Experiment 10 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide Into Water

Chemical Engineering Department
School Year 2017 - 2018
Experiment No. 10
Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Water
Unit Operations 2 Lab / 51036
14:00 – 17:00 Wednesdays / ChE Lab
Name Student Number Signature
1. Balberan, Marvie Christian C. 201311792

2. Dimaculangan, Jayvee E. 201310889
3. Isuan, Kelly A. 201311412
4. Palad, Ayra Patricia B. 201311047
5. Rato, Marvin A. 201310547
6. Yagin,Michael Andrew O. 201311132
Engr. Rugi Vicente DC. Rubi

Instructor
ABSTRACT:
The objectives of this experiment are to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide into
water flowing down the tower, using the gas analysis equipment provided and to calculate the
rate of absorption of carbon dioxide into water from analysis of liquid solutions flowing down
absorption column. All the objectives were successfully carried out.
The development and full characterization of novel adsorbents is of primary importance
for the effective and economical largescale implementation of carbon capture and storage.
There are several challenges associated with the separation of CO2 from flue gas. Typically, the
concentration of CO2 in the flue gas is low, ranging from 4% for a gas-fired power station to up
to 14% for a coal- fired power plant.
The absorption of carbon dioxide into water was tested in order to observe and have a
clear vivid perspective into the inner working of the separation process of gas absorption. This
experiment is far more unique in the respect that it has a substance that is clearly not detected
by the naked eye but still entrained in such a way that most of the utilized substance was actually
distributed between the two flows.
Students should make use of other substances that can be absorbed by the water and to
what affinity can it do such an operation. They should also combine a multitude of gases from
time to time in order to know the specificity of one gas over that of another and what other
solvents may be utilized in order to separate a particular gas from a mixture of various forms of
gases.
INTRODUCTION:
The development and full characterization of novel adsorbents is of primary

importance for the effective and economical largescale implementation of carbon capture and
storage. There are several challenges associated with the separation of CO2 from flue gas.
Typically, the concentration of CO2 in the flue gas is low, ranging from 4% for a gas-fired
power station to up to 14% for a coal- fired power plant.
Schematic of the setup used to measure adsorption of gases and water vapor.
This work concerns CO2 capture from gas-fired power plants. The low concentration of
CO2 results in the requirement for an adsorbent that is highly selective at low partial pressures of
CO2. An adsorbent must have good cyclic stability over multiple adsorption/desorption cycles,
relatively fast kinetics, and a working capacity that is greater than 1 mol kg−1 .
Adsorption-based processes continue attracting interest for their potential use in carbon
capture systems for both pre-combustion and post-combustion capture. In particularly, Pressure
Swing Adsorption (PSA) shows promise for application in pre-combustion capture in IGCC
plants, where a stream at elevated pressure (35 to 45 bar) consisting mostly of CO2 and
hydrogen (H2) has to be separated while temperature swing adsorption (TSA) is appealing for
post-combustion capture, where the feed stream is at a lower pressure, but heat for regeneration
of the sorbent is often available at low cost.
Diagram of the CO2/H2O VSA apparatus: (a) lab setup, photographed before being wrapped by
heating elements and insulation materials; (b) positions of the thermocouples plugged along the
column.
This has led to an increasing amount of research focused on the interactions of carbon
dioxide with various sorbents. One aspect that has to be considered in these processes is that in
all applications of interest the feed stream contains water vapor, which interferes with the
mechanisms involved in the adsorption of CO2 and other gases.
Experimental techniques used to characterize materials at different stages of up-scaling.

