1.

Abstract

This experiment involves a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) in series. The system consists
of three agitated, glass reactor vessels that established in series. Although the concentration is
uniform for each reactor but there is a change in concentration as fluids move over from reactor
to reactor. The objective in this experiment is to determine the effect of pulse input to the
concentration and to determine the effect of residence time on the response curve.
The deionized water are filled in the both two tanks whereby the sodium chloride were diluted in
the tank one. Then, the deionized water from tank two will flow through to fill up the three
reactors. The flow rate of the deionized water was set to 150 ml/min to prevent from the over
flow. The readings were taken at time to after the readings of the conductivity are stable enough.
After that, readings are continuously taken for every 3 minutes until to the point that the
conductivity values for the three reactors are closed to each other. The conductivity readings
from three reactors were recorded and tabulate in a table.
From the readings taken, it shown that the reading for all the reactors stable at 66 th minutes,
where the conductivity for the three reactors was almost the same, 22.40 (mS/cm) for reactor 1,
22.80 (mS/cm) for reactor 2 and 22.40 (mS/cm) for reactor 3.
Besides that, based on the result recorded, graph of conductivity vs time was plotted. The graph
that has been plotted is accordingly to the theory. From the graph we can determine the effect of
the step change and pulse input to the concentration. We can see the conductivity is directly
proportional to the time from the graph for three reactors. Apart from that, from the graph we can
tell that the pulse input is increased by function of the time.

1.2

Introduction

In the majority of industrial chemical process, a reactor is the key item of equipment in which
raw materials undergo a chemical change to form desired product. The design and operation of
chemical reactors is thus crucial to the whole success of the industrial operation.
Reactors can widely form, depending on the nature of the feed materials and the products.
Understanding non-steady behavior

of

process equipment is necessary for design

and

operation of automatic control systems. One particular type of process equipment is

the continuous stirred tank reactor. In this reactor, it is important to determine the
system response to a change in concentration. This response of concentration versus
time is an indication of the ideality of the system.
Reactors used for carrying out chemical or physical reactions can be characterized as ideal or
non-ideal, according to the nature of the hydraulic and mixing conditions. In contrast with nonideal reactor, ideal reactors are assumed to have uniform mixing and hydraulic conditions,
depending on the specific reactor configurations. Common reactor configurations include plug
flow reactors (PFRs), completely mixed batch reactors (CMBRs) and completely mixed flow
reactors (CMFRs). In addition, a CMFR may also be referred as a complete-mix reactor (CMR),
continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR), constant flow stirred tank reactor (CFSTR), or back mix
rector.
CSTR and PFR are probably the two most widely-accepted reactor regimes used for water
treatment or analysis plants such as settling tanks, activated sludge reactor basins, aerated
lagoons, oxidation ponds, and high-rate anaerobic digesters (Reynolds and Richards 1996).
Nevertheless, the choice between PFR and CSTR would be made as a function of the desired
application. For example, in the mixing of coagulants, the intense mixing provide by CSTRs is
desirable to disperse the reactants quickly. Flocculation, on the other hand, requires moderate
agitation to increase the rate of particles collision and formation of large aggregate particles,
which can be achieved by PFR regime. As for the disinfection process in water treatment, a
typical reactor may be a long, narrow channel, long pipe or tubular, or a series of long channel,
ecause it is typically carried out by the exposure time to the disinfectant of interest for a specified
duration of time.

