7

Modeling of Multi Nozzle Jet Ejector for
Absorption with Chemical Reaction
Thesis submitted to
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Vadodara
For the award of

Doctor of Philosophy
in
Chemical Engineering
Submitted by Guided by
Kishorilal S. Agrawal Prof. Vasdev Singh
Chemical Engineering Department

Faculty of Technology and Engineering
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Vadodara, Gujarat
September 2012
I
DEDICATED
TO MY
FAMILY
I
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled Modeling of Multi Nozzle Jet Ejector for Absorption
with Chemical Reaction submitted by Mr. Kishorilal S. Agrawal in fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Chemical Engineering, is a bonafide
record of the investigations carried out by him in the Department of Chemical Engineering,
Faculty of Technology and Engineering, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara, under my guidance and supervision. In my opinion this thesis has reached the
standard fulfilling the requirements of the Ph.D. degree as prescribed in the regulations of this
University.
Prof. Vasdev Singh

Adjunct Professor,
A D Patel Institute of Technology ,
New Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand.
2nd September, 2012
Head Dean,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Technology & Engineering,
Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The M. S. University of Baroda,
The M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara.
Vadodara.
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to express my profound gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Vasdev Singh, for suggesting
the problem and for the valuable guidance. His extensive knowledge, unfailing optimism, and
easy nature have made this thesis an exciting and enjoyable experience, which definitely will
shape my future. I am also thankful to him for his constant encouragement, kind advice and
support throughout my work.
I would like to thank Prof. R. Sengupta, Head of Department of Chemical Engineering, for
providing me the necessary facilities during my work.
I express my sincere thanks to staff of Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of

Technology and Engineering and also to the staff of Petro-chemical Technology Department,
Polytechnic for their help during my work. I am grateful to Prof. D.P. Patel, Department of
Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Technology and Engineering for his help and advice in
mathematical modeling and simulation studies.
My special thanks to M/s ATR-ASAHI GLASS Process Systems (P) Ltd., 668, GIDC Estate,
Makarpura, Vadodara and M/s Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., GIDC, Ankleshwar for their
help and support in carrying out the investigation on industrial scale setup. I feel highly
indebted to Mr. Asif Rangwala of ATR-ASAHI GLASS Process Systems (P) Ltd and Mr.
Hasmukh Patel and Mr. Hiren Patel of Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd.
Last but not the least; I am very much thankful to my family for providing me the cozy and
lovable environment at home which was valuable for concentrating on the research work.
They deserve special thanks.
Thank you all.
K.S. Agrawal
September, 2012
III
PREFACE
The concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all known
to be increasing in the atmosphere. In recent years, other greenhouse gases, principally
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been added in significant quantities to the atmosphere.
There are many uncertainties in deducing the consequential climatic effects. Typically, it is
estimated that increased concentrations of these gases since 1860 may have raised global
mean surface temperatures by 0.5C or so, and the projected concentration could produce a
warming of about 1.5C over the next 40 years (Mitchell, 1989). Therefore, it is required to
develop highly efficient and cost effective equipments, which are capable of removing
harmful substances like fine particulate matter, green house and toxic gases from industrial
gaseous effluents.
Jet ejector is one of the devices for gas liquid contacting, which utilizes a liquid media to
absorb objectionable gases and particulates from industrial gaseous effluents. Ejector type
scrubbers utilize a high velocity fluid jet for bringing the liquid and gas into intimate contact
with each other.
To design jet ejector (single or multi nozzle), for efficient absorption of gaseous species with
simultaneous chemical reaction of species present in liquid mathematical models are
required.
Rigorous literature review of gas-liquid contactors suggests that mass transfer with chemical
reaction in jet ejector is nearly unexposed.
The current research work on mass transfer with chemical reaction between two phases (gas
and liquid), using single and multi nozzle jet ejector as gas-liquid contactor is presented in the
thesis emphasizing on the following:
Most recent literature survey in the area of mass transfer characteristics for designing
jet ejector
The experimental study of rate of absorption with chemical reaction in single/multi

nozzle jet ejector (laboratory scale and industrial scale) using chlorine-aqueous
sodium hydroxide system.
Model single/multi nozzle jet ejector for absorption with chemical reaction.
IV
The models to determine rate constant and mass transfer (absorption) rate for Cl2
aqueous NaOH reaction system.
The mathematical model to study the effect of different diffusivity ratio on

enhancement factor for absorption of chlorine-aqueous sodium hydroxide system.
The numerical model for multi nozzle jet ejector to predict the conversion.
Mathematical models to determine interfacial area, and mass transfer coefficient for
single and multi nozzle jet ejector for absorption with chemical reaction
The mathematical models to predict mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet
ejector using - aqueous solution in laboratory and industrial scale ejector
The statistical models for determining removal efficiency of by aqueous sodium

hydroxide solution.
Present thesis consists of Five Chapters.
Chapter One covers introductory part.
Chapter Two deals with literature survey.
The phenomenon of jet behavior is described in Section One. This section includes review of
the published work about jet breakup length, type of regimes of jet breakup: the effect of
different parameters like pressure, turbulence, liquid viscosity on jet behavior and also the
effect of different dimensionless numbers like Reynolds number, Webber number, Ohnesorge
number on jet behavior.
Section Two deals with the different methods for measuring bubble size and bubble size
distribution.
Effect of different parameters on the performance of the jet ejector is described in Section
Three. Literatures in the areas like prediction of pressure drop, effect of different parameters
like collection efficiency, optimisation of ejector venturi scrubber, effect of ejector geometry,
operating pressure and gas density on ejector performance are reviewed in this section.
Section Four deals with literature review of:
The estimation of mass transfer characteristics of gas-liquid contactors.
V
The physico-chemical factors, hydrodynamic factors effecting mass transfer
characteristics and chemical methods of determining interfacial area are also reviewed
in this section.
Chapter Three describes the experimental setup and procedures for studying mass transfer
with chemical reaction using single/multi nozzle jet ejector system. The data are reported for
three experimental setups: single nozzle horizontal jet ejector, multi nozzle vertical jet
ejector and multi nozzle vertical industrial scale jet ejector.
Chapter Four deals with modeling and simulation of mass transfer characteristics with
chemical reaction in single/multi nozzle jet ejector. This chapter is divided in to five sections:
Section one deals with determination of rate constant and mass transfer (absorption) rate for
Cl2 aqueous NaOH reaction system. The rate constant predicted by the proposed model is in
good agreement with experimental data. The proposed model for rate of absorption of
chlorine in aqueous solution is solved by using MATLAB software and compared
with experimental results.
In section two mathematical model to study the effect of different diffusivity ratio on
enhancement factor for absorption of chlorine-aqueous sodium hydroxide system has been
developed.
Section three is devoted to the development of the numerical model for multi nozzle jet
ejector to predict the conversion. The model was verified by the experimental data.
Section four is devoted to mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet ejector. The
mathematical models developed to determine interfacial area and mass transfer coefficient
and validated with experimental data.
Section five deals with statistical simulation of the removal efficiency of chlorine gas by
varying parameters: gas concentration and the scrubbing liquid concentration.
Chapter Five includes suggestions for the future scope of the work.
References and Appendices are given at the end.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... III

Preface...................................................................................................................................IV
List of Figures..................................................................................................................... XII
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... XV
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. XVII
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................XVIII
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 01
1.0 Introduction 02
1.1 Background of the proposed research 04
2. Literature survey ..................................................................................................... 06
2.1 Characteristics of jet 07
2.1.1 Behavior of jet 07
2.1.2 Types of primary atomization 10
2.1.3 Mechanical primary atomization 11
2.1.4 Effect of various variables on liquid jet breakup 13
2.1.5 Secondary atomization 17
2.2 Bubble dynamics and interface phenomenon 20
2.2.1 Flow pattern 20
2.2.2 Bubble size 23
2.2.3 Bubble size distribution 24
2.2.4 Measurement techniques of bubble size 26
2.2.5 Correlations for entrainment, bubble diameter, drag force 27
and gas hold up
2.2.6 Factors affecting the bubble size 30
2.3 Performance of venturi scrubber 33
2.3.1 Performance of high energy venturi scrubber 35
2.3.2 Jet ejectors 41
2.3.3 Parameters other than geometry of the ejector 50
2.4 Gas absorption in jet ejector 54
2.4.1 Methods of determination of interfacial area 54
VII
2.4.2 Determination of interfacial area by chemical method 55
2.4.3 Determination of overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient 57
by chemical method
2.4.4 Limitations of the chemical method for the determination of 58
mass transfer coefficient
2.4.5 Effect of the ejector geometry on the mass transfer 59
characteristics
2.4.6 Factors effecting mass transfer characteristics 64
2.4.7 Use of jet ejector in reactor 65
2.4.8 Mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet ejector 66
2.4.9 Mass transfer with chemical reaction 66
2.4.10 Reaction systems used to characterize mass transfer with 67
chemical reaction
3. Experimental: equipment, set-up, procedure........................................................ 72
3.0 Introduction 73
3.1 Setup 1 73
3.1.1 Experimental set up 73
3.1.2 Experimental procedure 76
3.2 Setup 2 77
3.3 Setup 3 80
4. Modeling and Simulation ........................................................................................ 83
4.0 Introduction 84
4.1 Prediction of absorption rate and reaction rate constant of 84
chlorine into aqueous sodium hydroxide solution
4.1.1 Model for the absorption of chlorine into aqueous 85
solution based on penetration theory
4.1.1.1 Concentration of an individual chemical 86
species in bulk of liquid
4.1.1.2 Mass balance at interface applying 87
Higbie's penetration model
VIII
4.1.1.3 Numerical solution and its implementation 90
4.1.2 Results and discussion 92
4.1.3 Conclusion 96
4.2 Effect of the diffusivities on absorption of chlorine into 97
aqueous sodium hydroxide solution
4.2.1 Mechanism of chemical absorption 98
4.2.2 Mathematical models related to absorption 99
4.2.3 Results and discussion 108
4.2.4 Conclusion 112
4.3 Numerical model of rate of absorption in multi nozzle jet ejector 113
(chlorine-aqueous solution)
4.3.1 Mathematical modeling 114
4.3.2 Results and discussions 117
4.4 Mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet ejector 120
4.4.1 Hold up 120
4.4.2 New model to predict mass transfer characteristics, and 122
4.4.3 New mathematical model related to interfacial area for 125
multi nozzle ejectors
4.4.4.1 Comparison of experimental results of mass 126
transfer characteristics with simulated results
4.4.4.2 Factors affecting rate of absorption ( ) in 134
liquid jet ejector
4.4.4.3 Effect of different parameters on mass transfer 135
characteristics ( , and ) in jet ejectors
4.5 Removal efficiency of chlorine in jet ejector 138
(Chlorine aqueous solution)
4.5.1 Statistical modeling 139
4.5.2.1 Statistical analysis 142
IX
4.5.2.2 Results of statistical analysis in 144
STATGRAPHICS Plus 4 for different nozzles
4.5.2.3 Interpretation of the results of statistical analysis in 154
STATGRAPHICS Plus 4 for different nozzles
4.5.2.4 Interpretation of figures (graphs) 156
5. Future scope of work ............................................................................................. 159
Appendices.......................................................................................................................... 162
Appendix - 1 Experimental data 163

Appendix - 2 Analytical procedure 166
Appendix - 3 Prediction of physical properties 171
Appendix - 4 Calculation of liquid holdup, , and 175
Appendix - 5 Photographs of experiments 178
References ........................................................................................................................... 181
X
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Typical gas-liquid jet ejector 03
Figure 2.1 Flow of a submerged circular jet (Rushton and Oldshue, 1953) 08
Figure 2.2 Break up time and/or jet breakup length as a function of jet exit 11
velocity [Adopted from (1) Atay (1986), (2) Lin and Reitz (1998)]
Figure 2.3 Images of cavitation in a 2D nozzle and liquid jet (water) 15

(Suo et al., 2006)
Figure 2.4 Different schemes of secondary atomization (Meyers, 2006) 18
Figure 2.5 Flow pattern in vertical column [(a) homogeneous bubbly flow 21
(b) heterogeneous churn flow, (c) slug flow and (d) annular flow]
(Mandal et al., 2004)
Figure 2.6 Gas holdup and as function of the superficial gas velocity 23
(Zahradnik and Fialova, 1996)
Figure 2.7 (A) The dependence of drag coefficient on Reynolds number for the 29
deformable particles. (B) Dependence of the drag coefficient on Bond
numbers (Bo) for the deformable particle ( Ceylan et al., 2001)
Figure 2.8 Bubble size distributions at different reaction mixer configurations 30

( Bailer, 2001).
Figure 2.9 Characteristic bubble size distributions in water and in the 0.25 M 31
solution (Bailer, 2001)
Figure 2.10 Bubble size distributions with nitrogen at different pressures 32

(Bailer, 2001)
Figure 2.11 versus the gas density (Bailer, 2001) 32
Figure 2.12 Comparison of axial pressure drop predicted by 37

different models with experimental data (Vishwanathan et al., 2005)
Figure 2.13 Variation of the total pressure drop in the venturi with liquid to gas 37
ratio and throat velocity. Liquid injected as a spray (Silva et al., 2009)
XI
Figure 2.14 Comparison of overall pressure drop predicted with and without 38
correction factor , experimental data of Silva et al. (2009)
(Rahimi et al., 2011)
Figure 2.15 Dependence of the overall collection efficiency of liquid gas ratio 39
(Vishwanath et al., 1997)
Figure 2.16 The effect of throat gas velocity on the collection efficiency in venturi 39
scrubber (GAANN no. 1). (Taheri et al., 2008)
Figure 2.17 Effect of variation in venturi number and aspect ratio on collection 40
efficiency for a constant venturi number. (Ananthanarayanan and
Vishwanathan, 1998)
Figure 2.18 Efficiency as a function of (A) particle diameter (B) liquid to gas 40
ratio with liquid surface tension as a variable. (Ott el al., 1987)
Figure 2.19 Schematic diagram showing geometry of an ejector 43
Figure 2.20 Effect of area ratio on mass ratio for water-water system 46
(Singh et al., 1974)
Figure 2.21 Variation of entrainment of air with projection ratio of 46

water-air system (Acharjee et al. 1975)
Figure 2.22 Effect of projection ratio (LTN/DT ) on energy efficiency 47

(Yadav and Patwardhan, 2008)
Figure 2.23 Effect of area ratio ( )/( ) on efficiency of ejectors for 48

different values of projection ratio (Yadav and Patwardhan, 2008)
Figure 2.24 Effect of angle of converging section () on rate of entrainment 49

Figure 2.25 Influence of the swirl device on the total gas holdup (tot) 62
(Bailer, 2001)
Figure 2.26 Influence of the mixing tube length on (Bailer, 2001) 63
Figure. 2.27 Influence of gas density on without swirl device (Bailer, 2001) 63
XII
Figure 2.28 Influence of the liquid viscosity on (Bailer, 2001) 64
Figure 2.29 Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous 68

solution. (Hikita et al., 1973)
Figure 3.1 Detail of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 1 75
Figure 3.2 Schematic diagram of experimental setup 1 75
Figure 3.3 Details of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 2 78
Figure 3.4 Schematic diagram of experimental setup 2 79
Figure 3.5 Detail of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 3 80
Figure 3.6 Schamatic diagram of experimental setup 3 81
Figure 4.1.1 Comparison of obtained by Ashour et al. (1996), proposed 94

mathematical model and present experimental result over the
temperature range of 293-312 K
Figure 4.1.1a Detailed view of Figure 4.1.1 at a temperature T-1 =3.3x10-3 94
Figure 4.1.2 Error estimates for k2 and Ashour et al. (1996) 95
Figure 4.1.3 Comparison between the values for rate of absorption obtained 96
experimentally and predicted by proposed model with respect
to , at different
Figure 4.2.1 Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous 103

solution

Figure 4.2.2 Variation in enhancement factor with respect to / at different 109
/ = 2.43, 1, 0.1 and constant / = 10 and / = 0.1
for absorption of into aqueous solution
Figure 4.2.3 Error estimates between experimental data and proposed 110
mathematical model at different / = 2.43, 1, 0.1 and constant
/ = 10 and / = 0.1.
XIII
Figure 4.2.4 Comparison of value of determined experimentally and by 112
proposed mathematical model for different at
, = 0.602 10 /
Figure 4.3.1 Variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of ejector for 118
different values of initial gas concentration , at
= 0.95 /
(comparison between proposed model and experimental value)
Figure 4.3.2 Variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of ejector for 118
different nozzles N5 (no. orifice 1), N6 (no. of orifice 3) and N7
(no. of orifice 5) for setup 3 at = 0.578 / and initial gas
concentration , = 1.967 10 / (comparison between
proposed model and experimental value)
Figure 4.3.3 Velocity profiles (m/sec.) of gas and droplet along axial direction (m) 119
Figure 4.4.0 Comparison of liquid holdup predicted by Radhakrishnan (1984), 121

present model and experimental value at different /ratio.
Figure 4.4.1 Effects of , on for different for setup 1 with 126

nozzle N1 (no. of orifice 1)

(comparison of experimental result and present model)
Figure 4.4.3 Effects of , on ejector interfacial area for different 127

for setup 1 with nozzle N 1 (no. of orifice 1)

Figure 4.4.5 Effects of , on for = 0.525 for set up 2 (a) 128

with nozzle N2 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N3 (no. of orifice 3)
XIV
Figure 4.4.6 Effects of , on for = 0.525 for set up 2 (a) 129
with nozzle N2 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N3 (no. of orifice 3)
Figure 4.4.7 Effects of , on interfacial area for = 0.525 for set up 2 129
(a) with nozzle N2 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N3
(no. of orifice 3)
Figure 4.4.8 Effects of , on for = 0.525 for set up 2(a) with 130
nozzle N2 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N3 (no. of orifice 3)
Figure 4.4.9 Effects of , on for different for set up 3 (a) with 130
nozzle N5 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N6, (no. of orifice 3),
(c) with nozzle N7 (no. of orifice 5)
Figure 4.4.11 Effects of , on interfacial area for different for set up 3 131
(a) with nozzle N5 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N6,
(no. of orifice 3), (c) with nozzle N7 (no. of orifice 5)
Figure 4.4.13 Effects of , on for different nozzle for set up 3 132

(a) with = 0.79 (b) with = 0.57 (c) with = 0.11
Figure 4.4.14 Effects of on for different nozzle for set up 3 133

Figure 4.4.15 Effects of , on interfacial area for different nozzle for set up 3 133
Figure 4.4.16 Effects of , on for different nozzle for set up 3 134

