Comparison of Co-Current and Counter-Current Flow Fields On Extraction Performance in Micro-Channels
Comparison of Co-Current and Counter-Current Flow Fields On Extraction Performance in Micro-Channels
Comparison of Co-Current and Counter-Current Flow Fields On Extraction Performance in Micro-Channels
Received December 12, 2011; revised January 24, 2012; accepted February 25, 2012
ABSTRACT
Several applications such as liquid-liquid extraction in micro-fluidic devices are concerned with the flow of two immis-
cible liquid phases. The commonly observed flow regimes in these systems are slug-flow and stratified flow. The latter
regime in micro-channels has the inherent advantage that separation of the two liquids at the exit is efficient. Recently
extraction in a stratified counter-current flow has been studied experimentally and it has been shown to be more effi-
cient than co-current flow. An analytical as well as a numerical method to determine the steady-state solution of the
corresponding convection-diffusion equation for the two flow-fields is presented. It is shown that the counter-current
process is superior to the co-current process for the same set of parameters and operating conditions. A simplified
model is proposed to analyse the process when diffusion in the transverse direction is not rate limiting. Different ap-
proaches to determining mass transfer coefficient are compared. The concept of log mean temperature difference used
in design of heat exchangers is extended to describe mass transfer in the system.
have studied experimentally as well as theoretically how the performance of co-current and counter-current flows
the interface level can be controlled in a two liquid sys- in extraction is being studied with focus on micro-chan-
tem under the influence of a pressure drop and an electric nels. Recently it has been experimentally shown that
field applied to one of the fluids. Their results indicate counter-current operation is possible in micro-channels.
that the flow profiles in the two fluids can be approxi- The primary objective of this work is to establish condi-
mated as plug-flows with a jump discontinuity at the in- tions under which the counter-current operation is supe-
terface for some operating conditions. rior to the co-current operation. To the best of our
Recent studies have focused on liquid-liquid extraction knowledge a theoretical analysis of this system has not
in the stratified flow regime in the micro-channels. Here been carried out. The main motivation is to show that
the two fluids flow side by side. This flow-pattern can be improvements in the extraction performance are possible
exploited to facilitate complete separation at the channel when the flow is counter-current as opposed to co-cur-
exit. The extraction of vanillin dissolved in water using rent. The convective diffusion equation is solved ana-
toluene in micro-structured devices made of Poly Di lytically for the co-current operation. This is a one di-
Methyl Siloxane (PDMS) was studied experimentally by mensional model with diffusion being considered only in
Fries et al. [6]. Here the performance of segmented and the direction transverse to the flow direction. Here axial
stratified flow regimes were compared. LIF and micro- dispersion effects are neglected. The counter-current
PIV measurements showed a laminar profile for stratified system is solved numerically. The algorithm proposed
flow, whereas vortices in the slug were detected for seg- exploits the features of the system. A lumped model is
mented flow. The influence of channel width and there- analysed where the concentration dependency on the
fore, the surface-to-volume ratio was investigated for flow direction alone is considered. It is shown that the
stratified flow. There was a significant enhancement of counter-current flow performs better than the co-current
mass transfer with decrease in the channel cross-sectional flow. Different methods to compute the mass transfer
area for the stratified flow regime. coefficient as proposed in the literature are compared.
Three different fluid-flow patterns in a Y-shaped mi-
cro-channel, contact or stratified flow, segmented flow 2. Co-Current and Counter-Current Flow
and emulsification were investigated in Okubo et al. [7].
We consider three different flow regimes for the analysis
Here a one-dimensional model for extraction assuming
in this work: 1) co-current laminar flow, 2) co-current
the interface to be at the centre of the channel was used
plug flow, and 3) counter-current plug flow. The strati-
to compare the model predictions with the experimental
fied flow (fluids flow side by side as shown in Figure 1)
behavior. A two-dimensional flow-field taking into ac-
of two liquid phases is analysed between two infinite
count the effect of the interface not being at the centre
was analysed numerically by nidari-Plazl and Igor horizontal plates extending to infinity in the z-direction.
Plazl [8]. They compare their model predictions with This assumption on the geometry helps us focus on the
experimental results on steroid extraction. Most of the physics of the problem keeping the mathematics tractable.
research in stratified flow has been when the fluids flow The distance between the plates (along the x-direction) is
co-currently i.e. in the same direction. TeGrotenhuis et al. taken as H and the liquid-liquid interface is at distance hl
[9] has studied the counter-current mass transfer in a mi- (subscript l for laminar) from the lower plate. The flow is
cro-channel when the two fluids are separated by a assumed to be in the y-direction. Figure 1 shows a
membrane. Here the diff usional resistance through the schematic of the system being analyzed.
membrane was incorporated in the analysis. Recently it
has been shown that by suitable modification of the 2.1. Laminar Flow
channel surface it is possible to have counter-current In the case of laminar or Poiseuille flow, the velocity
flow in the micro-channels over a wide range of operat- profile is obtained assuming the flow to be steady, fully
ing conditions, Aota et al. [10]. They found that a maxi- developed and the liquids to be incompressible. The ve-
mum possible theoretical plate number of 4.6 is achiev- locity profiles of the system are governed by the equa-
able in counter-current flow as opposed to co-current tions
flow. The pressure drop characteristics in a counter-flow
micro-channel have been investigated by Hibara et al. p 2v
1 21 for 0 x hl ,
[11]. The velocity profiles in a 100 micron channel with y x
(1)
butylacetate and an aqueous phase flowing in a counter- p 2v
current manner was measured using micro-PIV, Aota et 2 22 for hl x H .
y x
al. [12].
