OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

Gas Absorption into a Liquid in a Packed Column

CHE 4002
CEAT Labs 3/15/2012

Daniel Dixon Kristin Higgins Brendan Fox

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Objective, Rationale, and Overview Experimental Equipment Environmental, Health, and Safety Concerns Theory Data Processing and Required Measurements Evaluation Experimental Plan Results Discussion of Results Conclusions and Recommendations References Appendix A 2 3 3-6 6-7 7-10 10-11 11 11-13 13-16 16-20 20 21 22

Executive Summary
The objective of this experiment was to analyze and compare the absorption of carbon dioxide in a 0.001M sodium hydroxide solution and in water to determine a relationship between flow rate of the absorbent and carbon dioxide absorbed. The relationship allows future users of the column to determine the appropriate conditions to achieve the absorption of carbon dioxide desired. Experimentation consisted of two trials, one with sodium hydroxide as the absorbent and the other with water. The flow rates of air and carbon dioxide were held constant at 9.25 ft3/min and 1 ft3/min, and the absorbent flow rate varied from 0.03 L/s to 0.76 L/s. Initial carbon dioxide concentrations were obtained from the carbon dioxide analyzer before the absorbent began flowing, and after allowing the flow to reach steady state, the final carbon dioxide concentrations were also collected. The relationship between the absorbent flow rate and concentration change was expected to be linear and have a significant effect on the change in concentration; however, the correlation deviated from the anticipated trend. The data contained outlier points, which when excluded improved the fit of seen correlations. With water as the absorbent, a linear relationship was observed. Conversely, with the sodium hydroxide solution, a power correlation was seen. It was also anticipated that the sodium hydroxide solution would have a greater effect on the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed; however, the opposite was seen in the data collected. Although water as the absorbent showed a greater average absorption than the sodium hydroxide solution, changing absorbent flow rates had little impact on the level of absorption in either case. The water had a higher average of carbon dioxide concentration change, a lower average percent error, and a lower standard deviation among the calculated k values. The statistics of the 0.001M sodium hydroxide were significantly more comparable to those of the water when the extreme outlier was removed from the calculations. Data, good or bad, proved difficult to obtain mostly due to the carbon dioxide analyzer. Calibration of the analyzer took a majority of the time spent in lab, and in the final lab session the analyzer was never able to be calibrated. Allowing the absorbent, carbon dioxide, and air streams to continually flow while changing the flow rate, instead of turning off the flow after each interval, improved data collection. When allowing continuous flow of the streams, there was a reduction of fluctuation in the readings; therefore, the analyzer took significantly less time to reach a final value. We recommend that future users of the absorption column ensure that the carbon dioxide analyzer is properly calibrated to improve precision of the data. The continuous flow process for collecting data is also recommended to obtain better results by lessening fluctuations in the carbon dioxide analyzer readings.

Objective:
The objective of this project is to analyze and compare the absorption of carbon dioxide into a dilute sodium hydroxide solution versus pure water in order to determine a relationship between flow rate of the absorbent and the carbon dioxide absorbed.

Rationale:
The carbon dioxide gas enters the bottom of the absorption column mixed with an air stream, both at known flow rates. Variation of these flow rates causes change in the entering concentration of carbon dioxide. The flow rate and concentration of the absorbent entering the top of the column is also known. Knowledge of both entering flow rates allows for observation of changes in gas absorption within the column caused by differing flow rates of either the gas or the liquid. In this project, the entering concentration of the carbon dioxide was held constant while the flow rate of the absorbent was varied. The resulting data allowed for the development of a mathematical relationship between the absorbent flow rate and the absorption of the carbon dioxide gas. The data also allowed for the comparison of the absorption of carbon dioxide gas in water to that in a sodium hydroxide solution. The developed relationship and comparison will allow future users of the absorption column to more easily predict carbon dioxide absorption at a given absorbent flow rate, whether the absorbent is water or a sodium hydroxide solution.