XV
Figure 4.5.1 Removal efficiency (Y) versus gas concentration (X1) for constant 145
liquid concentration (X2 = 0.4) for nozzle N1
Figure 4.5.2 Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration (X1) 145
and liquid concentration (X2) for nozzle N1
Figure 4.5.3 Contour plot for Removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N1 145
Figure 4.5.4 Predicated removal efficiency (Y) versus observed removal 146
efficiency (Y) for nozzle N1
Figure 4.5.5 Residual Plot for nozzle N1 146
Figure 4.5.7 Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration 148
(X1) and liquid concentration (X2) for nozzle N5
Figure 4.5.8 Contour plot for removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N5 148
efficiency (Y) for nozzle N5 for setup 3 with no. of nozzle 1
Figure 4.5.10 Residual plot for nozzle N5 149
XVI
XVII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Jet breakup regimes (Lin and Reitz, 1998 and Atay, 1986) 12
Table 2.2 References on jet breakup and primary atomization 13
Table 2.3 Flow patterns for gas-liquid two-phase flow in horizontal and 21
vertical pipes: dependence on the gas volume fraction (Frank, 2005)
Table 2.4 Optical methods of characterization of two-phase flow 27
Table 2.5 Performance of HEVS versus EVS 34
Table 2.6 References for pressure drop and collection efficiency of HEVS 36
Table 2.7 Geometrical parameters of ejectors used by deferent investigators 45

Table 2.7a Mass ratio correlations from dimensionless analysis given by 51
various authors (Balamurugan et al. (2007)
Table 2.7b Mass ratio correlations from theoretical analysis given by various 52-53
authors
Table 2.8 Limiting values of and for the various chemical regimes used 58
to measure the mass transfer parameters (Midoux et al., 1980)
Table 2.9 Hold-up, and measurement methods and correlations given by 60-61
various authors
Table 3.1 Dimensions of jet ejectors 74
Table 4.1.1 Rate constant for reaction as reported by 84

different investigators
Table 4.1.2 Henerys law constant of and diffusion coefficients of (), 92

(), and ( )( Ashour et al., 1996)
Table 4.1.3 Values for Equilibrium constants of Reactions (4.1.2) and (4.1.5) 92
at various temperatures, (Ashour et al., 1996)
Table 4.1.4 The values of rate constants for reaction 4.1.3, , at atmospheric 93
pressure for -Aqueous system
Table 4.4.1 Typical range of experimental values 124
Table 4.4.2 Summary of analysis of results for different and nozzles 138
XVIII
Table 4.5.1 Codification of the operating variables for the statistical analysis 140
Table 4.5.2 Experimental matrix for chlorine removal efficiency using setup 1 140
Table 4.5.3 Experimental matrix for chlorine removal efficiency using setup 3 141
Table 4.5.4 Parameters for multiple regression analysis 142-143
Table 4.5.5 Regression coefficient from multi regression analysis 143
Table 4.5A (1) Estimation Results for nozzle N1 144
Table 4.5A (2) Analysis of Variance for nozzle N1 144
Table 4.5A (3) Results of statistical tests for nozzle N1 144
Table 4.5A (4) Residual Analysis for nozzle N1 144
Table 4.5B (1) Estimation Results for nozzle N5 146
Table 4.5B (2) Analysis of Variance for nozzle N5 147
Table 4.5B (3) Results of statistical tests for nozzle N5 147
Table 4.5B (4) Residual Analysis for nozzle N5 147
Table 4.5C (1) Estimation Results for nozzle N6 149
Table 4.5C (2) Analysis of Variance for nozzle N6 149
Table 4.5C (3) Results of statistical tests for nozzle N6 149
Table 4.5C (4) Residual Analysis for nozzle N6 150
Table 4.5D (1) Estimation Results for nozzle N7 152
Table 4.5D (2) Analysis of Variance for nozzle N7 152
Table 4.5D (3) Results of statistical tests for nozzle N7 152
Table 4.5D (4) Residual Analysis for nozzle N7 152
Table 4.5.6 Summary of statically results 155
Table 4.5.7 Summary of analysis of contours for removal efficiency 157
XIX
ABBREVIATIONS
ANN Artificial neural network model
AOV Analysis of variance
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CGS Conjugant gradient method
Df Degree of freedom
EVS Ejector vacuum scrubber
FDM Finite difference method
FEM Finite element method
GA Genetic algorithm
GMRES Method Generalised minimal residual method
HEVS High energy venturi scrubber
MAE Mean absolute error
ME Mean error
MOL Method of lines
MPAE Mean absolute percentage error
MPE Mean percentage error
MPS Moving particle semi-implicit
MSE Mean square error
NR Method Newton Raphson method
PIV Particle image velocimetry
RE Removal efficiency
SMD Sauter mean diameter
STATGRAPHICS Statistical graphic software
WGM Wavelet Galerkin method
XX
NOMENCLATURE
Latin letters
a interfacial specific surface area [m2/m3]
A cross section area [m2]
Ai, A* physical solubility of chlorine [kmol/m3 or gmol/liter]
b0, bii , bij regression coefficients [-]
C concentration [kmol/m3 or gmol/liter]
CA0 concentration of A bulk of liquid/ [kmol/m3 or gmol/liter]
Initial concentration in gas
Cg concentration of gas [kmol/m3 or gmol/liter]
CB0 concentration of B in bulk of liquid/ [kmol/m3 or gmol/liter]
Initial concentration
CD drag coefficient [-]
CDN modified drag coefficient [-]
d, D diameter [m]
d32 Sauter bubble diameter [m]
DA diffusion coefficient of species A in [m2 s-1]
the liquid phase
G volumetric flow rate of gas [m3 s-1 or litre/hr]
G molal flow rate [moles/sec]
g acceleration due to gravity [m s-2]
F volumetric flow rate [m3 s-1]
H Henrys law coefficient [Pa m3 mol-1]
Ha Hatta number [-]
RA, NA rate of molar absorption with chemical reaction [mol m-2 s-1]
(flux)
NA* average rate of physical absorption (flux) [mol m-2 s-1]
kG gas sided mass transfer coefficient [mol m-2 Pa-1 s-1]
kL liquid sided mass transfer coefficient [m s-1]
km, n chemical reaction rate constant for mth order [m3(m+n-1) mol-(m+n-1) s-1]
in species A and nth order in species B
kLa volumetric mass transfer coefficient [s-1]
XXI
kLa* dimensionless kLa [-]
l length [meter]
L volumetric flow rate of liquid [m3 s-1 or litre/hr]
M molecular weight [kg mol-1]
m number of moles [-]
n number of nozzles [-]
P system pressure [Pa]
partial pressure of component A [Pa]
r radius [m]
rA chemical reaction rate of species A (volumetric) [mol m-3 s-1]
R gas constant [J K-1 mol-1]
t time [s]
te exposure time [s]
T temperature [K]
V volume [m3]
v velocity [m s-1]
VR, VJ volume of reactor/ejector [m3]
wi concentration of species i in the liquid phase [kmol/m3]
wij concentration of species i in the liquid phase at xj [m s-1]
x distance from interface [m]
xj spatial variable at node j [m]
X influencing parameter, dimensionless [-]
Y target quantity, dimensionless [-]
y mole percentage of solute in gas [-]
z stoichiometric coefficient [-]
Z distance along axis of ejector [-]
N normality
Greek letters
gas hold up [-]
enhancement factor [-]

difference [-]
XXII
film thickness [m]
liquid holdup [-]
k exponent [-]
parameter defined by equation (4.2.13) [-]
1, 2 parameter defined by equation (4.2.15) & (4.2.16) [-]
surface tension [N m-1]
k kinematic viscosity [cm2/sec]
dynamic viscosity [Pa s]
kinematic viscosity [m2 s-1]
homogeneous flow model density [kg m-3]
Subscripts
0 fluid bulk
A,B. component A,B..
b bubble
disp Dispersion
e exposure
G, g gas phase
i interface
in inlet
j jet
L, l liquid phase
m, n chemical reaction order
N nozzle
M mixing tube
out outlet
th throat
tot total
d desorption
b bubble
s superficial
R reactor
mo molal
XXIII
Superscripts
O fluid bulk/initial
* equilibrium, physical solubility
solute free basis
XXIV
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1
1.0 Introduction
Among the available gas-liquid contactors such as spray column, falling film column, packed
column, bubble column, plate column, mechanically agitated contactors, jet ejector, etc.,
venturi scrubber is one of the devices for gas liquid contacting in which a liquid media is
used to absorb objectionable gases and particulates from industrial gaseous effluent streams.
In venturi type scrubbers a high velocity fluid jet brings the liquid and gas into intimate
contact with each other. Venturi scrubbers are basically of two types (Atay, 1986):
1. Those using a mechanical blower to draw a high velocity gas stream through the
system. The liquid is originally at rest and is accelerated by the gas, which also
disintegrates the liquid into droplets. Gases and particulates are then captured into the
relatively slower moving droplets. This is called a "high energy venturi scrubber
(HEVS). The scrubbing liquid can be introduced in two ways viz., the introduction of
liquid through nozzles usually at the throat are known as Pearce-Anthony venturi
scrubber and those in which the liquid is introduced as a film are usually known as
the wetted approach type.
2. Those using a mechanical pump/compressor to generate a high velocity fluid jet. This
fluid jet creates suction and another fluid is entrained into it by transfer of momentum.
This type of venturi scrubber is called an ejector venturi scrubber or jet ejector.
The present study focuses on multi nozzle jet ejector.
The jet ejectors have following advantages over other types of contactors:
Compact and of simple construction.

Easy operation.
Very little chances of mechanical failure due to absence of moving parts.
Lower initial capital cost for comparable capacity.
Can handle very hot, wet and corrosive gases.
Can handle sticky, abrasive and inflammable particles.
Can simultaneously separate fine particulate matter and gaseous pollutant.
Have ability to handle large gas flow rates without flooding.
High interfacial area, heat and mass transfer rates.
Ability to absorb a species selectively from a gas stream using a specific solvent.
2
However, it is not energy efficient equipment as a fluid moving device. But it has been
reported that it has high efficiency as a gas liquid contacting device. (Laurent and
Charpentier, 1974; Zlokarmik, 1980; Ogawa et. al., 1983; Charpentier, 1988)
The jet ejectors have also large potential in chemical industries for gas purification
and for carrying out gas-liquid reactions like: oxidation, chlorination, hydrogenation and
hydroformylation.
Jet ejectors use high kinetic energy of the operating fluid jet to promote:
Breakup and distribution of the suction fluid into small droplets/bubbles.
To pull the gas through the system and push through the connected outlet.
A typical liquid gas jet ejector is shown in Figure 1.1. It consists of three sections: a
convergent section, a throat section and a divergent section. The gas is pulled and accelerated
in the convergent section to higher velocity in the throat. In the divergent section the gas is
decelerated allowing some pressure recovery.
Figure 1.1 : Typical gas-liquid jet ejector
3
The mass transfer is due to intimate contact between liquid and gas. In case of mass transfer
with chemical reaction the species from the gas phase are converted by a chemical reaction
with species already present in the liquid phase. It is a complex function of jet ejector
geometry, gas and liquid flow rates, their physical properties, jet penetration, bubble/droplet
size and size distribution in the throat.
Literature review suggests that very little work has been carried out on gas-liquid mass
transfer with chemical reaction using jet ejector type of contactors.
1.1 Background of the proposed research
Absorption of chlorine in aqueous sodium hydroxide in a horizontal jet ejector with single
nozzle of 3.2 mm diameter, and 10 mm throat diameter (which had 1 meter long 25mm ID
contactor) was investigated by Agrawal (1999). As the results were very encouraging, the
further investigation for doctoral degree is continued.
These results his earlier work indicated that most of the mass transfer takes place in the jet
ejector and negligible mass transfer in the attached contactor.
The current research work on mass transfer with chemical reaction between two phases (gas
and liquid), using multi nozzle jet ejector as contactor is presented in the thesis emphasizing
on the following:
The experimental study of rate of absorption with chemical reaction in multi nozzle
jet ejector (laboratory scale and industrial scale) using chlorine-aqueous sodium
hydroxide system.
The models to determine rate constant and mass transfer (absorption) rate for Cl2
aqueous NaOH reaction system.
The mathematical model to study the effect of different diffusivity ratio on

enhancement factor for absorption of chlorine in aqueous sodium hydroxide system.
The numerical model for multi nozzle jet ejector to predict the conversion.
The mathematical models to predict mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet
ejector using - aqueous solution in laboratory and industrial scale ejector
4
The statistical models for determining removal efficiency of by aqueous sodium
hydroxide solution.
Note : At some places for the purpose of clarity the word multi orifice have been used
instead of multi nozzle.
5
Chapter 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
6
2.1 Characteristics of jet
The turbulent flow is desired to increase the rate of transfer per unit area or to help dispersion
of one fluid to another and to create more interfacial area, for most of mass transfer
between gas and liquid. Dispersion of one fluid to another is a complex phenomenon
and depends on many factors like velocity of jet, pressure difference, geometry of nozzle,
temperature of both fluids, properties of fluid like their density, viscosity, surface tension,
vapor pressure, etc.
The breakup of a liquid jet radiating into another fluid was been studied by many
investigator since century. It has been stated by Plateau (1873) that jet breakup in segments
having equal length of 2 times of the jet radius. Rayleigh (1879a) and (1879b) explained
that hydrodynamic instability is responsible for the jet breakup. Weber (1931) studied the
effects of the density of the ambient fluid and liquid viscosity. Further, Tomotika (1935)
explain about an optimum ratio of viscosities of the jet to the ambient fluid at which jet
attains the maximum growth rate. Chandrasekhar (1961) accounted the liquid viscosity as
well as the liquid density, which was not considered by Rayleigh and mathematically proved
that as the viscosity increases the breakup rate of jet reduces and drop size increases. They
further conclude that breakup of viscous liquid jet is by capillary pinching mechanism under
vacuum. (Lin and Reitz 1998)
2.1.1 Behavior of jet
Free jet
A free jet, after leaving the nozzle, will entrain the surrounding fluid, expand and decelerate.
Approximately, total momentum which is conserved as jet momentum is transferred to the
entrained fluid. In the literature it has also been defined that when the cross-sectional area of
jet is less than 1/5 then the cross section of surrounding region then jet is considered to be
free jet in case of both fluid, surrounding fluid and jet fluid, are same. While the turbulent jet
having Reynolds number greater than 2000 is considered to be a free jet. (Perry et al., 2007)
Jet length
The high velocity liquid jet coming out of nozzle situated at the top of ejector flowing
through the stagnant fluid surrounding it maintains its identity for a substantial distance
(Figure 2.1). It may is observed for the jet issuing from the nozzle having uniform and
constant velocity that
7
The velocity remain uniform and constant in the core
the area of core decreases with distance from the nozzle,
the core is bounded by an increasing turbulent jet, in which the radial velocity
decreases with distance from the centerline of the jet,
the core is shrinking and disappears at some distance from the nozzle,
but the turbulent jet maintains its integrity further than the point at which the core
disappeared however its velocity steadily decreases,
the radial velocity in the jet decreases and a pressure increases in as per the Bernoulli
principle
There is simultaneous surrounding fluid enters into the jet and is absorbed, accelerated and
blended into the enlarged jet. This process is called entrainment.
Figure 2.1 : Flow of a submerged circular jet (Rushton and Oldshue, 1953).
In this process there are also strong shear stresses at the boundary of the jet and the
surrounding liquid. Due to these stresses strong eddies are generated at the boundary and
create considerable turbulence, which causes the intimate mixing action. It is also established
that liquid flow at high velocity and entrainment of large quantity alone do not sufficient for
thorough mixing. Enough time and space is must for the streams to mix together
satisfactorily by the mechanism of entrainment. (McCabe et al., 1993)
Liquid jet break-up length
Breakup length of round liquid jet was measured by Eroglu et al. (1991) in annular coaxial air
streams. They further observed that the decreasing breakup length with increasing Weber
8
number and they also found that liquid jet length increases by increasing Reynolds number.
They gave following expression:

= 0.5 .. (2.1)
2
Where = central tube inner radius and = liquid intact length. Here Weber ( ) and
Reynolds numbers () are based on gas and liquid relative velocity.
In similar attempt numerical analysis of jet breakup is performed by Kazuya et al. (2004)
using the Moving Particle Semi-implicit (MPS) method in two dimensions. Effects of
the Weber number and the Froude number on the jet breakup length agree well with
experimental data. The breakup length with gravity is from 70 to 80% of the experimental
data. They expressed / as the following expression:

= 2.2 . . (2.2)

where , , and are jet breakup length, nozzle width, Weber number and Froude
number, respectively. However, the coefficient 2.2 by the MPS method is a little smaller than
experimentally obtained values 2.5 for alcohol and 3.0 for water.
Flow regions of free turbulent jet
Tuve (1953) and Davies (1972) have explained break up length differently. A turbulent free
jet is normally considered to be consisting of four flow regions that are:
Region of flow establishment is up to the 6.4 times nozzle diameter. In this region
there is a core having conical shape and the velocity is same as at the discharge of the
nozzle. As jet proceed away from the discharge of the nozzle, slowly boundary
between jet and surrounding reduces to centerline. Here this region is considered to be
terminated.
Next transition region is up to the 8 times diameter of nozzle.
Region of established flow is the foremost region of the jet. Here, the radial velocity
profile is self-conserving with respect to centerline velocity.
9
In terminal region centerline velocity reduces rapidly. For air jets, the residual
velocity will reduce to less than 0.3 m/s which is considered to be still air.
Several researchers (Tie et al., 2011; Pfeifer et al., 2010; Leick, 2008; Yongyingsakthavorn et
al., 2004; Smallwood and Gulder, 2000, Kufferath et al., 1999; Wolfe et al., 1964) have
reported the jet behavior.
2.1.2 Types of primary atomization
The liquid jet behavior is a critical step in mass and heat transfer operations. There are mainly
three categories of mechanisms (Meyers, 2006) of jet disintegration namely:
Mechanical primary atomization
Liquid jet is injected at high speed through a small hole in a gaseous medium at rest. This
type of atomization is supposed to have very strong difference in pressure between the
upstream and downstream of the orifice. This type of jet is also called free jet. This type of
atomization of jet is used in jet ejectors.
Aerodynamic primary atomization
Liquid jet injected at low speed in the chamber surrounded by a gas jet injected at high speed.
This type of coaxial jet is also called assisted jet. This type of atomization of jet is used in
high energy venturi scrubber (HEVS).
Impact primary atomization
When atomization is performed by impact of two liquid jets or a liquid jet to a wall, it is
called impact primary atomization.
The understanding of the phenomenon of primary atomization is still not clear due to the
difficulty in observation of primary fracture of jet in the dense zone of the flow. Moreover
there are strong changes in topology of interface and quick transfer between the phases in this
zone very rapidly, alter the properties of the drops/bubbles before they reach experimentally
observable conditions. However, recently due to the improvement of measurement techniques
(holography technology and probes of optical fiber) understanding of the dense fog area has
become possible.
The current study involves mechanical primary atomization by multi nozzle jet ejector.
Review of literature published about mechanical primary atomization is given as under:
10
2.1.3 Mechanical primary atomization
Faeth (1999, 1990) and Reitz and Bracco (1986) have given exhaustive review of literature
on mechanical atomization. Ohnesorge and Angew (1936) provided the first classification of
different schemes based on the Reynolds and Ohnesorge numbers. Reitz (1978) clarified the
uncertainty of classification proposed by Ohnesorge and Angew.
Lin and Reitz (1998) as well Atay (1986, 1987) discussed various regimes of breakup of
liquid jets injected into both stagnant and co-owing gases. Available criteria for
the alteration from one regime to another have been reviewed by them.
They proposed a convenient method of categorizing jet breakup regimes by considering the
length of the coherent portion of the liquid jet or its unbroken length, L, as a function of the
jet exit velocity, U, [Refer Figure 2.2(1) and Figure 2.2(2)].
(1) (2)
Figure 2.2 : Break up time and/or jet breakup length as a function of jet exit velocity
[Adopted from (1) Atay (1986), (2) Lin and Reitz (1998)]
They identified four main breakup regimes which were based on combinations of inertia of
liquid, surface tension and forces of aerodynamic acting on the jet. The regimes are named as
follows
(1) The Rayleigh regime,

