
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1.0
0
0
2
4
5
11
14
25
32 (F)
2.0
0
2
3
6
10
14
25
41(F)
F
3.0
1
2
5
10
18
36(F)
F
F
F
160
180
Water
*F = Flooding
Table 7.2: Pressure Drop At Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.
Flow rate
Pressure Drop
(L/min)
(mm H2O/m)
Air
20
40
60
80
100
1.0
0.00
0.00
25.49
50.99
63.73
2.0
0.00
25.49
38.24
76.48
127.46 178.45 318.66
3.0
12.75
25.49
63.73
127.46 229.44
Water
120
140
140.21 178.45 318.66
458.87
(F)
F
522.60
(F)
F
407.89
(F)
F
F
*F = Flooding
Table 7.3: Theoretical Pressure Drop At Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.
Flow rate
Theoretical Pressure Drop
(L/min)
(in H2O/ft)
Air
20
Water
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1.0
0.0000 0.0906 0.2000 0.2917 0.4205 0.7500 1.1667
F
F
2.0
0.0750 0.2500 0.3958 0.5000 1.0000
F
F
F
F
3.0
0.1600 0.4318 0.7500 1.5000
F
F
F
F
F
*F = Flooding
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
10
Table 7.4: Theoretical Pressure Drop At Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.
Flow
Theoretical Pressure Drop
rate
(mm H2O/m)
(L/min)
Air
20
Water
40
60
1.0
0.0000
2.0
6.2483 20.8275 32.9741
3.0
7.5479 16.6620
80
100
120
140
160 180
24.3015 35.0319 62.4825 97.1978
F
F
41.6550 83.3100
13.3296 35.9733 62.4825 124.9650
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
*F = Flooding
Table 7.5: Log Pressure Drop and Log Air Flowrate Value (Experimental)
Flow rate
Log Pressure Drop
(L/min)
(mm H2O/m)
Air
Water
1.3010 1.6021 1.7782 1.9031 2.0000 2.0792 2.1461 2.2041 2.2553
1.0
-
2.0
-
3.0
-
1.4064 1.7074 1.8044 2.1468 2.2515 2.5033
1.4064 1.5825 1.8835 2.1054 2.2515 2.5033
1.1054 1.4064 1.8044 2.1054 2.3607
2.6617
(F)
F
2.7182
(F)
F
2.6105
(F)
F
F
*F = Flooding
Table 7.6: Log Pressure Drop and Log Air Flowrate Value (Theoretical)
Flow rate
Log Theoretical Pressure Drop
(L/min)
(mm H2O/m)
Air
Water
1.3010 1.6021 1.7782 1.9031 2.0000 2.0792 2.1461 2.2041 2.2553
1.0
-
0.8778 1.2217 1.3856 1.5445 1.7958 1.9877
F
F
2.0
0.7958 1.3186 1.5182 1.6197 1.9207
F
F
F
F
3.0
1.1248 1.5560 1.7958 2.0968
F
F
F
F
F
*F = Flooding
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
11
Table 7.7: Data from Calculation to Determine Theoretical Pressure Drop
Air
Gas Mass
Capacity
Liquid Mass Velocity
Flow Parameter
Flowrate
Velocity
Parameter
(𝑮𝒙 ) 𝐤𝐠/𝐦𝟐 𝐬
(x-axis)
(𝐕𝐲 )
(𝑮𝐲 )
(y-axis)
LPM
𝐤𝐠/𝐦𝟐 𝐬
20
0.0779
0.0011
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 1.4566 2.9132 4.3698
40
0.1558
0.0046
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.7283 1.4566 2.1849
60
0.2338
0.0103
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.4855 0.9711 1.4566
80
0.3117
0.0184
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.3641 0.7283 1.0924
100
0.3896
0.0287
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.2913 0.5826 0.8740
120
0.4675
0.0414
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.2428 0.4855 0.7283
140
0.5454
0.0563
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.2081 0.4162 0.6243
160
0.6234
0.0735
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.1821 0.3641 0.5462
180
0.7013
0.0931
3.3025 6.6049 9.9074 0.1618 0.3237 0.4855
1
2
3
1
2
3
LPM
LPM
LPM
LPM
LPM
LPM
Table 7.8: Percentage Error of The Experiment
Water Flow
Theoretical Flooding
Experimental Flooding
Percentage Error
Rate
Air Flow Rate
Air Flow Rate
(%)
(L/min)
(L/min)
(L/min)
1
160
180
12.50
2
120
160
33.33
3
100
120
20.00
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
12
Log Pressure Drop vs Log Air Flowrate
3.0000
2.5000
Log Pressure Drop
2.0000
Exp (1 LPM)
Exp (2 LPM)
1.5000
Exp (3 LPM)
Theory (1 LPM)
Theory (2 LPM)
1.0000
Theory (3 LPM)
0.5000
0.0000
0.0000
0.5000 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000
Log Air Flowrate (LPM)
2.5000
Figure 4 - Log Pressure Drop vs Loq Air Flowrate
The graph shows the log pressure drop increases as the log air flowrate increases. Also
indicates as air flowrate increases, the pressure drop increases. At 1 LPM and 2 LPM water
flowrate, the experimental data shows a higher pressure drop compared to theory but at 3 LPM
water flowrate, the experimental data shows a smaller pressure drop compared to theory.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
13
8.0
CALCULATIONS
Density of Air,
ρy = 1.175kg/m3