Overview:
The initial flow rates of carbon dioxide, air, and the liquid absorbent were set using LabView. The concentration (mole %) of carbon dioxide was measured at the entrance and exit of the column using a carbon dioxide analyzer1. The carbon dioxide and air flow rates were consistently run at 1 ft3/min and 9.25 ft3/min, respectively, while the absorbent was run at flow rates varying from 0.03 L/s to 0.76 L/s. The concentration of the sodium hydroxide solution is a constant 0.001M. The exit concentration of carbon dioxide was then recorded (using the carbon dioxide analyzer) at each absorbent flow rate in order to measure the level of absorption. The varying levels of absorption were then plotted against their corresponding flow rates in order to derive a mathematical relationship. This relationship was then used to predict the carbon dioxide absorption at a given absorbent flow rate and the results were then compared to the experimental values previously found.

Experimental Equipment:
The absorption column is a unit used to absorb carbon dioxide from a gas stream into a liquid. The column is filled with packing rings to increase the surface area inside the column; the

increased surface area provides more vapor-liquid boundary sites for absorption to occur. The streams flow counter to each other, the gas flows up the column and the liquid flows down. Two pumps, along with valves to control the flow, are used to move the air, carbon dioxide, and water streams. In order to prevent cavitation, do not run the pumps dry. There is a carbon dioxide line heater to prevent the line from freezing as the carbon dioxide flows through the line. LabView allows for operator control of the valves, and rotameters are used to measure the flow rates of both the gas and liquid streams entering the column. There are two feed tanks, one for the water mixture being fed to the column and the other to store the water that is returning. The tank that feeds the water mixture to the column has a stirrer to ensure that a consistent concentration is being fed to the column. In order to prevent flooding, there is a liquid level control sensor located on the column that opens a valve to redirect the liquid to the storage tank if the liquid level in the column gets too high. The carbon dioxide absorption analyzer reads the concentration of carbon dioxide at the top and bottom of the column.

Figure 13- Diagram of entire unit.

Figure 1 is a schematic of the entire absorption process, and Figure 2 depicts the feed/return tanks and their respective pumps. Figure 3 shows the absorption column through which the gas and absorbent streams flow counter to each other. The metal packing used to increase the internal surface area for absorption can also be seen in Figure 3, specifically the metal rings in the center of the column.

Figure 21- Picture of feed tank and storage tank.

Figure 33- Picture of absorption column.

Environment, Health, and Safety Concerns:

This experiment requires the use of a sodium hydroxide and water solution. The sodium hydroxide should be handled under a fume hood as much as possible to prevent inhalation. Sodium hydroxide is corrosive, and should not be ingested or come into contact with the skin. For this reason, gloves, safety goggles, and protective clothing should be worn at all times. The pH of the solution should be tested, and a reading above 9 should be neutralized properly before disposal because the solution poses environmental hazards. Water poses a slip hazard if spilled; any spills should be cleaned up immediately. To prevent exposure the carbon dioxide tank should only be open if it is in use; if too high of a concentration of carbon dioxide is inhaled it can be harmful and cause dizziness. If too much inhalation occurs, the person should be moved to an area with fresh air, i.e. outside the lab. To prevent damage to the machine and operator, do not add anything to the tank if the mixer is running. Loose clothing should not be worn and long hair should be tied back to avoid getting caught in any moving parts on the equipment.

Be aware of wires and outlets as they pose electrical hazards, and any spills near them should be contained and cleaned up immediately.

Theory:
Absorption: Gas absorption occurs when a gas and liquid come into contact and the gas diffuses through the gas-liquid contact interface into the bulk of the liquid. The driving force for absorption involves a concentration gradient across the gas-liquid interface. Figure 4 provides a visual of the gas-liquid contact interface.

Figure 43: Gas-Liquid Interface In this project, the absorption of carbon dioxide gas into a sodium hydroxide solution and into water in a column was considered. The concentration gradient will exist between the carbon dioxide gas and absorbent as long as equilibrium is not reached. Ideally, equilibrium is reached at the top of the column, utilizing the height of the column, 12ft. The rate of absorption can be defined by Equation (1)2: (1) Where: Ro = Rate of absorption (moles/length *time) D = Diffusivity of gas in solution (length2/time) = Thickness of the stagnant film (length) C = Concentration of gas at the liquid surface (moles/volume) Co = Concentration of gas in the bulk gas (moles/volume)
2

