Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107

Experimental determination of dissociation constant, Henry’s constant,

heat of reactions, SO2 absorbed and gas bubble–liquid interfacial
area for dilute sulphur dioxide absorption into water
M.K. Mondal ∗
Department of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi 221005, Uttar Pradesh, India
Received 23 May 2006; received in revised form 17 January 2007; accepted 23 January 2007
Available online 30 January 2007

Abstract
The experimental results for dissociation constant, Henry’s constant, heat of reactions and gas bubble–liquid interfacial area for absorption
of dilute SO2 (SO2 partial pressure upto 0.963 kPa) into water in bubble column are presented. The relations between Henry’s constant versus
temperature and dissociation constant versus temperature have been proposed based on the present experimental investigation. The temperature
dependence on gas bubble–liquid interfacial area per unit volume of liquid has examined. Result shows a very small decrease in interfacial area
with increase in temperature. The experimental results are used to correlate total SO2 absorbed at saturation as function of temperature and SO2
partial pressure. Comparisons between experimental results and literature data have also been made at different temperatures. The reasonable
fittings between the data obtained from correlation and literature data shows that the proposed correlation can be successfully used for predicting
the absorption equilibria of dilute SO2 in distilled water at different temperatures.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Henry’s constant; Dissociation constant; Heat of reactions; Sulphur dioxide; Interfacial area

1. Introduction Thermal power plants in India are emitting a large amount

Several facts render coal essential to current and future world
energy needs. Coal represents over 80% of the world’s proven
recoverable fossils fuel (by heat content). In addition, the world’s
growing energy demand cannot be satisfied by the relatively
scarce reserve of natural gas or petroleum. Nuclear power is
viewed as expensive and risky by much of the world [1]. Most
of energy consumed in India, now and in the near future, is coal.
The geological coal reserves in the country were estimated at
196.8 billion tonnes as on 1 January 1994 an accounts for about
0.8% of the total geological resources of the world. The coal
resources identified could last for 280 years at the current rate
of consumption [2]. Thus coal, the major non-renewable energy
resource, will continue to play a dominant role in India’s energy
requirement.
∗ Tel.: +91 9452196638; fax: +91 5422368092.
E-mail address: mkmondal@bhu.ac.in.
of sulphur dioxide due to burning of huge amount of high ash
content coal. The total sulphur in Indian coal ranges between
0.3 and 1.6%. In India for 1% sulphur coal, the emission limit
is 500 ppm but it is hoped that the emission limit will come
down in near future. For 1% sulphur coal the degree of removal
needed to meet 50 ppm limit is 92.5%. At present no thermal
power plant in India has installed SO2 removal system. The Tata
Power Corporation, Mumbai has appointed consultant to study
the feasibility of SO2 scrubbing system based on sea water as
its plant is located near the sea in Mumbai.
Removal of SO2 from thermal power plant stack gases by
absorption is an important process for air pollution control. The
concentration of SO2 in the atmosphere has increased steadily
with increasing the energy demands by modern civilization. The
emission of SO2 from Indian thermal power plants is dilute (upto
a maximum of 1 kPa partial pressure) because of low sulphur
content in Indian coal. The numbers of coal-fired power plants
in India are increasing at a fast rate and they provide a very large
and well-distributed source of SO2 emission. It is therefore nec-
essary to control SO2 emission, otherwise, it can create serious

