Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
Liquid to Liquid extractors are used in industry in order to remove unwanted solutes from one stream
(organic) to a more common stream like aqueous stream in order to free up the usually desired organic
stream. Usually two counter current stream flow past each other and the solute moves from one stream to
the other.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
Final Lab Report
Unit Operations II Lab 1
February 2nd, 2011
Group 5
Andrew Duffy
Daniyal Qamar
Jeff Tyska
Bernard Hsu
Ryan Kosak
Tomi Damo
Alex Guerrero
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
1. Summary
The purpose of the Liquid-Liquid Extraction lab is to determine the effect of mixing and its
correlation with the system’s efficiency to remove unwanted components from a mixture. The system
works off the premise that the components involved are all immiscible with one another. In this case of
this lab there are three liquids used; acetic acid, Chevron Superla White Oil, and water. The white oil and
acetic acid are mixed together in the feed tank with a 0.5 weight percent of acid to oil, which is then
mixed through the recycle system of the pump before it is sent to be mixed with the water in the first
stage. When it is properly mixed it is then sent to the first stage and allowed to interact with the water
which is flowing countercurrent to the feed of the oil-acid mix. Throughout the three stages the acetic acid
will transfer from the oil, which is the raffinate, to the extract, water in this case. Out of each stage two
samples will be taken, one of water and one of oil, and titrated with sodium hydroxide to determine the
amount of acetic acid contained in either the extract or raffinate of that stage.
There were many errors in the performance of the lab which yielded improper data. Therefore it
is very difficult to make any definite conclusions on how the speeds of the agitators affected the overall
efficiency of removing acetic acid from the white oil. The most significant error was that 94.829% of the
acetic acid was lost, and because of this fact the rest of the data cannot definitively draw any conclusions.
From data collected for the concentrations of the acetic acid found in each stage it can be seen that most
of the acid was lost between the first and second stage. In stage one the weight percent of acetic acid in
the water was 1.160e-2 and then in the second stage that dropped to 8.880e-4 and then to 1.497e-4 in the
last stage. It is recommended that covers for all of the tanks should be kept on at all times while the
process is in operation to ensure there is no loss of the acetic acid through evaporation. Another
recommendation is to understand early on how exactly the system works because it is difficult to get the
countercurrent flows to perform properly and to ensure that the mixing is successful in transferring the
acetic acid.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
2. Results
The objective of this lab was to remove the acetic acid in the mineral oil by transferring the acetic
acid to a counter current water stream. This experiment used three counter current cascading stages. The
feed had roughly .05 wt% of acetic acid in oil and the water stream (solvent) had no acetic acid. The most
important trial measurements that were taken were the second trial since the oil had started to flow out of
the third stage. Concentrations of acetic acid were taken for each phase at every stage in order to
determine the effectiveness of the system. The following graph outlines general trends observed during
the trial.
Percent wt Acetic Acid
Extraction Data
9.000E-03
8.000E-03
7.000E-03
6.000E-03
5.000E-03
4.000E-03
3.000E-03
2.000E-03
1.000E-03
0.000E+00
Water Phase
Oil Phase
0
1
2
3
4
Stage Number
Figure 1: Shows weight fraction of Acetic acid in each phase and stage.
As can be seen the weight fractions that are present at each stage are significantly lower than the
feed fraction of .05 wt%. The most notable observation is that the majority of the acetic acid was removed
from the oil during the first stage of interaction between the two streams. The fraction of acid in the oil
phase seems to have had some minimum solubility or possibly it is within the titration error. A different
test for determining acid in oil will need to be used to determine which it is. The reason for the large
discrepancy in the acetic acid concentration from stage one to two is not because of the water removal but
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
rather evaporation. When the acid and oil were mixed and then pumped to the first stage the
concentrations went from roughly .05 wt% to .008 wt% and even more was lost as the liquids were
further pumped. It was calculated from Table 7 that around 96 % of the acid was lost to the atmosphere
rather than extracted by the water.
The overall objective of the experiment was to determine a Murphree efficiency for either phase.
This objective was not able to be completes simply because of the quality of the data. An equilibrium
composition of the acid was not able to be determined from the initial numbers that were worked within
the lab.
