International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Investigation on the coupled heat and mass transfer process between

extremely high humidity air and liquid desiccant in the counter-flow
adiabatic packed tower
Zhenying Wang, Xiaoyue Zhang, Zhen Li ⇑
a
Key Laboratory of Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Energy Conversion, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the theoretical and experimental studies on the coupled heat and mass transfer pro-
Received 21 August 2016 cess in a counter-flow adiabatic structured packed tower with the inlet air humidity ratio ranging from
Received in revised form 22 February 2017 20 g/kg air to 160 g/kg air. The simulation results show that the e-NTU model is no longer reliable for
Accepted 21 March 2017
extremely high humidity conditions, as the assumptions of the e-NTU model are no longer valid due to
Available online 1 April 2017
the great solution concentration variation. The finite difference model shows that the driving forces of
heat and mass transfer decline much more significantly in high humidity conditions than in low humidity
Keywords:
conditions. Totally 313 experimental runs were conducted using noncorrosive KCOOH as the liquid des-
Liquid desiccant dehumidification
High humidity
iccant. The experimental results indicate the optimal ranges of the main parameters in high humidity
Adiabatic packed tower conditions. Moreover, empirical correlations are obtained for the humidity removal rates at varying
KCOOH solution parameters. In high humidity conditions, the dehumidification effect is more significantly influenced
Heat and mass transfer by the liquid-air flow rate ratio and less influenced by the desiccant concentration and temperature com-
pared with the low humidity conditions. This research helps to understand the heat and mass transfer
process in extremely high humidity conditions and promote the application of liquid desiccant dehumid-
ification technology in the field of industrial waste heat recovery.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mass transfer process in the adiabatic dehumidifier, including the

finite difference model [9–11], the effectiveness NTU model
The liquid desiccant dehumidification technology dehumidifies (e-NTU model) [12] and the simplified model [13–16]. In the aspect
the moist air through the vapor pressure difference between the of experimental study, a number of experiments (summarized in
moist air and the liquid desiccant which is preferable due to its Table 4) were conducted to analyze the heat and mass transfer pro-
high flexibility and strong dehumidification capacity. Up to now, cess in the adiabatic packed tower with different flow patterns, dif-
the technology has been widely applied in the air conditioning sys- ferent liquid desiccants, different packings and different conditions
tems [1–3] and the open absorption systems for industrial waste of inlet air and solution.
heat recovery [4–7]. In these systems, the desiccant dehumidifier The operation conditions in the open absorption system for
is the key component and its performance is affected by the flow industrial applications differ greatly from those in the air condi-
pattern, the packing type and size as well as the conditions of inlet tioning systems. In the liquid desiccant air conditioning systems,
solution and air. the temperature of outdoor air is no more than 45 °C and the out-
The coupled heat and mass transfer process in the packed-type door humidity ratio is no more than 30 g/kg air. While in the open
dehumidifier has been studied both theoretically and experimen- absorption systems, the moist flue gases generated by different
tally for its application in liquid desiccant air conditioning systems. types of fuel boilers are extremely humid. In the case of natural
In the aspect of theoretically study, several mathematical models gas boilers, the dew point of flue gas is about 55 °C [17] and the
[8] have been developed and verified for predicting the heat and humidity ratio is higher than 120 g/kg air. The extremely high
moisture content of the inlet air causes significant temperature
increase and concentration decrease of the liquid desiccant which
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tsinghua greatly weakens the dehumidification capacity of the packed
University, Beijing 100084, PR China.
tower. Even though empirical correlations and mass transfer
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.03.072
0017-9310/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907 899

Nomenclature

Abbreviations
NTUm number of mass transfer units
KCOOH potassium formate
a liquid-air flow rate ratio
TEG triethylene glycol
Le Lewis number
LiBr lithium bromide
m thermal capacity ratio of air and liquid desiccant
LiCl lithium chloride
x⁄ humidity ratio of the intersection point of the inlet air
CaCl2 calcium chloride
isenthalpic line and the inlet solution isoconcentration
line (kg/kg air)
Roman letters cp specific heat (kJ/(kg °C))
T temperature (°C)
RH relative humidity
Subscripts
x humidity ratio (kg/kg air)
s solution
x solution concentration
a air
m_ mass flow rate (kg/(m2 s))
in inlet of the packed tower
h specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)
out outlet of the packed tower
H height (m)
e equivalent moist air layer
r latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)

coefficients in packed dehumidifiers for air conditioning applica-

tions have been thoroughly summarized in existing researches,
those experimental results are no longer applicable in extremely
high humidity conditions.
This paper analyzes the coupled heat and mass transfer process
in a counter-flow adiabatic structured packed tower with the inlet
air humidity ratio varying widely from 20 g/kg air to 160 g/kg air
using noncorrosive KCOOH [18] as the liquid desiccant. The finite
difference model and the effectiveness NTU (e-NTU) model are
established respectively to simulate the spatial parameter distribu-
tions and the outlet parameters of the adiabatic packed tower for
extremely high humidity conditions. The influences of inlet air
humidity ratio, liquid-air flow rate ratio, inlet solution temperature
and concentration are analyzed by experiments and the experi-
mental results are compared with those in the literature.

2. Theoretical analysis

2.1. Thermodynamic model

The heat and mass transfer processes between air and liquid
desiccant in the adiabatic packed tower are governed by the prin-
ciples of energy and mass conservation. Fig. 1 shows the heat and Fig. 1. Schematic of the heat and mass transfer process in an adiabatic counter-flow
packed tower.
mass transfer process in an adiabatic counter-flow packed tower.
‘In the finite difference model, the packed tower is divided into
small volumes along the flow direction of the liquid desiccant. The energy conservation equation is shown as Eq. (3), while the
In the micro unit, the heat and mass transfer processes are mass conservation equations include the conservation of water and
described by the heat and mass transfer equations, given as Eqs. solute, respectively given as Eqs. (4) and (5):
(1) and (2):

  m _ s;i
1 hs;i
1 ¼ m
_ s;i hs;i
m _ a dha;i
1 ð3Þ
NTU m Le 1
dha;i
1 ¼ ðha;i
he;i Þ þ r
1 ðxa;i
xe;i Þ dx ð1Þ
H Le _ a dxa;i
1
_ s;i
1 ¼ m
dm ð4Þ

NTU m m _ s;i
1 xs;i
1

_ s;i xs;i ¼ m ð5Þ
dxa;i
1 ¼ ðxa;i
xe;i Þdx ð2Þ
H
where, m _ s is the flow rate of solution (kg/s), m
_ a is the flow rate of
where, ha is the specific enthalpy of humid air (J/kg), xa is the dry air at the inlet of the packed tower (kg/s), xs is the solution con-
humidity ratio of humid air (kg/kg air), he is the equivalent specific centration. Combining Eqs. (1)–(5) with the inlet parameters of
enthalpy of the liquid desiccant (kJ/kg), xe is the equivalent humid- humid air and liquid desiccant, we can obtain the states of humid
ity ratio of the liquid desiccant (kg/kg air), H is the height of the air and liquid desiccant along the packed tower.
packed tower (m), r is the latent heat of water (kJ/kg), x is the dis- Compared with the numerical model, the e-NTU model [12,19]
tance between the micro unit and the solution inlet (m), NTUm is the provides a simpler way to calculate the outlet parameters of the
number of mass transfer units, and Le is the Lewis number. packed tower. The e-NTU model is based on the following three
900 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907

assumptions: (1) the Lewis number is set as 1; (2) the flow rate and ratio. Moreover, the humidity ratios calculated with the e-NTU
concentration of the liquid desiccant are considered as constant; model correspond well with those calculated with the finite differ-
(3) the specific enthalpy of solution is linear with the solution tem- ence model in low humidity conditions, while they significantly
perature. For counter-flow packed tower, the analytical solutions deviate from each other at high humidity and the difference
of the air enthalpy, the desiccant equivalent enthalpy, the air increases with increasing air humidity ratios. This is because the
humidity ratio and the desiccant equivalent humidity ratio can changes of solution flow rate and solution concentration cannot
be derived by Eqs. (6)–(10). be neglected at high air humidity ratios and thus the assumption
  of constant solution concentration in the e-NTU model is no longer
m ð1
eNTUm ð1
m Þ Þ ðm
1ÞeNTUm ð1
m Þ
he;out ¼ Þ ha;in þ he;in ð6Þ valid and the calculation results by this model is no longer reliable.
m
e
 NTU m ð1
m m
eNTUm ð1
m Þ The decrease of the solution concentration and the increase of the
solution temperature (shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b)) lead to an appar-
m ha;in
he;out 1
ðhe;out
ha;in ÞeNTUm ðm
1Þð1
HÞ
 x
ha ¼ þ  ð7Þ ent increase in the equivalent enthalpy and the equivalent vapor
m
1 m
1 pressure of the liquid desiccant (shown in Fig. 3(c) and (d)), which
reduces the dehumidification capacity of the adiabatic packed
m ha;in
he;out m
ðhe;out
ha;in ÞeNTUm ðm
1Þð1
HÞ
 x
he ¼ þ  ð8Þ tower.
m
1
 m
1
From Eqs. (1) and (2), it can be seen that the differences of
enthalpy and humidity ratio between the moist air and the equiv-
1
eNTUm ðm
1Þð1
HÞ
 x

xa ¼ x þ ðxa;in
x Þe
NTUm ð1
HÞ þ ðxe;in
x Þ

x
alent moist air layer above the liquid desiccant are the driving

1
m e
NTUm ð1
m Þ forces of heat and mass transfer within the packed tower. Fig. 4
ð9Þ gives the state distributions of air and liquid desiccant along the
packed tower, showing that the equivalent humidity ratio and
m x
xe;in eNTUm ð1
m Þ
  x
m eNTUm ð1
m ÞH equivalent enthalpy of the liquid desiccant increase much more
xe ¼ Þ þ  ðxe;in
x Þ ð10Þ
m
e
 NTU m ð1
m m
eNTUm ð1
m Þ apparently in high humidity conditions than in low humidity con-
ditions, which causes a great decline in the driving forces of heat
where, x⁄ is the humidity ratio of the intersection point of the inlet
and mass transfer. Therefore, to maintain the dehumidification
air isenthalpic line and the inlet solution isoconcentration line (kg/
capacity of the liquid desiccant, the input parameters for high
kg air), m is the thermal capacity ratio of air and liquid desiccant,
humidity conditions should be set as quite different from those
defined as
for low humidity conditions, including the liquid-air flow rate
_ a cp;e
m dhe ratio, the inlet solution temperature and the solution concentra-
m ¼ ; cp;e ¼ ð11Þ
_ s cp;s
m dt s tion. And more experimental work is needed to investigate the
influences and the optimal selecting ranges of those main param-
where, cp,s is the specific heat of the liquid desiccant (kJ/(kg °C)), cp,e eters in actual operations.
is the equivalent specific heat of the liquid desiccant (kJ/(kg °C)).
The temperature distributions of air and solution in the packed
tower can then be calculated according the enthalpies and humid- 3. Experimental setup
ity ratios given by the above equations.
The schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus of the
2.2. Simulation results counter-flow adiabatic liquid desiccant dehumidification system
is shown in Fig. 5. The ambient air was blown into the air duct
As shown in Fig. 2, the humidity removal calculated with the by a centrifugal air blower whose speed is controlled by a fre-
e-NTU model changes linearly with the air humidity ratio, showing quency converter (0–50 Hz). The air was then heated by an electri-
no sign of decline in the dehumidification capacity, while the cal heater (0–3 kW) and humidified by a steam humidifier (0–
humidity removal calculated with the finite difference model 10 kg/h) to the expected state. A mixing section was set after the
shows a gradually saturating trend along with the air humidity humidifier so that the hot air can fully mix with the steam. A tem-
perature and humidity sensor was equipped after the mixing sec-
tion to return signal to the heater and humidifier and keep the
air state constant.
In the counter-flow adiabatic packed tower, Celdek structured
packing shown in Fig. 6 was used with a specific surface area of
350 m2/m3 and a flute height of 10 ± 0.5 mm. The packing, with
an overall length of 0.15 m, width of 0.15 m and height of
0.45 m, was made of corrugated perforated polypropylene plastic
sheets with +45° and
45° flute angle ones bonded together.
The KCOOH solution with no corrosiveness was used as the des-
iccant whose temperature was controlled by a chilling water sys-
tem through a solution water heat exchanger before the
adiabatic packed tower. A thermostatic water tank was equipped
before the solution water heat exchanger to keep the water tem-
perature constant. The strong solution got diluted during the dehu-
midification process, and was then regenerated by external heat
source in the regenerator. The measurement devices and corre-
sponding accuracies are shown in Table 1.
In the following experimental analysis, part of the experimental
Fig. 2. Simulated humidity removals with the e-NTU model and the finite difference
parameters are given directly from the measuring results such as
model (input parameters: solution type: lithium bromide, properties given by [20], the temperature and the pressure drop within the packed tower,
Ts,in = 28 °C, xs,in = 45%, Ta,in = 60 °C, asol to air = 1.27, NTUm = 1). while some of them are given by indirect calculation, including
 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907 901

0.46 80
Ts,in
70 Ts,out
0.45

0.16%
0.06%

0.35%
0.53%
0.70%
60

0.87%
1.02%
1.16%
1.30%

46.4°C
1.43%

44.9°C
1.55%

43.1°C
1.66%

T (°C)
1.76%

41.2°C
39.1°C
1.85%
0.44 50

36.7°C
xs

1.93%

34.1°C
31.4°C
28.4°C
25.1°C
21.7°C
40

18.1°C
14.2°C
10.2°C
0.43 xin

8.1°C
xout 30

0.42 20
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ωa,,in (kg/kg air) ωa,in (kg/kg air)
(a) solution concentration (b) solution temperature
500 0.15
he,in ωe,in
400 he,out 0.12 ωe,out

ωe (kg/kg air)
he (kJ/kg)

300 372.7kJ/kg
0.09

0.123kg/kg
341.5kJ/kg

0.112kg/kg
309.9kJ/kg

0.101kg/kg
278.3kJ/kg
247.0kJ/kg

0.090kg/kg
216.3kJ/kg
186.7kJ/kg

0.079kg/kg
200 0.06
158.6kJ/kg

0.068kg/kg
132.2kJ/kg
107.7kJ/kg

0.058kg/kg
85.3kJ/kg

0.049kg/kg
65.0kJ/kg

0.040kg/kg
0.032kg/kg
0.024kg/kg
46.9kJ/kg

0.018kg/kg
0.013kg/kg
0.006kg/kg

0.008kg/kg
100 0.03
30.7kJ/kg
23.3kJ/kg

0 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ωa,in (kg/kg air) ωa,in (kg/kg air)
(c) equivalent enthalpy of solution (d) equivalent humidity ratio of solution
Fig. 3. Parameter variations along with the inlet air humidity ratio calculated by the numerical model.

the humidity removal rate, the mass flow rate of the inlet air as at high humidity of xa = 0.145 kg/kg air are much more significant,
well as the mass flow rate and concentration of the inlet solution. which slows down the increasing trend of the humidity removal
The propagation errors of the indirect parameters are calculated rate along with the inlet air humidity ratio.
using the corresponding error transmission functions and the
results are given in Table 2. 4.1.2. Liquid-air flow rate ratio
During experiments, the air temperature and relative humidity Fig. 8 shows the experimental results with the liquid-air flow
at the inlet and outlet of the packed tower were recorded at 2 s rate ratio varying from 0.87 to 5.37. With increasing inlet air
internal with temperature and humidity sensors, while the solu- humidity ratios, the humidity removal rates show an apparent sat-
tion temperatures were recorded at 1 s interval with T type ther- urating trend at low liquid-air flow rate ratios ( : a = 1.31, :
mocouples. The experiments were conducted for varying a = 0.87), and a linearly increasing relationship at high liquid-air
operational conditions of the solution and air, with the parameter flow rate ratios (h: a = 5.37, : a = 4.34, : a = 3.56). With increas-
ranges given in Table 3. ing liquid-air flow rate ratios at the same inlet air humidity ratio,
the humidity removal rates significantly increase at first, and then
almost remain the same when the liquid-air flow rate ratio is high
4. Experimental results and discussion enough; that is, the experimental data at liquid-air flow rate ratios
of 3.56 ( ), 4.34 ( ) and 5.37 (h) almost overlap with each other as
4.1. Effect of inlet parameters shown in Fig. 8(a). In the adiabatic packed tower, the latent heat
released during the absorption process accounts for absolute pro-
4.1.1. Inlet air humidity ratio portion of the total heat, which causes a large increase of the solu-
Fig. 7 shows the experimental results and the numerical simu- tion temperature. As shown in Fig. 8(b), the increment of the
lation results of the moisture removal at varying inlet air humidity solution temperature increases with increasing inlet air humidity
ratios. The humidity removal in the experimental condition shows ratios. Moreover, at the same inlet air humidity ratio, the incre-
a gradually saturating trend along with the air humidity ratio, sim- ment of the solution temperature decreases with increasing
ilar with the numerical results, which demonstrates the reduction liquid-air flow rate ratios, although the total heat transfer in the
of the desiccant dehumidification ability for high humidity packed tower actually increases with increasing flow rate ratios.
conditions. As shown in Fig. 8(c), the solution concentration variations
Table 4 gives the decrease of the solution concentration and the increase at first and then decrease with increasing liquid-air flow
increase of the solution temperature for low and high humidity rate ratios. The solution concentration variations reach a maximum
conditions with the liquid-air flow rate ratio set as 1.27. Compared value when the flow rate ratio is 1.73 ( ), and this is because the
with the low humidity condition of xa = 0.045 kg/kg air, the solu- humidity removal per unit rate of solution flow reaches the maxi-
tion concentration decrease and the solution temperature increase mum in this condition.
902 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907

0.024 120
ωa ha

ωe he
0.020 100 hs
ω (kg/kg air)

h (kJ/kg)
0.016 80

0.012 60

0.008 40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Height (m) Height (m)

(a) humidity ratio distribution under low humidity (b) enthalpy distribution under low humidity
conditions conditions

0.16 500
ωa ha
ωe he
400
0.12 hs
ω (kg/kg air)

300

h (kJ/kg)
0.08
200

0.04
100

0.00 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Height (m) Height (m)

(c) humidity ratio distribution under high humidity (d) enthalpy distribution under high humidity
conditions conditions

Fig. 4. States distribution of air and liquid desiccant calculated by the numerical model.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus of the counter-flow adiabatic packed tower.

4.1.3. Inlet solution temperature solution temperatures are close to each other while the differences
Fig. 9 shows the experimental results at different inlet solution are enlarged at high inlet air humidity, especially when the inlet air
temperatures (33 °C, 38 °C, 43 °C). For low inlet air humidity humidity ratio is higher than 120 g/kg air. The experimental results
ratio around 40 g/kg air, the experimental results at different inlet show that the dehumidification capacity of the adiabatic packed
 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907 903

Table 4
Parameter variations with different inlet air humidity ratios.

Parameter variation xa ¼ 0:045 kg/kg air xa ¼ 0:145 kg/kg air

Solution concentration 0.83% 2.61%
decrease
Solution temperature increase 13.87 °C 34.87 °C

0.06
Experimental results
0.05 Numerical results

0.04

Δωa (kg/kg air)

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
ωa,in (kg/kg air)

Fig. 6. Photo of the structured packing. Fig. 7. Effect of inlet air humidity ratio on moisture removal (comparison of the
experimental results and the numerical results).

Table 1
Specification of the different measuring devices. tower increases when the inlet solution temperature decreases
Parameters Devices Accuracy Operational range from 43 °C to 33 °C, which behaves in the higher humidity removal
Fluid temperature T-type 0.1 °C 0–300 °C
rate (Fig. 9(a)) and the greater solution temperature increment
thermocouple (Fig. 9(b)).
Air temperature and Temperature & 0.5 °C, 2%RH
40 to 100 °C,
relative humidity humidity 0–100%RH
sensor
4.1.4. Solution concentration
Gas volume Hot-wire 0.1 m/s 0–30 m/s
anemometer Fig. 10 shows the experimental results at different inlet solution
Solution flow Rotor 0.1 L/min 0–8 L/min concentrations of 44%, 48%, 52%, 56%, 60% and 64%, with the flow
flowmeter rate, temperature and humidity ratio of the inlet air, the volume
3
Solution density Specific gravity 1 kg/m 1300–1600 kg/m3
flow rate and temperature of the inlet solution kept constant. As
hydrometer
shown in Fig. 10(a), the solution densities increase with increasing
solution concentrations, which causes a slight increase of the
liquid-air mass flow rate ratio with increasing solution concentra-
Table 2
Error analysis of the indirect parameters.
tions (Fig. 10(b)) according to the conversion formula from mea-
sured volume flow rate to real mass flow rate [21] of the rotor
Parameter Basic parameter Maximum
flow meter. The humidity removal rates at different solution con-
uncertainty
centrations are very close to each other as shown in Fig. 10(c),
Mass flow rate of inlet air Air velocity; size of the air 1.2% which indicates that the total heat transfer rates are close to each
channel
Mass flow rate of inlet Volume flow rate; solution 10.1%
other at different solution concentrations. Further, as shown in
solution density Fig. 10(d), the increment of solution temperature increases with
Humidity removal rate Air temperature; relative 14.0% increasing solution concentrations, since the specific heat
humidity decreases with increasing solution concentration while the total
Solution concentration Solution density 1.6%
heat transfer rates are almost the same.

Table 3
Parameter range of the experimental conditions.

Fluid Parameters Unit Ranges Initial value

Air Temperature °C 55–70 60
Relative humidity % 20–75 –
Flow rate kg/(m2 s) 1.01 1.01
Solution Temperature °C 28–43 38
Concentration % 44–68 68
Flow rate kg/(m2 s) 0.58–22.25 1.28
904 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907

Fig. 8. Effect of the liquid-air flow rate ratio.

Fig. 9. Effect of the inlet solution temperature.

4.2. Experimental correlation

From the correlation equation, it can be seen that the index
Eq. (11) gives the correlation between the humidity ratio varia- number of liquid-air flow rate ratio (a) increases with increasing
tions of moist air and the main input parameters summarized from ranges of the inlet air humidity ratio, which means that the
the experimental results. And Fig. 11 shows that the predicted liquid-air flow rate ratio has more influence on the dehumidifica-
results agree well with the experimental results. tion effect in high humidity conditions than in low humidity con-

8
>
> 154:9846a0:2698 x0:7445 xa;in
1:6648
1:0215
T s;in ; 0:03 6 xa;in 6 0:06 kg=kgair
>
>
s;in
>
< 14:4786a0:3132 x0:2619 x1:1192 T
0:8720 ; 0:06 6 xa;in 6 0:09 kg=kgair
Dx a ¼
s;in a;in s;in
ð11Þ
>
> 8:8327a0:3332 x0:1560 xa;in
1:0115
0:8227
T s;in ; 0:09 6 xa;in 6 0:12 kg=kgair
>
> s;in
>
:
3:2351a0:4177 x0:0212
s;in x0:6500
a;in T
0:7993
s;in ; 0:12 6 xa;in 6 0:15 kg=kgair
 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907 905

Fig. 10. Effect of the inlet solution concentration.

difference caused by the solution concentration increase and the

solution temperature decrease is much more apparent compared
with the original vapor pressure difference, while in high humidity
conditions, the solution concentration increase and the solution
temperature decrease will not apparently enlarge the vapor pres-
sure difference and enhance the dehumidification effect as the
vapor pressure difference between the moist air and the liquid des-
iccant is already high enough. So in extremely high humidity con-
ditions, the requirements for the solution concentration and
temperature are not as strict as those in low humidity conditions,
and more economic benefits can be gained by taking these conclu-
sions into consideration when applying the liquid desiccant tech-
nology for industrial uses.

4.3. Comparison with the literature

Table 5 lists the main parameters of the present experiments

and those in the literature. The literature has analyzed the coupled
heat and mass transfer process with different types of flow pat-
terns, desiccants, packings and different inlet parameters for low
Fig. 11. Comparison of the predicted results with the experimental results. humidity conditions where the inlet air humidity ratio is less than
30 g/kg air. By comparison, the present experiments show the
parameter dependent performance of the adiabatic packed tower
ditions. Moreover, the absolute value of the index numbers of inlet with the inlet air humidity ratio ranging widely from 20 g/kg air
solution concentration (xs,in) and inlet solution temperature (Ts,in) to 160 g/kg air. For extremely high humidity conditions, the inlet
decreases with increasing ranges of inlet air humidity ratio, which solution temperature and the solution concentration have less
means that in high humidity conditions, the concentration and influence on the dehumidification efficiency of the packed tower,
temperature of the inlet desiccant have less influence on the dehu- thus the optimal ranges of these parameters for high humidity con-
midification effect than in low humidity conditions. This is because ditions should be quite different from those for low humidity
in low humidity conditions, the increase of the vapor pressure conditions.
906 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907

Table 5
Comparison of experimental conditions in this paper with those in the literature.

Author Desiccant Flow pattern _ a (kg/(m2 s))

m Ta,in (°C) xa,in (g/kg air) _ s (kg/(m2 s))
m Ts,in (°C) xs,in (wt%)

Zurigat et al. [22] TEG Counter 1.50–2.61 25.4–44.0 16.1–21.8 0.13–0.82 25.0–45.5 93.0–98.0
Longo and Gasparella [23] KCOOH Counter 0.48–0.52 22.6–35.8 8.8–20.7 0.09–1.23 21.9–24.8 72.8–74.0
Liu et al. [24] LiBr Cross 1.59–2.43 24.7–33.9 10–21 2.15–4.55 20.1–29.5 42–49
Moon et al. [25] CaCl2 Cross 0.91–1.99 26.8–39.0 16–24 1.26–2.57 26.2–38.2 33–43
Zhang et al. [26] LiCl Counter Summer: 0.24; 0.48 34.5–35.6 14.9;15.3 0.050–0.106 14.0–16.8 30–40
Winter:0.25–0.48 6.31–7.49 2.73–2.94 0.050–0.079
2.17 
0.78 30–40
Gao et al. [27] LiCl Cross 0.53–0.93 27–38 9.3–21.3 3.33–8.67 22–50 32–40
Present study KCOOH Counter 1.01 55–70 24–169 0.88–5.43 33–43 44–64

flow rate ratio is low. With the input parameters listed in

Table 3, the optimal liquid-air flow rate ratio is about 0.6–
1.0 when the inlet air humidity ratio is 30 g/kg air, and is
about 2.5–3.5 when the inlet air humidity ratio is 130 g/kg
air.
(3) In high humidity conditions, the dehumidification effect is
more significantly influenced by the liquid-air flow rate ratio
and less influenced by the desiccant concentration and tem-
perature compared with the low humidity conditions. So in
extremely high humidity conditions, the requirements for
the solution concentration and temperature are not as strict
as those in low humidity conditions, and more economic
benefits can be gained by taking these conclusions into con-
sideration when applying the liquid desiccant technology for
industrial uses.

Fig. 12. Summary of the liquid-air flow rate ratios in existing literature.
Acknowledgements

Fig. 12 summarizes the ranges of the liquid-air flow rate ratios The research was sponsored by the National Basic Research Pro-
in the literature, showing a much wider range of flow rate ratio in gram of China ‘‘973” (2013CB228301) and the National Natural
the present study to explore the optimal value of the liquid-air Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51321002, 51376097).
flow rate ratio in high humidity conditions. According to the pre-
sent study, when the other parameters are set as the values shown References
in Table 3, the optimal liquid-air flow rate ratio is about 0.6–1.0
when the inlet air humidity ratio is 30 g/kg air, and is about 2.5– [1] L. Mei, Y.J. Dai, A technical review on use of liquid-desiccant dehumidification
3.5 when the inlet air humidity ratio is 130 g/kg air. for air-conditioning application, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 12 (3) (2008) 662–
689.
[2] T. Zhang, X.H. Liu, Y. Jiang, Development of temperature and humidity
5. Conclusions independent control (THIC) air-conditioning systems in China—a review,
Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 29 (7) (2014) 793–803.
[3] Y. Yin, J. Qian, X. Zhang, Recent advancements in liquid desiccant
This paper analyzes the coupled heat and mass transfer process dehumidification technology, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 31 (31) (2014) 38–52.
in a counter-flow adiabatic structured packed tower with the inlet [4] R.M. Lazzarin, G.A. Longo, F. Piccininni, An open cycle absorption heat pump,
Heat Recovery Systems & CHP 12 (5) (1992) 391–396.
air humidity ratio varying widely from 20 g/kg air to 160 g/kg air
[5] L. Westerlund, R. Hermansson, J. Fagerström, Flue gas purification and heat
using noncorrosive KCOOH as the liquid desiccant. The finite differ- recovery: a biomass fired boiler supplied with an open absorption system,
ence model and the effectiveness NTU (e-NTU) model are estab- Appl. Energy 96 (3) (2012) 444–450.
lished respectively to simulate the spatial parameter [6] M. Wei, W. Yuan, Z. Song, et al., Simulation of a heat pump system for total
heat recovery from flue gas, Appl. Therm. Eng. 86 (2015) 326–332.
distributions and the outlet parameters of the adiabatic packed [7] B. Ye, J. Liu, X. Xu, et al., A new open absorption heat pump for latent heat
tower for extremely high humidity conditions. The influences of recovery from moist gas, Energy Convers. Manage. 94 (2015) 438–446.
inlet air humidity ratio, liquid-air flow rate ratio, inlet solution [8] Y. Luo, H. Yang, L. Lu, A review of the mathematical models for predicting the
heat and mass transfer process in the liquid desiccant dehumidifier, Renew.
temperature and concentration are analyzed by experiments. And Sust. Energy Rev. 31 (2) (2014) 587–599.
the conclusions are summarized as below. [9] H.M. Factor, G.A. Grossman, Packed bed dehumidifier/regenerator for solar air
conditioning with liquid desiccants, Sol. Energy 24 (6) (1980) 541–550.
[10] V. Oberg, D.Y. Goswami, Experimental study of the heat and mass transfer in a
(1) The equivalent humidity ratio and equivalent enthalpy of packed bed liquid desiccant air dehumidifier, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 120 (4) (1998)
the liquid desiccant along the packed tower vary more sig- 289–297.
nificantly in high humidity conditions than in low humidity [11] X.H. Liu, Y. Jiang, K.Y. Qu, Heat and mass transfer model of cross flow liquid
desiccant air dehumidifier/regenerator, Energy Convers. Manage. 48 (2007)
conditions, which greatly reduces the driving forces of the 546–554.
heat and mass transfer and damages the dehumidification [12] D.I. Stevens, J.E. Braun, S.A. Klein, An effectiveness model of liquid-desiccant
capacity of the adiabatic packed tower. The apparent solu- system heat/mass exchangers, Sol. Energy 42 (6) (1989) 449–455.
[13] X.H. Liu, K.Y. Qu, Y. Jiang, Empirical correlations to predict the performance of
tion concentration decrease also invalidates the assump-
the dehumidifier using liquid desiccant in heat and mass transfer, Renew.
tions of the e-NTU model where the solution flow rate and Energy 31 (2006) 1627–1639.
the solution concentration are considered as constant. [14] P. Gandhidasan, A simplified model for air dehumidification with liquid
(2) The humidity removal rate within the adiabatic packed desiccant, Sol. Energy 76 (2004) 409–416.
[15] X.Y. Chen, Z. Li, Y. Jiang, K.Y. Qu, Analytical solution of adiabatic heat and mass
tower increases with the inlet air humidity ratio and the transfer process in packed-type liquid desiccant equipment and its
increasing trend becomes gradually flat when the liquid-air application, Sol. Energy 80 (2006) 1509–1516.
 Z. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 110 (2017) 898–907 907

[16] C.Q. Ren, Y. Jiang, Y.P. Zhang, Simplified analysis of coupled heat and mass [23] G.A. Longo, A. Gasparella, Experimental and theoretical analysis of heat and
transfer processes in packed bed liquid desiccant-air contact system, Sol. mass transfer in a packed column dehumidifer or regenerator with liquid
Energy 80 (1) (2006) 121–131. desiccant, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 48 (2005) 5240–5254.
[17] K. Zhu, J. Xia, X. Xie, et al., Total heat recovery of gas boiler by absorption heat [24] X.H. Liu, Y. Zhang, K.Y. Qu, Y. Jiang, Experimental study on mass transfer
pump and direct-contact heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 71 (1) (2014) 213– performances of cross flow dehumidifier using liquid desiccant, Energy
218. Convers. Manage. 47 (2006) 2682–2692.
[18] G.A. Longo, A. Giovanni, Experimental measurement of thermophysical [25] C.G. Moon, P.K. Bansala, S. Jain, New mass transfer performance data of a cross-
properties of H2O/KCOOH (potassium formate) desiccant, Int. J. Refrigeration flow liquid desiccant dehumidification system, Int. J. Refrigeration 32 (2009)
62 (4) (2015) 106–113. 524–533.
[19] X.H. Liu, Y. Jiang, J. Xia, et al., Analytical solutions of coupled heat and mass [26] L. Zhang, E. Hihara, F. Matsuoka, et al., Experimental analysis of mass transfer
transfer processes in liquid desiccant air dehumidifier/regenerator, Energy in adiabatic structured packing dehumidifier regenerator with liquid
Convers. Manage. 48 (7) (2007) 2221–2232. desiccant, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53 (2010) 2856–2863.
[20] Z. Yuan, K.E. Herold, Thermodynamic properties of aqueous lithium bromide [27] W.Z. Gao, J.H. Liu, Y.P. Cheng, et al., Experimental investigation on the heat and
using a multiproperty free energy correlation, HVAC & R. Res. 11 (3) (2005) mass transfer between air and liquid desiccant in a cross-flow dehumidifier,
377–393. Renew. Energy 37 (2012) 117–123.
[21] Q. Xia, S.Y. Jia, Principle of Chemical Engineering, Tianjin University Press,
Tianjin, 2012, pp. 76–78 (In Chinese).
[22] Y.H. Zurigat, M.K. Abu-Arabi, S.A. Abdul-Wahab, Air dehumidification by
triethylene glycol desiccant in a packed column, Energy Convers. Manage. 45
(2004) 141–155.