(2) The first wind-induced regime,
(3) The second wind-induced regime and
(4) The atomization regime.
11
These regimes are summarized as in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 : Jet breakup regimes (Lin and Reitz, 1998 and Atay, 1986)
Type of Regime Jet velocity Break up Diameter of Webber no,

, / length in drop, ()
=
terms of
()
/ =
Rayleigh Jet Breakup 05 10 110 > > 8

Regime < 0.4
First Wind Induced 5 10 110 60 = 0.4 < < 13

Breakup Regime
Second Wind Induced 10 18 60 100 < 13 < < 40.3

Breakup Regime
Atomization Regime > 18 0 <<< 40.3 <
* is the relative velocity between jet and gas, do= diameter of nozzle, 2 =
Region A and B of figure (2.2) shows that after the dripping flow regime ( > 8), the
breakup length linearly increases in beginning as jet velocity increases till it reaches
maximum and then start decreases. It is also clear that the drops are pinched of having
comparable diameter to the jet. These two breakup regimes, which are understood properly,
related to the Rayleigh and first wind-induced breakup regimes.
However, there is variation in observation about breakup-length trends beyond the

first wind-induced breakup regime. Haenlein (1932) stated that the jet breakup length
increases with increasing jet velocity again. [region C in Figure 2.2], and then suddenly
reduces to zero [region D Figure 2.2] while McCarthy & Malloy (1974) reported that the
breakup length discontinues shortening and elongation of the jet with changes in the jet
velocity. Castleman (1931) observed that the breakup occurs at some jet diameters from the
orifice, while DeJuhasz (1931) claims that disintegration begin within the nozzle itself.
Theories developed for jet breakup have been reported by various investigators as tabulated
in Table 2.2.
12
Table 2.2 : References on jet breakup and primary atomization
References Theory of jet breakup
Ranz (1956) Breakup by balancing inertial forces with surface tension

forces, neglecting viscous shear stress.
Fraser et al. (1962) Hydraulic atomization of rapidly moving liquid sheet.
Reitz (1978,2004) Atomization and other breakup regimes of a liquid jet
Ingebo (1991) Liquid Jet breakup in sonic- velocity gas flow.
Frago and Chigier (1992) Pulsating and super pulsating breakup process.
Chigier & Reitz. (1996) Air- blast coaxial atomization.
Kankkunen et al. (1997) Sheet breakup mechanism of black liquor.
Meier et al. (1997) Breakup of very low velocity liquid jets.
Geschner et al. (2001, 2004) Disintegration of sinusoidally forced liquid jet.
Herrero et al. (2007) Air blast atomization of swirling viscous annular liquid
sheet (alginate solution)
Tie Li et al. (2011), Tamaki et al. (2007, 2010) and Yongyingsakthavorn et al. (2004) have
reported that there are still other parameters which effect the breakup of jet: physical
properties of fluid, the nozzle geometry, the surrounding gas (stagnant or moving,
atmospheric or pressurized).
2.1.4 Effect of various variables on liquid jet breakup
Effect of the environmental pressure
Reitz and Bracco (1986) noted that the atomization regime can be obtained for low-speed
fluid when it is injected into a highly pressurized environment. The length of intact surface
decreases with increasing environmental pressure to a certain value.
Faeth (1990, 1995), Tseng et al (1992a, b), and Ruff et al (1992) studied the structure of an
atomized spray in a pressurized environment. Atomized spray in a pressurized environment
shows a very dense area, called the liquid core, at the outlet of ejector. Chehroudi et al.
(1985) found that the faster rate of mixing results in high pressures of the surrounding
environment. However, these effects are relatively low. Faeth (1999) noted that
13
for / < 500 the aerodynamic forces influence the atomization. Similar study was also
done recently by Kufferath et al. (1999).
Effect of turbulence
Properties of jet are highly dependent on the state of development of the turbulence at
injector outlet. Faeth (1995) confirms this by varying the output conditions of the jet. It seems
that mixing rates are increased greatly in the layer of liquid mixture with the degree of
turbulence of the liquid jet. Wu et al. (1995) and Wu and Faeth (1995, 1993) proposed an
analysis for fully turbulent jets developed at injector outlet, to estimate the average Sauter
diameter (SMD) of drops produced early in the process of atomization and position of
primary rupture. Wu et al. (1995) assume that the drops are formed when the kinetic energy
of the smallest eddy is comparable to the energy of surface tension necessary to form a drop
of similar size. This principle was already envisaged by Kolmogorov (1949). Similar effect of
turbulence has also been studied by Kufferath et al (1999).
Effect of liquid viscosity
In general, increasing the viscosity of the fluid must tend to delay breakup of the liquid jet as
it balances the forces of inertia. Indeed, this parameter is taken care in the calculation of the
Reynolds number of the liquid. Reitz and Bracco (1982) studied the influence of the viscosity
of liquid by varying the proportion of glycerol and water in the liquid phase. They showed
that instabilities are strongly dampened when the viscosity increases resulting in the
formation of a laminar liquid jet. The angle of the fog is not influenced by changes in
viscosity. Finally, the position of the primary break shifts downstream. Lefebvre (1989)
showed that the viscosity plays a role in the average diameter of drops formed. It was noted
that the SMD increases with viscosity. Indeed when the viscosity increases, the internal
turbulence of the fluid decreases and leads to an increase in wavelength of instabilities. This
then results in a thickening (of liquid) produced disintegration as a result of the primary
atomization. However, established atomization regime (high Reynolds number and Weber
number), it appears that viscosity does not influence the primary atomization phenomenon
but only influences the secondary breakage. Tamaki and Shimizu (2002) studied effect of
kinematic viscosity(0.66 10 20 10 ). They studied the break up length and
Sauter mean diameter (SMD) of highly viscous liquid sprayed at injection pressure up to 15
MPa. They concluded that the disintegration behavior of the spray and the spray
characteristics are independent of kinematic viscosity. They have invented new atomization
14
enhancement nozzle (sharp edge with additional gap and bypass) which is able to atomize
highly viscous liquid at low injection pressure. Similar conclusion was made by
Krzeczkowski (1980) in the study of measurement of liquid droplet disintegration
mechanism. Contrary to this Herrero et al. (2007) concluded that when viscosity decreases
there is shorter breakup length.
Effect of cavitation
The phenomena of cavitation can be expressed as the formation of vapor pockets (or
bubbles) as a result of lowering pressure in a liquid jet. Cavitation is observed in nozzles of
liquid atomizer. This question has been studied by many researchers. (Tamaki, 2009, Tamaki
et al. 2001, 1998; Sou et al., 2009, 2007, 2006; Schmidt, 1997; Soteriou et al., 1995;
Hiroyasu et al., 1991; Chaves et al., 1991; Bergwerk, 1959). As a result of many experiments
conducted by many researchers, it has been determined that strong turbulence in the nozzle
hole, induced by the cavitation phenomena, contribute enormously to the disintegration of the
liquid jet. Sou et al. (2007) investigated the effect of cavitation on the flow in the nozzle and
liquid jet atomization. They concluded the findings as (Refer Figure 2.3):
1. Cavitation in the nozzles and liquid jet can be classified into the four regimes
(i) No cavitation having wavy jet,
(ii) Developing cavitation having wavy jet,
(iii) Super cavitations having spray jet and
(iv) Hydraulic flip having flipping jet.
Figure 2.3 : Images of cavitation in a 2D nozzle and liquid jet (water) (Suo et al., 2006)
15
2. Liquid jet near the nozzle exit depends on cavitation regime
3. Cavitation and liquid jet are not strongly affected by
4. Surface tension () and strong turbulence induced by the collapse of cavitation clouds
near the exit play an important role in ligament formation.
In 2009, Sou et al. concluded after analyzing their results that cavitation length / and
jets are not strongly affected by but by .
Sou et al. (2008) after using the high-speed visualization concluded that since the pressure in
the cavitating bubbles is much lower than ambient pressure, bubbles collapse either before
reaching the surface of the liquid jet or immediately after reaching downstream of the nozzle.
Park et al. (2008) noticed that super cavitation formation along the internal nozzle wall
influences the external flow pattern and droplet formation.
Tamaki et al. (1998) observed that when cavitation takes place in a nozzle, it contributes
greatly to the disintegration of the liquid jet. Leroux et al. (1996) studied the stability of
Newtonian liquid jets and confirmed that the jet atomization is strongly influenced by the
fastest growing wavelength in the radial direction
Effect of oscillating pressure field on liquid jet
McCormack et al. (1965) and Crane et al. (1964) studied the effect of mechanical vibration
on the breakup of a liquid jet. They concluded that the application of mechanical vibration
having the appropriate frequency range of small vibration, acceleration values can induce
small pressure fluctuations and cause a capillary instability. Similarly with higher
acceleration values there is substantial effect on radial velocity of liquid jet.
Barreras et al. (2002) studied the effect of ultrasonic vibrations on water atomization when
excited with waves in the MHz range. They found that diameters of the resulting droplets are
of the order of few microns. They used Malvern diffractometer to calculate droplet size
distribution. There has been extensive study on the response of a bubble to a continuous
oscillating pressure field. Neppiras (1980) explained that in the presence of oscillating
pressure waves generated by an acoustic field, existing bubbles or cavities are subjected to
both expansion and contraction.
Sindayihebura and Bolle (1998), Brennen (1995), Lin and Woods (1991), Knapp et al.,
(1970), McCormack et al., (1965) and Crane et al., (1964) have also studied the effect of
vibration on the breakup of jet.
16
2.1.5 Secondary atomization
Physical process of disintegration of structures from the primary atomization to form multiple
droplets is called secondary atomization. When a spherical liquid drop is subjected to a
convective gas flow, it will initially become flattened due to pressure difference between the
stagnation points at the front and rear of the drop and the lower pressure at the drop center. In
addition to this distortion, the dynamic pressure exerted on the drop by gas flow also causes
the drop to vibrate, and may cause it to breakup. The most important parameter for this
phenomenon is the Weber number (We) calculated from the diameter of the large structures.
Indeed, the main parameters that can affect the secondary atomization are acceleration
of drop by external flow, shear due to the differential speed between liquid and gas and
surface tension.
In fact, the secondary atomization controls the size of the drops in the spray. Two methods of
disintegration processes are often treated separately, but, actually they are not clearly distinct
from each other.
Faeth (1995) noted the existence of the two processes in the dense region close to the surface
of the fast moving liquid jet and found a strong presence of small spherical drops confirming
the rate of secondary atomization. The phenomenon of secondary atomization began as soon
as the liquid structures (fragments, drops...) are grubbed up in liquid jet (results of the
primary atomization) and become unstable. They are immediately subject to acceleration, due
to momentum transfer with the gas.
Regimes of secondary atomization
Many experimental studies (Meyers, 2006; Gokalp et al., 2001, 2000; Gokalp and Chauveau,
2000; Zheng and Jasuja, 1994; Mansour and Chigier, 1994, 1993; Krzeczkowki, 1980;
Krauss, 1970; Ranger and Nicholls, 1969; Engel, 1958; Lane, 1951; Hinze, 1949) have
identified different regimes of secondary atomization. The secondary atomization may be
categorized better with the Weber number.
These modes of secondary atomization are generally distinguished as follow:
The deformation regime (case 1 of Figure 2.4)
This type of atomization appears at lower Webber number. The deformation of the drop is
a result of the imbalance between the dynamic pressure applied on the drop and the surface
17
tension force. While the speed of the flow surrounding drop increases the dynamic pressure
applied on the drop also increases and that tends to distort it. The drop curvature increases in
turn leading to the amplification of surface tension.
We
Figure 2.4 : Different schemes of secondary atomization (Meyers, 2006)
The "Bag break-up regime (cases 2 and 3 of Figure 2.4)

Bag breack up occurs when the surface tension over compensates for the dynamic
pressure applied on the surface of the drop. At breakpoint, flattened drop widens to
form a sac which stretches in the direction of the flow. As a result of disruptions to the
flow, the bag drills leading gradually to its disintegration into fine droplets.
The "Shear break-up regime (cases 4 and 5 of Figure 2.4)
There are two theories explaining this type of disintegration. The first (Hwang et al.,
1996) assumes that the disintegration of the liquid fragment is due to the uprooting of
the boundary layer that forms on the surface of the drop as a result of the shear with
18
the gas stream. The second theory (Hinze, 1955, 1959; Liu and Reitz, 1997) is based
on the elongation of the ends of the drop in the direction of flow. Capillary waves are
then formed on the surface of the drop which leads to the production of ligaments in
the direction of the flow which will disintegrate drops.
The Catastrophic break-up" regime (cases 6, 7 and 8 of Figure 2.4)
This involves high speed. The process takes place in two stages. First low wavelength
disturbances (type Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities) are formed on the upstream
surface of drop because of its high acceleration. And then Kelvin - Helmholtz
instabilities occur leading to the formation of several ligaments bursting into droplets.
There exist some other theories of secondary break up for different specific situations.
Hopfinger (2001) considers only three scenarios of secondary breakage: breakage by shear,
breakage by the turbulence of the gas and breakage by collision between the drops.
The criteria for transition between regimes
The transition between these different regimes is often defined through two dimensionless
numbers. Many authors use Weber number and Reynolds number for distinguishing regimes.
Gelfland (1996) proposes the following criteria to test the regime:
0.2 / 1 : deformation and rupture first type
1 / 20 : failure by shear plan
/ 20: catastrophic failure
Gokalp et al. (2001) have also studied and presented the criteria of transition between
regimes.
Time of breakup of drops to droplet
An important parameter characterizing the phenomenon of secondary atomization is the time

of "breakup". This is the interval of time between the formation of drops and their
disintegration to droplets. A first expression is given by Hinze (1955, 1959):

= 0.2 < < 2 (2.3)
2
19
O'Rourke and Amsden (1987) proposed a model (TAB: Taylor Analogy Breakup) based on
the Taylor instabilities theory. The drop is regarded as a mass-spring system where the
external force is the aerodynamic force of the gas, the call back spring force is the force of
surface tension and the damping force of the system is fixed by the viscosity of the liquid.
They get a similar equation as above where the value of constant equal to . Similar
study was done by other scientists also. Krzeczkowski (1980) plotted time vs. We for
methanol, water, ethanol, butanol, 50% aqueous solution of glycerin and glycerin and
compared the results with other researchers (Littaye, 1943; Engel, 1958; Levich, 1962). The
results are different from the earlier reported work. However Engel's formula fits somewhat
to his results.
2.2 Bubble dynamics and interface phenomenon
This work is concerned mainly with the gas-liquid two-phase flow. Two-phase flow is
defined as flow of a heterogeneous mixture of gas and liquid, where the fluid can be
identified as macroscopic structure or in other words the fluids in a two-phase flow are not
homogeneously mixed at a molecular level, but macroscopic regions of the fluid like
droplets, bubbles, slugs, liquid films, ligaments, etc. can be observed. Typical examples of
gas-liquid multiphase flow are bubbly, spray, and stratified flow where fluids are separated
by a free surface like in annular and slug flow regime of gas-liquid two-phase flow in pipes
and channels. Two-phase flow plays an important role in mass and heat transfer. Particularly
for mass transfer operation high interfacial area is of most concern. To create high interfacial
area the dispersion of one fluid into another is required. To study the dispersion of gas in
liquid the knowledge of bubble size and bubble size distribution, bubble breakup and
coalescence processes is necessary. Dispersion of one fluid into another is a complex
phenomenon and is dependent on many factors like velocity of jet, pressure difference,
geometry of nozzle, temperature of both fluids, properties of fluid like their density,
viscosity, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc.
2.2.1 Flow pattern
Gas-liquid two-phase flow can be classified in four types: (a) Homogeneous bubbly flow (b)
Heterogeneous churn flow (c) Slug flow and (d) Annular flow. Shown in Figure (2.5), and
further summarized in Table (2.3).
20
Figure 2.5 : Flow pattern in vertical column [(a) homogeneous bubbly flow
(b) heterogeneous churn flow, (c) slug flow and (d) annular flow]
(Mandal et al., 2004)
Table 2.3 : Flow patterns for gas-liquid two-phase flow in horizontal and vertical pipes :
dependence on the gas volume fraction (Frank, 2005)
Gas volume fraction, ( ) Horizontal pipe flow Vertical pipe flow
Small gas volume fraction Finely dispersed bubbly flow Finely dispersed bubbly flow
Disperse bubbly flow with

near wall void fraction
maximum
Slug flow / plug flow
Disperse bubbly flow with
breakup & coalescence; gas
volume fraction core peak
Stratified flow with free Taylor bubble or slug flow

surface (smooth, wavy, etc.)
Churn turbulent flow
Annular / wall film flow Annular / wall film flow

