Characteristics of a countercurrent reciprocating plate bubble column. II. Axial mixing and mass transfer

Abstract

Oxygen absorption from air into water and axial dispersion in the aqueous phase have been measured in a 5 cm diameter reciprocating plate bubble column. The volumetric mass transfer coefficients in semi‐batch conditions were found to increase with agitation and were correlated with the specific power input and air flow rate. Under countercurrent conditions, it was found that axial mixing had little effect and conditions approached plug flow. The volumetric mass transfer coefficients were correlated with specific power input, air and water flow rates. Mass transfer coefficients were estimated using holdup and bubble diameter results. Comparison of the coefficients with the literature values indicated that the bubble surfaces were partially mobile.

Characterization of a gas‐liquid OBC: Bubble size and gas holdup

“…In addition to the external power supplied to the OBC, the power due to the rising gas bubbles should also be considered. This term was originally suggested by Calderbank et al (1960) and has widely been used in connection with oscillatory flows (Baird and Garstang, 1972;Baird and Rama Rao, 1988;Hewgill et al, 1993). It is given by…”

Gas hold-up and bubble diameters in a gassed oscillatory baffled column

“…The use of pulsation to enhance gas-liquid mass transfer has been reported previously, see for example, Baird and Garstang (1972), Baird and Rama Rao (1988), but only recently was this type of study extended to an OBC. The overall gas-liquid volumetric mass transfer coe cient, k L a, in an OBC was found to be six times higher than that in a bubble column (Hewgill et al, 1993) and 75% higher than that in a stirred tank fermenter involving a yeast culture (Ni et al, 1995).…”

Influence of transverse rotating magnetic field on enhancement of solid dissolution process

“…It should be noted that the mass transfer rate in this case is increased with the ferromagnetic particles content as X 0. 5 . The regression analysis of the data yielded the proposed relationship (see in Figure 18) with the standard deviation r ¼ 0.0293 and with the averaged relative error AE18%.…”