0378-3812/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2007.01.015
 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107
air pollution problem. Research on SO2 absorption into aque-
ous solutions has been focused on chemical reactions taking
place in the liquid phase as liquid phase resistance frequently
dominates the absorption process. One of the important fac-
tor of SO2 absorption is that it dissociates instantaneously and
reversibly to form H+ and HSO3 − in an aqueous phase, and
this dissociation reaction makes the absorption rate much faster
than physical absorption rate. Hikita et al. [3] reported pure SO2
absorption into water with Penetration theory by considering the
single SO2 dissociation reaction as instantaneous and reversible.
They showed that absorption accompanied by chemical reaction
could be predicted well by an approximate analytical expres-
sion. It was assumed that the concentrations of H+ and HSO3 −
were equal by the condition of electro neutrality in the absence
of water hydrolysis reaction. Teramoto and Kido [4] also used
Penetration theory to model SO2 absorption into water, as well
as aqueous solutions of H2 SO4 , NaHSO4 , and Fe(II)-EDTA.
It was found that the presence of H2 SO4 or NaHSO4 prevented
SO2 dissociation, resulting in a lower absorption rate than found
in pure water. For the case of Fe(II)-EDTA solution, the absorp-
tion rate was found to increase because of its buffer capacity.
Recently Sevilla et al. [5] measured the SO2 solubility in dis-
tilled water and sea water, from mixtures of SO2 and nitrogen,
at a SO2 partial pressure range between 0.05 and 1.5 kPa in the
temperature range between 278.15 and 318.15 K and a salinity
range between 35 and 36.87 g kg−1 . They provided a correlation
between total SO2 solubility, pH and temperature. Alexandrova
et al. [6] showed mass transfer modeling of SO2 in to large water
drops through air with low to high concentration of SO2 . The
model showed that the high concentration (>1%) the internal
resistance to diffusion dominates, while at low gas concentration
(<1000 ppb) the external resistance to diffusion dominates.
Chang and Rochelle [7] observed that the SO2 hydrolysis
reaction with pure water is highly suppressed in pure gaseous
SO2 and can only enhance the physical absorption rate by about
10% because of the high SO2 concentration at the interface. On
the other hand, the absorption of a dilute SO2 /N2 mixture in pure
Fig. 1. Experimental set-up for bubble column. (1) Gas cylinder (SO2 and N2 ), (2) two-stage S.S. pressure regulator, (3) S.S. needle valve, (4) gas rotameter, (5)
gas mixing and pressure release chamber, (6) manometer, (7) bubble column, (8) constant temperature water bath, (9) glass tee, (10) analysis bubbler, (11) glass
stop-cock, (12) water displacement column, (13) wet gas flow meter, and (14) flat bottom flask with water.
99
water showed a greater effect of mass transfer enhancement due
to the hydrolysis reaction. A number of experimental studies
has been reported in the literature for rate of SO2 absorption
into water [3,4,7–10]. But a very few literature was available
regarding the absorption of dilute SO2 (partial pressure upto
a maximum of 1 kPa) into water. No detailed study can be
found in the literature regarding gas bubble–liquid interfacial
area in the liquid phase. In this paper author reports detailed
experimental results on absorption of dilute SO2 into water
alongwith interfacial area per unit volume of liquid in bubble
column.
2. Experimental apparatus and procedure
A schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus used in
the present work is shown in Fig. 1. It essentially consists of
a bubble column which is made of a 47.5 mm inner diameter,
468 mm long borosilicate glass column. A gas cylinder contain-
ing a fixed concentration of SO2 and balance N2 , fitted with
two-stage pressure regulator, is used as a source of gas stream.
The flow rate of gas stream is controlled by the pressure reg-
ulator and then by a stainless steel needle valve. Then the gas
stream is passed into a stainless steel gas mixing and pressure
release chamber. The gas stream from the mixing chamber is
passed through a calibrated manometer for measuring the flow
rate of inlet gas stream and it is then fed into the bubble col-
umn containing a fixed volume of water. In this column the gas
is allowed to bubble into the liquid with a minimum possible
flow rate so that the bubbles will not collapse during the flow
in the liquid. The total volume of the gas passed into the liq-
uid is also measured by the wet gas flow meter. After that the
gas is passed through a flat bottom flask containing large vol-
ume of water to ensure that all the remaining SO2 present in
the outlet gas is absorbed. Finally the gas is discharged into the
atmosphere.
After a regular time interval of 10 min the SO2 composition
in the outlet gas stream is measured by West–Gaeke [11] method
100 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107