The units of the rate of absorption (Ro) are the same as that of molar flux, and in this project, the two terms were treated synonymously. However, it is impractical to attempt to determine the stagnant film thickness since the absorption is occurring inside the packed column. This being the case, an alternate equation exists which considers the average time of exposure between the gas and the absorbent. Equation (3) represents this relationship 2: Where: Ro = Rate of absorption (moles/length2* time) D = Diffusivity of gas in solution (length2/time) = Average time of exposure (time) C = Concentration of gas at the liquid surface (moles/volume) Co = Concentration of gas in the bulk gas (moles/volume) K = Constant based on model (unitless) Although equation (2) represents some terms that are more easily obtained, the constant K is still difficult to determine due to its dependence on the model of the equation used. As seen in both equations (1) and (2) the rate of absorption is proportional to the concentration gradient, and both equations can be simplified to equation (3)2: (3) Where: k = proportionality factor (length/time) The proportionality factor k is dependent upon the diffusivity of the gas in the liquid and the situation of the absorption, i.e. the surface area available for absorption and the flow rates of the gas and absorbent2. In this project, the surface area available for absorption, the diffusivity, and the gas flow rate will remain constant, so k depends primarily on the flow rate of the absorbent. Once equilibrium is reached between the gas and absorbent, the driving force for absorption becomes zero since the difference in concentration between the bulk gas and liquid no longer exists. The concentration gradient decreases as the gas rises in the column, constantly decreasing the driving force. This being the case, equation (3) can be differentiated with respect to height, z, and then integrated to determine the overall absorption within the column. Equations (4) and (5) represent the differentiation and integration, respectively. (4) (5) (2)

Where: FG = Flow rate of the gas (Volume/time) CA = Concentration of carbon dioxide at the top of the column (moles/volume) CAo = Concentration of carbon dioxide at the bottom of the column (moles/volume) k = proportionality constant (area/time) And Rodz = FGdC Equation (5) assumes a constant volumetric flow rate of gas. In order for this assumption to be valid, the liquid flow must have a constant density or negligible change in density. It will be assumed in this project that the absorption of the carbon dioxide will have a negligible effect on the liquid density, so equations (6) and (7) will be applied: (6) (7) Where: FG and FL represent the volumetric flow rates of the gas and liquid, respectively. Chemical Reaction Analysis: In this project a chemical reaction between the carbon dioxide and sodium hydroxide is also considered in the absorption. The reaction is as follows:

The concentrations of both carbon dioxide and sodium hydroxide can be controlled in this project. The concentration of carbon dioxide will be determined using the carbon dioxide analyzer. The sodium hydroxide will be set at 0.001M. This concentration will be obtained by previously filling the feed tank to a known volume of water (500 L) and then adding the required number of moles of sodium hydroxide to the water. Equation (8) will be used to determine the mass of sodium hydroxide needed. (8) Where: MWNaOH = 40 g/mol Assuming this reaction takes place instantaneously and completely, the concentration of carbon dioxide at the surface of the absorbent can be assumed negligible. This being the case, C in equation (5) can be assumed zero, which results in the following equation (9)3: (9)

10

Using equation (9), k can be determined since the carbon dioxide concentrations at the top and bottom of the column are known as well as the gas flow rate and column height. Error Analysis: Analysis of the accuracy and precision of the obtained data will be performed. This analysis will yield some sense of the usability of the equations and the data from which they were derived. Percent error will be a focus point when considering the equations derived to fit the trends in the data and Equation (10) will be used to determine the percent error. (10) Where: Xe = Experimental Value Xt = Theoretical Value Standard deviation is another tool which will be used to analyze the variation in the data. The standard deviation values determined from the data will also be used to establish a confidence range which is useful in distinguishing which data points fall under a certain range of precision. The following Equations (11) and (12) will be used to determine standard deviation and a 95% confidence range, respectively6. (11)

Where: = Standard Deviation N = Number of points being considered Xi = Data point being considered = Average Value of all data points being considered (12) Where: = Upper and/or lower end of range = Standard Deviation

Data Processing and Required Measurements:

In this project, the carbon dioxide concentration was determined at the top and bottom of the column using a carbon dioxide analyzer. The concentration at the bottom of the column was held constant while the concentration at the top varied with the flow rate of the liquid absorbent. The following variables were used in determining the relationship between the flow rate and the concentration at the top of the column:

11

CAo (Mole %) = Carbon dioxide concentration at the bottom of the column. CA (Mole %) = Carbon dioxide concentration at the top of the column. FG (ft3/min.) = Flow rate of the gas FL (L/s) = Flow rate of the liquid The flow rate of the liquid, FL, was plotted against the change in carbon dioxide concentration from the bottom to the top of the column and the relationship between the two was used to determine the k value from equation (9).