Adsorbent properties investigated by each technique are detailed below
Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas emitted as a result of human activities
especially power generation. There have been worldwide efforts to mitigate and control the CO2
emissions from these activities including improvement in generation efficiency, reduction in
energy use, use of renewables, and carbon capture and storage.
Carbon Dioxide Capture Diagram
Carbon capture and storage relies on effective capture technologies to enrich the CO2 in
the flue gas stream to >90% prior to compression and storage. One technology for capturing CO2
is the use of adsorption processes. Over the past few years, we have experimentally investigated
the capture of CO2 from synthetic dry air-CO2 blended gas streams containing 10-12% CO2 by
our VSA (vacuum swing adsorption) process and achieved good technical performance (CO2
purity > 95% and recovery > 80.
These results are largely achieved with zeolite13X adsorbents which is the most common
commercial adsorbent used for separating CO2 from dry simulated flue gases. However, most
flue gas streams under consideration for post-combustion carbon capture are highly humid. Since
water adsorption on zeolite 13X and many other polar adsorbents is much stronger than CO2
adsorption, the effect is to displace CO2 and reduce the adsorbent’s capacity for CO2 capture.
There have been a large number of studies examining the removal of CO2 and water vapour
from gas streams using adsorption processes.
However, most of these studies are confined to ppm levels of CO2 and saturated water
vapour for air purification systems. Since zeolite 13X has a large adsorption capacity for water,
our preliminary one-bed VSA experiments directly used 13X as the sole adsorbent for wet CO2
flue gas streams containing 3.4 % (vol.) of water vapour at 30 °C. The result of these
experiments indicated a relatively low purity (59% CO2) and recovery (68%) . It is readily
apparent that water adsorption on 13X is too strong to allow the adsorbent be effectively
regenerated under the VSA conditions. Activated alumina and silica gel on the other hand are
common adsorbents used in industries for removing water vapour in pre-PSA and pre-cryogenic
separation .
The adsorption amount of water on these materials increases linearly with the adsorptive
partial pressure. Therefore, binary adsorption of CO2/H2O has been investigated in this study on
a benchmark adsorbent alumina CDX which has a near linear adsorption isotherm for water. In
addition, a double layered VSA bed system was proposed and tested to study the simultaneous
adsorption and desorption of water and CO2 in the same VSA column under a variety of process
conditions.
Over the years, several different types of materials have been proposed and investigated
for the separation of CO2 from dilute gas streams. These include zeolites, metal−organic
frameworks, and amine-modified activated carbons (ACs) and silicas. There are several recent
comprehensive reviews that compare the attributes of different solid adsorbents for carbon
capture. It is clear that an adsorbent is required to have a high affinity and selectivity for CO2 at
low partial pressures to be economically viable.
I. OBJECTIVES
 To measure the absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the
tower, using the gas analysis equipment provided
 To calculate the rate of absorption of carbon dioxide into water from analysis
of liquid solutions flowing down absorption column
II. MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT NEEDED
 Gas Absorption Column
 Carbon Dioxide Cylinder with Integral Pressure Regulator
 300 mL of 1.0M caustic soda solution
 Small Funnel and Tubing
 0.0277M Sodium Hydroxide Solution
 0.1M Sodium Bicarbonate Solution
 Phenolphthalein Indicator
 Hempl Apparatus for Gas Analysis
 Fresh Tap Water
 Thermometer
 Barometer
III. EQUIPMENT SET UP

IV. THEORY
Gas absorption (also known as scrubbing) is an operation in which a gas mixture is contacted
with a liquid for the purpose of preferentially dissolving one or more components of the gas
mixture and to provide a solution of them in the liquid.
Therefore we can see that there is a mass transfer of the component of the gas from the gas
phase to the liquid phase. The solute so transferred is said to be absorbed by the liquid.
In gas desorption (or stripping), the mass transfer is in the opposite direction, i.e. from the
liquid phase to the gas phase. The principles for both systems are the same.
We will focus on the analysis for gas absorption, for the simple case whereby only one
component of the gas solute is being absorbed. The other components of the gas are assumed to
be non-soluble in the liquid (i.e. the other gas components are inert components), and the liquid
is non-volatile, which means that there is no transfer of molecules from the liquid to the gas
phase.
In addition, we assume there is no chemical reaction in the system and that it is operating at
isothermal condition.
The process of gas absorption thus involves the diffusion of solute from the gas phase
through a stagnant or non-diffusing liquid.
Physical vs. Chemical Absorption

There are 2 types of absorption processes: physical absorption and chemical absorption,
depending on whether there is any chemical reaction between the solute and the solvent
(absorbent).
When water and hydrocarbon oils are used as absorbents, no significant chemical
reactions occur between the absorbent and the solute, and the process is commonly referred to as
physical absorption.
When aqueous sodium hydroxide (a strong base) is used as the absorbent to dissolve an
acid gas, absorption is accompanied by a rapid and irreversible neutralization reaction in the
liquid phase and the process is referred to as chemical absorption or reactive absorption.
More complex examples of chemical absorption are processes for absorbing CO2 and
H2S with aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA),
diethyleneglycol (DEG) or triethyleneglycol (TEG), where a reversible chemical reaction takes
place in the liquid phase. Chemical reactions can increase the rate of absorption, increase the
absorption capacity of the solvent, increase selectivity to preferentially dissolve only certain
components of the gas, and convert a hazardous chemical to a safe compound.
If we neglect temperature and pressure effects and assume that CO 2 only is experiencing
mass transfer between the gas and the liquid phases, traditional analysis leads to a design
equation for our absorber given by:
(1)