using the spectrophotometer. For the analysis of the gas a portion The hydrated H2 SO3 is also present, but in negligible propor-
of the gas is fed to the analysis bubbler and the remaining gas tion [12–14]. Whereas most of the SO2 (l) is ionized according
goes directly into the wet gas flow meter. The gas flow in the to the reaction as
analysis bubbler is turned off and the analysis is made. In the
analysis bubbler the fixed amount of gas (150 cm3 ) is passed into SO2 (l) + H2 O  H+ + HSO3 − (Dissociation) (4)
the fixed volume of absorbing solution (100 cm3 ) and this fixed A fraction of bisulphate ions may also be dissociated to sul-
amount of gas is measured by water displacement method with phite ions and metabisulphite ions but in negligible proportion
the help of water displacement column. After each time interval and may be safely neglected [15]. Thus the absorption of SO2
of 10 min this fixed amount of gas (150 cm3 ) is also added to into water may be regarded as a process of absorption accompa-
the wet gas flow meter reading to obtain the total volume of gas nied by instantaneous reversible reaction of the form (reaction
passed. Also after each 10 min time interval the sufficient amount (4)):
of liquid is taken out from the column and pH of the liquid is
measured by pH meter. After measuring the pH of the liquid, AE+F
the liquid is again transferred into the column without any loss. Because diffusion characterized by zero flow of electric cur-
Then the main gas stream is slowly turned on and maintained the rent, concentration of hydrogen and bisulphite ions in the liquid
same minimum possible gas flow rate for the next time interval phase are equal, that is
of 10 min. This procedure is continued till the pH of the liquid
becomes constant and outlet gas compositions becomes same as [H+ ] = [HSO3 − ] (5)
that of inlet. Once equilibrium is reached, the total sulphur (IV) Therefore, the total SO2 absorbed in the liquid phase can be
concentration in the liquid is estimated by standard iodometric written as
titration method. The overall uncertainty in the determination
of sulphur (IV) concentration is estimated as ±0.5%. As each CT = [SO2 ] + [HSO3 − ] (6)
10 min time interval the gas flow is turned off and turned on, the
gas flow is slightly different for each time interval of 10 min. 3.2. Equilibrium constants
To study the effect of temperature on the absorption of SO2
into water the bubble column is placed into a constant tem- It can be assumed that the gas–liquid interface is always at
perature water bath. For each run a fixed temperature of the equilibrium [8]. The unreacted SO2 in the liquid phase is in
liquid inside the column (293, 303, 313, 323 and 333 K) is equilibrium with the inlet gas stream and represented by the
maintained manually within small variation of ±1 K. The gas Henry’s law as
streams of four different SO2 partial pressures (0.447, 0.608,
pi = H[SO2 ] (7)
0.831 and 0.963 kPa) are used for different temperatures. The
distilled water (pH 6.85) is used for all experimental runs. The equilibrium constant for reaction (4), K (referred as dis-
Table 1 shows the experimental conditions used in the present sociation constant) is given by
work.
[H+ ][HSO3 − ]
K= (8)
3. Results and discussion [SO2 ]

3.3. Total SO2 absorbed

3.1. Equilibrium relations for SO2 in water
The equation for total SO2 absorbed can be written by sub-
Regarding the SO2 absorption mechanism into water, the stituting Eqs. (7) and (8) in Eq. (6) as
following process can be considered:
 
pi Kpi 0.5
SO2 diffusion through the gas film (Diffusion) (1) CT = + (9)
H H
SO2 (g) + H2 O  SO2 (l) + H2 O (Dissolution) (2)
3.4. Heat of reactions
SO2 (l) + H2 O  H2 SO3 (l) (Dissociation) (3)
Henry’s law constant is calculated by Eq. (7):
pi
Table 1 H=
Experimental conditions used in the present work
[SO2 ]
The heat of reaction of reaction (2) at 298 K is calculated by
Partial pressure of SO2 in inlet gas (kPa) 0.447–0.963
Temperature of the liquid bed (K) 293–333 the equation [16]:
Volume of distilled water, VL (cm3 ) 500 d ln(H) H
Height of the liquid bed, Hl (cm) 28.2 = (10)
pH of the distilled water 6.85 d ln(1/T ) R
Bubble residence time, tB (s) 2.2
The heat of reaction of reaction (4) at 298 K is calculated by
No. of bubbles in bubble residence time, n 10
K versus T method.
 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107 101