The counter-current flow is known to be more ecient These equations are subject to the conditions of no slip
in the context of heat exchanger networks. In this work at the walls and continuity of velocity and shear stress at
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Micro-channel layout. 1,2 describe regions occupied by the two fluids. These are separated at the interface h. The
direction of velocity determines the flow type. (a) Co-current; (b) Counter-current.
v1 x
x hl 2 2 1 xH 1 H 2 1 xhl 2 1 P for 0 x hl ,
2 hl 2 1 H 1 1
(3)
H x ( Hhl 2 1 xH 1 hl 2 2 1 xhl 2 1
v
2 x P for hl x H ,
2 hl 2 1 H 1 1
hl
h 2 h 2 h 2 2 Hhl 1 3H 2 1
Q1 v1 x dx l l 2 l 1
P ,
0 12 2 hl hl 1 H 1 1
(4)
H
4 2 hl H 3 2 hl 4 4hl 1 H 3 hl 4 1 H 4 1 4 H 1hl 3 9hl 2 2 H 2 6hl 2 1 H 2 6 Hhl 3 2
Q2 v2 x dx P
hl 122 2 hl hl 1 H 1
C1 C in for 0 x h, y 0
C2 0 for h x H , y 0, for co-current flow
C2 0 for h x H , y L, for counter-current flow
(7)
The film interface conditions result in a discontinuous
concentration profile, while keeping the mass flux con-
tinuous. If K > 1, C2 remains below the value of C1 at the
interface. When K < 1 the reverse is true and the second
fluid extracts the solute out of the first strongly. Here the
concentration C1 is depleted at the interface and we ob-
Figure 2. Schematic picture of stratified flow system show- tain a larger C2 concentration. In our computations we
ing all variables. The velocity profile shown is for 1 > 2, use Cin = 1 mol/m3.
P 0 . In the co-current flow (superscript co) the concentra-
tions of the outlet streams both tend to an equlibrium and
the point where the velocity is zero. Alternatively com- this limits the extraction. In the counter-current flow
bination of electro osmotic flow with Poiseulle flow can (superscript cc) this limitation does not exist and hence
give a counter-current flow when there are two immis- the performance is much better.
cible liquids as the electric field affects the flow of only For co-current (laminar or plug flow), the conservation
one of the two fluids. The electric field can be manipu- of mass states that
lated to increase or decrease the velocity for a fixed flow
rate. This can be used to control the interface position Q1C in Q2 C2 eq , co Q1C1eq co
h. Experimentally counter-current flow has been achi- under steady-state conditions. This is valid for a long
eved by surface modifications of the micro-channels [10]. channel when the two exiting streams are in equilibrium.
For the sake of mathematical simplicity the velocity in Hence
each of the phases is assumed to be uniform across the
transverse direction in counter-current flow. C in C in
C2eq ,co C2 eq , cc
Q2 Q1 K K
3. Mass Transfer in Extraction
For counter-current flow the overall mass balance
The mass transfer behavior in stratified flow of a liq- gives
uid-liquid extraction system in a micro-channel is now
analysed. Here we consider the flow of a solute in the Q1C1y=0 = Q1C1y=L + Q2 C2y=0
first fluid which is being extracted by the second fluid. This is used to check the numerical solution. The
The concentration in fluid 1, respectively 2 is represented mixed cup average concentration at a particular y is
by C1, respectively C2. Considering steady-state opera- given by Ci y vi Ci x, y dx vi dx .
tion with convection in the y-direction and diffusion in
the x-direction we obtain the equations which govern the 4. Analytical Solution for Co-Current Plug
behavior of the system as Flow
v1 y C1 D1 xx C1 for 0 x h, The convection diffusion equation can be solved analyti-
(5)
v2 y C2 D2 xx C2 for h x H . cally and elegantly under the assumptions of 1) the
co-current Plug Flow Regime (PFR) when the velocity in
Here the expressions of v1, v2 take on distinct values the two fluids is uniform (v1 and v2 are constant), and 2) a
for laminar, co-current and counter-current flows. At the constant transverse diffusion coefficient (D1 and D2). We
interface we have, start with non dimensionalizing the equations with re-
spect to their characteristic lengths and initial concentra-
C1 KC2 for x h,
(6a) tions,
D1 x C1 D2 x C2 for x h,
x y h C
x* , y* , h* , and Ci* ini
at the walls we have H L H C
x C1 0 for x 0, y 0 which gives the dimensionless form as
(6b)
x C2 0 for x H , y 0, v H2
1
y Ci xx Ci where Pei i , i 1, 2. (8)
and at the inlet y = 0 we have Pei Di L
Figure 3. Comparison of the analytical solution and the 6. Simplified Model for Co-Current and
numerical computation for co-current plug-flow. Here H =
4 104 m, h = 2 104 m, Q1 = Q2 = 14.2857 106 m2/s, K
Counter-Current Flow
= 4.14, D1 = 7.4 109 m2/s, D2 = 5.64 108 m2/s. Full line is To obtain a quick physical insight into the behavior ob-
the average concentration for x > h and the dashed line the tained in the two flow-regimes of co-current and counter-
concentration at x = 0.75 H from the analytical computation.