Evaluation:
We expect for this project that higher sodium hydroxide and water flow rates will produce a higher level of absorption. This hypothesis is based upon the greater amount of hydroxide ions available to react with carbon dioxide ions forming the bicarbonate that is aqueous in water. At higher liquid flow rates turbulence is more prevalent which results in a higher level of mixing and consequently, a higher level of gas-liquid interaction. A higher level of gas-liquid interaction will increase the overall concentration gradient which will lead to a higher overall driving force for absorption. This analysis of gas interactions and chemical equilibriums is based on Le Chatliers principle. The relationship between the absorbent flow rate and concentration change was expected to be linear, however there was significant deviation from this expectation in the data.

Experimental Plan:
Emergency shutdown procedure 1. Shut off air and carbon dioxide flow to the column by closing the air and carbon dioxide rotameter valves. 2. Shut off pump 1. 3. Turn off the main column power switch, provided the column is not flooding. If flooding is occurring, leave on the main power, pump 2, and level control sensor. 4. Unplug carbon dioxide analyzer. 5. Turn carbon dioxide analyzer valves and selector valve below the analyzer to the off position. 6. Unplug compressors in carbon dioxide analyzer.

12

Startup of Column and System 1. Turn on the carbon dioxide analyzer; the main power supply lever is located under the analyzer. 2. Set the analyzer to stream 1. 3. Turn on the air supply, and set the pressure to 40 psig. 4. Turn on carbon dioxide line heater to ensure the line is warm before use. 5. Set the pressure regulator of the control valves to 20 psig. 6. Fill tank 1 with approximately 500L of water 7. Add sodium hydroxide to the water in tank 1 to create a 0.001M solution. 8. Turn on tank 1 mixer. 9. Open LabView on the computer. 10. Partially open the carbon dioxide tank valve. 11. Set the pressure gauge on the carbon dioxide line to 20 psig. 12. Watch the temperature of the carbon dioxide line and make sure it stays between 1020C. 13. Turn on pump 1 in LabView and set desired flow rates for the water and gas mixtures. 14. Activate the level control sensor by turning the switch to automatic. 15. Turn on pump 2. 16. Once everything is stabilized, turn the carbon dioxide analyzer to stream 2 to read the concentration of gas at the top of the column. Data Collection 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Set the flow rate of carbon dioxide to 1 ft3/min and air to 9.25 ft3/min. Set the water mixture flow rate to 0.1 L/s. At this absorbent flow rate record the initial and final concentrations of carbon dioxide. Repeat steps 2-3 for flow rates of (approximately) 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 L/s. Repeat the entire process using pure H2O as the absorbent instead of the sodium hydroxide solution.

Column Shutdown 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Close carbon dioxide and air control valves in LabView. Close the carbon dioxide supply valve. Unplug carbon dioxide line heater. Allow all remaining solution in tank 1 to flow through the column and into tank 2. Turn off pump 1 in LabView. Close the water control valve. Drain tank 2.

13

8. Close all supply valves. 9. Turn off main power supply switches to the column and carbon dioxide analyzer.

Results:
A 0.001M sodium hydroxide solution and pure water were both used as a carbon dioxide absorbent in the packed column. Figure 5 shows the resulting carbon dioxide concentration change using the sodium hydroxide solution as the absorbent. All of the data used in Figure 5 can be seen in Appendix A.
4.0

3.5

3.0 Chnage in CO2 Concentration (Mole %)

2.5

y = 3.0002x0.4782 R = 0.4716

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 absorbent flow rate (L/s)

Figure 5: Results of carbon dioxide absorption using 0.001M sodium hydroxide solution as absorbent.