3.5. SO2 removal efficiency • The gas hold up = total gas volume/total liquid volume

In this study the SO2 removal efficiency is calculated by the VB

That is, VB =
following procedure. VL
The total gas passed in any time interval is experimen-
tally known. This amount is multiplied by SO2 composition • Total gas volume = volumetric gas flow rate × bubble resi-
in the inlet gas stream to know the SO2 passed in that time dence time
interval. The composition of SO2 in the outlet gas stream at
the end of the time interval is also experimentally known. nπdB3
That is, VB = QtB =
By multiplying this value with total SO2 passed for that time 6
interval gives the SO2 leaving in the outlet gas for that time
interval. Thus the SO2 entering minus SO2 leaving for that where n = number of bubbles in bubble residence time:
time interval gives the SO2 absorbed. Mathematically, it is QtB QHl
written as ∴ VB = = (13)
VL vB V L
SO2 passed for any time interval • Total volume of bubbles = total gas hold up × total liquid vol-
ume = volume of one bubble × total number of bubbles in
= gas passed in that time interval × pi (fraction)
bubble residence time
nπdB3
SO2 absorbed for any time interval That is, VB VL = (14)
6
= gas passed in that time interval • Bubble diameter (dB ) is found out from Eqs. (13) and (14) as
× [pi (fraction) − p0 (fraction) at the end of time interval]
 1/3
The SO2 absorbed at saturation is calculated by the following QHl 6
dB =
procedure. vB nπ
For different range of SO2 passed by knowing kmol SO2
passed and average removal efficiency for that range, the SO2 • Gas bubble–liquid interfacial area per unit volume of liquid
absorbed is calculated as (ag ) = total surface area of bubbles/volume of liquid

SO2 absorbed for any range nπdB2 nπdB2 VB

= SO2 passed for that range
× average removal efficiency for that range
Similarly for each range of SO2 passed, the SO2 absorbed is
calculated. Then the total SO2 absorbed upto any amount of SO2
passed is calculated by adding the SO2 absorbed for different
ranges of SO2 passed.
Also, for the calculation of SO2 absorbed, a plot is drawn
between instantaneous SO2 removal efficiency in fraction versus
SO2 passed which yields a curve. The area under the curve upto
any SO2 passed gives the total SO2 absorbed for that amount of
SO2 passed. Mathematically, it can be represented as
 f
SO2 absorbed = η(fraction) dGa
i is equal to HSO3 − ions in the liquid (Eq. (5)). The unreacted
3.6. Gas bubble–liquid interfacial area
Gas bubble–liquid interfacial area per unit volume of liquid
(ag ) is calculated by the following procedure [17]:
• Bubble velocity = height of liquid/bubble residence time
Hl
That is, vB =
tB
That is, ag = =
VL n(π/6)dB3
6
∴ ag = × VB (15)
dB
3.7. Total SO2 absorbed at saturation
The values of various parameters at saturation (total SO2
absorbed, HSO3 − ions, unreacted SO2 molecules, H and K) are
reported in Table 2.
The total SO2 absorbed at saturation (referred as solubility)
for each experimental run has been calculated for different pi ’s
and temperatures (Table 2). The H+ ions formed during the
(11) hydrolysis is calculated from pH of the liquid. The H+ ions
SO2 molecules present in the liquid are calculated as differ-
ence between total SO2 absorbed and HSO3 − ions formed in
the liquid phase (Eq. (6)). At any temperature the values of
Henry’s law constant for different pi ’s have been calculated
by Eq. (7) and the average of all such values is reported as
Henry’s law constant for that temperature (Table 2). The values
of K at any temperature are calculated from different H and CT
values corresponding to pi ’s by Eq. (9) and the average of all
values has been reported as K for that particular temperature
(12)
(Table 2).
102 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107

Table 2
Values of various parameters for SO2 –water system at saturation
Temperature (K) pi (kPa) CT (kmol/m3 ) pH [HSO3 − ] (kmol/m3 ) [SO2 ] (kmol/m3 ) [HSO3 − ]/[SO2 ] H (kPa m3 /kmol) K (kmol/m3 )

293 0.447 0.0181 1.99 0.0102 0.0079 1.29 56.58 0.0128

0.608 0.0220 1.92 0.0120 0.0100 1.20 60.437 0.0144
0.831 0.0272 1.84 0.0145 0.0127 1.14 65.433 0.0166
0.963 0.0309 1.80 0.0158 0.0151 1.05 63.775 0.0165
Avg. 61.830 0.0151

303 0.447 0.0127 2.12 0.0076 0.0051 1.49 87.65 0.0113

0.608 0.0159 2.04 0.0091 0.0068 1.34 89.412 0.0122
0.831 0.0201 1.95 0.0112 0.0089 1.26 93.371 0.0141
0.963 0.0223 1.91 0.0123 0.0100 1.23 96.30 0.0151
Avg. 91.683 0.0132