Complete mixing in a CSTR reactor produces the tracer concentration throughout the reactor to
be the same as the effluent concentration. In other words, in an ideal CSTR, at any travel time,
the concentration down the reactor is identical to the composition within the CSTR (Hoboken et
al., 2005). The consequence of this is that the shape of the tracer curve is significantly different
from that obtained with the PFR. For an impulse input, the effluent concentration of the tracer
instantly reaches a maximum as this tracer is uniformly distributed throughout the CSTR. Then,
this concentration gradually dissipates in an exponential manner as the tracer leaves the effluent.
The shape of this tracer curve is exponential because, as the tracer leaves the reactor, its
concentration is reduced with the rate at which the tracer mass leaves the reactor. It is important
to notice that the chemical (so called tracer) concentration at the retention time (RT) is quiet
reduced in comparison with the PFR model where the concentration is the same as the input
concentration.
Environmental engineering, it is already known that the hydraulic performance of a reactor can
be improved by increasing the number of CSTRs in series. As a consequence and as a fact,
treatment processes are frequently staged to meet treatment objectives. Staged treatment
processes are currently analyzed as tank in series. It has already been demonstrated that, for a
same total reactor volume (VT) it is possible to approach the performance of a PFR (in terms of
retention time) by increasing the number (n) of CSTRs in series (in this case each CSTR in the
series has a volume of VT/n).
We can see easily that the maximum concentration is approaching the retention time (1) by
increasing the number of CSTRs in the series. The maximum concentration tends to increase
with the number of CSTR which corroborate the fact that the CSTR volume is negatively
proportional to the number of CSTR in the series.in this experiment, we need to determine the
effect residence time on the response curve. So we used Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor in
Series (model BP107) to achieve our objective of the experiment. At the same time, we decided
to make both a mathematical prediction model and conduct a series of experiments. The
mathematical model will allow us to make a comparison between the experimental data and the
analytical model.

1.3

Aims

The objectives of this experiment are:

i.
ii.
iii.

To determine the effect of pulse input to the concentration

To determine the effect of residence time on the response curve
To plot a graph of conductivity vs time

1.4

Theory

The continuous flow stirred reactor (CSTR) which also known as backmix reactor, is a common
ideal reactor type in chemical engineering. It is often refers to a model used to estimate the key

unit operation variables when using a continuous agitated tank reactor to reach their specific
output.
Given rA as a function of conversion, -rA = f(X), one can also design any sequence of reactors in
series provided there are no side streams by defining the overall conversion at any point.

Mole

Balance

Reactor 1:

Figure 1 CSTR in Series

Mole Balance on Reactor 2:

on

Given -rA = f(X), thus the Levenspiel Plot can be used to find the reactor volume

Figure 2 Levenspiel Plot

1.4.1 Effect of Step Change In Input Concentration to the Concentration of Solute In Stirred
Tank Reactors In Series
When a step change of solute concentration is introduced at the feed of tank 1, the tank in series
will experience a transient behavior as shown below. The response will be dependent on the
residence time of each reactor in series.

Concentration

Concentration

Reactor
1
Reacto 2
Reactor 3

Time

Time

Figure 3 Step change input.

Figure 4

Transient response of tank in

series to the step input.

In different applications of CSTRs, the performance can be monitored by tracer studies. In water
treatment, the most common tracer studies are pulse input and step input. Both tracer studies give
two-dimensional plots called tracer curves. These are concentration versus time graphs, which
can be compared with those suggested by models and standard equations. Upon comparing the
predicted and the actual graphs, the efficiency of reactor or a series of reactors can be estimated.
In case of pulse input (also called slug dose), a known mass of tracer chemical is added
immediately upstream of the reactor inlet. Theoretically, all the mass is added in an
infinitesimally small time.
Saponification is the hydrolysis of ethyl acetate to produce sodium acetate and ethyl alcohol
using NaOH. The stoichiometric representation of saponification reaction between ethyl acetate
and sodium hydroxide is given by:
NaOH + CH3COOC2H5CH3COONa + C2H5OH
This is an irreversible reaction with overall second-order and first order with respect to each
reactant. The rate expression is represented by:
-rNaOH = -rEtOAc = kCNaOHCEtOAc
In this reaction, hydroxyl ions are consumed and acetate ions are produced. Since hydroxyl ions
are more conductive than the acetate ions, a decrease in the conductivity is observed as the

reaction progresses. Thus, the change in conductivity is used to monitor the alkaline hydrolysis
of ethyl acetate.