A relationship between the sodium hydroxide flow rate and the carbon dioxide absorption was derived using the data displayed in Figure 5 and is as follows: (13) Where: = Change in CO2 concentration (Mole %) V = 0.001M NaOH flow rate (L/s)

14

As mentioned, water was also used as an absorbent and Figure 6 displays the absorption results obtained at varying water flow rates. The data used to produce Figure 6 can be seen in Appendix A.
3.0

2.5 Change in CO2 Concentration (Mole %)

2.0

1.5

y = 1.0133x + 1.7827 R = 0.7279

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 absorbent flow rate (L/s)

Figure 6: Results of carbon dioxide absorption using water as absorbent

Once again, an equation was derived to develop a relationship between the water flow rate and the carbon dioxide absorption, and it is as follows: (14) Where: = Change in CO2 concentration (Mole %) V = Water flow rate (L/s) Using the data obtained and Equation (9), mass transfer coefficients, k values, were found for each absorbent at their respective flow rates. The following Figures 7 and 8 show the k values graphed against the flow rate of both 0.001M sodium hydroxide and water, respectively. The data for both Figures 7 and 8 can be seen in Appendix A.

15

0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 k (ft2/min) 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Absorbent Flow Rate (L/s)

y = 0.3044x0.5075 R = 0.4576

Figure 7: Mass Transfer Coefficient, k, plotted against the 0.001M sodium hydroxide flow rate
0.30

0.25

0.20 k (ft2/min)

0.15

y = 0.112x + 0.1664 R = 0.7282

0.10

0.05

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 absorbent flow rate (L/s)

Figure 8: Mass Transfer Coefficient, k, plotted against flow rate of water

16

For both the water and sodium hydroxide solution, equations were derived which established a relationship between the mass transfer coefficient, k, and the absorbent flow rate. These equations are displayed on the graphs.

Discussion of Results:
As seen by the graphs in Figures 5-8, there did exist a relationship between the absorbent flow rate and the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed, however the effect of the flow rate on the level of absorption was not one of great magnitude, nor did the relationship seem to follow a consistently linear trend. With water as the absorbent, the relationship did prove to fit relatively well to a linear trend, but the sodium hydroxide was determined to fit better to a power trend line rather than that of the expected linear trend line. For both the water and the sodium hydroxide sets of d ata, there existed outlier data points. These outliers were especially present within the sodium hydroxide data collected and when removed from consideration fit strongly in a trend in the form: (15)

Inconsistent data could have occurred due to reasons which include: uneven mixing of the sodium hydroxide solution would have caused inconsistent absorption, and the carbon dioxide analyzer proved difficult to calibrate, and the readings displayed a significant amount of error. However, the sodium hydroxide absorbent data does fit the trend line better if one of the extreme outlier points is removed, as displayed in Figure 9.

17

2.5

Chnage in CO2 Concentration (Mole %)

2.0

1.5

y = 2.7456x0.4961 R = 0.6585

1.0

0.5

0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 absorbent flow rate (L/s)

Figure 9: Carbon dioxide absorbed against 0.001M sodium hydroxide flow rate minus the extreme outlier

When the outlier is removed, the R squared value increases by nearly 0.2, which indicates a significant increase in how well the data fits the power trend line. It is worth noting that the greatest deviation from the trend line seems to occur at lower flow rates, and all of these deviations occur on the high side of the curve, or has greater carbon dioxide absorption than would be expected. Possible explanations for this include: the reaction between the sodium hydroxide and the carbon dioxide had more time to proceed at lower flow rates; the lower flow rates were tested first, and if the sodium hydroxide had collected at the bottom of the tank, a majority of the sodium hydroxide would be used during the first runs. The following Figure 10 displays the percent error analysis performed on the sodium hydroxide data, showing how well the power trend line equation, Equation (13), predicts the data.

18

200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 Percent Error 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 12.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 5.0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Absorbent Flow Rate (L/s) 40.7 28.7 61.7 187.6

33.5 17.9 13.6 19.2

Figure 10: Percent Error of the calculated CO2 absorbed at each 0.001M sodium hydroxide flow rate

The previously mentioned outlier can once again be seen as having a significantly higher error associated with its calculated value. It is also worth noting, given the previous discussion, the highest percent errors occur at the lower flow rates, where the highest deviation also occurred. The tests run with water as the absorbent proved to provide results which fit a linear trend line better than the 0.001M sodium hydroxide solution. The water absorbent also proved to have better average absorption than the sodium hydroxide solution; however, changing the flow rate did not seem to affect the absorption as much as when the sodium hydroxide was used. Reasons for this more linear relationship and more consistent absorption when using water as the absorbent could include: the water used had consistent composition throughout unlike the sodium hydroxide solution, and water was used as the absorbent in the second run of tests, by which point we had improved upon the process of collecting data which could have led to more precise results. The following Figure 11 is the percent error analysis performed on the water absorbent test runs, comparing the experimental carbon dioxide absorption to that calculated using Equation (14).