313 0.447 0.0092 2.24 0.0058 0.0034 1.71 131.471 0.0099

0.608 0.0118 2.15 0.0071 0.0047 1.51 129.362 0.0107
0.831 0.0147 2.07 0.0085 0.0062 1.37 134.032 0.0117
0.963 0.0173 2.01 0.0098 0.0075 1.31 128.400 0.0128
Avg. 130.816 0.0113

323 0.447 0.0067 2.36 0.0044 0.0023 1.91 194.348 0.0084

0.608 0.0087 2.26 0.0055 0.0032 1.72 190.00 0.0094
0.831 0.0109 2.18 0.0066 0.0043 1.53 193.256 0.0101
0.963 0.0128 2.12 0.0076 0.0052 1.46 185.192 0.0111
Avg. 190.699 0.0098

333 0.447 0.0049 2.48 0.0033 0.0016 2.06 279.375 0.0068

0.608 0.0065 2.37 0.0043 0.0022 1.95 276.364 0.0084
0.831 0.0083 2.28 0.0052 0.0031 1.68 268.065 0.0087
0.963 0.0094 2.24 0.0058 0.0036 1.61 267.500 0.0093
Avg. 272.826 0.0083

The pH of the liquid is plotted against CT for all pi ’s and tem-
perature in Fig. 2 which results a smooth curve. Fig. 2 shows that
pH of the liquid depends on the total SO2 absorbed irrespective
of pi ’s and temperatures.
By plotting HSO3 − ions versus unreacted SO2 molecules
at saturation for different pi ’s and temperature in Fig. 3, it is
seen that all points lie on a smooth curve. To study the vari-
ation of ratio of HSO3 − ions/unreacted SO2 molecules with
CT for different pi ’s and temperatures the values of the ratio
is plotted against CT in Fig. 4 which is resulting a smooth
curve. Fig. 4 shows that for any values of total SO2 absorbed
the ratio of [HSO3 − ]/[SO2 ] is fixed irrespective of pi ’s and
temperatures.

Fig. 2. The pH of the liquid vs. total SO2 absorbed at saturation (CT ) for different Fig. 3. HSO3 − ions ([HSO3 − ]) vs. unreacted SO2 molecules ([SO2 ]) at satura-
pi ’s and temperatures. tion for different pi ’s and temperatures.
 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107 103

Eqs. (16) and (17) are substituted in Eq. (9) to get Eq. (18)
for CT at any temperature and pi :
CT = 2.407 × 10−6
     
3715.2 2581.1
× 0.0218 exp pi + exp p0.5
i
T T
(18)
The total SO2 absorbed for pi ’s upto 1.0 kPa and at tem-
perature upto 333 K is calculated with the help of Eq. (18).
The experimental values of solubility of SO2 calculated from
Eq. (18) are compared with the experimental data of other
Fig. 4. The ratio of HSO3 − ions and unreacted SO2 molecules ([HSO3 − ]/[SO2 ])
workers at different temperatures upto 1 kPa SO2 partial pres-
with total SO2 absorbed at saturation (CT ) for different pi ’s and temperatures.
sure available in literature and reported in Table 3. From
Table 3, it is seen that the experimental solubility data of
To have the relationship between temperature, and H and K SO2 in the present study is closed to the other workers at
values plots are drawn between ln H versus 1/T (Fig. 5) and −ln K all temperatures. The R2 value of the above correlation is
versus 1/T (Fig. 6), which result straight lines. The equations of 0.99 and the root-mean square deviation from literature data
the straight lines are as follows is 3.79 kmol/m3 .
The experimental values of H at different temperatures
3715.2 have been reported by several workers [15,19–28]. The val-
ln H = − + 16.765 (16)
T ues of H calculated from the proposed equation are compared
with the experimental data of H available in the literature
1447.1 (Table 4).
ln K = − 9.11 (17)
T The values of K at 298 K calculated by the proposed equation
are compared with the experimental values available in literature
and reported in Table 5.
The heat of reaction of reaction (2) at 298 K is calculated
from the experimental data and compared with the reported data
in the literature in Table 6.
Heat of reaction for reaction (4) at 298 K is also calculated for
the present experimental data and compared with the reported
values in the literature in Table 7.