High gas volume fraction
Droplet flow Droplet flow
Some researchers have further extended the classification to include froth, mist flow, etc.
Frank (2005) explained that disperse bubbly flow is characterized by a characteristic bubble
diameter (mono dispersed bubbly flow). Disperse bubbly flows have small to moderate gas
21
volume fraction; bubbles have varied shape (spherical, ellipsoidal, spherical cap bubbles).
Hence the development of mathematical model must consider the flow morphology of
disperse bubbly flow.
Although, flow regime primarily depends upon the gas superficial velocity and column
diameter, liquid viscosity sometimes plays the prime role. In bubbly flow, the bubbles are
quite uniform in size and they move in an orderly fashion with little collision among bubbles
and the liquid is mildly stirred by the bubbles. Yamagiwa et al. (1990) observed that in case
of co-current down flow, flow behavior changed from non-uniform bubbling flow to uniform
bubbling flow when superficial liquid velocity increases and then to churn turbulent flow.
This uniform bubbling flow was again obtained with further increase of liquid velocity.
Kedoush and Al-Khatab (1989) studied flow patterns with air-water flow in 3.8 cm I.D. pipe.
They reported that transition from bubbly to slug flow occurs when = 0.3 ( is gas hold
up) and slug flow appears in the range 0.3 0.7. Mandal et al. (2004) studied ejector-
induced co-current down flow system where gas flow rate is primarily controlled by liquid
flow rate for a particular gasliquid mixing height. They found that if liquid velocity
increases significantly gas bubbles coalesce which leads to increase in buoyant force and
hence they move upward rapidly and change to churn flow, slug flow, etc. However, for co-
current down-flow system homogeneous bubbly flow regime is the better selection, otherwise
it is quite difficult to move the bubbles in the downward direction. The operating range of the
liquid flow rate for bubbly flow was 2.0 10 3.53 10 /and the corresponding
air entrainment rate varied from 0.40 10 9.0 10 /.
Zahradnik and Fialova (1996) observed a remarkable change when the superficial gas
velocity is increased from 0.04 m (Refer Figure 2.6). The homogeneous bubble regime is
changed and transition bubbling regime starts. In a similar study Rice and Littlefield (1987)
also observed that the homogeneous bubbling regime ("ideal bubbly flow") was maintained
up to gas superficial velocity equals 0.04 Bakshi et al. (1995) identified that the
transition from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous bubbling regime at gas superficial
velocity > 0.04 .
22
Figure 2.6 : Gas holdup and as function of the superficial gas velocity;
(Zahradnik and Fialova, 1996)
2.2.2 Bubble size
Under no circumstance fluid jet produce the liquid droplet/bubble of uniform diameter. In the
study of jet ejector as gas-liquid contactor, the bubble size is a factor of utmost concern.
Bubbles of uniform size are difficult to generate hence mean bubble size can be taken as a
measure of the quality of the disintegration process. It is also convenient to use mean bubble
size in calculations such as multiphase flow and mass transfer processes (Lefebvre, 1989).
In the literature (Lefebvre, 1989) average or mean bubble/particle/droplet diameter, ,, is

defined as

()
, = (2.4)
()
where is the diameter and and take any value according to the effects considered (e.g. 3
and 2 for SMD, 1 and 0 for arithmetic mean diameter, 2 and 0 for surface mean diameter, 3
and 0 for volume mean diameter). There are many definitions of bubble size which cause
confusion. However standard texts (Liu, 2000; Lefebvre, 1989) have summarized different
23
definitions, given by different researchers from time to time in their work. Out of them the
most commonly used definition for jet ejector is . It is defined as the diameter of a
sphere that has the same volume/surface area ratio as a bubble of interest. Several methods
have been devised to obtain a good estimate of the . In the case of jet ejector studies, ,
is found most suitable mean diameter which is also known as Sauter mean diameter (SMD).
This diameter has been established most appropriate because it gives the mean value in terms
of volume / surface ratio. This relationship is the most suitable because the mass transfer
takes place on the surface of droplets/bubbles and the acceleration caused by the drag forces.
The drag force is proportional to the projected area of the bubble. Due to this, most of the
cases bubble sizes and correlations for jet ejectors are presented in terms of . Sauter mean
diameter, d32, can be computed using the following equations:

= (2.5)

()
= (2.6)
()

= (2.7)

is the diameter of a single bubble and is the number of bubbles of diameter .
2.2.3 Bubble size distribution
Practically in any gas-liquid two-phase system, gas is either entrained by plunging liquid jets
or some time enforced to enter liquid media, do not generally produce dispersion of uniform
bubble size at any given operating condition. On the contarary the plume of bubble can be
regarded as a spectrum of bubble sizes distributed about some arbitrary defined mean value.
In the two-phase gasliquid system, there is simultaneous coalescence and breakup of bubble
which are considered to be responsible for the variation in bubble sizes throughout the
system.
Arranging the drop size data into a mathematical representation is referred to as drop size
distribution. The mathematical representation is most often dependent on the analyzer used.
Recently, however, some analyzer manufacturers have allowed the user to select
24
from a list of distribution functions rather than a default drop size distribution
function (Schick, 2006).
Accurate knowledge of bubble size distribution as a function of operating conditions of the

system is a prerequisite for the fundamental analysis of mass transfer.
There are various distribution functions applied by different investigators. But no single
distribution function can correlate all experimental measurement data of bubble sizes. It is
also known that none of known distribution functions is universally superior over any other
for representing bubble size distribution.
Various distribution functions have been used to fit the existing experimental data. The most
commonly used functions are; Rosin-Rammler, Nukiyama-Tanasawa and modified functions
such as: upper-limit, logarithmic-normal, and chi-square (Li and Tanki, 1988, 1987). There
are also some other distribution functions which were utilized by different researchers
like- normal, root normal, gamma distribution, etc.
Because of the natural "cocked hat" shape of typical distribution data, the most logical
curves used for representing the data have variations of negative exponentials. That gives an
appropriately shaped "tail" in the large diameter end of the curve. However, pure negative
exponentials also have an unrealistic finite count at zero diameters, so it must be corrected to
give a second tail at the smaller diameter end. This second tail must end with a zero value at
zero diameter. Different researchers have modified these correlations using different
constants. (Dennis, 1966)
The bubble size distributions were measured at different axial positions of the column under
steady state of a homogeneous bubbly flow. Various analytical distribution functions were
tested by statistical software (SAS) for their adequacy in representing the observed bubble
size distributions. It was found that the logarithmic normal distribution provided the most
reasonable fittings for all the positions.
The probability function for logarithmic normal distribution (D) is given by the expression

1 1
(D) = =
exp (2.8)
2 2
is the number geometric mean droplet diameter and is the geometric standard
where
deviation
25
Azad and Sultan (2006) developed a numerical model for bubble size distribution for both
breakage and coalescence in turbulent gas liquid dispersion. Two-step mechanisms are
considered for both breakage and coalescence of bubbles. They structured the bubble
breakage as the product of the bubble-eddy collision frequency and breakage efficiency in
gas-liquid dispersions. Similarly the coalescence function was considered as the product of
bubble-bubble collision frequency and coalescence efficiency. They claim that their model is
better than previous efforts as their model overcomes several limitations observed such
as empirical parameters, narrow range of operating conditions and narrow range of
geometries. The predicted bubble size distribution by their model and the experimental data
reported in the literature are in good agreement. The percentage of error obtained for the
average bubble size was found within 17%. Frank (2005) and Silva et al. (2011) have also
done similar work.
Cao and Christensen (2000) studied bubble collapse in a binary solution with simultaneous
heat and mass transfer having non-spherically symmetrical condition. They applied a
numerical technique to solve the axisymmetric moving boundary problem.
2.2.4 Measurement techniques of bubble size
Various measurement techniques have been developed and applied with different degrees of
success. It is desired that the measurement techniques of bubble properties should be non-
interfering and should not create disruption to the flow pattern. An ideal measurement
technique should have large range of capability to measure both the spatial and sequential
distribution. The measurement technique should be capable to tolerate wide variations in
bubble properties at some extreme conditions present in flow in different engineering
applications. It should also be able to acquire adequate representative samples so that
reasonable measurement accuracy is ensured. (Akafuah, 2009)
For the analysis of the measurement of results of rapid sampling and data processing means
are needed. As there is fast breakup and collisions of bubbles taking place, the sampling, data
acquisition and processing system must also be fast enough.
The measurement techniques for droplet/bubble sizing may be grouped conveniently into
four primary categories:
Mechanical methods
Electrical methods
26
Optical methods
Acoustical methods
Though mechanical and electrical methods are relatively simple and low cost, optical
methods are being developed and are finding wide range of applications in two-phase
flow characterization (Vamos, 2010; Kashdan et al., 2007, 2000; Black et al., 1996). An
acoustical method has been evaluated for the measurements of fine bubbles. Table 2.4
summarizes the optical methods of measurement techniques.
Table 2.4 : Optical methods of characterization of two-phase flow
Categories Methods Size range ( )
Photography ~5
Imaging
Videography -
Holography 5 1000
Light-scattering Interferometry 5 3000
Phase-Doppler Anemometry 0.5 3000
Light intensity deconvolution technique 0.2 200
Non Imaging Light scattering technique 10 250
Malvern particle analyzer 1 900
Polarization ratio particle sizer -
Intensity ratio method -
Phase optical-microwave method -
Dual-cylindrical wave laser technique -
2.2.5 Correlations for entrainment, bubble diameter, drag force and gas hold up
The mean bubble size is related to the pressure drop, gas ratio and liquid flow. The
interfacial area and both mainly depend on the local gas hold ups. The gas hold up is
influenced by presence or absence of swirl body. Simonin (1959) proposed a quasi-theoretical
relationship between the bubble diameter and the entrainment ratio for the air-water system:
27

/
= 4.310 (2.9)

The bubble volume-equivalent diameter, , is expressed in meter. Equation (2.9) shows a

moderate effect of entrainment ratio and was tested with experimental data by Ciborowski
and Bin (1972), giving reasonable agreement.
Ohkawa et al. (1986) studied the flow characteristics and performance of a vertical liquid jet
with down comers in an air-water system. Sheng and Irons (1995) made an attempt to model
the bubble-breakup phenomenon in which the bubbles greater than critical size was allowed
to subdivide into smaller (daughter) bubbles. The critical size was determined from the
combined Kelvin-Helmholtz and Rayleigh-Taylor instability theory (Kitscha and
Ocamustafaogullari, 1989) as
.
= 6.45 (2.10)

where is the critical (volume-equivalent) diameter of the bubble, is the surface tension,
is the gravitational force and is the rise-velocity of the bubble. The local breakup
probability was assumed to have a Gaussian distribution. A random number generator is used
to determine whether a particular bubble broke up or not. If this was the case, the number and
size of the daughter bubbles were also calculated with a random number generator according
to a predefined distribution. Further breakup of daughter bubbles was also permitted.
Similarly Baier (2001) developed following equation for calculating bubble diameter
produced by jet ejector used in loop reactor.
/
.
= 50.5. . (2.11)

where is liquid batch volume.
Evans et al. (1992) discussed the applicability of the familiar model based on a critical Weber
number, We, defined by the energy dissipation rate per unit volume of the mixing zone,
which enables prediction of the maximum bubble size generated within the mixing zone at
the top of a plunging liquid jet bubble column. A final expression for the maximum stable
bubble diameter is given by
28
/
, = // (2.12)
2
where is the specific energy dissipation rate (per unit volume).
Ceylan et al. (2001) proposed the relationships to predict drag coefficient which is applicable
for the solid spherical or cylindrical particles (in the range of 0.1 Re 106) and for the
deformable particles (drops and bubbles in the range of 0.1 Re 104.) They presented their
data with respect to Reynolds number and Bond number. Bond number is defined as
() gravitational force
= = (2.13)
surface tension force
The predicted coefficients were in good agreement with the experimental data given in the
literature. (Figure 2.7)
(A) (B)
Figure 2.7 : (A) The dependence of drag coefficient on Reynolds number for the
deformable particles. (B) Dependence of the drag coefficient on Bond numbers (Bo) for
the deformable particle (Ceylan et al., 2001)
Havelka et al. (1997) studied the effect of swirl, number of nozzles and aspect ratio on gas
suction rate and gas hold up in the ejector. They observed that multi nozzle having 4 nozzles,
pitch 9.2 mm (ratio of pitch to nozzle diameter = 1.84) and aspect ratio 5, yielded higher
value of gas suction rate then single orifice nozzle. Their results are in good agreement with
findings of Panchal et al. (1991) who observed that in absence of swirl, multi nozzles yield
higher suction rate at optimum pitch = 2 .
29
Mandal et al. (2005a,b) have also investigated gas holdup, bubble size distribution and
interfacial area. They found that bubble sizes have a logarithmic-normal probability
distribution for any axial positions of the column. They compared geometric interfacial area
obtained from Sauter mean bubble diameters and overall gas holdup with the interfacial area
obtained by chemical method. Mandal et al. (2004) have also done similar study for
non-Newtonian liquid.
Zahradnik and Fialova (1996) compared mixing data obtained by them with corresponding
dependences of gas holdup and kLa on the superficial gas velocity.
2.2.6 Factors affecting the bubble size
Baier (2001) observed no significant differences of the mean bubble size () by changing
ejector configuration and power input within the operating conditions used in the experiment
(Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8 : Bubble size distributions at different reaction mixer configurations

(Baier, 2001)
30
Their findings are in good agreement with other published data. (Pawelczyk and Pindur,
1999; Dutta and Raghavan, 1987). Havelka et al. (1997) studied up-flow ejector loop reactor
and observed axially and radially uniform bubble size distributions. Bin (1993) has
extensively reviewed a large number of studies carried out on plunging liquid jet systems. For
the air/water system and found that the secondary bubbles were formed very quickly and had
diameters of about 4 mm, practically independent of the jet velocity and the nozzle diameter.
Baier (2001) studied the effect of electrolyte solutions on the average bubble size and
observed that electrolyte solution have 10 time smaller bubbles than pure water. (Figure 2.9).
This led to a strong increase of both kLa and the gas holdup. The estimated specific surface
area considering mean bubble diameter () ~700 m is about 1500 and 6000 .
Figure 2.9: Characteristic bubble size distributions in water and in the 0.25 M
solution (Baier, 2001)
There are studies on the effect of gas density and operating pressure on average diameter.
Baier (2001) found that system pressure and molecular weight of carrier gas have a
significant influence on the bubble size. With increasing pressure and molecular weight of the
gas component the Sauter bubble diameter decreases and the bubble size distribution
becomes more narrow (see Figure 2.10 and 2.11). A strong correlation between the gas
density and the Sauter bubble diameter can be identified.
31
The Sauter bubble diameter decreases with increasing gas density, i.e. the influence of the
system pressure and the gas type can be fully attributed to changes of the gas density. In other
words: If different gases of the same density are used, comparable bubble size distributions
and Sauter diameters are obtained.
Figure 2.10: Bubble size distributions with nitrogen at different pressures (Baier, 2001)
Figure 2.11: versus the gas density (Baier, 2001)
Zheng et al. (2010) used PIV to measure local bubble size distribution, gasliquid interfacial
area and gas holdup in an up-flow ejector, based on the water-air system with different liquid
32
and gas flow rates under the presence/absence of the swirl body. They observed there is the
formation of bubble chain in the ejector with swirl. The mean bubble sizes in the absence
of swirl body are smaller than that in the presence of swirl under different operating
conditions. The gas holdups and interfacial area are larger without swirl than those with swirl.
Similar conclusions are also presented by Baier (2001).
2.3 Performance of venturi scrubber
Jet ejectors have been successfully used for polluted gas cleaning application over last many
decades due to their capability of handling gas containing pollutants such as vapor, gaseous,
and solid/liquid aerosols up to 0.1 size. However they have inherent disadvantage of high
pressure drop across the system which results in high fan/pump operating cost. But this
disadvantage is compensated by their significantly less capital and maintenance costs
compared to other wet scrubbers with comparable collection efficiencies. Since last six
decades investigators have focused their attention to optimize the performance of venturi
scrubbers.
Economopoulou and Harrison (2007), Viswanathan et al. (2005), Ravi et al. (2003),
Gamisans et al. (2002), Ananthanarayanan and Viswanathan (1998), Singh et al. (1974) and
Bhat (1972) have investigated the performance of jet ejectors. A jet ejector when used as a
scrubber is considered to have given optimum performance when its desired scrubbing
efficiency is achieved at minimum pressure drop. Models to predict pressure drop and
scrubbing efficiency are required for optimization of performance of jet ejector. Pressure
drop and scrubbing efficiency are complex functions of gas velocity, liquid-to-gas ratio,
ejector geometry (shape and number of nozzles, area ratio, throat diameter, throat length,
projection ratio, angle of divergence and convergence), operating and suction pressure,
properties of gas and liquid (temperature, concentration, diffusivity, viscosity, surface
tension, etc.), reactivity of fluids, variation in composition of fluids, etc. Most of researchers
have presented their data graphically in dimensionless form. The equations governing
scrubbing efficiency are either empirical or based on dimensional analysis. Recently some
investigators (Taheri and Mohebbi, 2008) tried to utilize modern technique like artificial
neural networks using a genetic algorithm for predicting collection efficiency in venturi
scrubbers. Many researchers applied CFD method to understand the hydrodynamics. It is
33
common conclusion that CFD is an efficient tool for predicting the hydrodynamics and mass
transfer characteristics of an ejector as it gives comparable result with experiments.
Venturi scrubbers are broadly classified into two groups viz. High Energy Venturi Scrubber
(HEVS) and Ejector Venturi scrubber (EVS). As far as their performance is concerned HEVS
may be differentiated from EVS as given in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 : Performance of HEVS versus EVS
High Energy Venturi Scrubber (HEVS) Ejector Venturi Scrubber(EVS)
Gas and liquid both are introduced in scrubber Primary (Motive) fluid is ejected in venturi
by external mechanical device. scrubber at high velocity by external
mechanical device; another fluid is drawn
in by kinetic energy of primary fluid.
L/G ratio is very low L/G ratio is always high
Gas velocity in throat is dominant to break up Velocity of primary fluid at the discharge
liquid into droplets of nozzle/nozzles atomizes secondary fluid
Pressure drop and collection efficiency are Pressure drop and collection efficiency are
studied as functions of operating conditions studied as function of operating conditions
like L/G ratio, gas velocity at entry and at like pressure ratio (ratio of operating
throat pressure to suction pressure) and
entrainment ratio (ratio of mass flow rates
of entrained fluid to operating fluid )
Performance is studied with respect to design Performance is studied in terms of

parameters like length, nozzle diameter, and projection ratio(ratio of distance between
throat aspect ratio (ratio of depth to width) nozzle end to commencement of throat)
and area ratio (area of diffuser throat to
area of nozzles)
34
2.3.1 Performance of high energy venturi scrubber
The performance of a venturi scrubber is measured by consideration of its collection

efficiency and pressure drop. There are number of models documented in the literature to
predict the venturi scrubber efficiency. These models are used in optimizing and designing
new scrubbers or predicting the effect of changes in operating conditions and
dimensional variables of existing equipments on their performance. Models proposed by
Crowder et al. (1981) and Goel and Hollands (1977) have reported the limitations of complex
mathematical expressions and the need to estimate physical properties data. A summary of
models that are more realistic and have utility in prediction of pressure drop and collection
efficiency are reviewed and presented in Table 2.6.
Mathematical models to predict pressure drop
Several attempts have been made to predict pressure drop across venturi scrubbers
theoretically. However, none of these models accurately predict pressure drops for a wide
range of operating conditions. The main models reported in the literature are:
Calverts Model (1970)
Bolls model (1973)
Annular flow model (AFM) (Viswanathan et al., 1985)
Boundary layer growth model(BLM) (Azzopardi et al., 1991)
Full boundary layer model (Sun et al., 2003)
Many researchers tried to predict pressure drop separately for atomization section, throat
section and diffuser section. Almost all have presented their findings graphically on the plot
either pressure or pressure drop vs. axial distance. The nature of plots is found to be almost
similar qualitatively but they differ quantitatively. The pressure drop increases slowly till the
entry of throat and then it suddenly rises in throat. In the diffuser some pressure is recovered
and curve starts falling. Typical plots are presented in Figure 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14.
35
Table 2.6 : References for pressure drop and collection efficiency of HEVS
Sr. Reference Type of performa Parameters Property of Ventury Specific findings
No scrubber nce in studied having Pollutant(parti scrubber
studied terms of effect on cle diameters) Geometry
p / scrubber perf.
1 Boll R.H. R, H p, p, G,L/G,Vg,Vgth diameter of Diameter presented math. model that can be
(1973) (1974) particle, drag and length of used to optimise design and
coefficient, throat operating conditions in specific
applications and to predict drop
separation size.
number
2 Yung et al HEVS drop mdiameter _ throat length model to predict .
(1978)
3 Crowder, J.W. HEVS p, p, L,G,L/G,Vgth _ _ to optimise converging angle, throat