19

12.0 10.8 10.0 8.9 8.0 Percent Error 8.6

6.0

6.2

5.8 4.3

4.0

2.0

1.8 1.2

0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Water Flow Rate (L/s)

Figure 11: Percent Error of calculated carbon dioxide absorbed values at given flow rates.

As can be seen, the percent error of the values calculated using Equation (14) is lower at almost all flow rates in comparison to the 0.001M sodium hydroxide absorbent tests. The percent error data tables for both water and sodium hydroxide can be found in Appendix A. In order to compare the highlighted statistics of the two tests using water and sodium hydroxide solution, Table 1 provides a side by side comparison.
Absorbent Comparison: Water vs. 0.001M NaOH NaOH NaOH (no outlier) Initial CO2 Concentration (mole %) Average Change in Concentration (mole %) Average % Error (Concentration Change) (%) kaverage (ft2/min) kmax (ft2/min) kmin (ft /min) Number of Runs Standard Deviation of k Values
2

water 9.8 2.2 6 0.21 0.27 0.17 8 0.032

9.5 1.7 42 0.17 0.42 0.04 10 0.107

9.5 1.4 28.2 0.14 0.21 0.04 9 0.073

Table 1: Comparison of 0.001M sodium hydroxide and water as carbon dioxide absorbents.

20

Table 1 shows the higher level of precision in the data collected using water as the absorbent compared to the 0.001M sodium hydroxide. The water had a higher average of carbon dioxide concentration change, a lower average percent error, and a lower standard deviation among the calculated k values. The statistics of the 0.001M sodium hydroxide were significantly more comparable to those of the water when the extreme outlier was removed from the calculations.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

In this project, data, good or bad, proved difficult to obtain mostly due to the carbon dioxide analyzer. Calibration of the analyzer took a majority of the time spent in lab, and in the final lab session the analyzer was never able to be calibrated. Ideally, a third set of data would have been collected during this third and final lab session using a sodium hydroxide solution of a different concentration than used in the original sodium hydroxide solution trial. This third set of data would not only have allowed for acquisition of more data, but also would have provided an opportunity to test the sodium hydroxide absorbent with what the group felt was an improved process after gaining experience from the original data collection. This improved process was used for the collection of data using water as the absorbent and included: allowing the absorbent to continually flow while changing the flow rate instead of turning off the flow after each interval, and allowing the carbon dioxide/air flow to continually flow as well. By collecting the data on the go, the carbon dioxide analyzer took significantly less time to reach a final value since it was not constantly fluctuating as it did when the flow was turned on and off for each interval. It is recommended that future users of the absorption column ensure that the carbon dioxide analyzer is properly calibrated. Proper calibration of the analyzer significantly improves the precision of the data. Once the analyzer is properly calibrated, it is also recommended that future users use the continuous flow process mentioned in the previous paragraph. This group found the continuous flow process to provide better results than turning the flow of both the absorbent and gas on and off for each interval. Ideally, further testing is always recommended, however we suggest a few specific areas in which to expand. Our current tests were limited to relatively low flow rates of gas mixes, sodium hydroxide solutions, and water. We put forth that higher flow rates would more accurately correlate to real world industry applications. Also, in order to simplify testing and extraction of results the carbon dioxide was never varied beyond a mole fraction of, approximately, 0.1. In order to create a wider model, we suggest that carbon dioxide be varied to higher concentrations.

21

References 1. Cumbie, Victoria, Frederickson, Jared, and Wilson, Claire. Effect of Flow Rate on
Absorption Column. Unit Operations Lab, Oklahoma State University (February 2011). http://unitopslab.okstate.edu/Spring%202011%202nd%20reports/Report%20by%20Cu mbie,%20Fredrickson,%20&%20Wilson.pdf. February 21, 2012.