3.8. Effect of pi on SO2 absorbed at fixed temperature

To study the effect of pi on SO2 absorbed at any fixed

Fig. 5. ln H vs. 1/T (experimental).
temperature (say 303 K), a plot is drawn for SO2 absorbed
against SO2 passed/unit volume of liquid for four different pi ’s
(Fig. 7). From Fig. 7 it is seen that in the beginning (upto
0.008 kmol SO2 passed/m3 liquid) SO2 absorbed is same irre-
spective of pi . After that more SO2 is absorbed for high pi ’s.

Fig. 7. SO2 absorbed (Cc ) vs. SO2 passed unit volume of liquid (Ga ) for different
Fig. 6. −ln K vs. 1/T (experimental). pi ’s at 303 K (SO2 –water system in bubble column).
104 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107

Table 3
Comparison of experimental solubility data with data of other workers up to 1 kPa available in literature
Temperature (K) pi (kPa) CT (kmol/m3 ) Reference

Experimental values of other workers Experimental values from proposed equation (18)

298 0.187 0.0083 0.0084 [18]

0.667 0.0181 0.0198
0.027 0.0025 0.0026 [19]
0.122 0.0062 0.0064
0.232 0.0095 0.0096
0.271 0.0108 0.0107
0.680 0.0205 0.0201
0.923 0.0255 0.0251
1.053 0.0270 0.0276 [15]
308 0.104 0.0042 0.0043 [19]
0.252 0.0074 0.0074
0.417 0.0099 0.0104
0.588 0.0135 0.0131
0.968 0.0197 0.0184
323 0.652 0.0082 0.0090 [18]
0.233 0.0046 0.0046 [19]
0.388 0.0063 0.0063
0.545 0.0083 0.0079
0.891 0.0104 0.0112

Table 4
Comparison of experimental Henry’s law constants with data of other workers available in literature
Temperature (K) Experimental values of other workers Experimental values from proposed equation (16) Reference

293 48.544 61.830 [20]

64.935 [21]
47.393 [22]
71.429 [23]
298 79.365 73.544 [24]
83.333 [25]
85.470 [26]
57.803 [20]
83.333 [19]
66.667 [27]
83.333 [15]
303 98.039 91.683 [25]
68.027 [20]
93.458 [21]
98.039 [28]
68.493 [22]
93.458 [23]
313 133.333 130.816 [25]
133.333 [21]
131.579 [28]
93.458 [22]
125 [23]
323 128.205 190.699 [24]
175.439 [25]
166.667 [21]
175.439 [19]
172.414 [28]
156.25 [23]
333 222.222 272.826 [25]
227.273 [21]
222.222 [28]
188.679 [23]
 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107 105

Table 5
Comparison of experimental dissociation constant at 298 K with data of other
workers available in literature
Temperature (K) Experimental Experimental values Reference
values of other from proposed
workers equation (17)

298 0.0165 0.0142 [29]

0.0130 [30]
0.0145 [31]
0.0140 [32]
0.0100 [33]
0.0200 [34]
0.0139 [35]
0.0130 [19]
0.0170 [15]
0.0131 [36] Fig. 8. SO2 removal efficiency, % (η) vs. SO2 passed/unit volume of liquid (Ga )
0.0140 [37] for different pi ’s at 303 K (SO2 –water system in bubble column).
0.0120 [38]
0.0172 [39]
0.0127 [40] 3.9. Effect of pi on SO2 removal efficiency at fixed
temperature

Table 6 For studying the effect of pi on SO2 removal efficiency at

Comparison of experimental heat of reaction at 298 K for reaction (2) with data any fixed temperature (say 303 K), a plot is drawn between SO2
of other workers available in literature
removal efficiency and SO2 passed/unit volume of liquid for
Temperature (K) H◦ (kJ/mol) Reference different pi ’s (Fig. 8). It is seen from Fig. 8 that in the beginning
Experimental Experimental for a very small amount of SO2 passed, the removal efficiency is
value of other value of present almost 100% irrespective of pi . After that for any pi the removal
workers investigation efficiency decreases as the SO2 passed is increased and reach
298 −27.28 −25.19 [25] a minimum value corresponding to saturation. For any fixed
−23.80 [20] amount of SO2 passed, SO2 removal efficiency is high for higher
−27.31 [21] pi ’s.
−25.70 [19]
−23.50 [27]
−25.60 [15] 3.10. Effect of temperature on SO2 absorbed
−26.41 [28]
−21.90 [22] To study the effect of temperature on SO2 absorbed for a
−22.20 [23]
fixed pi (say 0.831 kPa), a plot is drawn between SO2 absorbed
and SO2 passed at different temperatures (Fig. 9). From Fig. 9
it is seen that in the beginning for narrow SO2 passed range
For each pi , a constant value of SO2 absorbed occurs at differ- (upto 0.005 kmol SO2 /m3 liquid) the amount of SO2 absorbed is
ent amount of SO2 passed representing the saturation point. At same irrespective of temperature. After that at any temperature
saturation the amount of SO2 passed required is increasing as pi the amount of SO2 absorbed increases slowly and then becomes
is increased. constant representing the saturation point. At saturation, amount
of SO2 absorbed is high at lower temperatures.