where t and b represent top and bottom of the column, respectively, Z is the column height, y is
the gas phase CO2 mole fraction, ye is the value of the gas phase CO2 mole fraction that would be
in equilibrium with the liquid phase, Kya is the overall mass transfer coefficient based on the gas
phase driving force, G0 is the solute free gas flux, HOy is called the height of a transfer unit, and
NOy is the number of transfer units.
Neglecting details of reactions between CO2 and water and any impurities we can
describe the vapor liquid equilibrium with Henry’s law using Henry’s constant, H = 1420 atm at
20 oC. Since the height of the laboratory column is known, experimental gas phase composition
data can be used in Equation 1 to solve for the mass transfer coefficient at various operating
conditions.
Integrating Equation 1 is tedious since a mass balance in the form of an operating line
equation must first be used to determine x at every value of y before Henry’s law can be used to
find ye at each x that corresponds to each y. This has traditionally been done by plotting the
operating line and the equilibrium line and then graphically integrating Equation 1. Modern
computing environments like MATLABTMcan be used to integrate this equation and back out
mass transfer coefficients from laboratory data as shown in Appendix 1. Results for Kya
obtained by this method are given in Table 1 and these can be seen to increase with increasing
water rate.

The traditional analysis doesn’t give much insight into the details of the mass transfer
process or the physical reason the mass transfer improves with increasing water rate. To obtain
that insight, students are directed to text books for an explanation of the two-film theory of
Whitman [8] where they learn that the overall resistance to mass transfer can be considered to be
made of a gas phase film resistance and a liquid phase film resistance:
(2)
or equivalently, (3)
where m is the slope of the equilibrium line, equal to the Henry’s constant here. Geankoplis
gives correlations for Hx and Hy and the results of these correlations are given in Table 3.
Although these correlations are not generally expected to give accurate quantitative predictions,
the correlated results for Kya are in reasonably good agreement with the experimentally obtained
results.

HOy, Hx, and Hy are often thought of as the overall, liquid side, and gas side resistance to
mass transfer, respectively. Confusion can result, however, when using these to explain the
water rate dependence of the mass transfer coefficient, because while Hx is larger than Hy, Hx is
observed to increase rather than decrease with increasing water rate. Apparently the term
mGHx/L is the controlling factor here, but this still doesn’t provide a clear physical explanation.

Heights of transfer units and mass transfer coefficients for large column.
Water Rate Hx Hy mGHx/L HOy kya kxa kxa/m Kya
L/min m mol/m3s correlated
0.53 0.193 0.065 0.591 0.656 3.55 557 0.392 0.353
1.06 0.238 0.046 0.363 0.410 5.02 904 0.637 0.565
1.58 0.268 0.038 0.275 0.313 6.13 1196 0.842 0.740
2.11 0.292 0.033 0.225 0.257 7.08 1464 1.031 0.900
SIMPLE MODEL
Our simple absorber model uses COMSOL Multiphysics to solve two instances of the
convection and diffusion equation simultaneously with appropriate boundary conditions in a
cylinder with the dimensions of our column:
(4)
R represents a reaction or source term and is the velocity vector in the convection term.
One instance of Equation 4 evaluates the concentration of solute in the gas phase, cg, and the
other instance evaluates the concentration of solute in the liquid phase, cl. In the simple model,
we included a mass coefficient transfer term as a “reaction” and consider that solute leaving the
gas phase by this “reaction” enters the liquid phase by a similar mass transfer “reaction”. For the
gas phase, the mass transfer “reaction” was written as
(5)
The quantity (1-y) accounts for part of the (1-y)2 term in Equation 1 while the other part
is accounted for by setting the gas velocity in the z-direction to vg = vg0 / (1-y). Thus, the
changing gas velocity along the length of the column is easily taken into account. This treatment
was not needed for the liquid phase because the small amount of solute dissolved in the liquid
had a negligible effect on the liquid velocity.
The absorber can be modeled equally well in 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D, but we prefer the 2-D
axial symmetric implementation because it gives the best visual representation of our process.
One of the important advantages of the powerful modern computing environments is that there is
usually no need for transformation or scaling of variables; we can work with the actual
dimensions of the equipment and with SI dimensioned variables. This what-you-see-is-what-
you-get philosophy is aimed at making a strong connection between the equations and the
physical process and appealing to visual learners.
MODEL WITH REACTION