1.5

Apparatus

Distillation water
Sodium Chloride
Continuous reactor in series
Stirrer system
Feed tanks
Waste tank

Dead time coil

Computerize system
Stop watch

Figure 3 CSTR in Series (Model:BP107)

1.6

Procedure

Experiment 1: The Effect of Step Change Input

In this experiment a step-change input would be introduced and the progression of the tracer will
be monitored via the conductivity measurements in all the three reactors.
1

Tank 1 and tank 2 was filled up with 20 L feeds deionizer water.

300g of Sodium Chloride was dissolved in tank 1until the salts dissolve entirely and the
solution is homogenous.

Three way valve (V3) was set to position 2 so that deionizer water from tank 2 will flow
into reactor 1.

Pump 2 was switched on to fill up all three reactors with deionizer water.

The flow rate (Fl1) was set to 150 ml/min by adjusting the needles valve (V4). Do not use
too high flow rate to avoid the over flow and make sure no air bubbles trapped in the
piping. The stirrers 1, 2 and 3 were switched on.

The deionizer water was continued pumped for about 10 minute until the conductivity
readings for all three reactors were stable at low values.

The values of conductivity were recorded at t0.

The pump 2 was switched off after 5 minutes. The valve (V3) was switched to position 1
and the pump 1 was switched on. The timer was started.

The conductivity values for each reactor were recorded every three minutes.

10 Record the conductivity values were continued until reading for reactor 3 closed to
reactor 1.
11 Pump 2 was switched off and the valve (V4) was closed.
12 All liquids in reactors were drained by opening valves V5 and V6.

1.7

Results

Time (min)
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
12.0

QT1 (mS/cm)
6.15
9.87
12.74
14.76
16.61

QT2 (mS/cm)
2.73
4.29
6.16
8.20
10.43

QT3 (mS/cm)
0.000714
0.00001688
2.61
3.77
5.34

15.0
18.0
21.0
24.0
27.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
39.0
42.0
45.0
48.0
51.0
54.0
57.0
60.0
63.0
66.0

17.56
18.58
19.14
19.31
19.48
19.76
22.30
22.50
22.50
22.40
22.30
22.50
22.40
22.40
22.80
22.60
22.40
22.40

12.22
14.28
15.60
16.61
17.47
18.09
20.80
19.07
21.60
19.64
19.79
22.30
22.40
22.40
22.60
22.60
22.70
22.80

7.00
9.02
10.72
12.18
13.54
14.58
15.60
16.93
17.34
17.91
18.37
18.82
21.40
19.45
19.58
19.79
22.30
22.40

Graph 1 Conductivity VS Time

Graph above shows conductivity versus time, which the upper line represents conductivity from
Reactor 1, middle line from Reactor 2 and bottom line from Reactor 3.

1.8

Calculations
Vi = FA0 (XA,i XA,i-1) / (-rA)i

where Vi

= volume of reactor i

FA0

= molal flow rate of A into the first reactor

XA,i

= fractional conversion of A in the reactor i

XA,i-1

= fractional conversion of A in the reactor i-1

For first order reaction, -rA = kCA,i = kCA0 (1-XA,i-1)

v = volumetric flow rate of A = 150 mL/min = 0.15 L/min
For the first reactor : (V=20 L)
(-rA )1 = (kCA)1 = kCA,1 = kCA0 (1-XA,1)
CA0 =FA0 / v
XA,i-1 = XA0 = 0

At Tank 1:
Vi = FA0 (XA,i - XA,i-1) / ( rA)i
20 = 0.15 (XA,i - 0) / (0.158 x (1-XA,1))
XA,1 = 0.95

At Tank 2:
Vi = FA0 (XA,i - XA,i-1) / ( rA)i
20 = 0.15 (XA,i - 0.95) / (0.158 x (1-XA,1))
XA,1 = 0.997

At Tank 3:
Vi = FA0 (XA,i - XA,i-1) / ( rA)i
20 = 0.15 (XA,i - 0.997) / (0.158 x (1-XA,1))
XA,1 = 0.998