Table 7
Comparison of experimental heat of reaction at 298 K for reaction (4) with data
of other workers available in literature
Temperature (K) H◦ (kJ/mol) Reference

Experimental Experimental
value of other value of present
workers investigation

298 −16.7 −14.5 [31]

−17.4 [41]
−16.7 [33]
−18.0 [42]
−16.4 [19]
−17.2 [43]
−14.3 [44] Fig. 9. SO2 absorbed (Cc ) vs. SO2 passed unit volume of liquid (Ga ) for different
temperatures at 0.831 kPa SO2 (SO2 –water system in bubble column).
106 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107

P atmospheric pressure (kPa)

Q volumetric gas flow rate (m3 /s)
R universal gas constant (m3 kPa/kmol K)
tB bubble residence time (s)
T temperature (K)
vB bubble velocity (m/s)
VB total gas hold up
VB total gas volume (m3 )
VL total liquid volume in the bubble column (m3 )

Greek symbols
η SO2 removal efficiency (%)

Fig. 10. Gas bubble–liquid interfacial area (ag ) vs. temperature at 0.831 kPa Subscripts
SO2 (SO2 –water system in bubble column).
a component SO2
B bubble
3.11. Effect of temperature on interfacial area c cumulative
f final
To study the effect of temperature on gas bubble to liquid i inlet
interfacial area for a fixed pi (say 0.831 kPa), a plot is drawn l liquid
between interfacial area versus temperature results a straight line o outlet
(Fig. 10). Fig. 10 shows that the values of interfacial area are T total
slightly decreasing as the temperature is increased. It is observed
that the values of interfacial area on temperature variation are Acknowledgements
within 4% and thus may be safely neglected.
Author gratefully acknowledges the Banaras Hindu Univer-
4. Conclusion sity for providing the financial support and Mr. Arvind Kumar,
Department of Chemical Engineering, IT, BHU for his help
In this study, the effect of pi on SO2 absorbed and SO2 during the experiments.
removal efficiency was studied by using a bubble column at a
fixed temperature (303 K). Also the effect of temperature (tem- References
perature range between 293 and 333 K) on SO2 absorption and
gas bubble–liquid interfacial area were investigated by using [1] L.-S. Fan, R.A. Jadhav, AIChE J. 48 (2002) 2115–2123.
same experimental apparatus. Two equations were proposed; [2] Economic Intelligence Service (EIS), EMIE, Mumbai, India, 1994.
[3] H. Hikita, S. Asai, H. Nose, AIChE J. 24 (1978) 147–149.
one is for the calculation of Henry’s constant and other for cal-
[4] M. Teramoto, K. Kido, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 13 (1980) 458.
culation of dissociation constant. The correlation for total SO2 [5] J.R. Sevilla, M. Alvarez, M.C. Diaz, M.C. Marrero, J. Chem. Eng. Data 49
absorbed at saturation as function of pi and temperature agreed (2004) 1710–1716.
well with the experimental data reported by other workers avail- [6] S. Alexandrova, M. Marion, E. Lepinasse, A. Saboni, Chem. Eng. Technol.
able in literature. The gas bubble to liquid interfacial area for 27 (2004) 676–680.
[7] C.S. Chang, G.T. Rochelle, AIChE J. 27 (1981) 292.
quantifying the SO2 absorption rate from gas bubble to liquid
[8] C.-T. Hsu, S.-M. Shih, C.-T. Chang, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72 (1994) 256–261.
showed almost negligible effect on temperature variation. [9] R. Kaji, Y. Hishinuma, H. Kuroda, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 78 (1985) 169–172.