et al.,(1981) angle of length and diverging angle.
(1982) conv./div.
throat
length
4 Crowder, J.W. HEVS/PA _ _ contactor prediction of minimum contacactor
et al.,(1982) length length
5 Ott Robert M. HEVS G,L/G, diameter of surface new model presented

el al. (1987) particle tension
6 Monabbati et HEVS L,G diameter of new model presented
al.(1989) particle
7 Viswanathan HEVS/R G,L/G,Vg,Vgth diameter of nozzel dia The two-phase, two-
(1997) particle component,annular flow unit was
predicted.
8 R.A.Pulley HEVS/PA/WA ,p L,G,L/G,Vgth, particle size throat length new model based on inertial
(1997) mechanism.
9 Ananthanaraya HEVS/R G,L/G,Vg diameter of VN, dJ, throat VN 1.0-1.5X 10-3 offers maximum
nan N V et al. particle aspect ratio efficiency.
(1998)
10 Viswanathan HEVS/PA/R p, p G,L/G,Vgth,liq orifice a correlation has been developed to
(1998) uid film diameter predict the liquid film thickness
throughout the scrubber length.
11 Ananthanaraya HEVS/PA/C G,L/G,Vgth diameter of VN as VNis independent of G, it is
nan et al. particle desirable to operate the scrubber in
(1999) the range of 70-100 m/s to achieve
maximum liquid utilization and
collection efficiency
12 H. Sun et HEVS/PA/WA p L,G initial drop zize orifice full boundary layer model has been
al.(2003) diameter presented.
13 Ravi G. et HEVS/PA/R L/G,Vgth _ nozzle three-dimensional model for the

al.(2003) configuration collection with the NSGA
algorithm
14 Mohebbi et orifice scrubber ,p particle _ particle-source-in-cell model
al.(2003) diameter proposed
15 Rahimi et al. HEVS/PA/R/C p L,G,L/G,Vgth entering gas new concept of presentation of p
(2004) and temperature/ in terms of number of throat
(2011) humidity velocity heads
16 Viswanathan et HEVS/PA/R/C p, p G,L/G,Vgth _ VN,nozzel proposed-improved, ease,versatile

al.(2005) dia,throat and comprehensive algorithm to
aspect ratio optimize scrubber performance
which takes into account non-
uniform liquid distribution
17 M.Taheri et HEVS/PA/R L/G,Vgth, diameter of Diameter of GAANN model is more efficient

al.(2008) particle throat it has less AAPD
18 Silva et al. HEVS/PA/WE/R p L,G,L/G,Vgth _ _ model is inadequate for the

(2009) /C prediction of pressure drop in the
throat region
19 Nasseh et HEVS/PA/R p L/G,Vgth, _ throat length a neural network optimized by GA
al.(2009) for predicting pressure drop in
venturi scrubber.
Venturi type-HEVS-High energy Venturi Scrubber, EV-Ejector venturi scrubbere, R-Rectangular cross section, C-circular crosssection, PA-Pease-
Antony type,WA-Wetted Aproach G-gas velocity Vgth-Gas velocity at throat,L/G -Liquid to gas ratio (m3/m3),-collection efficiency, R-
Rectangular cross section,C-circular crosssection, VN Venturi number, AAPD - Average Absoulte Percent Deviation, GA = Genetic Algorithm,
NSGA = Nondominated sorting genetic algorithm.
36
Figure 2.12 : Comparison of axial pressure drop predicted by
different models with experimental data (Vishwanathan et al., 2005)
Figure 2.13 : Variation of the total pressure drop in the venturi with liquid to gas ratio
and throat velocity. Liquid injected as a spray (Silva et al., 2009)
37
Figure 2.14 : Comparison of overall pressure drop predicted with and without
correction factor , experimental data of Silva et al. (2009) (Rahimi et al., 2011)
Collection efficiency
Jet ejector efficiency has been defined by researchers in different ways, like target efficiency,
collection efficiency, overall efficiency and fractional efficiency (Mohebbi et al., 2003;
Pulley 1997; Yung et al., 1977; Leith and Cooper, 1980; Boll 1973; Calvert 1970). The
overall collection efficiency is defined as
For particulate matter

=
(2.14)
For gaseous pollutant: Taheri et al. (2008) defined collection efficiency (the extent
of absorption) as

(%) = 100 (2.15)

where are the initial, final, and equilibrium partial pressure of gaseous pollutant
in mm of , respectively
38
Collection efficiency have been reported with respect to gas/liquid ratio, gas and liquid flow
rates , geometry of venturi scrubber like projection ratio , length of throat, angle and length
of convergent diffuser section and property of particulate/gas pollutants. Researchers have
reported different empirical correlations to predict efficiency on the basis of different
assumptions they have considered. The vast literature has been published on the subject.
Table 2.6 is the summery of some of the earlier research. Typical graphical presentations are
shown in Figure 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18.
Figure 2.15 : Dependence of the overall collection efficiency of liquid gas ratio
(Vishwanath et al., 1997).
Figure 2.16 : The effect of throat gas velocity on the collection efficiency in venturi
scrubber (GAANN no. 1). (Taheri et al., 2008)
39
Figure 2.17 : Effect of variation in venturi number and aspect ratio on collection
efficiency for a constant venturi number.
(Ananthanarayanan and Vishwanathan, 1998)
(A) (B)
Figure 2.18 : Efficiency as a function of (A) particle diameter (B) liquid to gas ratio with
liquid surface tension as a variable. (Ott el al., 1987)
Ott et al. (1987) developed a model studying the effect of surface tension on performance of
venturi scrubber. They examined the effect of liquid surface tension on droplet size and on
particle penetration into the droplet. (Figure 2.18A and B)
Economopoulou and Harrison (2007) developed graphical tools for estimating the overall
collection efficiency of venturi scrubbers under the specified design and operating conditions
40
based on the well-established theoretical formulations of Calvert (1970) and Yung et al.
(1978).
Taheri et al. (2010) simulated gas absorption in a venturi scrubber and developed a
three-dimensional mathematical model, based on a non uniform droplet concentration
distribution. They validated their model with the experimental data reported by Johnstone et
al. (1954) and Wen and Fan, (1975) for removal by using alkaline solution and .
They used Lagrangian approach for water droplet movement. Yung et al. (1978) and Crowder
et al. (1981) have developed mathematical models to study different parameters of high
energy venturi scrubbers.
2.3.2 Jet ejectors
The application of jet ejector as vacuum producing device and as jet pump is well known
(Gamisans et al., 2004; Govatos, 1981; Cunningham, 1974; Cunningham and Dopkin, 1974;
Bonnington, 1956, 1960, 1964; Bonnington and King, 1972; Blenke et al., 1963; Kroll,
1947). With the fast growth of chemical process industry, their use as entraining and pumping
device to handle corrosive fluids, slurries, fumes and dust laden gasses has increased. Their
use as mass transfer equipment for liquid-liquid extraction, gas absorption, gas stripping,
slurry reaction like hydrogenation, oxidation, chlorination, fermentation, etc. has increased.
Due to increasing interest in the usage of jet ejectors, numbers of investigators have
attempted to optimize their performance. (Das and Biswas, 2006; Gamisans et al., 2004;
Gamisans et al., 2002; Dasappa et al., 1993; Mukharjee et al., 1988,1981; Radhakrishnan and
Mitra, 1984; Pal et al., 1980, 1975; Biswas et al., 1977, 1975; Acharjee et al., 1975; Singh et
al., 1974; Bhat et al., 1972; Davis et al., 1967; Mitra and Roy,1964; Mitra et al., 1963 ; Davis
(1963).
Working of jet ejector
A jet ejector is a device in which suction, mixing and dispersion of secondary fluid is done by
utilizing the kinetic energy of a motive (primary) fluid. Das and Biswas (2006) stated that
when jet ejectors are used as a device for contacting gasliquid , the secondary fluid may be
dispersed by the shearing action of the high velocity motive fluid or the motive fluid itself
may get dispersed when it is arrested by a secondary fluid. Figure 1.1 shows the typical
41
ejector system in which the jet of primary fluid issuing out of a nozzle creates a low pressure
region around it. The pressure differential between the entry point of the secondary fluid and
the nozzle tip provides the driving force for entrainment of the secondary fluid. Two principal
flow regimes in ejectors are coaxial-flow and froth-flow. The coaxial-flow constitutes a
central core of primary fluid with secondary fluid flowing in the annular region formed
between the jet of primary liquid and ejector. Froth-flow regime is a co-current flow of fluids
with one phase completely dispersed in the other. Witte (1969) termed the phenomenon of
change from coaxial-flow to froth-flow as mixing shock. Here a part of the kinetic energy of
the flow is dissipated in the shock creating the gas-liquid dispersion. The mixing shock
results into generation of small bubbles and consequently creation of high interfacial area
(~ 2000m2/m3). Ejectors thus, give superior gas-liquid mass transfer rates and higher rates of
reaction as compared to conventional gas-liquid contacting equipments like stirred tanks,
bubble columns, packed columns, etc. Yadav and Patwardhan (2008) stated that there could
be diverse objectives for ejector design depending on application as follows:
(a) To get large entrainment of the secondary fluid.
(b) To produce intense mixing between the two fluids.
(c) To pump fluids from a region of low pressure to a region of high pressure.
Geometry of ejector
The significant parts of an ejector are (Refer Figure 2.19) primary fluid inlet, suction
chamber, secondary fluid inlet, converging section, throat or mixing zone, diverging section
or diffuser. The ejector may be specified by denoting nozzle diameter ( ), throat diameter
() , diameter of suction chamber (), length of throat () , length of diffuser ( ),
distance between nozzle to commencement of throat ( ), angle of converging sections
() and angle of diverging sections (). Performance of the ejectors has
been studied in terms of (a) area ratio ( = / ), i.e., area of throat/area of nozzle, (b)
throat aspect ratio ( /) , i.e., length of throat/diameter of throat, (c) projection ratio
( = / ) , i.e., distance between nozzle tip to the commencement of throat / diameter
of throat and (e) suction chamber area ratio [/ = ( )/ ].
42
Figure 2.19 : Schematic diagram showing geometry of an ejector
Dutta and Raghavan (1987) studied and compared the performance of jet ejectors with and
without venturi and throat. Similarly Gamisans et al. (2002) studied jet ejector without
diffuser. Both of them concluded that the jet ejectors without diffuser or throat are less
effective compared to ejector with them.
43
Many researchers have studied the mass transfer characteristics and performance of the jet
ejectors followed by contactors, draft tube, packed column or bubble column
(Li and Li, 2011; Rahman et al., 2010; Balamurugan et al., 2008, 2007; Utomo et al., 2008;
Mandal, 2010; Mandal et al., 2005; 2004, 2003a, 2003b; Havelka et al., 2000, 1997; Dutta
and Raghavan, 1987; Ogawa et al., 1983; Mitchell, 1981; Biswas et al., 1977). All have
similar conclusion that there is less mass transfer coefficient in the extended portion
compared to that in the ejector itself.
Effect of ejector geometry
Das and Biswas (2006) reported that the efficient functioning of an ejector depends on the
design of the suction chamber, the mixing throat, the divergent diffuser and the forcing
nozzle. Besides, the relative dimensions of the various parts of the ejector, the factors such as
shape of the entrance to the parallel throat, angle of divergence and the projection ratio are
also important factors to be considered.
Different investigators have studied the effect of geometry of jet ejector like area ratio, angle
of convergence and divergence, projection ratio, shape of entry of convergent section, length
of throat etc., Yadav and Patwardhan (2008) compiled dimensions of different components of
ejectors studied by different investigators (See Table 2.7).
Area ratio (AR)
The area ratio is defined as the ratio of area of throat ( ) to area of the nozzle

= =

Bonigton (1964) studied the effect of changing the diameter ratio i.e. ratio of nozzle diameter
to throat diameter ( / ) instead of area ratio of the jet ejector performance. Acharjee et
al. (1975), Singh et al. (1974), Bhat et al. (1972) and Mitra et al. (1963) studied the effect
of area ratio on Mass ratio (ratio of mass of driving fluid to the entrained fluid). It can be
concluded from these studies that as the area ratio is increased the entrainment ratio also
increases. But at the higher area ratio the increase in entrainment ratio becomes less. A
typical correlation is shown in Figure 2.20.
44
Table 2.7 : Geometrical parameters of ejectors used by deferent investigators
References Area ratio Entry to the Angle of Throat Angle of Projection ratio
(DT/DN)2 throat converging aspect diverging (LTN/DT)
section (deg) ratio section (deg)
(LT/DT)
Kroll (1947) - Well rounded 20-25 7 4--10 0.55
Davies et al. (1967) 22.6-247 Well rounded -- 7 10 1.9*
Bhat et al. (1972) 3.7-25.1 Conical 28 0 10 8.9
Cunningham and Dopkin 2.2-6.5 Well rounded -- 12.3--32.4 4.0 3.0*

(1974b)
Acharjee et al. (1975) 5.4-50.4 Well rounded -- 8 10 2.0*
Biswas et al. (1975) 1.4--12.8 Well rounded -- 6 7 1.9*
Zahradnik et al. (1982) 33.8--113.8 Conical -- 0 6.4 --
Henzler (1983) 2.0--25.5 Well rounded -- 7.5 5 0.4--0.9*
Moresi et al. (1983) 1.5--3.5 Conical 17.35 1.8 9.5 --
Ben Ebrahim et al. (1984) 4.0 Conical -- 3.5 2.0 --
Bhutada and Pangarkar (1987) 1.8--10.2 Conical or bell- 12 0--16 5.0 3.0*
shaped
Dutta & Raghwan (1987) 7.66-16 Conical -- -- 15 --
Mukherjee et al. (1988) 1--50.6 Well rounded - 10.8 7 --
Panchal et al. (1991) 2.37 2.66 Conical -- 0 -- Pitch 1.1, 1.5, 2*
Kundu et al. (1994) 29.3--169.8 Conical - 7 7 --
Kundu et al. (1995) 29.3--169.8 Well rounded -- 9.7 7 --
Havelka et al. (1997) 3.24 Conical -- 5--20 7 --
Agrawal (1999) 9.3 Well rounded -- 6 7 2

Fernandez (2001) - - - 6 8 1.0
Cramers and Beenackers (2001) 2.1--9.0 Conical -- 2--10 3.0 --
Elgozali et al. (2002) -- Conical -- 10 7 2.72
Gamisans et al. (2004) -- Conical -- 0.5--1.3 -- --

Rusly et al. (2005) 2.5 Conical 10 5.0 7 5.0
Mandal et al. (2005a) 10.0 Well rounded -- 9.7 9.1 --
Mandal et al. (2005b) 5.6--14.4 Well rounded -- 9.7 9.1 --
Majumder et al. (2005) 7.4--22.5 Well rounded -- 9.6 7 --
Li and Christofides (2005) -- Conical 12 1.1 2 2.17

Das and Biswas (2006) 15.5--59.5 -- -- 7.76 8.6 --
Sriveerakul et al. (2007) 5.6--10.0 Well rounded. 1-- 6 10 1.1-6.8
Mukherjee et al. (2007) 9.9 39 Well rounded -- 6.5 7 --
Balamurugam et al. (2008) 1.1 6.45 Well rounded -- 04 -- 24
Utomo et al. (2008) 6.69 -- -- 4-10 3.5 --
Appusamy et al. (2008) 4.48 40 Well rounded -- 2.95 7 -- --
Yadav & Patwardhan (2008) 4 Well rounded 2.5 9 0 4.85 0 14.5
Raghuram (2009) 1 -- -- 7 9 --
Rahman (2010) 6.76 18.7 Conical -- 4.8 -- --
*Indicate the optimum value suggested by the investigator
45
Figure 2.20 : Effect of area ratio on mass ratio for water-water system
(Singh et al., 1974)
Projection ratio
The projection ratio ( ) is defined as the ratio of the distance between the injecting nozzle to
the commencement of throat ( ) to diameter of throat ()

= (2.16)

A typical plot of vs. is presented in Figure 2.21. It is observed that as rises the
entrainment ratio is not much effected but at definite value of , the MR, rises suddenly and
Figure 2.21 : Variation of entrainment of air with projection ratio of water-air system
(Acharjee et al. 1975)
46
again falls to previous value. Thus at which it draws maximum entrained fluid is
considered to be optimum. Biswas et al. (1975), Acharjee et al. (1975) and Devis et al. (1967)
had similarly observed that at around 2.10 is optimum. Singh et al. (1974) in their research
study observed optimum as around 0.5. It has been suggested that the optimum is
influenced by geometry of entrance to the mixing tube. Table 2.7 shows that the optimum
value of suggested by the different investigators is different. Yadav et al., (2008) utilized
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling to study the role of , angle of converging
section and diameter of suction chamber. They studied the effect of PR (0, 2.5, 5, 10 and 14.5)
on entrainment, pressure profile along the axis of ejector and power efficiency. They
concluded that the rate of entrainment and power efficiency increases as the projection ratio
increases that is because of the fact when one increases the it leads to the reduction in the
generation of radial flow. However beyond > 5 negligible amount of radial flow is
generated and hence the rate of entrainment and energy efficiency remain constant. Hence it
may be considered that the optimum projection ratio is 5 Figure 2.22).
Figure 2.22 : Effect of projection ratio (LTN/DT ) on energy efficiency

Diameter of suction chamber ( )

Though cross sectional area of the suction chamber is important parameter which effects the
performance of venturi, it has not been given the necessary attention. Yadav and Patwardhan
(2008) studied the effect of diameter of suction chamber. To study the effect of suction
chamber diameter they defined suction chamber area ( / ) as
47

= = (2.17)