1.9

Discussion

The CSTR In Series (Model: BP 107) has been designed to introduce students of Chemical
Engineering on the dynamic behaviour of reactors in series. The unit is based on the simplest
classic case of a well-mixed, multi-staged process operation that basically consists of three
reactors connected in series by piping. The solution in each reactor is well stirred and the
concentration can be measured. Sump tanks, feed pumps and instrumentations are also provided
with the unit.
In this experiment teach us be able to compare the measured responses of the vessel
concentrations to a deliberate change at the inlet with a theoretical prediction. The piping
arrangement has been designed to include a dead time coil in the system. Feed liquid to the
first vessel is drawn from either of the two sump tanks by a pump, via a flow meter and control
valve. The tracer material concentration in each sump tank is made to be different. At a selected
instant, a sudden change from one feed to the other is made: either for a continuous period (step
function), or for a short interval (impulse function), and the concentration changes with time
in each vessel is measured. The results are compared with the predicted exponential responses
for 1st order system in series.

In the CSTR In Series experiment our objective was to determine the effect pulse input in a
continuous stirred tank reactor in series. For this experiment is a first order reaction, the rate law
is shown to be:
-rA = kCA,i = kCA0 (1-XA,i-1)
When conducting the experiment, we take the reading of the conductivity for the 3
different tanks for every 3 minutes and plotted graph conductivity versus time. We start the
experiment with the flow rate 150 ml/min and we took 23 readings at all. Based on the
experiment conducted the graph conductivity versus time was plotted. Graph above shows
conductivity versus time, which the upper line represents conductivity from Reactor 1, middle
line from Reactor 2 and bottom line from Reactor 3. We can see the conductivity is directly
proportional to the time from the graph for three reactors.
As the continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) were connected in series, in each reactor in
series were in pulse input, the concentration was increased by function of the time. Then, it
achieved peak concentration at certain time interval. We can see from the graph which the
position for the curve first reactor was at the top while the second reactor at the middle and for
the third reactor at the bottom. This was because the diluted sodium chloride enters the reactors 1
and reactors 2, while for reactor 3 bypass de-ionised water which containing de-ionised water
flow into the reactors. Thus, lead the concentration of sodium chloride decreased as the deionised water was not fully removed during the flow. Based on our experiment, as the time
increased the experiment was stopped after 66 minutes, when the conductivity for the three
reactors almost the same which were 22.40 (mS/cm), 22.80 (mS/cm), 22.40 (mS/cm)
respectively for the reactor 1,2 and 3.
In this experiment we also calculated the X A,i ,fractional conversion of A in the reactor 1 for the
volume first reactor 20 L using the first order reaction, -r A = kCA,i = kCA0 (1-XA,i-1) with the v,
volumetric flow rate of A at 0.15 L/min. At the reactor 1, based on the calculation we get X A,i ,
fractional conversion of A in the reactor 1 was 0.95, while for the reactor 2 the X A,i , fractional
conversion of A in the reactor 2 was 0.997, and lastly, for the reactor 3 the X A,i , fractional
conversion of A in the reactor 3 was 0.998.

1.10

Conclusion

As a conclusion, from the experiment results it shows that a step change in input and a pulse in
input have its own effect to the concentration. Each of this experiment has its own transient
behavior. The graph shows the change of the concentration for the 3 tank is almost the same and
every tank has its own change of concentration. We can conclude that, the change in input and
pulse input has an effect to the concentration. For the step change, it increased the concentration
until it reaches a constant value. For the pulse input, it fluctuated until it reaches a constant value.
The feed of the systems effect the concentration in the reactor. If the feed contain a
concentration, then the concentration in the tank increased. But if the feed only contain deionized
water, then the concentration decreased. Every reactor has its own concentration, so we conclude
that the residence time for each reactor is different. The value of the residence time depends on
what happens in the reactor.
Further experiments with better flow control and more efficient mixing are expected to yield
better results. Overall, it was observed that the shape of the tracer curves obtained from the pulse
and step input experiments closely matched with those predicted by the theoretical models.