[10] C.W. Walcek, J. Atmos. Sci. 38 (1981) 871–876.
List of symbols [11] P.W. West, G.C. Gaeke, Anal. Chem. 28 (1956) 1816–1819.
[12] F.A. Cotton, G. Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd ed., Inter-
ag gas bubble–liquid interfacial area per unit volume of
science Publishers, 1972.
liquid (m2 /m3 ) [13] T. Eriksen, Chem. Eng. Sci. 22 (1967) 727–736.
Cc SO2 absorbed (kmol/m3 ) [14] M. Falk, P.A. Gignere, Can. J. Chem. 36 (1958) 1121–1125.
CT total SO2 absorbed at saturation (kmol/m3 ) [15] O.M. Morgan, O. Maass, Can. J. Res. 5 (1931) 162–199.
dB bubble diameter (cm) [16] P.V. Danckwerts, Gas Liquid Reactions, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
[17] J.M. Smith, Chemical Engineering Kinetics, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Ga SO2 passed (kmol SO2 /m3 liquid)
Company, New Delhi, 1981.
H Henry’s law constant (kPa m3 /kmol) [18] International Critical Tables, vol. 3, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
H heat of reaction (kJ/kmol) York, 1928, p. 302.
Hl height of liquid in bubble column (m) [19] H.F. Johnstone, P.W. Leppla, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 56 (1934) 2233–2238.
K dissociation constant (kmol/m3 ) [20] A. Douabul, J. Riley, J. Chem. Eng. Data 24 (1979) 274–276.
[21] J. Hudson, J. Chem. Soc. 127 (1925) 1332–1347.
n number of bubbles in bubble residence time
[22] J. Tokunaga, J. Chem. Eng. Data 19 (1974) 162–165.
pi SO2 partial pressure in inlet gas (kPa) [23] J.A. Vesolobe, Chem. Promsyl. 3 (15) (1965) 401.
p0 SO2 partial pressure in outlet gas (kPa) [24] J.J. Byerley, G.L. Rempel, V.T. Le, J. Chem. Eng. Data 25 (1980) 55.
pH the pH of the liquid [25] W.B. Campbell, O. Maass, Can. J. Res. 2 (1930) 42–64.
 M.K. Mondal / Fluid Phase Equilibria 253 (2007) 98–107
[26] F.H. Conrad, W.L. Beuschlein, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 56 (1934) 2254.
[27] C. Maass, O. Maass, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 50 (1928) 1352–1368.
[28] A. Rabe, J. Harris, J. Chem. Eng. Data 8 (1963) 333–336.
[29] S. Beilke, D. Lamb, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 21 (1975) 402.
[30] D.C. Deveze, R. Hebd, Seances Acad. Sci. C 263 (1966) 392.
[31] D.C. Deveze, P. Rumpf, Seances Acad. Sci. C 258 (1964) 6135.
[32] A.J. Ellis, D.W. Anderson, J. Chem. Soc. (1965) 1765.
[33] I.E. Flis, G.P. Arkhipova, K.P. Mischenko, J. Appl. Chem. USSR (Eng.
Trans.) 38 (1965) 1466.
[34] M. Froydman, G. Nilsson, T. Rengemo, L.G. Sillen, Acta Chem. Scand.
12 (1958) 878.
[35] A. Huss, C.A. Eakert, J. Phys. Chem. 81 (1977) 2268–2270.
107
[36] A. Ringbom, Copexation in Analytical Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York, 1963.
[37] T. Sekine, S. Iwaki, M. Sakairi, F. Shimada, M. Inarida, Bull. Chem. Soc.
Jpn. 41 (1968) 1.
[38] M.S. Sherrill, A.A. Noyes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 48 (1926) 1926.
[39] H.V. Tartar, W.H. Garretson, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 63 (1941) 808–816.
[40] N. Yui, Bull. Inst. Phys. Chem. Res. 19 (1940) 1229.
[41] C. Dobrogowska, L.G. Hepler, J. Solut. Chem. 12 (1983) 153.
[42] W.H. Johnson, S. Sunner, Acta Chem. Scand. 17 (1963) 1917.
[43] A.G. Stiles, W.A. Felsing, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 48 (1926) 1543.
[44] G. Zanbonin, J. Jordan, Anal. Chem. 41 (1969) 437.