They concluded that maximum power efficiency (20 to 25%) is obtained for ( )/
( ) =6.6 and for ( )/( ) > 13.6 it remain constant. (Refer Figure 2.23)
Figure 2.23 : Effect of area ratio / on efficiency of ejectors for different

values of projection ratio (Yadav and Patwardhan, 2008)
Effect of angle of convergent section and divergent section
It can be seen from Table 2.7 that numbers of investigators have worked to find optimum
angle of convergence and divergence. Yadav and Patwardhan (2008) studied the effect of
angle of convergence on entrainment and efficiency. In Figure 2.24 entrainment for different
angles: 2.5, 10, 30 and 90 has been shown. It can be seen that the rate of entrainment is
low for = 2.5. It increases with increase in and attains a maximum value for =10.
Further increase in results in decrease in the rate of entrainment of the secondary fluid.
Similarly their study shows that the largest pressure driving force is generated for = 10 and
it results in the highest entrainment for this case. With increase in beyond 10 the pressure
driving force was observed to reduce and it results in decrease in the rate of entrainment.
They also showed that highest efficiency is obtained at =10and larger values of results in
poor energy efficiency. Thus, they suggested for obtaining maximum entrainment the angle
of convergent may be kept between 515. The angle of divergent section has been kept
between 7 to maximum 10 by many of the investigators.
48
Figure 2.24 : Effect of angle of converging section on rate of entrainment
Mathematical models
Utomo et al. (2008) developed three dimensional CFD model to investigate mass transfer
characteristics. They varied the gas-liquid flow ratio in the range of 0.2 to 1.2 and the length
to diameter ratio of mixing tube ( / ) from 4 to 10. Their CFD studies show that at
/ = 5.5, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient increases with respect to gas flow
rate. They observed that at / = 4, the graph of volumetric mass transfer coefficient vs
gas-liquid flow rate ratio reaches the maximum at gas-liquid flow rate ratio of 0.6. A
remarkable observation in their study was that volumetric mass transfer coefficient decreases
with the increase of mixing tube length. They validated results obtained from CFD with the
experimental result (configuration of ejector has a mixing tube diameter of 22 mm and
diffuser outlet diameter of 40 mm, diffuser angle of 3.5 and a draft tube length of 100 mm.).
The mixing tube lengths are varied between 88 and 220 mm with the nozzle diameter of 8.5
mm.
Kandakure et al. (2005) developed a CFD model to understand the hydrodynamic

characteristics of ejectors. They varied the value of the slip velocity between the phases for
validation keeping nozzle velocity constant (at different height to diameter ratio of throat) to
validate the model. They found that when the slip velocity is made 13% of the axial water
velocity, it matches the experimental data very well. They found that the predicted air
49
entrainment is the maximum for the ejector with height to diameter ratio of throat equal to
zero and the area ratio of 4. They justified that the CFD simulations eliminate all such
empiricism.
Kim et al. (2007) studied rectangular bubble column (0.22 0.26 1.3 ) with a
horizontal flow ejector. They investigated the effect of the ejector geometry i.e. nozzle
diameter and mixing chamber diameter and the operating conditions like liquid flow rate and
liquid level in rectangular column, on the hydrodynamic characteristics. They established that
the gas holdup increases with increasing liquid flow rate and decreases with increasing level
of liquid in the rectangular column. They applied the multiphase CFD simulation with the
mixture model and found that the gas entrainment rate increases with increasing liquid flow
rate contrary to this the gas suction rate decreases with increasing nozzle diameter and the
liquid level in the rectangular column. The predicted values obtained from CFD simulation
were compared with the experimental data, which were well matching.
Li and Li (2011) investigated the entrainment behavior and performance of gasliquid

ejectors using different software and computational technique like Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) and validated with experimental data over a wide range of operating
conditions for ejector with different configurations.
2.3.3 Parameters other than geometry of the ejector
Many investigators (Gamisans et al., 2004, Gamisans et al., 2002, Brahim et al.1984;
Bhutada, and Pangarkar, 1987; Acharjee et al., 1975, Singh et al., 1974; Bhat et al., 1972;
Davis et al., 1967; Mitra and Roy 1964; and Mitra et al., 1963 ) studied effect of mass ratio
(MR) as a function of motive pressure, suction pressure, separator pressure, pressure drop, AR,
PR , Reynolds number, Eulers number etc. Some of investigators (Mitra et al., 1963;
Bonington 1964) studied the effect of head ratio on ejector performance, head ratio is defined
as:

= = (2.18)

where = pressure head at discharge of ejector, m; = pressure head at suction of

ejector, m; and = operating pressure, m. The empirical equations to predict mass ratio
(MR) from dimensionless analysis given by various authors are summarized in Table 2.7a.
Similarly table 2.7b summarizes mass ratio (MR) correlations from theoretical analysis given
by various authors.
50
Table 2.7a : Mass ratio correlations from dimensionless analysis given by various
authors (Balamurugan et al. (2007)
Primary Secondar Geometry and range investigated Mass ratio correlation Authors
fluid y fluid
Air Water Flowupward: .
Davies et al. (1967)
= ().
= 0.00808 0.002676 ,
= 0.0127 ,
.
.
= 0.0889 ,

( / = ) 0.009 0.2107,
= 0.0635 ,
= 1.219
.
Water, Air Flowhorizontal: Bhat et al. (1975)
glycerin, = 8.5 10
= 0.0019 0.00449 ,
kerosene
= 0.00925 ,
.
/ = 0.2 0.48, ().

= 0,
= 0.0254 ,
= 1.1
Water, Air Flowupward: . Acharjee et al.

glycerin, = 5.2 10 (1975)
= 0.00178 0.0055 ,
kerosene
= 0.0127 ,
.
= 0.1016 , ().

/ = 0.14 0.433
.
Water, Air Flowdownward: Ben Brahim et al.
mono = 43.86 10 (1984)
= 0.0025 ,
ethylene
glycol = 0.005 ,
.
= 0.0175,

/ = 0.5,
= 1 ,
= 0.01
.
Water Air Flowdownward: Dutta & Raghvan
= 2.4 10 (1987)
= 0.0045, 0.0065 ,
= 0.018 ,
.
= 0.040

Water Air Flowdownward: Bhutada &
= (); Pangarkar (1987)
= 0.005, 0.008, 0.01,
0.012 , = 5.58 10 9.67 10;
= 0.016, 0.0159 , = 0.135 0.202;
/ = 1.6 3.2 = 0.07 0.224
Water Water Flowhorizontal: . Singh et al. (1974)
= 3.2 10
= 0.00159, 0.00238, ( ).((p)/ ()).
0.003175, 0.00397,
0.00437
= 0.025
/ = 0.0625 0.17
51
Table 2.7b : Mass ratio correlations from theoretical analysis given by various authors
Geometry and range Geometry and the locations where the Correlation and remarks on loss coefficient Authors
investigated energy and momentum balance were
taken
Flowhorizontal: 2 Bhat et al. (1975)
+ + 2( 1)
= 0.0019 0.00449, ( 1)
= 0.00925,

= 0.2 0.48, 1 1
( + 1) ( + ) ' + 2
= 0,
( + ) = 0
= 0.0254,
= 1.1.
Primary fluidwater, All the losses are clubbed as loss factor '
glycerine and kerosene and values of ' were fitted using
experimental results
Secondary fluidair ' was empirically fitted to and
maximum / = 60 = ' 0.0123 + 0.116
Each area ratio has different ' and the
value ranges from 0.01 to 0.06
Flowupward: ( 2) Acharjee et al.
+ 1
= 0.00178 0.0055, ( 1) (1975)
= 0.0127, ( + 1) + 2
= 0.1016, ( ' + ) 1 = 0
/ = 0.14 0.433
Primary fluid All the losses are clubbed as loss factor '
Water, glycerin, kerosene and was fitted to match
the experimental values
Secondary fluidair 1.52
= ' 0.82 +
0.95
Each area ratio has different ' and value
ranges from 0.01 to 0.28
Flowhorizontal: Total suction was obtained for single phase Biswas and Mitra
= 0.00278 0.00798, from loss at each section (1981)
= 0.01,
= 0.06,
/ = 0.278 0.798,
= 0.0254,
Primary fluidwater, nacl, Total suction created partially utilized for
acetonewater mixture (30%) entrainment and dispersion
and glycerol (30%)
Secondary fluidair ' 4

= + ' + +

4
+ (1 + )(1 )

Maximum / = 14 and are fitted from experimental data
Flowhorizontal: review of Total loss coefficient = 1 diffuser Henzer (1983)
existing data, single phase efficiency + oss coefficient of throat
2
= + 1
2 1

(1 )
( 1)
(1 + )( + 1)
(1 + )

and were obtained from
experimental data of previous authors also
single loss coefficient was proposed. Value
of ' ranges from 0.21 to 0.34
Table 2.7b continued
52
Continued from previous page
Flowdownward: ' (' 2) Brahim et al.

+ + 2 + (1984)
= 0.0025, (' 1)
= 0.005, 1 +
+ [2
= 0.0175, (1 + ) + 1
/ = 0.5, (1 + ) + 1] ( '' + ) = 0
= 1,
= 0.01
Primary fluidwater, mono = ' 1.11 + 0.445

ethylene glycol
Secondary fluidair All the losses are clubbed as loss factor '
and was fitted with
experimental values. Values of ' ranges
from 37
Maximum L/G = 15
Bonington (1964) published a plot of power efficiency vs head ratio with diameter ratio as
parameter. As per their co relation the maximum efficiency achieved is around 33% at head
ratio 4 and diameter ratio (ratio of diameter of nozzle to throat diameter) 0.52. Similar studies
have also been done by Yadav and Patwardhan (2008), Gamisans et al. (2004),
Cunningham (1974) and Blenke et al. (1963).
Yadav and Patwardhan (2008) defined Energy efficiency of ejector as

% = 100 (2.20)

Where

)( = = (2.21)
8
and
)( = = ( ) (2.22)
where is absolute pressure at diffuser outlet, Pa; is absolute pressure at throat,

Pa; flowrate of secondary fluid, / ; is density of the primary fluid, / ;
, diameter of nozzle, m; , velocity of primary fluid at outlet of nozzle.
53
2.4 Gas absorption in jet ejector
In any absorption process, whether followed by a chemical reaction or not the gas must first
be dissolved in the liquid. Thus, gas liquid mass transfer is one of the most fundamental steps
in determining the absorption rate or the overall reaction rate. (Charpentier, 1976)
There is scanty literature available on the study of mass transfer in jet ejector. The rate of
mass transfer is expressed by studying interfacial area between two phases, liquid side mass
transfer coefficient and gas side mass transfer coefficient (Shabani, 2010). There are
different factors which influence the value of a, and .
Physico-chemical factors
Solubility of solute in liquid phase and its diffusivity, concentration of reacting reagent in the
liquid, reaction rate constant, reaction equilibrium constant, viscosity and density of liquid,
etc. are important physico-chemical factors. Danckwerts (1967) showed the effect of change
in temperature at the surface (resulting due to the heat of absorption and the heat of reaction)
on change in concentration of the product of the reaction at the surface and depletion of
reactant dissolved in liquid at the surface (in case of pseudo-first order reaction).
Shabani et al. (2010) has been reported that mass transfer rate is a severe function of solution
concentration and effective interfacial area.
Hydrodynamic factors
Gas flow rate, liquid flow rate and gas to liquid flow ratio are main hydrodynamic factors
which affect the rate of absorption. Laurent (1978) established the hydrodynamic
characteristics in the jet ejector. They studied the influence of the gas and liquid flow rates
and the diameter of the ejector on the rate of mass transfer.
2.4.1 Methods of determination of interfacial area
There are mainly three methods used to determine the interfacial area that are reported in the
literature:
1. Measuring the drop size and drop size distribution
2. Photographic method
3. Chemical method
54
In the present study the chemical method for measuring interfacial area is used. In this
method, gas-liquid chemical reaction is utilized to measure the interfacial area and volumetric
mass transfer coefficient. One of reacting component (known as solute) like , , and
from gas phase is absorbed in liquid phase which contains another reactant like ammonia,
sodium carbonate, dithionite, cuprous chloride, caustic soda or sodium sulfite. Oyevaar and
Westerterp (1989) concluded that the error in interfacial area measured by chemical method
is less than 10% and 20% for mechanically agitated reactor and bubble column respectively,
if the conversion is less than 99%. Raghuram (2009) used photographic method to determine
interfacial area and bubble diameter.
Weisweiler and Rosch (1978) studied interfacial area and bubble size distribution in jet
reactors using / system. They used chemical method to investigate
interfacial area.
2.4.2 Determination of interfacial area by chemical method
According to the study of Dehkordi and Savari (2011), the theory of gas absorption
accompanied by a chemical reaction explained by Danckwerts (1970, 1968), has been widely
used to evaluate the volumetric liquid-side mass-transfer coefficient and the specific
interfacial area a in various gas-liquid contactors.
Consider a chemical reaction between gas component and a component in liquid phase.
This reaction may be written as follow:
)(+ )( )( (2.23)
If the reaction is irreversible of the mth order in and order in , the local rate of reaction
per unit volume may be expressed by
= [] [] (2.24)
where [ ]and [ ]are the local concentrations of and respectively. Doraiswamy and
Sharma (1984) stated that if reaction satisfies

2
+ 1 [] []
= 1 (2.25)

and
55

2
+ 1 [] [] 1 []
= (2.26)
3 []
where [ ] , [] , , and are the solubility of gas in the aqueous solution, initial
concentration of reactant B, molecular diffusivity of in the aqueous solution, and the mass-
transfer coefficient, respectively.
Then the reaction between and occur entirely in the film, and the concentration of B at
the interface is practically the same as that in the bulk of the liquid phase. Here
represents the ratio of the amount of reacting in the film to that of amount A reacting in the
bulk. If the reaction is pseudo-mth order in and the rate of absorption of component per
unit volume of the reactor can be expressed by

2
= [ ] [] [] (2.27)
+1
Here, it may be interpreted that under these condition the rate of absorption is independent of
or the hydrodynamic conditions. So it means that if reaction is fast pseudo-mth order, then
by having the knowledge of solubility of the gas ([)] , the molecular diffusivity of the gas
component dissolved in the liquid phase ( ) and the kinetic parameters of the reaction
(i.e., , and ), specific interfacial area can be evaluated by determining
experimentally rate of absorption of per unit volume of the reactor ( ).
Jhaveri and Sharma (1968) compared the work of different researchers who studied
absorption accompanied by pseudo order reaction to evaluate the effective interfacial
area, , as a function of the liquid flow rate in a laboratory packed column. Oxygen was
absorbed in aqueous solutions of cuprous chloride and sodium dithionite. Isobutylene was
absorbed in an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid. There is a good agreement among the values
of obtained by using different systems. The value of appears to be a unique function of
the liquid flow rate in the range of liquid properties covered in their investigation (ionic
strength 1 to 34.5 g ion/1, viscosity 1 to 9 cP).They further concluded that the effective
interfacial area remains practically the same irrespective of the reacting species and the kine-
tics of the reaction. Similarly Gemisans et al. (2002) studied different arrangement of jet
ejector like single stage, two stages with and without secondary jet and without throat using
absorption of and from the gas into and solutions respectively. They
studied the effect of variation in solute concentration, air flow rate and absorbing solution
56
flow rate. They observed that the liquid flow rate have strong influence on where as the
solute concentration and gas flow rate have slight influence. These results are in consonance
with the observations of Jhaveri and Sharma (1968). They have also concluded that there was
considerable improvement in absorption efficiency in case of two stage jet ejector having
only one jet, but there was increased energy consumption. Shabani et al. (2010) and Laurent
et al. (1978) studied the parameters affecting the interfacial area in a jet ejector using
system. Both of them have reported similar results that interfacial area
increases with increasing liquid velocity up to certain level. There are several investigators
who worked on the chemical method for the determination of interfacial area in gas liquid
contactors (Raghuram et al., 1992; Oyevaar and Westerterp, 1989; Ogawa et al., 1983; Virkar
and Sharma, 1975; Sahay and Sharma, 1973; Volgin et al., 1968).
2.4.3 Determination of overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient by chemical

method
Doraiswamy and Sharma (1984) derived a correlation which may be used to determine the
overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient by chemical method. If the reaction is an
irreversible mth order with respect to and order with respect to , and satisfy the
condition

2
+ 1 [] []
= 1 (2.28)

then the reaction between the gas and the liquid can take place entirely in the bulk of the
liquid phase and there is negligible reaction occurring in the film. Moreover, if the reaction
between the gas component and the liquid is sufficiently fast, such that the concentration
of un-reacted component in the bulk of liquid phase is negligible then the absorption rate of
gas per unit volume of the gas-liquid reactor ( ) can be expressed as
= [] (2.29)
To ensure such condition the reaction should satisfy
[] []
1 (2.30)

Thus if and the solubility of the gas component in the liquid phase ([ )] are
known, then the volumetric mass transfer coefficient () can be experimentally evaluated
using the above equation.
57
2.4.4 Limitations of the chemical method for the determination of mass transfer
coefficient
The specific surface area for mass transfer in the gas-liquid contactor is the cumulative area
of all the bubbles or drops or film divided by the volume of sample.
However the physical methods of determining interfacial area measure the local Sauter mean
diameter and hence local interfacial area. But for practical purposes one need to determine an
overall interfacial area for the entire contactor. The chemical method of determining
interfacial area makes it possible to determine directly the overall interfacial area over the
entire contactor. Charpentier (1982) observed that the difference between the interfacial area
measured by the chemical method and photographic method may be due to a small number of
large bubbles dominating the interfacial area by the inadvertent exclusion of small bubbles by
the photographic method.
Joosten and Danckwerts (1973) introduced correction factor which they defined as ratio of
increase of liquid absorption capacity to increase of mass transfer due to chemical reaction.
Table 2.8 : Limiting values of and for the various chemical regimes used to
measure the mass transfer parameters (Midoux et al., 1980)
Parameter Minimum Maximu

Regime
to Order m value
value of
determine of
Physical
absorption or slow
3.3 0.25

chemical reaction
Intermediary
pseudo (1 )th + ( )

and 1 4.0 0.20
order chemical
reaction
0 1.35 0.48
Rapid pseudo ( )
1.80 0.48
2
(1 ) th order

( )