The chemical reaction between CO2 and NaOH is well studied and according to the
literature [10] the rate limiting step in this reaction is:
CO2 + OH- HCO3- (6)
and the rate of reaction can be expressed as:
r = kB CCO2 COH- (7)
with 2nd order rate constant given as a function of ionic strength by
log(kB) = 11.875 – 2382/T + 0.221 I – 0.016 I2 (8)
where kB is in m3/kmol s, T is in K, and I is in kmol/m3. The ionic strength is calculated as
I = 0.5 (CNa+ + COH- + 4 CHCO3-) (9)

Our absorber model was easily modified to account for this chemical reaction by writing the
“reaction” term for CO2 in the liquid phase as

R = Kya(y-ye) - kB CCO2 COH- (10)
indicating that CO2 arrives at the liquid phase from the gas phase by mass transfer and disappears
from the liquid phase by reaction. This model also keeps track of the ions, Na +, OH-, and HCO3-,
by solving Equation 4 for each species in the liquid phase.

The Parametric Solver in COMSOL was used to find the values of K ya needed to make
the outlet y results of the model match the experimental y results. The resulting Kya values are
shown in Table 2. The dramatic improvement in the mass transfer process due to the reaction is
reflected in the increase in Kya with reaction compared to without.
QUALITATIVE FALLING FILM MODEL
Although our simple absorber model is easier to use than the traditional analysis and has
the added benefit of showing a colorful representation of the composition in the column, it
doesn’t given much insight into the details of the process or help explain why the mass transfer
coefficients increase with increasing water flow rate. The physical process that actually occurs
inside the column is that solute diffuses through a flowing gas phase to the gas-liquid interface,
crosses the interface to maintain equilibrium there, and diffuses into a flowing liquid phase. To
model this process more directly we should solve Equation 4 with R = 0 and use the actual
diffusion coefficients in the gas and liquid phases and an appropriate boundary condition at the
interface. We describe here a qualitative diffusion-based falling film model aimed at addressing
these concerns and providing a basis for understanding an explicit two-film model presented
below.
Inside our packed column are glass rings that have a thin layer of water flowing down
over them surrounded by gas flowing upward. Although it can be done, it is complicated and
expensive in computer time to model the exact details of the fluid flow and mass transfer that
takes place around these rings randomly packed inside the column. As an illustration, however,
it was reasonable to approximate the process with a number of identical glass rods each
extending the full height of the column. The water layer around each rod was considered to flow
downward in laminar flow and the gas layer around that was considered to flow upward in plug
flow. The thickness and velocities in these flowing layers were selected to give approximate
results that illustrate our points. It was only necessary to model one rod with its surrounding
layers axially symmetrically as shown in Figure 1.
Falling film model geometry.
As before, two instances of the convection and diffusion equation, one for the gas phase
and one for the liquid phase, were solved simultaneously. The inlet and outlet boundary
conditions are shown in Figure 2. The so-called “stiff-spring” equilibrium boundary condition
[11] was used at the gas-liquid interface according to Henry’s law. That is, the boundary
condition on the gas side of the interface was set to
(11)
and the boundary condition on the liquid side was set to
(12)
where M is an arbitrary large number; e.g. M = 10000. This assures a continuous flux across the
interface and enforces the equilibrium condition ye = H x. Mass transfer coefficients were not
used in this diffusion-based model. Instead, carbon dioxide diffuses through the gas phase,
crosses the interface, and diffuses into the liquid phase according to molecular diffusion using
diffusivities for CO2 in air and water of 1.6 x 10-5 m2/s and 1.8 x 10-9 m2/s, respectively. The
velocity profile in the liquid phase was given by the solution to the built-in Incompressible
Navier-Stokes mode of COMSOL. The velocity in the gas phase was considered uniform in the
r-direction but decreased as vg0 / (1-y) in the z-direction.
EXPLICIT TWO-FILM MODEL
Our falling film model illustrates the diffusion and convection process but does not give
accurate predictions for outlet compositions because it does not take into account all the details
of the non-uniform packing and flow patterns in the column. We describe here an explicit two-
film model that gives accurate outlet compositions, illustrates the two-film theory, and provides a
physical interpretation of the mass transfer coefficient.
The mass transfer coefficient was designed to lump all the complexities of the process
into a single parameter accounting for the reciprocal of the average resistance to mass transfer
throughout the column [6]. As shown above, this approach describes absorption results well, but
doesn’t give the same insight into the physical process that a diffusion-based model does. To
introduce the mass transfer concept into our diffusion-based model we start by comparing
diffusion in a complex situation to that of diffusion across a stagnant 1-D film. The steady state
flux across a 1-D film is given by Fick’s law:
(13)
where l is the film thickness and Dc is the concentration difference across the film. The mass
transfer coefficient was defined to give a similar simple equation for the flux for more complex
situations:
(14)
One way to understand what the mass transfer coefficient represents is to compare Equations 13
and 14 and let

(15)
where d is some equivalent stagnant film (or concentration boundary layer) thickness that can be
viewed as controlling (providing resistance to) the mass transfer in a complex situation. Note
that kc has units of m/s.
To introduce the two-film concept into our diffusion-based model we could incorporate a
stagnant film (with vg or vl = 0) of the appropriate thickness on each side of the interface and use
Equation 4 (with R = 0 and D = D g or Dl) over those films. Alternatively, and equivalently, we
have used an effective diffusivity acting over an arbitrarily established film thickness, t film,
instead of the actual diffusivity over a film thickness, d, that would need to be adjusted to fit
each data point:
(16)
The geometry and boundary conditions for our two-film model based on this effective
diffusivity approach. The appropriate resistance to mass transfer in each film has been
established by setting the effective diffusivity in the r-direction of the film to be equal to the
individual mass transfer coefficient times the film thickness. Obtaining appropriate values for
the effective diffusivities requires estimating values of the individual mass transfer coefficients,
kya and kxa, accounting for the interfacial area per volume, a, as a separate component of k ya and
kxa, and some unit conversions.
It can be observed that 1/kya is a minor contributor to 1/Kya in Equation 3, for this
system. We have, therefore, chosen to assume that the correlated values of kya shown in Table 3
are correct, knowing that uncertainties in these values will not have a strong effect on our
subsequent results and interpretations. With this assumption, kxa could be calculated from
Equation 3 using the previously obtained experimentally derived values of K ya at each liquid
flow rate. The resulting values for kxa are given in Table 4. For our model, the interfacial area
per volume is 2pRiZNR/V = 667 m2/m3. Ri is the radius of the model at the interface and N R is
the number of glass rods. Taking into account unit conversions between cg and y and cl and x
yields the following equations for effective diffusivities in the gas and liquid films.

(17)
(18)
where tfilm is the thickness of the stagnant gas and liquid films used in the model (arbitrarily set to
0.001 m).

Note that although we have used mass transfer coefficients in defining our effective
diffusivities, our two-film model does not use the mass transfer coefficient approach but instead
describes mass transfer as governed only by molecular diffusion through stagnant films,
equilibrium at the interface, and convection in the flowing layers (assumed to be in plug flow).
We have also artificially increased the diffusivities in the r-direction in the two flowing layers of
our model to isolate all the resistance to mass transfer in the stagnant layers. Also note that the
value of the interfacial area per volume used here is not necessarily a physically correct value. It
is simply the one that matches the arbitrarily chosen flowing layer and film thicknesses and
associated number of glass rods of our model.

V. PROCEDURE
A. Absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the tower, using the gas analysis
equipment provided
The two gloves of the absorption analysis equipment on the left of the panel with 1.0M caustic
soda up to the ‘0’ mark on the sight tube. The liquid reservoir then must be filled with three
quarters full with fresh tap water. The gas flow control valves C2 and C3 must be closed before
starting the liquid pump, adjust the water flow to 6 liters per minute on flow meter F1. Next, start
the compressor and adjust control valve C2 for an airflow of 10% of full scale on flow meter F2.
The pressure regulating valve of the carbon dioxide cylinder must be opened to give a value on
the flowmeter F3 approximately one half of the airflow F2.
After 15 minutes of steady operation, samples of gas from samples points S1 and S2 must be
taken simultaneously. Repeated sucking from the line must be performed using the gas piston,
expelling the contents of the cylinder to the atmosphere. Fill the cylinder from the selected line
by drawing the piston out slowly. Wait at least two minutes to allow the gas to come to the
temperature of the cylinder. Then, isolate the cylinder from the column and the absorption glove
and vent the cylinder to atmospheric pressure and close after 10 seconds. The cylinder must be
connected afterwards to absorption glove. The liquid level should not change, if it does not
change, briefly open to the atmosphere again. Wait until the level in the indicator tube is on zero
showing that the pressure in the cylinder is atmospheric. The piston must be slowly closed to
empty the cylinder into the absorption glove. Slowly draw the piston out again. The level in the
indicator tube. Read the indicator tube marking = V. This represents the volume of the gas
samples.
B. Absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the tower, from analysis of
liquid solutions
The liquid reservoir then must be filled with three quarters full with fresh tap water. The gas flow
control valves C2 and C3 must be closed before starting the liquid pump, adjust the water flow to
6 liters per minute on flow meter F1. Next, start the compressor and adjust control valve C2 for
an airflow of 10% of full scale on flow meter F2. The pressure regulating valve of the carbon
dioxide cylinder must be opened to give a value on the flowmeter F3 approximately one half of
the airflow F2. After 15 minutes of steady operation, take samples at 10 minute intervals from S4
and S5. Take 150ml samples at known times in each case. Analyze the samples according to the
procedure detailed below.
Analysis of carbon dioxide dissolved in water
A sample of liquid S5 must be withdrawn from the sump tank with the sampler provided,
approximate volume of 150ml or from liquid outflow point S4. The sample must then be
discharged at the base of a 100 ml graduated cylinder, flicking the cylinder to throw off excess
liquid above the 100 ml mark. Five to ten drops of phenolphthalein indicator solution must be
added after. If the sample turns red immediately, no free CO 2 is present. If the sample remains
colorless, titrate with standard alkali solution. Stir gently with a glass rod until a definite pink
color persists for about 30 seconds. This color change is the end point. Note volume V B of alkali
solution added.
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM (SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE)
A. Absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the tower, using the gas
analysis equipment provided

The two gloves of the absorption analysis equipment on the left side of
the panel with 1.0M caustic soda up to the '0' mark on the sight tube.
The liquid reservoir must be filled with 3 quarters full with fresh tap
water. The gas flow control valves C2 and C3 must be closed before
starting the liquid pump.
Start the compressor. Adjust control valve C2 for an airflow of 10% of

full scale on flow meter F2.
After 15 mins, samples of gas from sample points S1 and S2 must be

taken simultaneously. Wait atleast 2 mins to allow the gas to come to
the temperature of the cylinder.
The piston must be slowly closed to empty the cylinder into the
absorption glove. Read the indicator tube marking = V
B. Absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the tower, from analysis of
liquid solutions
The liquid reservoir must be filled with three quarters full with fresh
tap water. C2 and C3 must be closed before starting the liquid pump.
Adjust the water flow to 6 liters per minute on flow meter F1. Start the
compressor and adjust control valve C2 for an airflow of 10% of full
scale on flow meter F2
The pressure regulating valve of the carbon dioxide cylinder must be

opened to give value on the flowmeter F3
After 15 mins of steady operation, take samples at 10 minute intervals

from S4 and S5
Take 150mL samples at known times in each case. Analyze
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Absorption of carbon dioxide into water flowing down the tower, using the gas analysis
equipment provided
Column Pressure Drop: 28 mm Hg
Atmospheric Pressure: 101.3 kPa
Readings at Inlet Readings at Outlet

From Flowmeters From Hempl Apparatus From Hempl Apparatus
TRIAL
& Sample Point S & Sample Point S
NO. F3 (L/min) F2 (L/min) V1 (mL) V2 (mL) V1 (mL) V2 (mL)
1 10 20 20 11 20 6.0
2 10 20 20 11.5 20 7.0
3 10 20 20 11 20 6.2
Nomenclature:
F3 = Flowrate of Carbon Dioxide
F2 = Flowrate of Air
V1 = Volume of gas sample taken in Hempl Apparatus (mL)
V2 = corresponds to amount of gas absorbed in Hempl Apparatus
DISCUSSION:
It can be observed from Table 1 that the amount of volume of gas and carbon dioxide in
the apparatus was maintained at a constant value however the inlet and outlet conditions show a
sudden change. In the outlet, the substance of concern was maintained at a volume of 11 mL
which are in proximity from the three set of data where to as the outlet showed an affinity in the
value of 6 to 7 mL. It showed that more than half of what was used was actually absorbed in the
process.
Table 2. Inlet and Outlet Condition
Inlet Condition
V1 V2 V2 y1
y 1= Y 1=
V1 1− y 1
20 11 0.55 1.22
20 11.5 0.575 1.353
20 11 0.55 1.22
Outlet Condition
V1 V2 V2 y2
y 2= Y 2=
V1 1− y 2
20 6.0 0.3 0.429
20 7.0 0.35 0.538
20 6.2 0.3 0.429
DISCUSSION:
It can be observed from Table 2 that majority of the substance of concern is actually
absorbed from the process due to the sudden decrease in one of the outlet conditions. The
volumes of the sample utilized and that of the outlet is also balanced ensuring that all absorbed
species is taken into account.

Table 3. Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into water flowing down the tower, from analysis of
liquid solutions
F1 = 6 L/min
VT = 37.5 L
From sump tank S5 (corresponds From liquid outlet, S4
to conditions at top of tower)

Time from start
Vs (mL) VB Vs VB
(minutes)
0 150 14.5 150 21.5
10 150 20.6 150 26.2
20 150 24.5 150 29.2
30 150 28.0 150 32.3
40 150 31.0 150 35.3
50 150 33.3 150 37.2
60 150 34.1 150 38.0
DISCUSSION:
Table 3 shows that most of the absorbed species tends to increase as the amount of time for
the interaction to occur was lengthened. It indicates that as the operation proceeds, more and
more of the species is actually being separated from the former and is now entrained by the
latter. Proving that the equipment performed an efficient separation.

Time vs. Volume

40
35
30
25
Volume (mL)
20 From Sump tank S5

From liquid outlet
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (mins)
Figure 1. Time vs. Volume
DISCUSSION:
Figure 1 shows that the volume of the absorbed species tends to increase as the
amount of time for the operation was increased indicating that there is a direct relationship
between the two aforementioned variables. A balance between the two occurs in such a way that
both modules are able to keep up with the necessary efficiency for the operation.
Table 4. Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into water flowing down the tower, from analysis of
liquid solutions involving NaOH
Time from Outlet Conditions Inlet Conditions CO2

VNaOH CO2 Outlet VNaOH CO2 Inlet
start (mins) absorbed
0 21.5 0.596 14.5 0.402 0.194
10 26.2 0.726 20.6 0.571 0.155
20 29.2 0.809 24.5 0.679 0.130
30 32.3 0.895 28.0 0.776 0.119
40 35.3 0.978 31.0 0.859 0.119

50 37.2 1.030 33.3 0.922 0.108
60 38.0 1.053 34.1 0.945 0.108
DISCUSSION:
Table 4 is an accumulation of data regarding the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed as the
operation was occurring. It can be observed that most of the aforementioned species was
obtained more fully during the first 10 minutes of the experiment. As the time proceeds, only a
few of the remaining gas was being absorbed and entrained to the latter flow.
Time vs. Carbon Dioxide Data

1.2
1
Carbon Dioxide Data
0.8
Carbon Dioxide Outlet

0.6 Carbon Dioxide Inlet
Carbon Dioxide Absorbed
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (mins)
Figure 2. Time (mins) vs. Carbon Dioxide Data
DISCUSSION:
Figure 2 shows that the carbon dioxide at the outlet tends to increase as the experiment
proceeded which is accompanied with the increase of the carbon dioxide indicating that both
variables are highly proportional towards one another and can affect each ones outcome. The
amount of carbon dioxide absorbed however has the tendency to decrease as the operation
proceeded indicating that a rapid operation would be far more suitable in comparison to a far
more time expenditure operation. The last variable would then be inversely proportional to the
outcome that will be brought by the other two variables as a result.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this experiment, the absorption of carbon dioxide into water was tested in order to
observe and have a clear vivid perspective into the inner working of the separation process of gas
absorption. This experiment is far more unique in the respect that it has a substance that is clearly
not detected by the naked eye but still entrained in such a way that most of the utilized substance
was actually distributed between the two flows. The data indicate that the amount of carbon
dioxide that can be absorbed is of direct proportionality to the amount that was initially used at
the beginning and inversely proportional to the amount of time given for the operation to occur.
It shows that two distinct variables are in control for this experiment and must be adequately
observed in order to ensure that there is a distinct separation between the components otherwise
the operation would not be successful and could cause other problems along the way. It is also of
high concern that the data are far more precise than the others indicating that the amount has an
affinity for an optimized condition which can be replicated through other trials and may be an
indication to how much the instrument or equipment can handle in terms of the operation for gas
absorption.
It is recommended that the students should make use of other substances that can be
absorbed by the water and to what affinity can it do such an operation. They should also combine
a multitude of gases from time to time in order to know the specificity of one gas over that of
another and what other solvents may be utilized in order to separate a particular gas from a
mixture of various forms of gases. The students should also make an in depth view and study to
the concepts behind gas absorption and absorption in general in order to determine the remaining
variables that they can manipulate in order to obtain far more accurate data and tests.
VIII. REFERENCES
https://scihub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213001008
https://scihub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610209001490
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b05015
http://www.glantreo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PSA-Schematic.jpg
Appendices
Appendix A. Experimental Data
Inlet Condition
V1 V2 V2 y1
y 1= Y 1=
V1 1− y 1
20 11 0.55 1.22
20 11.5 0.575 1.353
20 11 0.55 1.22
Outlet Condition
V1 V2 V2 y2
y 2= Y 2=
V1 1− y 2
20 6.0 0.3 0.429
20 7.0 0.35 0.538
20 6.2 0.3 0.429
Appendix B. Sample Computations
Calculation of V’
101.3
ρ=
PMw
=
( 101.325 )
( 28.84 )
=1.167 g /L
RT 0.08206 ( 28+273 )
V́ air=20 L/min
L
ḿ=20 =23.34 g/min
g
(
min 1.167
L )
mͦ 23.34
V '= = =0.8093 mol air /min
Mw 28.84
Appendix C. Attendance Sheet
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2018
NAME STUDENT NUMBER SIGNATURE
Balberan, Marvie Christian C. 201311792
Dimaculangan, Jayvee E. 201310889
Isuan, Kelly A. 201311412
Palad, Ayra Patricia B. 201311047
Rato, Marvin A. 201310547
Yagin, Michael Andrew O. 201311132