1.11 Recommendations
After we have finished this experiment, we find that are several factors in this experiment that
can be fixed to make sure that the experiment runs better. This is some of our recommendation
for this experiment:
1

When we are doing the experiment, the program that used to record the data was not
function so well. This cause us to have a high error in reading the data. My
recommendation is to make sure better maintainers of the apparatus.

The general start-up procedures need to be performed before starting each of the
experiment. This is to ensure all of the components of the unit are in good conditions and
working smoothly. It will affect the reading of the experiment and reduce the
performance of the unit if the components are not in satisfied conditions.

To get more accurate reading, the experiment must be repeated at least 3 times by
calculating the average reading. This will reduce the deviation from the theoretical data.

Set an alarm for every 3 minutes so that we do not missed the time to record the results.

The reactor needs to be ensure that no leakage at the valve on the unit. The leakage will
cause the result to tremendously change which in turns alter the results for this
experiment.

1.12

Reference

Levenspiel, O, Chemical Reaction Engineering, John Wiley, 1972

Robert H.Perry, Don W.Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw

Hill,1998.
Smith,J.M, Chemical Engineering Kinetics, McGraw Hill, 1981.
Cholette, A., J. Blanchet, et al. (1960). "Performance of Flow Reactors at Various Level

of Mixing." The Canadian Journal Of Chemical Engineering 38: 1-18.

Reynolds, T. D. and P. A. Richards (1996). Unit operations and processes in

environmental engineering. Boston, PWS Pub. Co.

Stamatelatou, E. (2009) Biotreatment of zinc-containing wastewater in a sulfidogenic
CSTR: Performance and artificial neural network (ANN) modelling studies. Journal of

Hazardous Materials, 164, 105-113.

Kotsopoulos, T.A., I. A. Fotidis,N. Tsolakis & G. G. Martzopioulos (2009) Biohydrogen
production from pig slurry in a CSTR reactor system with mixed cultures under hyper-

thermophilic temperature (70 degrees C). Biomass & Bioenergy, 33, 1168-1174.
Von Sperling, M. (2002). "Relationship between first-order decay coefficients in ponds,
for plug flow, CSTR and dispersed flow regimes." Water Science and Technology 45(1):

17-24.
Hill, C. G., An Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics and Reactor Design. New

York : Wiley,1997, Chap. 8.

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics ( Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2003).

N. H. Chen, Process Reactor Design (Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1983),
p. 26.

1.13 Appendix

Type of Reactor
Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)

Characteristics
Run at steady state with contiuous flow of
reactants and product; the feed assumes a
uniform
reactor,

composition
exit

throughout

stream

has

the

the
same

composition as in the tank

Kinds

of

Phases Usage

Present
1. Liquid phase

Advantages

1. When

2. Gas-liquid

agitation

reaction

required

3. Solid-liquid
reaction

1. Continuous
is

2. Series
configuration

operation
2. Good
temperature
control

Disadvantages
1. Lowest
conversion
per

unit

volume
2. By-passing

for different

3. Easily adapts

and

concentration

to two phase

channeling

streams

runs

possible with

4. Good control

poor

5. Simplicity

agitation

of

construction

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN KIMIA
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY 1 (CPE 465)
NAME
: NUR IZZATI BINTI AHMAD TARHIZI
GROUP
: EH200 2A
EXPERIM
: FLUID MIXING
ENT
DATE
: 28 APRIL 2015
PROG/CO
: EH220
DE
SUBMIT
: MADAM NURUL DIYANAH
TO
N
Title
Allocated
o
Marks (%)
1 Abstract
5
2 Introduction
5
3 Objectives
5
4 Theory
5
5 Procedures/Methodology
10
6 Apparatus
5
7 Results
10
8 Calculation
10
9 Discussion
20
10 Conclusion
10
11 Recommendations
5

Marks

12 References
13 Appendices
TOTAL

5
5
100

Remarks:

Checked by:

Rechecked by:

Date:

Date: