No.

Title Allocated Marks (%) Marks

1 Abstract/Summary 5
2 Introduction 10
3 Aims 5
4 Theory 10
5 Apparatus 5
6 Methodology/Procedure 10
7 Results 10
8 Calculations 10
9 Discussion 20
10 Conclusion 5
11 Recommendations 5
12 Reference / Appendix 5
TOTAL MARKS 100

Remarks:

Checked by:

---------------------------

Date:

GAS ABSORPTION 1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Aim / Objective .................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Theory .................................................................................................................................. 6
5.0 Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 8
6.0 Apparatus ........................................................................................................................... 10
7.0 Result ................................................................................................................................. 11
8.0 Calculations ........................................................................................................................ 15
9.0 Discussions......................................................................................................................... 18
10.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 20
11.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 21
12.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 22
13.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 23

GAS ABSORPTION 2
 1.0 ABSTRACT
Gas absorption is a process in a unit operation in order to separate gases by scrubbing a gas
mixture with a suitable liquid. One or more species in gases are being removed by dissolution
in a suitable liquid. The main objectives of gas absorption experiment is to examine the air
pressure drop across the column as function of air flow rate for different water flow rates
through the column. Pressure drop of the air is recorded and change for every 2 minutes from
20 LPM, 40 LPM, 60 LPM, 80 LPM, 100 LPM, 120 LPM, 140 LPM, 160 LPM and 180 LPM
for each flowrate of water starting from 1 LPM, 2 LPM and 3 LPM. The data is recorded until
flooding occurs for every water flowrate starting from 20 LPM to as high as 180 LPM. The
percentage error is determined as 12.5%, 33.3% and 0% for 1LPM, 2LPM and 3LPM
respectively. As observed, packing tower operate more efficiently at a low water flowrate. At
low water flowrate, the contact between gas and liquid can be maximize, thus, the conversion
are increases. It can be concluded; air flowrate is directly proportional to the pressure drop. The
objectives are successfully achieved; thus, the gas absorption experiment is successfully done.

GAS ABSORPTION 3
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

Gas absorption or scrubbing is a process in a unit operation in order to separate gases by

scrubbing a gas mixture with a suitable liquid. One or more species in gases are being removed
by dissolution in a suitable liquid. The objectives of this process are to purify gas. Gas
absorption process is usually carried out in a vertical counter-current column or in a packed
column. At top of the gas absorption column, solvent is fed, meanwhile, gas mixture is fed at
the bottom of the gas absorption column. This counter-current application is due to the density
of the gas and liquid which are less dense and denser respectively. The absorbed substance
from gas mixture is washed out by the solvent and recovered in subsequent stripping. In the
packed absorption column, gas mixture will move upward through the gas absorption tower,
while the solute in the gas mixture will transfer to the liquid solvent and automatically being
removed from the gas mixture. In this gas absorption operation, Raschig ring are used as a
medium in the gas absorption and works by providing large surface area per unit volume to
facilitate liquid-vapour mass transfer and providing continuous contact between gas mixture
and solvent. Pressure drop is a difference in total pressure between two points of a liquid
carrying network. Pressure drop occurs when presence of frictional force which caused by
resistance to flow. Pressure drop increases proportionally to the frictional shear forces.
However, the higher the value of pressure drop, the lower the values for conversion and yield.
On the other hand, the value of selectivity is increases. This is because, pressure drop causes
the temperature to not increases rapidly at the lower exit temperature. Thus, the reactions of
the system will slow as if there is no pressure drop which contribute lower conversions and
yield. An accumulation of liquid at the top of the packing is an indication of flooding. Flooding
adversely impacts negative on absorption packed column. To be precise, flooding effect rapidly
on increase in pressure drop and affect the column operation. The accumulation of liquid on
the column packing cause the pressure below the flooding point to increase. Flooding can be
identified by changes in pressure difference of the column or temperature.

GAS ABSORPTION 4
 3.0 AIM/OBJECTIVE

1. To determine the pressure drop value from the chart of generalized correlation as in
Appendix.
2. To analyses the pressure drop of air through column as a function of air flow rate for
different flow rate of water across the column
3. To plot a graph, pressure drop of the column against the flow rate of water in a log –
log graph.
4. To compare the value of correlated with the value of experimental

GAS ABSORPTION 5
 4.0 THEORY

Gas absorption is a process which one or more component is being removed from the gaseous
stream by dissolution in liquid. Solute is a component that will be extracted from the gaseous
stream. Solvent is a component that will extract the solute. The insoluble component that is
unabsorbed by the solvent, presents in the gas is called carrier gas. The transfer process on the
solute’s preferential solubility in the solvent.

For the continuous counter-current contacting of gas and liquid in the absorption,
packed towers are needed to be used. The gas and liquid flow counter-currently as the
mechanism in the packed tower, where they will interact on the packing interface. The gas will
flow upward across the voids and space of the packing. The liquid will flow downward over
the packing surface. The liquid flow is due to the gravitational force while the gas flow is due
to the pressure within the tower. Due to some part of the open space and voids are occupied
with liquid, the gas will undergo pressure drop. This will reduce the space area available for
the gas to flow. Maximum gas flow is available if and only if the packing is dry with no liquid
feed. As the flowrate of the liquid into the tower increases, the pressure drop will increase as
well.

Flooding will occur if the flux is high. This situation might occur at the upper limit of
the gas flow rate called flooding velocity, while the liquid is blown out by the gas at the
flooding point. At the loading point, the liquid will start to accumulate and appear in the
packing, the gas start hinders the liquid flow. Channelling or weeping will occur if when the
flux is low. There are two types of packing which are structured.

Figure 1. Typical Packed Tower Packing: (a) Raschig ring, (b) Lessing Ring, (c) Berl Saddle,
(d) Pall Ring

GAS ABSORPTION 6
 Figure 2. Generalized Correlation for Pressure Drop in Packed Columns

GAS ABSORPTION 7
 5.0 PROCEDURE
Start-Up Procedures
1. All the valves are closed except for the ventilation valve, V13.
2. The gas connections are ensured and checked to be properly fitted.
3. All the valves on the compressed air supply line is opened.
4. The supply pressure is set to between 2 to 3 bars.
5. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder is opened and the pressure is checked.
6. The power for the control panel is turned on.

Experimental Procedures: Hydrodynamics of a Packed Column (Wet Column Pressure Drop)

1. By opening valve V3 and V5, the receiving vessel B2 is filled through the charge port
with 50L. Then V3 is closed.
2. Valves V9 and V10 are slightly opened. The flow of water vessel B1 through pump P1
is observed. Pump P1 is then switched on.
3. Valve V11 is then opened slowly and is adjusted to give the flow rate of water around
1L/min.
4. The water is then entered the top of the column K1, flowed down the column and
accumulated at the bottom until it overflows back to vessel B1.
5. The valve V11 is opened and adjusted to give a water flow rate of 1 L/min into column
K1.
6. The valve V1 is opened and adjusted to give and air flow rate of 20L/min into column
K1.
7. The liquid and gas flow in the column K1 are observed. The pressure drop across the
column is recorded.
8. By maintaining the same water flow rate, steps 3 to 5 is repeated with different values
of air flow rate, each time increasing by 20 L/min in every two minutes.
9. Steps 3 to 6 is repeated with different values of water flow rate, each time increasing
by 1 L/min by adjusting valve V11.

GAS ABSORPTION 8
Shut Down Procedures
1. Pump P1 is switched off. Valves V1, V2 and V12 is closed.
2. The valve on the compressed air supply line is closed and the supply pressure is
exhausted by turning the regulator knob counter clockwise all the way.
3. The shut-off valve on the CO2 gas cylinder is then closed.
4. By opening valve V4 and V%, all the liquid in the column K1 is being drained.
5. All the liquid from the receiving vessels, B1 and B2 is drained by opening valves, V7
and V8.
6. All the liquid from the pump P1 is drained by opening valve V10.
7. The power for the control panel is turned off.

GAS ABSORPTION 9
 6.0 APPARATUS & MATERIALS

Material
1. Water
2. Air

Apparatus
1. SOLTEQ-QVF Absorption Column BP751-B

Figure 3. Adsorption Packed Column with Raschig Rings as Packing

GAS ABSORPTION 10
 7.0 RESULT

Table 1. Pressure Drop at Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.

Flow Rate Pressure Drop

(L/min) (mBar)
Air

Water 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

1.0 1 2 4 10 18 29 51 74 66 (F)
2.0 1.2 17 18 29 34 50 89 96 (F) F
3.0 25 26 37 41 70 (F) F F F F
*F = Flooding

Table 2. Pressure Drop at Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.

Flow
Pressure Drop
Rate
(mm H2O/m)
(L/min)

Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water
1.0 12.746 25.492 50.986 127.465 229.436 369.647 650.069 943.237 841.266
2.0 15.296 216.690 229.436 369.647 433.379 637.323 1134.434 1223.659 F
3.0 318.661 331.408 471.619 522.605 892.252 F F F F
*F = Flooding

Table 3. Theoretical Pressure Drop at Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.

Flow Rate Theoretical Pressure Drop

(L/min) (in H2O/ft)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water

1.0 0.0000 0.0906 0.2000 0.2917 0.4205 0.7500 1.1667 F F

2.0 0.0750 0.2500 0.3958 0.5000 1.0000 F F F F

3.0 0.1600 0.4318 0.7500 1.5000 F F F F F

*F = Flooding

GAS ABSORPTION 11
Table 4. Theoretical Pressure Drop at Different Water Flow Rate and Air Flow Rate.

Flow Rate Theoretical Pressure Drop

(L/min) (mm H2O/m)
Air
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Water

1.0 0.0000 7.5479 16.6620 24.3015 35.0319 62.4825 97.1978 F F

2.0 6.2483 20.8275 32.9741 41.6550 83.3100 F F F F

3.0 13.3296 35.9733 62.4825 124.9650 F F F F F

*F = Flooding

Table 5. Log Pressure Drop and Log Air Flowrate Value (Experimental)

Flow
Log Pressure Drop
Rate
(mm H2O/m)
(L/min)

Air
1.3010 1.6021 1.7782 1.9031 2.0000 2.0792 2.1461 2.2041 2.2553
Water

1.0 1.105 1.406 1.707 2.105 2.361 2.568 2.813 2.975 2.925
2.0 1.1846 2.336 2.361 2.568 2.637 2.804 3.055 3.088 F
3.0 2.503 2.520 2.674 2.718 2.950 F F F F
*F = Flooding

Table 6. Log Pressure Drop and Log Air Flowrate Value (Theoretical)

Flow Rate Log Theoretical Pressure Drop

(L/min) (mm H2O/m)
Air

Water 1.3010 1.6021 1.7782 1.9031 2.0000 2.0792 2.1461 2.2041 2.2553

1.0 - 0.8778 1.2217 1.3856 1.5445 1.7958 1.9877 F F

2.0 0.7958 1.3186 1.5182 1.6197 1.9207 F F F F

3.0 1.1248 1.5560 1.7958 2.0968 F F F F F

*F = Flooding

GAS ABSORPTION 12
Table 7. Data from Calculation to Determine Theoretical Pressure Drop

Liquid Mass Velocity Flow Parameter

Gas (Gx) Kg/m2s (x-axis)
Air Flowrate Mass Capacity
(Vy) Velocity Parameter
LPM (Gy) (y-axis) 1 2 3 1 2 3
Kg/m2s LPM LPM LPM LPM LPM LPM

20 0.0779 0.00115 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 1.4566 2.9132 4.3698

40 0.1558 0.00459 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.7283 1.4566 2.1849
60 0.2338 0.01032 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.4855 0.9711 1.4566
80 0.3117 0.01836 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.3641 0.7283 1.0924
100 0.3896 0.02868 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.2913 0.5826 0.8740
120 0.4675 0.04130 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.2428 0.4855 0.7283
140 0.5454 0.05622 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.2081 0.4162 0.6243
160 0.6234 0.07341 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.1821 0.3641 0.5462
180 0.7013 0.09292 3.3025 6.6050 9.9075 0.1618 0.3237 0.4855

Table 8. Percentage Error of The Experiment

Experimental
Theoretical Flooding
Water Flow Rate Flooding Air Flow Percentage Error
Air Flow Rate
(L/min) Rate (%)
(L/min)
(L/min)

1 160 180 12.5

2 120 160 33.3
3 100 100 0

GAS ABSORPTION 13
 Log Pressure Drop vs Log Air Flowrate
3.5

2.5
Log Pressure Drop

2 Log Pressure Drop 1LPM

Log Pressure Drop 2LPM
Log Pressure Drop 3LPM
1.5 Log Pressure Drop 1LPM Theory
Log Pressure Drop 2LPM Theory
Log Pressure Drop 3LPM Theory
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Log Air Flowrate (LPM)

Figure 5. Log Pressure Drop vs Log Air Flowrate

GAS ABSORPTION 14
 8.0 CALCULATION

Density of Air, ρy = 1.175kg/m3

Density of Water, ρx = 996kg/m3 (R.H. Perry,1973)

Packing Factor, FP = 900m-1

Column Diameter, D = 80mm = 0.08 m

Water viscosity, μx = 0.0008 kg/ms (Bingham, 1922)

*All properties at T = 30℃

*All calculations are done via excel so values may vary from calculator

Sample Calculations for Experimental Pressure Drop Units, mBar to mmH2O/m

Pressure drop, ∆PExp 1mBar 10.19716 mmH2 O

= ( )
Height of column 0.8m 1 mBar
∆PExp =12.75 mmH2 O/m

*1 mBar = 10.9716 mmH2O (convertunits.com, n.d.)

*Column height = 0.8m

Sample Calculations for Theoretical Pressure Drop Units, inH2O/ft to mmH2O/m

0.09160 inH2 O 25.4 mmH2 O 3.28 ft
Theoretical pressure drop ∆Ptheo = ( )( )
ft 1 inH2 O 1m
∆Ptheo = 7.6314

*1 inH2O = 25.4 mmH2O (convertunits.com, n.d.)

*1 m = 3.28 ft (rapidtables.com, n.d.)

Sample Calculations for Kinematic Viscosity of Water, vx

Dynamic viscosity, μx
Kinematic viscosity of water, vx =
Density of water, ρx
0.0008 kg/ms
vx =
996kg/m3
vx = 8.032 x 10−7 m2 /s

GAS ABSORPTION 15
Sample Calculations for Cross-Sectional Area of Packed Column, Ac
πD2
Cross − sectional area, Ac =
4
π(0.08m)2
Ac =
4
Ac = 5.0265 × 10−3 m2

Sample Calculations for Liquid Mass Velocity, Gx

Volume flowrate, Vy (Density of gas, ρy )

Gas mass velocity, Gy =
Cross − sectional area, Ac
L 1m3 1min 1.175kg
20 min (1000L) ( 60s ) ( )
m3
Gy =
5.0265 × 10−3 m2
Gy = 0.07792 kg/m2 s

Sample Calculations for Capacity Parameter, y-axis

Gy2 FP vx0.1
y − axis =
g c (ρx − ρy )ρy
0.1
0.07792 kg 2 −7 2
−1 ) 8.032 x 10 m
( ) (900m ( )
m2 s s
y − axis =
996 kg 1.175kg 1.175kg
(1) ( − )( )
m3 m3 m3
y − axis = 0.00115

Sample Calculations for Flow Parameter, x-axis

Gx ρy
x − axis = √
Gy ρx − ρy

3.3025kg 1.175kg
( 2 ) ( )
m s m3
x − axis = √
0.07792kg 996 kg 1.175kg
( 2 ) ( − )
m s m3 m3

x − axis = 1.4570

GAS ABSORPTION 16
Sample calculations for percentage error

Experimental Value − Theoretical Value

Percentage Error(%) = | | × 100%
Theoretical Value
180 − 160
Percentage Error (%) = | | × 100%
160
Percentage Error (%) = 12.5%

GAS ABSORPTION 17
 9.0 DISCUSSIONS

The investigation of the pressure drop across the gas absorption column as a function of air
flow rate for different water flow rates through the column is the main objective for this
experiment. The relationship between the air flow rate and water flow rate has being visualized
in the log-log graph (Figure 5). The experiment began with 1 L/min of water flow rate and the
pressure drop is tested by manipulating the air flow rate from 20 L/min until 180 L/min with
increment of 20 L/min after each 2 minutes as the allocated time for each flow rate to collect
the pressure drop data. Then, the second and third runs are performed for 2 L/min and 3 L/min
of water flow rate respectively. The data is collected until flooding happened before proceed
to the next water flow rate. Based on Figure 4, the log pressure drop increases as the log air
flow rate increases. This shown that as the air flow rate increases, the pressure drop is
increasing.

The data from the plotted graph also has shown that as the water flow rate increases,
the log air flow rate decreases. This is because the water that flowing downward the column is
hindering the air flow upwards, resulting to high pressure drop. Therefore, when the water flow
rate is high, flooding seems to happen faster compared to when the water flow rate is lower
which is the resistance that the water flow provide to the air flow is greater. The same results
showed in the theoretical data with the same pattern as the experimental data.