3. Discussion
This Liquid-Liquid Extraction experiment was concerned about the effect of the speed of
mixing on the extraction efficiency. Two trials were performed – the first trial with a moderate
agitator speed and the second with a faster speed. As the data suggests, for both trials the results
do not agree with the principle behind Liquid-Liquid Extraction that with the more mixing of the
two liquids the better the molecules are able to partition (dissolve) into the preferred solvent and
the greater the extraction given more time to separate out. The data illustrates that for both trials
the majority of the Acetic Acid was extracted from the oil to the water in the first stage, and
subsequently that the amount of Acetic Acid in water decreased from each stage thereafter. This
means that the amount of Acetic Acid extracted into water decreased with each stage. It was
reliably assumed that the longer the mixing of the liquids the better the molecules are able to
partition into the preferred solvent. As stated, the data does not agree with this for the simple fact
that the majority of Acetic Acid used between both trials evaporated. It should be noted that
between both trials almost 95% of the Acetic Acid used in this experiment evaporated to the air.
This explains the trend seen in the data, because the majority of the Acetic Acid that was
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
extracted into the water occurred in the first stage shortly after the Acetic Acid – Oil mixture was
added to the system. Once the liquids were allowed to mix and settle throughout the other two
stages all the mixing and time to settle out allowed the Acetic Acid to evaporate out due to
uncovered tanks. With so much Acetic Acid evaporating out it is clear that with time the amount
of Acetic Acid extracting into the water decreased with increasing evaporation as seen in the
data.
Based on the principle of Liquid-Liquid Extraction, it was a reliable assumption that with
increasing agitator speed the more the two liquids mix and the more partitioning into the
preferred solvent will occur. The second trial should show that more Acetic Acid was extracted
between the three stages because it had an overall faster agitator speed. The data instead shows
that the first stage extracted more Acetic Acid in water in every stage than the second trial. This
disagreement can be explained by the source of error caused by the agitators. The agitators did
not have a very accurate way of indicate mixing speed. Although the dials had speed markings
from 1-9, when all of the agitators were set to the same dial speed it was observed that all three
agitators were going at different speeds. The operators had to try and estimate by eye that the
three impellers were all going around the same speed each trial. It is for this reason that during
the first trial the three impellers were operating at different speeds, which is a possible
explanation for the disagreement in Acetic Acid extracted from the two trials. The lack of being
able to accurately and quantitatively measure the agitator speeds has lead to the inability to draw
accurate conclusions about the effect of the speed of mixing on the extraction efficiency. As a
result the Murphree efficiencies were not calculated. This could have been avoided by fixing the
agitator speed dials and calibrating them so they all move at the same speed when set to the same
dial speed. An alternative solution to this is obtaining a new mixer/settler system that is clear or
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
relatively see-through so that the tank covers don’t have to be removed to make sure the agitators
are all going at the same speed.
Furthermore, the data should show that the amount of Acetic Acid in the oil is decreasing
between each stage (meaning that the Acetic Acid is partitioning into the water), which it does
for the most part but there are a few discrepancies most likely due to the fact that the oil was not
standardized and that the tank covers were removed for a significant portion of both trials. There
are a few causes for this. One major complication of this experiment was the fact that the system
kept clogging. This not only affected the mixing between the two liquids but also required the
tank covers to be removed in order to manually fix the clogging as stated before. The drain
valves of the settling compartments were very tiny and prone to clogging. This could have been
avoided if the drain valves were increased in size to avoid clogging from all the debris that enters
in from the dirty holding tanks. Also, the Rotameter for the Acetic Acid – Oil mixture did not
indicate any oil flow rate, and it also had a large clog in it. Without knowing the flowrate of the
Oil-Acid mixture, or whether its flow was steady, it was difficult to determine the water flowrate
required for the 2:1 countercurrent flow necessary to achieve steady state. The Water Rotameter
was constantly being changed by operators of the apparatus (leading to a non–steady state
operation) and it is likely that these complications lead to some of the discrepancies observed.
Definitive conclusions that can be drawn from this lab include the fact that since Acetic Acid
is polar it will dissolve easier in water than white oil and the more mixed the liquids are, the
more Acetic Acid should be transferred to the water. Another definitive conclusion that can be
made is that the agitator speeds have a strong influence on how much the Acetic Acid will
partition out into the water as can be seen from the data obtained. A more speculative conclusion
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
is exactly how the agitator speeds affect the amount of Acetic Acid partitioned into the water – it
was assumed that the faster the agitator speeds the more Acetic Acid extracted into the water, but
this was proven not to be the case for this specific experiment.
4. Conclusion
The purpose of the Liquid-Liquid Extraction lab is to determine the effect of mixing and its
correlation with the system’s efficiency to remove unwanted components from a mixture. The system
works off the premise that the components involved are all immiscible with one another. In this case of
this lab there are three liquids used; acetic acid, Chevron Superla White Oil, and water. The white oil and
acetic acid are mixed together in the feed tank with a 0.5 weight percent of acid to oil, which is then
mixed through the recycle system of the pump before it is sent to be mixed with the water in the first
stage. When it is properly mixed it is then sent to the first stage and allowed to interact with the water
which is flowing countercurrent to the feed of the oil-acid mix. Throughout the three stages the acetic acid
will transfer from the oil, which is the raffinate, to the extract, water in this case. Out of each stage two
samples will be taken, one of water and one of oil, and titrated with sodium hydroxide to determine the
amount of acetic acid contained in either the extract or raffinate of that stage.
There were many errors in the performance of the lab which yielded improper data. Therefore it
is very difficult to make any definite conclusions on how the speeds of the agitators affected the overall
efficiency of removing acetic acid from the white oil. The most significant error was that 94.829% of the
acetic acid was lost, and because of this fact the rest of the data cannot definitively draw any conclusions.
From data collected for the concentrations of the acetic acid found in each stage it can be seen that most
of the acid was lost between the first and second stage. In stage one the weight percent of acetic acid in
the water was 1.160e-2 and then in the second stage that dropped to 8.880e-4 and then to 1.497e-4 in the
last stage. The concentration of acetic acid stayed relatively constant in the oil samples indicating that it
was indeed transferred from the oil to the water in the mixing stages. It is recommended that covers for all
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
of the tanks should be kept on at all times while the process is in operation to ensure there is no loss of the
acetic acid through evaporation. Another recommendation is to understand early on how exactly the
system works because it is difficult to get the countercurrent flows to perform properly and to ensure that
the mixing is successful in transferring the acetic acid.
5. References
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
6. Appendix I: Data Tabulation/Graphs
Trial 1
Comp. Stage
Vol Sample Vol NaOH
(mL)
(mL)
V(NaOH) - V(NaOH, H2O, per
wt, if needed))
Moles NaOH
Moles AA
water
3
20
1
0.625
5.94E-07
5.94E-07
water
2
17
2.7
2.38125
2.26E-06
2.26E-06
water
1
20
57.2
56.825
5.40E-05
5.40E-05
oil
2
23
0.5
0.5
4.75E-07
4.75E-07
oil
1
22
0.1
0.1
9.50E-08
9.50E-08
M NaOH
Moles AA
Table 1: Acetic Acid in Extractor Trial 1
Note - 16 mL of pure water took .3 mL NaOH to standardize, oil was not
standardized
Trial 2
V(NaOH) - V(NaOH, H2O, per
wt, if needed)
Comp. Stage Vol Sample Vol NaOH
water
1
20
25
24.53125
2.33E-05
2.33E-05
oil
1
10
0.9
0.9
8.55E-07
8.55E-07
water
2
10
1.9
1.7125
1.63E-06
1.63E-06
oil
2
10
0.3
0.3
2.85E-07
2.85E-07
water
3
10
0.4
0.2125
2.02E-07
2.02E-07
oil
3
11
0.5
0.5
4.75E-07
4.75E-07
end
end
10
0.6
0.6
5.70E-07
5.70E-07
Table 2: Acetic Acid in Extractor Trial 2
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
Molarity AA in Phase
mol frac. AA
wt% AA
Comp.
2.97E-05
5.35E-07
1.78E-04
water
1.33E-04
2.40E-06
7.99E-04
water
2.70E-03
4.86E-05
1.62E-02
water
2.07E-05
1.46E-04
oil
4.32E-06
3.04E-05
oil
Table 3: Weight percent of AA in Oil/Water
Molarity AA in Phase
mol fract. AA
wt% AA
Comp.