Density of Water,
ρx = 996kg/m3 (R. H. Perry, 1973)
Packing Factor,
FP = 900m3
Column Diameter,
D = 80mm
Water viscosity,
μx = 0.0008 kg/ms (Bingham, 1922)
*All properties are at T= 30°C
*All calculation is done via excel so the value may vary from calculator
Sample Calculation for Kinematic Viscosity of Water, vx
Kinematic Viscosity of Water, vx =
vx =
Dynamic Viscosity, μx
Density of Water, ρx
0.0008 kg/ms
996kg/m3
vx = 0.8032 × 10−6 m2 /s
Sample Calculation for Cross Sectional Area of Packed Column
πD2
Cross Sectional Area, AC =
4
π(0.08m)2
AC =
4
AC = 0.0050 m2
Sample Calculation for Gas Mass Velocity, 𝐆𝐲
Gas Mass Velocity, Gy =
Volume Flowrate, Vy (Density of Gas, ρy )
Cross − Sectional Area, AC
20L 1m3
1min 1.175kg
(
)
(
min 1000L
60s ) ( m3 )
Gy =
0.0050m2
Gy = 0.0779 kg/m2 s
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
14
Sample Calculation for Liquid Mass Velocity, 𝐆𝐱
Liquid Mass Velocity, Gx =
Volume Flowrate, Vx (Density of Liquid, ρx )
Cross − Sectional Area, AC
1L 1m3
1min 996kg
min (1000L) ( 60s ) ( m3 )
Gx =
0.0050m2
Gx = 3.3025 kg/m2 s
Sample Calculation for Capacity Parameter, y-axis
y − axis =
Gy 2 FP vx 0.1
g C (ρx − ρy )ρy
0.1
0.0783 kg 2
10−6 m2
(
) (900m−1 ) (0.8032 ×
2
s )
m s
y − axis =
996kg 1.175kg 1.175kg
(1) (
−
)(
)
m3
m3
m3
y − axis = 0.0011
Sample Calculation for Flow Parameter, x-axis
x − axis =
ρy
Gx
√
Gy ρx − ρy
3.3025 kg
1.175kg
(
)
m2 s
m3
√
x − axis =
0.0779 kg
996kg 1.175kg
(
)
−
m2 s
m3
m3
x − axis = 1.4566
Sample Calculation for Theoretical Pressure Drop Units, in H2O/ft to mm H2O/m
Theoretical Pressure Drop, ∆PTheory =
0.0750in H2 O 83.31 ∗ mm H2 O/m
(
)
ft
1 in H2 O/ft
∆PTheory = 6.2483 mmH2 O/m
*Eckert, Chem. Eng. Prog., 66(3), 39 (1970)
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
15
Sample Calculation for Pressure Drop Units, mBar to mm H2O/m
Pressure Drop, ∆PExp
2mBar 10.197162129779 mmH2 O
=
(
)
Height of Column, H
0.8𝑚
1 mBar
∆PExp /H = 25.49 mmH2 O/m
*1 mBar = 10.197162129779 mm H2O (ConvertUnits.com, n.d.)
*Height column = 0.8 m
Sample Calculation for Percentage Error
Experimental value − Theoretical Value
Percentage Error (%) = |
| × 100%
Theoretical Value
180 − 160
Percentage Error (%) = |
| × 100%
160
Percentage Error (%) = 12.5%
Sample Calculation for Pressure Drop
Figure 5 - The Theoretical Pressure Drop Is Located at The Intersection Between Flow
Parameter and Capacity Parameter for The Respective Flow Rate
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
16
9.0
DISCUSSION
The main objective for the experiment is to examine the air pressure drop across the column as
a function of air flow rate for different water flow rates through the column which being
visualize in the log – log graph (Figure 4). The air flow rate is adjusted from 20 L/min until 180
L/min with 20 L/min increment within 2 min as the allocated time for each flow rate to collect
the pressure drop for the particular gas flow rate at 1 L/min of water flow rate. The data is
collected until flooding occurs before proceeding to the next water flow rate up to 3 L/min with
increment of 1 L/min. Based on Figure 4, the log pressure drop increases as the log air flow rate
increases. This also indicates that as the air flow rate increases, the pressure drop also increases.
From the graph, we could also observe that, the higher the water flow rate, the lower
the log air flow rate. This is due to the water flow downwards hinder the air flow upwards,
resulting in high pressure drop. Thus, at high water flow rate, flooding happens rather faster
than at the lower one since the resistance that the water flow give to the air flow is greater. The
same case happens for the theoretical data. Proving that the experimental data shows the same
pattern as theoretical one.
Although for both theory and experimental data, the relationship between pressure drop
and air flow rate is proportional to each other, the experimental pressure drop is larger compared
to the theoretical pressure drop at water flow rate of 1 L/min and 2 L/min. Vary at 3 L/min, the
experimental pressure drop is smaller compared to the theoretical pressure drop. This could be
due to error in controlling the water flowrate from hindering the gas flowrate downwards at the
bottom of the gas absorption column.