Although for both theoretical and experimental data showed the relationship between
pressure drop and air flow rate is proportional to each other, the experimental pressure drop is
greater than the theoretical up from 1 L/min to 2 L/min of set water flow rate. However, at
water flow rate of 3 L/min, the experimental pressure drop is smaller compared to theoretical.
This could be due to the error occurred while controlling water flow rate from hindering the
gas flow inside the column.

According to the theoretical data, the flooding at 1 L/min should be happened when the
air flow rate reached 160 L/min, however the result obtained from the experiment showed that
flooding occurred when air flow rate reached 180 L/min. While at the water flow rate of 2
L/min and 3 L/min, flooding should occur at 120 L/min and 100 L/min of air flow rate
respectively. This results the error for the experiment which is 12.5%, 33.3% and 0% for water
flow rate of 1 L/min, 2 L/min and 3 L/min respectively. Human error was the main factor

GAS ABSORPTION 18
contributed to the error in data obtained. During the experiment, student failed to control valves
V5 to maintain the water level from enter the gas flow inlet at the bottom of column. However,
at any time the water level at the bottom could be too high which hinders the gas flow thus
resulting to late flooding.

Other than that, the parallax error during the adjustment for each required flow rates
were not read the marking at the eye level as should were the eyes should be perpendicular
with the marking scale. Thus, this factor also has possibility resulting to the error. The
unmaintained equipment resulting to different value at the rotameter than the actual flow rate
in the system.

Then, other factor that contributes to the differential of theoretical and experimental
data is the differences of packing used inside the column. Whether the packing itself is different
or the condition of the Raschig rings is not the same with the one in theoretical. The packing is
degrading through time; therefore the efficiency of the process will be decreased and will also
make it easier to reach flooding point. The experiment however is still considered a success
since the error is not too big that can affect the objective of the experiment and the distance of
the respective graph at the theoretical and experimental data is not big in different based on
Figure 4.

At the end of the experiment, the packed tower is approved to still can be used for
experimentation as it is working efficiently at lower water flow rate since the flooding occurred
at very high gas flow rate. This will allow the contacting time between the gas and liquid to be
lengthen and thus maximize the absorption rate.

GAS ABSORPTION 19
 10.0 CONCLUSIONS

The pressure drop increases as the air flow rate increases. As increases the water flow rate,
pressure drop across the column also increases. The pressure drop value obtained at water flow
rate of 1 L/min and 2 L/min were higher than theoretical value. However, at water flow rate of
3 L/min, the pressure drop value is lower than the theoretical value. The calculated percentage
error for 1 L/min, 2 L/min and 3 L/min of water flow rate are 12.5%, 33.35% and 0%
respectively. The packing in the packing tower works efficiently as the flooding did not occur
until it reached very high flow rate. The low liquid flow rate will provide greater absorption
rate or it will maximize the absorption rate. Since the objective is a successful, the experiment
is successfully done.

GAS ABSORPTION 20
 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

As for recommendations in this experiment, parallax error should be avoided by the students.
They have to ensure that they read the measurement scale correctly where their eyes should be
perpendicular to the meniscus of the liquid present in the scale. Besides, the accuracy of the
experiment can be increased by changing the packing used in the packed column to a new one.
This approach will yield to more accurate data as the impact of channeling or weeping from
the experiment can be reduced. We also can use other type of packing that have a higher surface
area that allows vapor – liquid contact area to be enhanced. The students also need to conduct
the experiment in a proper personal protective equipment (PPE) so that any risk in carrying out
the experiment can be minimized.

GAS ABSORPTION 21
 12.0 REFERENCES

1. ConvertUnits.com. (n.d.). Convert Milibar to mm H2O - Conversion of Measurement

Units. Retrieved 4 April , 2019, from ConvertUnits.com:
https://www.convertunits.com/from/millibar/to/mm+H2O

2. Gas Absorption And Desorption. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 April, 2019, from Separation
Processes: http://www.separationprocesses.com/Absorption/GA_Chp03.htm

3. Geankoplis, C. J. (1993). Transport Processes and Unit Operations (Third Edition ed.).
Minnesota: Prentice Hall International. Retrieved 4 April, 2019

4. iitb.vlab.co.in. (2011). Gas Liquid Absorption. Retrieved 1 May, 2018, from Sakshat
Virtual Labs: http://iitb.vlab.co.in/?sub=8&brch=116&sim=951&cnt=1

GAS ABSORPTION 22
 13.0 APPENDICES

Figure 6. Raw Data of Experiment

GAS ABSORPTION 23