1.17E-03
2.10E-05
7.00E-03
water
6.03E-04
oil
9.77E-04
water
2.01E-04
oil
1.21E-04
water
4.32E-05
3.04E-04
oil
5.70E-05
3.42E-04
end
8.55E-05
1.63E-04
2.93E-06
2.85E-05
2.02E-05
3.64E-07
Table 4: Weight percent of AA in Oil/Water
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
This table shows our flowrates and the calculations that were used in the standardization of our Sodium
Hydroxide:
Max Flow Rate
(gpm)
Actual Flow Rate (gpm)
1.12
0.448
Water
Oil
1.12
0.224
Standardization
of NaOH
Normalization
HCL (g/L)
Molarity HCL
Volume NaOH
(mol/L)
Volume HCL (L)
(L)
12.1
0.331507
0.0003
0.1
Molarity NaOH
(mol/L)
0.000995
Table 5: Flow rates and Normalization of Acid/Base
This table shows the average concentration of Acetic Acid in both phases, and in every stage of the
apparatus:
1st stage average AA wt% in water
1.160E-02
2nd stage average AA wt% in water
8.880E-04
3rd stage average AA wt% in water
1.497E-04
1st stage average AA wt% in oil
2.697E-04
2nd stage average AA wt% in oil
1.476E-04
3rd stage average AA wt% in oil
2.593E-04
Table 6: Average AA weight percents in Oil and Water
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
This table shows how much of the Acetic Acid was lost to the surroundings during the experiment:
Wt AA in, without evaporation, per minute =
9.34E-03lb
wt AA removed with water, per minute =
3.449E-04lb
wt AA out with oil in the final stage, per minute =
4.844E-06lb
Wt AA evaporated or lost, per minute
8.864E-03lb
% of AA evaporated or lost
94.892%
Table 7: AA recovery/loss
The following graph shows how the concentration of Acetic Acid varies in both phases as a function of
stage:
Extraction Lab
1.400E-02
Percent AA in phase
1.200E-02
1.000E-02
8.000E-03
Water Phase (Extract)
Oil Phase (Raffinate)
6.000E-03
4.000E-03
2.000E-03
0.000E+00
0
1
2
3
4
Stage #
Figure 1: Percent AA in phases
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
7. Appendix II: Error Analysis
Data tables indicate that 94.892 % of all Acetic Acid was lost due to evaporation. Thus, out of the
113mL of Acetic Acid that was mixed with the oil, only about 4.44g were recovered or about 4.23mL.
There were several different factors that led to the evaporation of such a great quantity of Acetic Acid.
The system was not at steady state when the Acetic Acid was added to the oil. It was found that the initial
oil amount in the feed was not sufficient for operation. The system was then subsequently stopped, oil
and more Acetic Acid added, and then restarted. This stop-restart cycle contributed to the non-steady
state operation of the apparatus and also allowed for more error in Acetic Acid addition, since a graduated
cylinder was used to measure the amount of Acetic Acid needed for 0.5 wt%. Following the restarting of
the system, the system was still found to not be at steady state, and thus the covers on the oil feed tank
and stages were taken off. This allowed for much of the Acetic Acid to evaporate into the air. The
smell around the laboratory area was physical evidence that a great amount of Acetic Acid evaporated
during the first trial. While much of the Acetic Acid was lost to the air, there were several other factors
that would have led to skewed data for this Liquid-Liquid Extraction laboratory.
The Oil-Acid Rotameter (Equipment #12) was broken and did not indicate any type of oil flow rate.
Visually, the rotameter had a large mass clogging it. The mass seemed to contain both hair and paint
chips from the oil feed tank. Without knowing the flowrate of the Oil-Acid mixture, or whether its flow
is steady, it is very difficult to determine the water flowrate that would be needed for countercurrent flow
to achieve steady state. However, not only was the rotameter clogged, during the cleaning process of the
system, it was found that much of the hairy, paint chip-laden residue was clogging the pump and much of
it was present in the water/oil mixture in the first two stages.
The Water Rotameter (Equipment #11) was constantly being changed by operators of the apparatus,
again, this led to a non-steady state operation. However, when the Water Rotameter was not longer being
changed, it indicated a dropping flowrate, despite no one turning the valve. This drop was sporadic and
not constant, but always in a dropping fashion. To further add to the non-steady state system problem, the
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
impellers on the apparatus do not have a very distinct marking pattern to indicate mixing speed.
Operators of the apparatus were led to estimate, by eye, that the three impellers were all at the same
speed. During the first trial, it was clear that the three different impellers were operating at different
speeds. This would lead to a different and difficult-to-calculate yield for each stage and contribute to the
non-steady state problem of that trial.