1 2.60 0.30
+1
chemical reaction 2 3.70 0.21
2 4.80 0.16
Instantaneous

3.3 0.27
chemical reaction
Instantaneous
chemical reaction > 20 0.55
at the interface
= inlet solute gas concentration. = rate of absorption, = gas residence time, = reduced diffusion time,
= absorption efficiency.
58
Due to presence of chemical compound the coalescence rate reduces considerably and hence
chemical method may lead to error for the fast coalescing systems. Midoux et al (1980)
proposed a flow model for shrinking & non shrinking bubbles. Table 2.8 presents the limiting
conditions which can be used to minimize the error in estimating mass transfer parameters by
chemical method.
Charpenter (1982) suggested that complimentary conditions proposed by researchers be

verified before using their data for scale up.
2.4.5 Effect of the ejector geometry on the mass transfer characteristics
Cramers and Beenackers (2001) investigated the effect of geometrical design parameters like
the presence of a swirl device in the upstream section of the nozzle, the mixing tube length
and the ratio of nozzle to mixing tube diameter ratio. They observed that all these parameters
have significant effect on the mass transfer characteristics. They also studied the influence of
gas density on mass transfer characteristics and observed that the volumetric mass transfer
coefficient ( ) increases when higher density gases are used. There are some other
researchers who carried out similar studies (Balamurugan et al., 2008, 2007; Gourich, 2007;
Baier, 2001). Table (2.9) is comprehensive list and the co-relations given by different
investigators (Balamurugan et al., 2007).
Their investigations may be summarized as follows:
Influence of the swirl device
For the same / the ejector with swirl device causes higher gas phase pressure
difference. The ejector without a swirl device creates higher values compared to the
ejector with a swirl device in the nozzle. The value of increases with increase in /.
In case of presence of swirling device, there are two distinguished flow regimes seen viz.
bubble flow and annular flow. The ejector without a swirl device creates higher values as
compared to the ejector without swirling device because it utilizes the supplied energy more
effectively. In similar study , Zheng et al. (2010) and Baier (2001) (Figure 2.25) concluded
that the gas holdup and interfacial area are larger in case of jet ejector without swirl compared
to jet ejector with swirl.
59
Table 2.9 : Hold-up, and measurement methods and correlations given by
various authors
System Dimensions (m) ( /) ( /) Method of Correlation Author
measurement
Hold-
up
Upward, = 0.006 0.016, 5 10 0 2, 3 . Otake et al.
primary = 0.5 (1981)
= 0.01 0.028, 6.6 10
water;
= 0.05 0.26 1.3 10 ., = 0.38.,
secondary

air =
[/]
Upward, Type 1: 0.28 10 0.5 10 1 1 = 0.05. Zahradnik et
primary = 0.006 0.011, al. (1982)
water;
= 0.025 5.04 10 2 10
secondary =
Type 2:
air
= 0.006,
= 0.007 = 0.04.
Type 3:
= 0.008,
= 0.0015,
= 0,
= 0,
= 0.0638,
= 0.159,
= 0.43,
= 0.292
Upward, = 0.006 0.010, 0.28 10 5.5 10 1 1 = 3.47 , Zahradnik et
primary = 0.292 al. (1982)
= 2
water;
4.48 10, 1.8 10
secondary
air 0.004 0.067 / /
Upward, = 0.008, 0 1 10 / 0 6.67 2,4 2 1 , = 0.346.., Ogawa et al.

primary = 0.01, 10 / (1983)
, = 0.346..,
water;
= 0.225, 0.472 10 <
secondary
air = 0.15, < 5.6 10 /,
= 1.795 = 1.213 10
. .,
= 8.42 10
..,
= 0.329..,
= 0.285..,
= 0.249. .,
Upward, = 0.008, 8.3 10
5.5 10 1 1 = 0.057 , = 0.53 Rylek and
primary = 0.025, 0.007, ( = 0.4), = 0.42 Zahradnik
water; (1984)
0.0015, 7.7 10 3/, 1.8 10 / ( = 0.2), = 0.35
secondary
air = 0.016, superficial velocity ( = 0.1),
= 0.04 0.013 0.107 / = 0.36.
0.028,
= 0.1 0.4,
= 0.3
Upward, = 0.7. Zahradnik et
primary al. (1985)
water;
secondary
air
Downward, = 0.005, 0.008, 6.4 10 4 10 1 = ) ( , Bhutada and
primary 0.01, 0.012 , = 0.94 2.66, Pangarkar
water; (1987)
= 0.016, 3.2 10 3/ 2.8 10 = 0.74 1.54
secondary
air 0.0159 ,
/ = 1.6 3.2
Table 2.9 continued
60
Downward, = 0.0045, 0.5 10 1 10 3 2 . Dutta and
primary = 0.044 Raghavan
0.0065 ,
solution of (1987)
= 0.018 , 3.0 10 5 10

and = 0.040 .
;
secondary
air +
mixture
Upward, = 0.003 0.02, 0.25 10 0.3 10 2 1 = 15, 000., Bando et al.
primary = 0.01 0.03, (1990)
= 7500.
sodium
sulfite = 0.05 1.25 1 10 4 10
solution,
secondary
air
Downward, = 0.004 0.006, 0.9 10 0.3 10 1
Dirix (1990)
primary
= 0.012, = 5.4 10
water;
= 0.04 0.24 10 0.8 10
secondary
air , 1.3 < < 3,
+

= 3.1 10

Downward, Not mentioned 0 7 10 2.8 10 1 . Cramers and
= 7.7
primary Dierendonck
water; (1992)
2 10
secondary
air
Downward, = 0.009 2.22 10 5.56 10 1 . Cramers and
primary = 19,500 Dierendonck

water; (1992)
3.36 10 2.22 10 (1 ).
secondary
air
Upward, = 0.006 0.012, 2.78 10 5.5 10 2 = 2.81. Zahradnik et
primary = 0.016, al. (1997)
water;
= 0.04 5.1 10 3 2 10
secondary
air
Upward, = 0.01, 0 2.33 10 0 0.083 / 2 Havelka et
= 5.91..
primary = 0.018, 1 al. (1997)
water;
= 0 0.36
secondary
air
Downward, = 0.004, 0.0047 / = 0 1.5 Not mentioned 1 = Cramers and
primary 0.0053, . Beenackers
.
water; . (2001)
= 0.012,
secondary
air = 0.024 0.120
1 0.55 0.38

Downward, = 0.004 0.008, 1.11 10 9.56 10 2 = 0.365. Mandal et al.

primary = 0.019, . (2003)
water,

= 0.184, 1.89 10 2.75 10
CMC;
secondary = 0.204, .
.
air = 0.0156
Downward, = 0.004 0.008, 0.83 10 0.98 10 3 2 = 1.08., Mandal et al.
primary = 0.019, = 0.38 10 (2003)
water;
= 0.184, 1.58 10 2.63 10
secondary
air = 0.204
Holdup measurement methods: 1. Bed expansion method; 2. difference of static pressure along the column; 3. spark photography for bubble
size estimation; 4. photography for bubble size estimation. Mass transfer estimation measurement methods: 1. Dynamic method
monitoring of unsteady oxygen absorption into previously deoxygenized water in the bed, i.e. on the evaluation of system response to an
input step change nitrogenair; 2. absorption in sodium sulfite solution with Cobaltous sulfate as catalyst; 3. absorption of lean in
the mixture of and . Interfacial area measurement methods: 1. absorption in sodium sulfite solution with Cobaltous
sulfate as catalyst; 2. absorption of CO2 in aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide.
61
Figure 2.25 : Influence of the swirl device on the total gas holdup (tot)
(Baier, 2001)
Influence of the nozzle to mixing tube diameter ratio ( / or )
When using a swirl device ()decreases with increasing diameter ratio. When no swirling
device is used then there exists an optimum diameter ratio approximately 0.38. They
correlated ()as follow

.
() (2.31)

and

() 1 0.55 0.38 ( 2.32)

Influence of the mixing tube length
For the standard ejector ( / = 2), the mixing zone is located in both the mixing tube and
in a large volume of the diffuser. However, when the mixing tube length is increased, it is
found that the mixing is nearly completed in the mixing tube. This indicates that the initial
dispersion volume (mixing zone volume) is influenced by the ejector configuration. From this
visual observation, it can be concluded that the mixing zone volume of an ejector with a
/ ratio of 10 is smaller compared to the mixing zone volume of an ejector with a shorter
mixing tube. They also noted that this observation is in disagreement with the
experiment of Dirix and Wiele (1990), the mixing tube length has no influence on (kLa).
(Figure 2.26)
62
Figure 2.26 : Influence of the mixing tube length on (Baier, 2001)
Utomo et al. (2008) have also studied the effect of mixing tube length on volumentric mass
transfer coefficient. They concluded that an ejector with longer mixing tube creates lower
volumetric mass transfer coefficient compared to shorter mixing tube. It is seen that by
increasing / ratio, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient decreases for any gas liquid
flow rate ratios. They also explained that when the mixing tube length is increased, the
pressure drop is also increased.
Influence of the gas density on mass transfer characteristics
In the bubble flow regime, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient increases when higher
density gases are used. The results could be explained by using Levichs theory, i.e. when the
gas density increases, smaller bubbles get dispersed resulting in an increase of the kLa value.
(Figure 2.27)
Figure. 2.27: Influence of gas density on without swirl device (Baier, 2001)
63
Influence of liquid viscosity on mass transfer characteristics
Baier (2001) investigated the effect of viscosity on mass transfer coefficient. They explained
that the volumetric mass transfer coefficient decreases with increase in liquid viscosity
(Figure 2.28). They compared their results with Terasaka and Hideki (1991), Sedelies et al.
(1987) and Stein and Schafer (1984) and found good agreement
kLa [s-1]
Figure 2.28 : Influence of the liquid viscosity on (Baier, 2001)
2.4.6 Factors effecting mass transfer characteristics
Biswas et al. (1977) studied the effective interfacial area in a liquid jet induced horizontal
gas-liquid contactor. They determined the effective interfacial area at various gas liquid
throughputs by chemical method. Their results are summarized as follows:
At same motive liquid flow rate, interfacial area increases with increasing secondary
liquid flow rate. Interfacial area is proportional to flow of secondary fluid (gas), .
Maximum interfacial area (approx. 2400m/m) is created by the nozzle having area
ratio 9.3
At same suction gas flow rate, higher interfacial area is achieved by increasing motive
fluid flow rate (liquid).
Interfacial area can be predicted by empirical correlation
= 60 (( )/( )).( ). (2.33)
64
Where is the fraction of gas hold up based on total system volume (dimensionless)
is the fraction of gas holdup at no slip(dimensionless)
Specific interfacial area produced for same energy/volume to jet ejector is much
higher compared to that produced in packed bed, jet contactor and bubble column.
2.4.7 Use of jet ejector in reactor
The use of jet ejector in the loop-reactor has been reported in the literature (Gourich et al.,
2007; Tang et al., 2006; Ping-fang Han et al., 2005; Havelka et al., 2000; Dierendonck et al.,
1998; Ogawa et al., 1983). These studies have reported about the hydrodynamics and the
factors affecting the mass transfer characteristics of the jet ejector used in the different
profiles of loop-reactors.
Weisweiler and Rosch (1978) observed that the interfacial area and percentage conversion
increase with increasing jet velocity. When jet velocity is increased the conversion increases
depending on the gas throughput and at high jet velocity a maximum conversion of nearly
100% is achieved. Liquid jet velocities of less than 10 m/s hardly affect the interfacial area
for the dispersion of the gas stream into small bubbles. The liquid jet must be highly turbulent
which is ensured when the jet velocity exceeds 10 m/s.
Gourich et al., (2007) and Dierendonck et al., (1998) compared the performance of jet ejector
in loop reactor with conventional gas liquid contractors. Their findings were similar to
Weisweiler and Rosch (1978) that loop ejector venturi contactors are versatile tools to carry
out both fast and slow reactions.
Raghuram (2009) studied interfacial area in gas-liquid ejector for a sodium chlorideair
system for a ejector having same nozzle and throat diameter (3mm). They observed that for
given flow rate of air and liquid the interfacial area decreases slowly as dispersion is moves
away from the nozzle. They also reported that interfacial area increases with increasing liquid
to air ratio. They achieved interfacial area of the tune of 5 25 / .
Dierendonck et al. (1998) concluded that the loop ejector venturi reactors are an efficient
alternative to the stirred tank reactors, offering easier scale-up.
65
2.4.8 Mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet ejector
Radhakrishnan and Mitra (1984) studied multi nozzle liquid gas ejectors, and observed that
optimum ratio of length of throat to diameter of throat is between 6 to10. Similarly optimum
area ratio is from 14.56 to 16.39 and gave the co-relation for gas hold up as
() = 1 ( 38.176 ) (2.34)
= . . . . (2.35)
Where fractional liquid hold up i.e. ratio of liquid volume to the volume of system
number of orifices in the nozzle plate and are Reynolds numbers based on
superficial liquid and gas velocity on the tube diameter.
They reported co-relation for interfacial area of system, :
= 225.. (2.36)
They also reported that the optimum performance is obtained with nozzle having = 14.6,
This nozzle gave maximum specific interfacial area per unit energy input.
2.4.9 Mass transfer with chemical reaction
Danckwerts (1970) proposed in agitated film diffusion, convection and reaction proceed
simultaneously. To make any useful prediction about the behavior of such systems, it is
necessary to use highly-simplified model which simulate the situation sufficiently well for
practical purposes without introducing a large number of parameters which are difficult to
determine.
There are many hypothetical models to predict the effect of chemical reaction on absorption
rate in the literature.
Whitmans Laminar film model (1923): steady-state diffusion through a stagnant

film
Higbies Systematic surface renewal (penetration) model (1935): transient

absorption into surfaces which are systematically replaced by fresh liquid
66
Danckwertss Random surface renewal model (1951): transient absorption into
surfaces which are randomly replaced.
Danckwerts and Kennedy (1954) compared these three models and showed that the three
models lead to closely similar predictions about the effect of physico-chemical variables
(solubility, diffusivity, reaction rate etc.) on the rate of absorption.
Wall and Beek (1967) compared chemisorption and physical absorption and concluded that
chemisorptions is more than physical absorption.
Vieth et al. (1963) derived an equation which describes the mass transfer to a fluid in fully
developed turbulent flow in a pipe. They explained that their correlation for mass transfer is
identical with the well-known Chilton-Colburn analogy (1934). They extended their analysis
to the case of simultaneous mass transfer and irreversible first-order chemical reaction and
found that the solution of their correlation is in agreement with the fact reported by
Danckwerts and Kennedy (1954) for penetration and film models.
However the studies by Beltran et al. (1998), Danckwerts et al. (1963) and Richards et al.
(1964) had compared different models for different systems and have reported the effect of
various parameters.
2.4.10 Reaction systems used to characterize mass transfer with chemical reaction
Sadek et al. (1977) proposed a model for the simultaneous absorption of sulfur dioxide and
chlorine into mixed acid.
Ravindram and Pyla (1986) also proposed a theoretical model (based on simultaneous
diffusion and an irreversible chemical reaction) for predicting the amount of gaseous
pollutant removed in a venturi scrubber. For validation of their model they used system of
and absorption in dilute . They found excellent agreement between the
results predicted by the model and those experimentally determined.
Chlorine
Chlorine is one of the most polluting gases in process industries. The absorption of chlorine
in aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is commonly commercially practiced method to
deal with chlorine pollution. There have been a few studies on the absorption of in to
67
aqueous sodium hydroxide solution in different gas-liquid contactors. (Roy and Rochelle,
2004; Ashour et al., 1996; Lahiri et al., 1983; Hikita et al., 1973)
Hikita et al. (1973) studied the rate of absorption of pure chlorine into various concentrations
of aqueous sodium hydroxide solution at 30. They used a liquid-jet column for their
research study. They applied penetration theory for gas absorption accompanied by a two-
step instantaneous chemical reaction. The experimental results were in good agreement with
the theoretical predictions. They termed their model two reaction-plane model as shown
below:
Aqueous solution containing and =( + ) exists in the region

between the gas liquid interface and the first reaction plane (region 1in Figure 2.29),
Figure 2.29 : Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous solution

(Hikita et al., 1973)
Aqueous solution containing , and exists in the region between the

first reaction plane and the bulk of liquid (region 2 in Figure 2.29),
The theoretical predictions and the experimental observations by Spalding and Takahashi et
al. are in good agreement.
68
Tamir et al. (1975) concluded that the neglecting of the effect of the gaseous environment as
well as bulk flow contribution is not justified for absorption of gases with high solubilities
and large heat effects. They presented a penetration model and validated the model by using
the absorption of chlorine into toluene (investigated experimentally by others). They found a
deviation of 25% between calculations based on simplified model and the more general
model presented by them
Lahiri et al. (1983) deliberated on the absorption of chlorine in aqueous solution of sodium
hydroxide with concurrent desorption of hypochlorous acid (followed by its dissociation to
chlorine monoxide) at 55C and 75C in a stirred contactor with a flat gas-liquid interface.
A reasonably good agreement has been found between the theoretical predictions and
experimental observations.
Roy and Rochell (2004) measured the absorption rate of chlorine into aqueous solution of
sulfite/bisulfite using a stirred-cell reactor and a wetted-wall column in the range pH 4.7 and
5.7. They developed a model using the theory of mass transfer with fast reaction. They also
reported that there is enhancement of absorption by using the succinate buffer on the rate of
chlorine hydrolysis. They also found that the di-succinate results in greater enhancement of
absorption than the mono-succinate anion and the addition of sodium chloride ( )as
well oxygen did not affect the rate of absorption in S(IV). They opined that these results
are relevant in the simultaneous removal of chlorine, sulfur dioxide and elemental mercury
from flue gas.
Sulpher dioxide
Uchida and Wen (1973) simulated absorption of in and alkaline solution using a
mathematical model developed by them. They compared the calculated results based on their
model with experimental data obtained in several types of venturi scrubbers that showed
satisfactory agreement.
Charpentier (1976) published a review paper in which he presented. Different theoretical and
empirical correlations to calculate and .
Laurent et al (1978) studied absorption with chemical reaction in venturi jet scrubber. They
used slow irreversible reaction to measure and fast pseudo mth order reaction for .
69
Asai et al. (1986) analyzed the rate of mass transfer accompanied by chemical reaction of
general order proceeding in two continuous phases on the basis of the two-film theory. They
could find satisfactory accuracy.
Atay et al. (1987) developed empirical models to describe the fluid flow characteristics and
gas absorption efficiency of ejector venturi scrubber. They determined the sulfur dioxide
absorption efficiency experimentally on a commercial scrubber.
Bandyopadhyay and Biswas (2007, 2006, 2006a) , studied the removal of using water
and dilute alkali as scrubbing media in a tapered bubble column scrubber. They observed the
enhancement of removal of due to presence of particulate matter in the alkali scrubbing
media.
Carbon Dioxide
Mandal et al. (2003b) investigated experimentally, and , in a down flow bubble column
by chemical method viz., absorption of in aqueous sodium hydroxide and sodium
carbonate/bicarbonate buffer solutions respectively. The equipment consists of jet ejector
followed by bubble column. They developed correlations to predict and in terms of
superficial gas velocity by applying Polynomial regression analysis of the experimental data,
= 0.3810 (2.37)
and
.
= 1.80 (2.38)
They also compared the experimental data with the predicted values obtained from above
equation and found that it fitted very well.
Silva and Danckwerts (1973) studied the effect of adding a small quantity of halogen
(chlorine or bromine) to a stream of carbon dioxide on absorption rate of carbon dioxide. The
addition of a small quantity of chlorine or bromine increases greatly the rate of absorption of
the carbon dioxide into alkaline solutions. This is due to the formation of hypochlorite ion or
hypobromite ion in the solutin which are catalysts for the reaction between and water.
70
Similar studies were done by using alkali systems by different researchers (Cents, 2005;
Gomez and Navaza, 2005; Meikap et al., 2004, 2001; Dimicocoli et al., 2000; Alvarez et al.,
1980, 1981; Pohoreckie, 1968;Vidwans and Sharma, 1967; Danckwert and Kennedy, 1958).
Many researchers, (Bhatt et al., 2010, 2007; Gandhi et al., 2009; Ahari et al., 2008; Gulbeyi
and Cevdet, 2006; Yusuf et al., 1999; Cooney, 1992, 1985; Yaici et al., 1988; Cooney and
Olsen, 1987; Botton et al., 1987; Mahajani and Sharma, 1981, 1980, 1979; Midoux et al.,
1984; Ogawa et al., 1983; Charpentier, 1982, 1976; Laurent and Charpentier, 1974; Shende
and Sharma, 1974; Volgin et al., 1968; Jhaveri and Sharma, 1968, Danckwerts and Sharma,
1966; Danckwerts and Gillham, 1966; Nijsing et al., 1959) have proposed models to predict
absorption with chemical reaction by studying different reaction systems.
Kordac and Linek (2008) studied the effect of addition of salt and super saturation, on the
mass transfer coefficient of carbon dioxide-water system. Their experiments show that mass
transfer coefficients are enhanced by the effect of liquid super saturation.
71
Chapter 3
EXPERIMENTAL:
EQUIPMENT, SET-UP,
AND PROCEDURE
72
3.0 Introduction
The experimental work was carried out in three stages.
First stage: a laboratory scale single nozzle horizontal jet ejector was employed (setup 1).
Second stage: a multi nozzle vertical jet ejector was used to study (setup 2) the effect of
number of nozzles on the mass transfer characteristics.
Third stage: industrial scale multi nozzle jet ejector was investigated for mass transfer
characteristics and scale-up (setup 3).
The detail of jet ejectors used to carry out experiments for three setups are summarized in
Table 3.1.
3.1 Setup 1
3.1.1 Experimental set up
The experimental setup used in this work is shown schematically in Figure 3.2. The
experimental set up is comprised of two systems: (i) liquid system and (ii) gas system.
1. Liquid system
The liquid system comprises of
(i) Tank (12) of 600 liters capacity with provisions of electrical heating.
(ii) A circulating pump (5)
(iii) Shell and tube heat exchanger (15) to control temperature.
(iv) Pressure gauge (6) to measure the liquid phase pressure.
(v) A separator (2) for gas liquid separation.
The outlet steam from separator was either recycled or drained depending upon the
requirement.
2. Gas system
The system consist of
(i) Chlorine / carbon dioxide gas cylinder (10).
(ii) Soap film meter (9) to measure gas flow rate accurately.
(iii) Soap film meter (8) to measure air flow rate.
73
Table 3.1 : Dimensions of ejectors
Setup I Setup - II Setup - III
Nozzle diameter ( ) DN 3.28 3.28 2.0 1.50 8.2 4.7 3.7
Number of Nozzle (orifice) n 1 1 3 5 1 3 5