Engr. Rugi Vicente DC. Rubi
Instructor
Appendix D. Documentation
The equipment set up
The water inlet

Experiment 10 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide Into Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experiment 10 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide Into Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experiment 10 Absorption of Carbon Dioxide Into Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemical Engineering Department

School Year 2017 - 2018

Absorption of Carbon Dioxide into Water

Unit Operations 2 Lab / 51036

14:00 – 17:00 Wednesdays / ChE Lab

Name Student Number Signature

1. Balberan, Marvie Christian C. 201311792

Engr. Rugi Vicente DC. Rubi

absorption column. All the objectives were successfully carried out.

The development and full characterization of novel adsorbents is of primary importance

to 14% for a coal- fired power plant.

distributed between the two flows.

The development and full characterization of novel adsorbents is of primary

Experimental techniques used to characterize materials at different stages of up-scaling.

Carbon Dioxide Capture Diagram

tower, using the gas analysis equipment provided

of liquid solutions flowing down absorption column

II. MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT NEEDED

 Gas Absorption Column

 Carbon Dioxide Cylinder with Integral Pressure Regulator

 300 mL of 1.0M caustic soda solution

 Small Funnel and Tubing

 0.0277M Sodium Hydroxide Solution

 0.1M Sodium Bicarbonate Solution

 Hempl Apparatus for Gas Analysis

 Fresh Tap Water

III. EQUIPMENT SET UP

mixture and to provide a solution of them in the liquid.

through a stagnant or non-diffusing liquid.

Physical vs. Chemical Absorption

H2S with aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA),

diethyleneglycol (DEG) or triethyleneglycol (TEG), where a reversible chemical reaction takes

components of the gas, and convert a hazardous chemical to a safe compound.

equation for our absorber given by:

(1)

NOy is the number of transfer units.

(2)

or equivalently, (3)

Water Rate Hx Hy mGHx/L HOy kya kxa kxa/m Kya

L/min m mol/m3s correlated

convection and diffusion equation simultaneously with appropriate boundary conditions in a

cylinder with the dimensions of our column:

(4)

gas phase, the mass transfer “reaction” was written as

(5)

had a negligible effect on the liquid velocity.

dimensions of the equipment and with SI dimensioned variables. This what-you-see-is-what-

physical process and appealing to visual learners.

MODEL WITH REACTION

literature [10] the rate limiting step in this reaction is:

CO2 + OH- HCO3- (6)

and the rate of reaction can be expressed as:

r = kB CCO2 COH- (7)

with 2nd order rate constant given as a function of ionic strength by

log(kB) = 11.875 – 2382/T + 0.221 I – 0.016 I2 (8)

where kB is in m3/kmol s, T is in K, and I is in kmol/m3. The ionic strength is calculated as

I = 0.5 (CNa+ + COH- + 4 CHCO3-) (9)

“reaction” term for CO2 in the liquid phase as