The flooding occurrence at water flow rate of 1 L/min according to the theory should
have been at 160 L/min air flow rate, however during the experiment the flooding occurs at 180
L/min. As for water flow rate of 2 L/min and 3 L/min, theoretical flooding occurs at 120 L/min
and 100 L/min however the experimental flooding happens at 160 L/min and 120 L/min,
respectively. This resulting in error for the experiment which is 12.50%, 33.33% and 20.00%
for water flow rate of 1 L/min, 2 L/min and 3 L/min, respectively. The reason of the error could
be due to human error. During the experiment, the students need to control the water from
exceeding the entrance of the gas flow rate at the bottom of the column. However, at any time
the water level at the bottom could be too high which hinder the gas flow thus resulting in the
late flooding flow rate.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
17
The error could also happen due to parallax error during the adjustment of the next flow
rate in case of the student did not read the marking scale at eye level where the eyes should be
perpendicular to the marking scale. For instance, from 1 L/min to 2 L/min, maybe the student
mistakenly adjusted at 1.9 L/min. Thus, also affecting the flooding flow rate. The equipment
itself might not properly maintain which resulting in different value at the marking scale of the
flow rate and the real flow rate happening within the system of the packed tower.
Besides, the theoretical data and the experimental data vary could also due to the
differences in packing tower such as the packings within the tower. Whether the packing itself
is different or the condition of the Raschig rings is not the same with the one in the theory. The
packings also degrade along with time, reduces the efficiency of the packings. Thus, also
affecting the flooding flow rate. Although error occurs, the experiment is still considered
success since the errors is not too big and the distance of the respective graph at the theory and
experimental data is not far based on Figure 4.
Based on the experiment, we could also observe the fact that the packed tower used in
the experiment is working efficiently at lower liquid flow rate since flooding occurs at very high
gas flow rate. This allow the contacting time between the gas and liquid to be lengthen and thus
maximize the absorption rate. However, at high liquid flow rate, flooding is quick to happened
even at low gas flow rate. This shorten the contact time between gas and liquid which then
minimize the absorption rate.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
18
10.0
CONCLUSION
The pressure drop increases as the air flowrate increases. The pressure drop also increases as
the water flowrate increases. At 1 LPM and 2 LPM water flowrate, the pressure drop is higher
than the theoretical value. At 3 LPM water flowrate, the pressure drop is lower than the
theoretical value. The percentage error is determined at 12.50%, 33.33% and 20.00% for water
flow rate of 1 LPM, 2 LPM and 3 LPM, respectively. Packing tower work efficiently at low
liquid flow rate compared to high liquid flow rate. Low liquid flow rate enabling the absorption
rate to be maximize. Since the objectives is successfully obtained, the experiment is
successfully done.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
19
11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several recommendations can be made to improve the experiment for a better result.
The students should avoid errors that being caused from themselves such as parallax error.
They need to make sure the reading at the marking scale is done correctly where their eyes are
perfectly perpendicular to the meniscus of the liquid present in the scale. The packings used in
the packed column should be change into a new one. Since, this will yield to more accurate
data as the impact of channelling or weeping from previous experiment can be reduced. We
could also use other type of packings that have a higher surface area and allows vapor – liquid
contact area to be enhanced. The students also need to conduct the experiment with proper
personal protective equipment (PPE) so that any risk regarding the experiment can be
minimize. Lastly, the students should study the lab manual before conducting the experiment
to ensure the experiment run smoothly.
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
20
12.0
REFERENCES
Bingham. (1922). Fluidity and Plasticity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
ConvertUnits.com. (n.d.). Convert Milibar to mm H2O - Conversion of Measurement Units.
Retrieved 23 April , 2018, from ConvertUnits.com:
https://www.convertunits.com/from/millibar/to/mm+H2O
Eckert. (1970). Chem. Eng. Prog.
Gas Absorption And Desorption. (n.d.). Retrieved 20 April, 2018, from Separation Processes:
http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp03.htm
Geankoplis, C. J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations (Edition 3 ed.).
Minnesota, United States of America: Prentice-Hall International, Inc. Retrieved 20
April, 2018
Geankoplis, C. J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations (Third Edition ed.).
Minnesota: Prentice Hall International. Retrieved 30 April, 2018
iitb.vlab.co.in. (2011). Gas Liquid Absorption. Retrieved 1 May, 2018, from Sakshat Virtual
Labs: http://iitb.vlab.co.in/?sub=8&brch=116&sim=951&cnt=1
R.H. Perry, C. H. (1973). Chemical Engineers' Handbook (Fifth Edition ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Separation Columns (Distillation, Absorption and Extraction). (n.d.). Retrieved 24 April,
2018, from http://ceng.tu.edu.iq/ched/images/lectures/chemlec/st4/c1/EQUIPMENT_DESIGN_LECTURE_25%20mass%20transfer%20equipme
nt%203.pdf
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
21
13.0
APPENDIX
LAB REPORT ON GAS ABSORPTION (L8)
22