2. Dangkwerts, P.V. The Absorption of Gases in Liquids. Department of Chemical

Engineering, University of Cambridge, U.K. PAC Vol. 10 (1965), Issue 4. http://iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/1965/pdf/1004x0625.pdf. February 21, 2012.

3. Bruce, Esther, Hamouch, Maggie, and Hoel, Daniel. Absorption Column: Effects of
Liquid Flow Rate on CO2 absorption. Unit Operations Lab, Oklahoma State University (March 2011). http://unitopslab.okstate.edu/Spring%202011%202nd%20reports/Report%20by%20Bru ce,%20Hamouch,%20&%20Hoel.pdf. February 21, 2012. 4. Fields, Cody, Grant, Matthew, Leong, Yu Jun. Flow Rate pH Effects on the Absorption Column. Unit Operations Lab, Oklahoma State University (March 2010). http://unitopslab.okstate.edu/absorption%20spr%202010.pdf. February 21, 2012. 5. Bragg, Kim, Sieber, Jamie, Tulius, Sean. Absorption Column: Optimal pH Level and Method of Analysis. Unit Operations Lab, Oklahoma State University (October 2009). http://unitopslab.okstate.edu/bragg%20sieber%20tullius%202nd%20f09.pdf 6. Rhinehart, R. Russell. Propagating and Reporting Uncertainty in Engineering Calculations. Unit Operations Lab Manual. Stillwater: School of Chemical Engineering, 2003. CHE 4002/4112 Resources. Oklahoma State University. 7 Feb 2012. <http://unitopslab.okstate.edu/plug_flow_reactor.htm>.

22

Appendix A:
Absorption data for 0.001M NaOH as absorbent:

0.001 M sodium hydroxide solution

absorbent flow (L/s) 0.17 0.21 0.31 0.58 0.16 0.58 0.06 0.74 0.03 0.11 CO2i CO2f CO2 9.5 5.8 3.7 9.5 7.6 1.9 9.5 7.7 1.8 9.5 7.5 2.0 9.5 8.1 1.4 9.5 7.6 1.9 9.5 8.4 1.1 9.5 7.4 2.1 9.5 9.1 0.4 9.5 9.1 0.4 CO2(theoret.) 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.3 1.2 2.3 0.8 2.6 0.6 1.0 % error 187.6 33.5 5.0 13.6 12.0 17.9 40.7 19.2 28.7 61.7 CO2(theoret.) (no outlier) 1.3 1.5 2.1 1.1 2.1 0.7 2.4 0.5 0.9 % error (no outlier) 50.1 17.2 4.6 26.6 9.3 61.8 11.2 17.0 56.5

Absorption data for water as absorbent:

Water
absorbent flow (L/s) 0.76 0.58 0.51 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.05 CO2i 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 CO2f 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.8 8.0 CO2 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.8 CO2(theoret.) 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 % error 5.8 1.2 4.3 8.6 8.9 10.8 6.2 1.8

23

Standard Deviation for k data: 0.001M NaOH Standard Deviation

CO2 concentration final 5.8 7.6 7.7 7.5 8.1 7.6 8.4 7.4 9.1 9.1 ln(Ca)-ln(Cao) -0.49 -0.22 -0.21 -0.24 -0.16 -0.22 -0.12 -0.25 -0.04 -0.04 k 0.42 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.14 0.19 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.04 (k-kavg)2 0.0626 0.0004 0.0001 0.0009 0.0012 0.0004 0.0044 0.0018 0.0181 0.0181

0.001M NaOH Standard Deviation (No outlier)

CO2 concentration final (no outlier) 7.6 7.7 7.5 8.1 7.6 8.4 7.4 9.1 9.1 ln(Ca)-ln(Cao) -0.22 -0.21 -0.24 -0.16 -0.22 -0.12 -0.25 -0.04 -0.04 k 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.14 0.19 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.04 (k-kavg)2 0.0004 0.0001 0.0009 0.0012 0.0004 0.0044 0.0018 0.0181 0.0181

Water Standard Deviation

CO2 concentration final 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.8 8.0 ln(Ca)-ln(Cao) -0.32 -0.28 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22 -0.25 -0.23 -0.20 k 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.17 (k-kavg)2 0.0038 0.0007 0.0000 0.0003 0.0007 0.0000 0.0003 0.0014

24