Modeling Liquid Mass Transfer in Higee Separation Process

A noninvasive X-ray technique for determination of liquid holdup in a rotating packed bed

“…Various models of liquid holdup in RPB have been reported (Basic and Dudukovic, 1995;Burns et al, 2000;Lin et al, 2000), and the earliest model proposed by Basic and Dudukovic based on the previous studies on conventional packed beds (Bemer and Kalis, 1978;Buchanan, 1988;Davidson, 1959) was ϳ developed using film flow theory since early researchers assumed that liquid flow in the packing zone as films (Kumar and Rao, 1990;Tung and Mah, 1985 …”

A new crossflow rotating bed, Part 3: Stage efficiency model

“…It was found (Tung and Mah, 1985) that, in spite of the significant differences between Higee device and traditional column, the penetration theory of Higbie (1935) is still capable of describing the liquid phase mass transfer behavior in Higee devices. Assuming that the penetration theory is equally applicable to the gas phase mass transfer, the mass transfer coefficients k L and k G could be given as follows:…”

“…For the packed Higee device, Tung and Mah (1985) proposed that the θ L is the semi-circumference of particles divided by the free surface velocity of the liquid film, based on the assumption that the liquid travels through a porous bed containing a mass of (equivalent) spherical packing particles. By analogy, in this study the exposure time of the gas phase θ G can A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 9 be estimated by the following formula:…”

Process Intensification of Steel Slag Carbonation via a Rotating Packed Bed: Reaction Kinetics and Mass Transfer

“…It is usually difficult to obtain mass transfer coefficients separated from volumetric mass transfer coefficients kLae and kGae since the effective interfacial area between the liquid and vapour phase is usually not known [10]. Tung and Muh (1985) [20] found that the ae/at predicted value by Perry and Chilton (1973) is "reliable" under highgravity RPB process, and was evaluated by correlation proposed by et al for wetted surface area of a packing in a conventional packed column, as shown in Eq (4):…”