Other possible sources of error are in the titration, where the standardized NaOH was over 3 years
old, had molarity of 0.000994 mol/L and in the use of a graduated cylinder to measure the 0.5 wt% Acetic
Acid. The buret for titration had an error of ± 0.05mL. Regardless, none of these possible sources of
measurement errors could have contributed to the evaporative loss of 94.892% of all Acetic Acid added to
the system.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
8. Appendix III: Sample Calculations
**0.3mL of NaOH was required to standardize pure tap water.
0.3𝑚𝐿 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻
𝑉𝑒𝑞 = 𝑉𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 − 𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (
)
16𝑚𝐿 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐻2 𝑂
0.3𝑚𝐿 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻
𝑉𝑒𝑞 = 1.0𝑚𝐿 − 20𝑚𝐿 ∗ (
) = 0.625𝑚𝐿
16𝑚𝐿 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐻2 𝑂
Where:



𝑉𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent volume (mL) of NaOH required to titrate the sample corrected for the
naturally occurring acidity of pure tap water
𝑉𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 is the volume (mL)of NaOH used to titrate the sample read directly from the burette.
𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 is the volume (mL) of sample that was titrated.
𝑛𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 𝑀𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 ∗ 𝑉𝑒𝑞
𝑛𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 = 0.00095𝑀 ∗
0.625𝑚𝐿
= 5.94 ∗ 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻
𝑚𝐿
1000 𝐿
Where:



𝑛𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 is the moles NaOH required to titrate the sample corrected for the naturally occurring
acidity of pure tap water
𝑀𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 is the Molarity (mols/L) of the NaOH used in the titration.
𝑉𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent volume (L) of NaOH required to titrate the sample corrected for the naturally
occurring acidity of pure tap water
𝑛𝐴𝐴 = 𝑛𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻
5.94 ∗ 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝐴𝐴 = 5.94 ∗ 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻
Where:


𝑛𝐴𝐴 is the moles of acetic acid in the titrated sample.
𝑛𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 is the moles NaOH required to titrate the sample corrected for the naturally occurring
acidity of pure tap water
𝑀𝐴𝐴 =
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
𝑛𝐴𝐴
𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
𝑀𝐴𝐴 =
5.94 ∗ 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝐴𝐴
= 2.97 ∗ 10−5 𝑀
20𝑚𝐿
𝑚𝐿
1000 𝐿
Where:



𝑀𝐴𝐴 is the Molarity (moles/L) of Acetic Acid in the sample.
𝑛𝐴𝐴 is the moles of acetic acid in the titrated sample.
𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 is the volume (mL) of sample that was titrated.
𝑋𝐴𝐴 =
𝑋𝐴𝐴 =
𝑛𝐴𝐴
𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑙𝑒 ∗ 𝜌
𝑀𝑊
5.94 ∗ 10−7 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝐴𝐴
= 5.35 ∗ 10−7
20𝑚𝐿 ∗ 1.0𝑔/𝑚𝐿
18𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
Where:



𝑋𝐴𝐴 is the mole fraction of Acetic Acid in the sample.
𝑛𝐴𝐴 is the moles of acetic acid in the titrated sample.
𝑉𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 is the volume (mL) of sample that was titrated.

𝜌 is the density (g/mL) of the sample. For water samples assume that the density is that of pure
water (1.0g/mL), and for the oil samples assume the density is that of pure oil (0.853g/mL).
𝑀𝑊 is the molecular weight of the sample. For the water samples assume the weight is 18g/mol.
𝑋𝐴𝐴 for oil samples was not calculated because of uncertainty in the molecular weight of the oil.

𝑊=
𝑊=
𝑀𝑊𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑀𝐴𝐴
∗ 100
𝜌
60.05𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙 ∗ 2.97 ∗ 10−5 𝑀
∗ 100 = 1.78 ∗ 10−4 %
1.0𝑔/𝑚𝐿
Where:



W is the weight percent of Acetic Acid in the sample.
ρ is the density (g/mL) of the sample. For water samples assume that the density is that of pure
water (1.0g/mL), and for the oil samples assume the density is that of pure oil (0.853g/mL).
𝑀𝐴𝐴 is the Molarity (moles/mL) of Acetic Acid in the sample.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
9. Appendix IV: Individual Team Contributions
Name: Daniyal Qamar
Section
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
1.
Name: Bernard Hsu
Section
1.
Name: Ryan Kosak
Section
1.
Name: Tomi Damo
Section
1.
Name: Jeff Tyska
Section
1.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
University of Illinois
Name: Alex Guerrero
Section
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
Time (hrs)
Description of Work Done
1.
Name: Andrew Duffy
Section
1.
Unit Operations ChE 382 Group 5
Damo, Duffy, Guerrero, Hsu, Kosak, Qamar, Tyska
Spring 2011 2 /02/2011