The triangles are the corresponding computed values with
current flow, a simplified model is proposed in this Sec-
the numerical computation, where a grid with 100 points in tion. It is valid under the assumptions of a very small
the transverse direction per phase is considered. height H of the channel (as prevailing in micro-channels),
dc1
v1h = kl c1 Kc2 (20a)
dy
dc2
v2 H h kl c1 Kc2 (20b)
dy
with initial condition
C1 y 0 1, C2 y L 0,
Introducing kl1 and kl2 as before, the solution is
given by
kl1 Kkl2 kl1 y
C1 y e 1 1 (21a)
kl1 Kkl2 e
l l
Kk 2
k 1
L
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Figure 6. Co-current and counter-current extraction for L = 0.0044 m, H = 0.0004 m, Q1 = 14.2857 106, Q2 = 2Q1, h = H/3, K
= 1/4.14, D1 = 4 7.4 108 m2/s, D2 = D1/2. (a), (b), (c), (d) Concentration profiles for L = 0.001, 0.002, 0.003, 0.0044 m, full line
and dash-dot counter-current, dashed and dot co-current; (e) Extraction rate, full line counter-current, dashed co-current.
Characteristic Quantities
The first is the efficiency E, defined in terms of the
mixed cup concentrations as
C2,out C2,in
E (27)
C2eq C2,in
where C2eq is the concentration of the solute in the sec- (b)
ond region after equilibrium is attained, and typically
C2,in = 0 . E is a measure of how close the exiting
stream is to equilibrium. The overall residence time tres
for co-current flow is defined as
HL
tres = (28)
Q1 Q2
For a given length L, a unique residence time and an
extraction efficiency E(L) is obtained. E = 1 corresponds
to the situation when the exiting streams are in equilib-
rium and no further separation can take place.
The second characteristic which can describe the sys-
tem is the extraction ratio Er. It represents the fraction of
the amount of solute that has been fed to the system
(c)
which is removed by the second fluid. This is defined as
Figure 7. Co-current and counter-current extraction for L =
C2, out Q2 0.0044 m, H = 0.0004 m, Q1 = 14.2857 106, Q2 = 2Q1, h =
Er = (29)
C in Q1 H/3, K = 1/4.14 and large diffusion coefficient D1 = 50 7.4
108 m2/s, D2 = D1/2. Match with same interface height. (a)
Note that for co-current flow Concentration profiles co-current; (b) Concentration pro-
files counter-current, here full line and dash-dot are the 2D
Q1 Q2 numerical computation, and dashed and dot the lumped
E Er K (30)
Q2 Q1 model with matched kl value; (c) Using zero height ap-
proximation for L = 0.044 m, Extraction rate, full line
Figure 6 shows the dependency of concentration along counter-current, dashed co-current.
the length as obtained by solving the convective diffu- is necessary to simulate the behavior for each length and
sion equation for co-current and counter-current extrac- then compute the extraction ratio, since the problem is
tion. Figures 6(a) to (d) shows concentration profiles for now a two point boundary value problem.
different channel lengths. For the choice of parameters it Figure 7 shows the performance of the co-current and
is seen that the extraction is marginally better for the counter-current systems for a different set of parameters.
counter-current operation. It is seen that as we increase The diffusion coefficient has been significantly increased
the channel length the improvement in performance be- here. Consequently here the simplified model is expected
comes more significant. This is verified in Figure 6(e) to give a more accurate representation of the system.
where the extraction ratio of the two models of operation Here again the concentration profiles and the extraction
is compared. In this last curve where we compare the ratios are depicted. For the concentration profiles two
extraction ratio, the curve for the co-current behavior can curves are shown: one is the prediction of the convective
be obtained by a single simulation of the governing diffusion equation and the other is the concentration pro-
equations. However for the counter-current extraction it file based on the simplified model. Here the parameter kl
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Comparison of PFR numerical simulation (full line) and analytical solution (dotted line) using simplified expression
with kl from logarithmic mean concentration difference for L = 0.044 m, H = 0.0004 m, h = H/3, Q1 = 14.2857 106 m2/s, Q2 =
2Q1, K = 1/4.14 and D1 = 7.4 108 m2/s; D2 = D1/2, (a) Co-current concentration profiles, kl = 7.1976 104 m/s; (b)
Counter-current concentration profiles, kl = 9.9793 104 m/s; (c) With large diffusion coefficient D1 = 4 7.4 108 m2/s,
co-current concentration profiles, kl = 0.0022 m/s; (d) Comparison of kl (Clm ),full line and kl (eqbm), dotted line for
co-current flow.