Nozzle No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pitch * -- 2 2
Area ratio (appx) ** 9.3 9.3 9.3
Diameter of Throat/ mixing
10 10 25
tube ( )
Length of Throat/ mixing
60 60 150
tube *** ( )
Projection ratio # 2 4.5 4.5
Angle of convergent well rounded well rounded well rounded
Angle of divergence of
7 7 7
conical diffuser ##
Length of the conical
120 120 425
diffuser ( )
Diameter of the diffuser
25 25 77
exit ( )
Diameter of extended
25 25 ()
contactor ( )
Length of extended
1000 1000 ()
contactor ( )
Diameter of the suction
DS 25 25 77
chamber ( )
Length of the suction
40 45 122
chamber ( )
Distance between nozzle &
commencement of throat 20 45 112
( )
Diameter of secondary gas
, 10 10 25
inlet ( )
Volume of free jet ( 3 ) 0.75 10 1.689 10 26.32 10
Volume of throat ( 3 ) 4.71 10 4.710 10 73.6 10
Volume of divergence ( 3 ) 30.6 10 30.600 10 1156.78 10
Total ejector volume ( 3 ) / 36.061 10 37.000 10 1256.7 10

Reference :
* Panchal (1991), ** Acharjee et al (1975), *** Biswas et al. (1975),
# Yadav et a., (2008) ## Mukherjee et al. (1988)
74
Figure 3.1 : Detail of jet ejector used in experimental setup 1
Figure 3.2 : Schematic diagram of experimental setup 1
75
(iv) Tee (11) to mix air and chlorine/. The tee is connected by 2 meter long tube
(for thorough mixing of air and chlorine /) to the secondary fluid inlet of the
jet ejector.
(v) Manometer (7) to measure suction pressure of gas stream.
(vi) Jet ejector (1) having detail as described in Table 3.1. The primary fluid inlet of
the ejector is connected to outlet of pump (5) through control valve (4B). Bypass
line is connected to reservoir (12) thorough valve (4A) and heat exchanger (13).
Secondary fluid inlet is connected to a gas mixture line coming from Tee (11).
(vii) Contactor (3) : Ejector outlet is connected to contactor. At the outlet of the
contactor is a gas liquid separator (2). Separator is vented to atmosphere and
hence outlet pressure measuring device is not installed.
(viii) Sample points S1, S2, S3 are provided to withdraw the sample of reaction
product. S1, S2 and S3 sample points are provided along the length of the
ejector and sample S0 is drawn from the tank (12).
3.1.2 Experimental procedure
1. Preparation of caustic solution
First circulation of water through bypass line was started. Then required quantity of caustic
lye was added slowly in tank (12). The strength of caustic was estimated by titrating against
/10 solution using phenolphthalein as indicator. When the required strength was
attained the addition of caustic lye was stopped. The solution was cooled to required
temperature by heat exchanger (13). The temperature was kept at 30 through out the
experiment.
2. Adjusting flow rate of Air
After the desired strength of caustic soda was achieved the flow of caustic soda solution
through the ejector was started. The velocity of air was measured by using soap film
meter (8). The flow rate of air was adjusted by setting the operating pressure. The liquid flow
rate as well as air flow rate was kept constant for all experiments.
76
3. Adjusting / flow rate
Chlorine/Carbon dioxide rate was adjusted by the pressure regulator attached with the
chlorine/carbon dioxide cylinder (10). The circulation of caustic solution was stopped while
chlorine flow rate was being set. The chlorine flow rate was kept very low compared to the
air. The chlorine/ carbon dioxide flow rate were measured by using soap film meter (9).
4. Operation and sampling
First all the flow rates were adjusted and then the pump (5) was started. The caustic solution
and air-chlorine mixture were circulated through the ejector. Sufficient time was given to
flush the system before taking the samples. The sample was withdrawn using syringe form
sample point no. S1. The samples were drawn one by one from sample point no. S2 and S3
after closing sample point S1. The above samples were analyzed.
The procedure was repeated for different set of liquid concentration and gas concentration.
The results are tabulated in Table A1.1.
3.2 Setup 2
The experimental setup for Stage 2 is shown schematically in Figure 3.4. In this setup the
ejector having detail as Figure 3.3 and Table 3.1 is installed vertically. (photograph A.5.1)
The schematic flow diagram is self indicative and self explanatory.
There are two rotameters, RT1 and RT2, to measure flow rates of operating liquid and air
respectively. The / flow rate is measured with the help of soap film meter (GM2).
There are four sample points S0, S1, S2 and S3 to collect liquid samples to measure
concentration of caustic at inlet of ejector, immediate after free jet, at the end of the throat
and at the end of diffuser respectively. There are two liquid tanks (1) separation vessel (SV)
(2) solution reservoir (ST).The system contains V-1, V-2, V-3,V-4 and V-5 control valves to
control the flow of fluids.
The procedure is described stepwise as follows:
1. The nozzle plate to be studied was fixed on the jet ejector. Then empty runs were
conducted by using water and air to check the leakage.
77
Figure 3.3 : Details of jet ejector used in experimental setup 2
2. Required strength of sodium hydroxide solution was prepared by circulating liquid

through by pass line by adjusting valve V-3, V-4 and V-5.
3. Air flow rate and gas concentration were adjusted by circulating liquid from the tank
(SV). During this process solution tank was kept isolated by keeping valve V-3 and
V-4 closed.
78
SV = Separation Vessel GM1 & GM2 = Gas Film Meter
ST = Solution Reservoir P1 = Pumps
RT1 = Rotameter for Measuring Liquid flow rate S1, S2 & S3 = Sample points
RT 2 = Rotameter for Measuring Air flow rate V1, V2, V3, V4, CV1, CV2, CV3 = Control
RT3 = Rotameter for Measuring Solute gas Valves
Figure 3.4 : Schematic diagram of experimental setup 2
4. After adjusting gas flow rate and gas concentration, valve V-2 was closed and
required flow rate of caustic solution was adjusted by operating valve V-3, V-4 and
V-5.
5. Once liquid flow rate, gas flow rate and gas concentration were set, the required
samples were drawn and analyzed.
79
6. The procedure is repeated for another set of nozzle plate, liquid concentration and gas
concentration.
7. The results are tabulated in Table A1.2.
3.3 Setup 3
1. The experimental Setup 3 is shown schematically in Figure 3.6. This experiments

were conducted on industrial stage ejector. The details of ejector are shown in Figure
3.5 and Table 3.1. (photograph A.5.2 and A.5.3 in appendix)
Figure 3.5 : Detail of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 3
80
2. The schematic flow diagram is self indicative.
3. The ejector is having 3 sample point S1, S2 and S3. Sample S0 is drawn from tank T1
directly. The air flow rate is measured by using electronic anemometer. There is a
rotameter for measuring flow rate and a soap film meter to calibrate the rotameter.
There are two tanks T1 and T2. Tank T1 is used to prepare sodium hydroxide solution
and tank T2 is ejector outlet tank. V1, V2, V3 and V4 are control valves. The pump
P1 is provided to circulate sodium hydroxide solution through the ejector. Pressure
gauge P1 is provided to measure the primary fluid pressure (water).
Figure 3.6 : Schamatic diagram of experimental setup 3
1. The experimental procedure is almost same as in setup 1and setup 2. Before starting
the experiment the rotameter for chlorine was calibrated by soap film meter.
2. The required nozzle plate was fitted.
3. The required sodium hydroxide concentration was prepared by circulating the solution
and operating valve V5, V4, V2 and V3.
81
4. The primary fluid (aqueous solutions) flow rate was adjusted to the required
value by operating valve V5 and V4. The secondary air flow rate was measured by
electronic anemometer. The flow rate is kept constant throughout the experiment.
5. The required chlorine rate was adjusted by operating valve V1. After the system
reaches steady state the liquid sample S0, S1, S2 and S3 were drawn and analyzed.
6. The experiment was repeated for different concentrations of sodium hydroxide and
chlorine and nozzle plates.
7. The results are tabulated in Table A1.3.
82
Chapter 4
MODELING
AND SIMULATION
83
4.0 Introduction
A little work has been done on the mass transfer with chemical reaction in jet ejector. The
principal focus of research in this chapter is to develop some significant experimental and
modeling techniques for efficient design of multi nozzle jet ejectors. To achieve this goal the
recent literature on mass transfer with and without chemical reaction along with experimental
data developed for different gas liquid contactors are required to be adopted. An attempt is
made for necessary modification and development to existing theories which can be used for
our study.
On the basis of the variety of generated experimental data, multi nozzle-single nozzle,
laboratory scale-industrial scale, horizontal installation-vertical installation etc., were utilized
to develop general mathematical models. These developed models may be utilized to design
multi nozzle jet ejector without experimental data on the basic available physicochemical
properties like diffusivities, rate constant, equilibrium constant, Henerys law constant etc.
In this chapter the mathematical model for absorption of chlorine in aqueous sodium
hydroxide system were developed by making use of software like STATGRAPHICS and
MATLAB. With the help of recent mathematical techniques the problem of gas-liquid mass
transfer reduces to mathematical problem and solved by good mathematical models.
4.1 Prediction of absorption rate and reaction rate constant of chlorine

into aqueous sodium hydroxide solution
The rate constant of chlorine absorption in aqueous solution reported by different

investigators has been summarized and presented in table 4.1.1 given below:
Table 4.1.1 : Rate constant for reaction as reported by different

investigators
Author Rate constant Temperature

Morris (1946) 5 10 / . 298K
Lifshitz and PerlmutterHayman (1961) (9 2) 10 / . 283K

Lifshitz and PerlmutterHayman (1962) Of the order of 10 / . 283K
Spalding ( 1962) Of the order of 10 / . 298K
Sandall et al.(1981) 2.7 10 / . 273K

Ashour et al. (1996) 1.2 10 / . 298K
84
Ashour et al. (1996) studied the absorption of into aqueous bicarbonate and aqueous
hydroxide solutions both experimentally and theoretically. They estimated the reaction rate
coefficient of reaction between and over the temperature range of 293 312K:
1,617
= 3.56 10 exp / . (4.1.1)

It is observed that there is disagreement in the literature about the value of the forward rate
coefficient of absorption of into aqueous solution of .
In this section, correlation to estimate the rate constant for absorption of in to aqueous
solution of sodium hydroxide in jet ejector is developed using penetration model. The results
obtained by this model are compared with the experimental values. Apart from this a
mathematical model is also developed to estimate rate of absorption ( ) and enhancement
factor () which may be utilized to estimate further interfacial area in the section 4.4.
4.1.1 Model for the absorption of chlorine into aqueous solution based on
penetration theory
When is absorbed in aqueous solution, the following reactions may take place:
,
+ + + (4.1.2)
,
+ + (4.1.3)
,
+ + (4.1.4)
,
+ (4.1.5)
In this model, all reactions are assumed to be reversible. However reaction (4.1.2) and (4.1.3)
have finite reaction rates, whereas reaction (4.1.4) and (4.1.5) are assumed to be
instantaneous.
Here three equilibrium constants , and are independent and remaining can be
obtained by following equation:
85
The concentrations of chemical species that are present in aqueous solutions are
renamed as follows:
= = ,
4.1.1.1 Concentration of an individual chemical species in bulk of liquid
Assuming all the reactions are at equilibrium the following equations can be derived by
overall mass balance.
Chlorine balance:
2 + + + = , (4.1.6)
where is the molar ratio of chlorine to initially.
Hydrogen balance:
+ + + 2 = , + 2, (4.1.7)
Oxygen balance:
+ + + = , + , (4.1.8)
Electroneutrality Balance:
+ = 0 (4.1.9)
= = , (4.1.10)
86
As the reactions are at equilibrium the independent equilibrium constants are:

= (4.1.11)

= (4.1.12)

= (4.1.13)

= (4.1.14)
We have 7 unknowns and 7 algebraic independent equations.
These equations are linear system of equations and may be solved by minimal residual
technique using MATLAB to get ( which converge to the solution).
It may be noted that in case of aqueous solution do not contain any chlorine initially
(means L=0) then
= = = = 0 (4.1.15)
= , (4.1.16)
4.1.1.2 Mass balance at interface applying Higbie's penetration model
In jet ejector liquid jet ensuing at high velocity from nozzles situated at top, pulls the gaseous
phase in to the jet. The gaseous stream is broken into small bubbles due to high kinetic
energy of liquid jet and the gas-liquid comes in contact for a short time at about 1/10 second.
The mass transfer takes place from the interface of bubble to the encircled liquid. To adopt
penetration model let, ' ', be the distance from the interface of the bubble. So x = 0 denotes
the gas-liquid interface. The liquid coming out of jet travel as free jet from outlet of multi
nozzle to entry of throat where the surrounding gas gets entrained in it through its
exposed outer surface. This liquid stream with bubbles then travels in uniform cross section
of throat and at the end it passes through a conical diffuser section. Let Z be the length along
the axis of liquid jet Z = 0 at the out let of nozzles and = at the outlet of the jet
ejector. Let , be the time of exposure and may be computed by
,
=

87
To compute volume between outlets of nozzles to inlet of throat, it is assumed that fluid
travels through cylindrical passage having diameter equal to inside diameter of nozzle and
length .
By assuming all reactions reversible, the following reaction rate expression may be written.

= + (4.1.17)

= + (4.1.18)

The reactions (4.1.4) and (4.1.5) are instantaneous having large values of rate of reaction
therefore are eliminated. We also assume that:
Reactions are at equilibrium.
The diffusivity of ionic spices are equal.
The fluxes of the nonvolatile species at interface are equal to zero.
By considering the mass balance following differential equation are derived:
balance

= + + (4.1.19)

/ balance

+ = + (4.1.20)

Total chlorine balance

2 + + + = 2 + + + (4.1.21)

Electroneutrality Balance:
+ = 0 (4.1.22)
Where = = ,
88
As it is assumed all reactions are reversible hence the instantaneous reactions are also at
equilibrium and their equilibrium constant may be written as follow:

= (4.1.23)

= (4.1.24)
There are 6 unknowns and 6 partial differential equations/algebraic equations which can be
solved for the concentrations of all chemical species.
Initial condition and boundary conditions
At =0 (for all 0) and at ( = for all 0)
the concentration of chemical species are equal to bulk concentrations in liquid.
= , = 1 6 (4.1.25)
. . ( = , = , = , = , = , = )
Boundary conditions at interface
At the interface of gas-liquid = 0
For non volatile species

= 0, = 0, >0 (4.1.26)

for all except =1 ()
For volatile species (), the rate of absorption per unit interfacial area may be written as

= , (0, ) (4.1.27)

Here in our system there is only one volatile species i.e. chlorine and hence = 1 . So we
may write = , = and =
The equation (4.1.27) may be re-written as

= ,[ (0, ]) (4.1.28)

89
The value of the true gas side mass transfer coefficient, ,, for chlorine required in equation
(4.1.27) was predicted from the correlation reported by Lydersen (1983, pp. 129) which is
about 0.000432.
Where is the physical equilibrium constant (Henrys law constant) of .
For chlorine-aqueous solution the equation (4.1.28) may be re-written as

+ = (0, )
,
Now 1.68 10 (3.4) , 3.7 10 (4.1)
Therefore /, is negligible.
Hence,
= [ (0, ])
The boundary condition for pure at the gas liquid inference reduces to

(0, = ) = = 0 >0 (4.1.29)

4.1.1.3 Numerical solution and its implementation
Equation (4.1.19 ) - (4.1.29) represents a mathematical model to obtain the values of

, , . It is not possible to obtain analytical solution and therefore we have used
Finite Difference Method (FDM) to transform each partial differential equation of the model
into the system of ordinary differential equations in ''.
We choose following finite difference expressions to approximate the partial derivatives:
, 1
= ,+ (4.1.30)
2 ,
, 1
= 2 , + , + ,+ (4.1.31)

90
where refer to the chemical species, , refers to the spatial node number and
= . Typical values for the initial nodal spacing at the gas-liquid interface are
about 10. The transformed system of ordinary differential equation in t can be solved by
MATLAB software by using ODE15 solver with preconditioning technique and with special
Jacobi pre-conditioner.

This simulation gives and simultaneously and which gives the average rate of
absorption of per unit interfacial area (flux). This may be written as

= (0, ) (4.1.32)

The gas liquid exposure time for the jet ejector may be stated as

= (4.1.33)

=
+
Similarly, the enhancement factor of may be determined from the following equation

= (4.1.34)
( )
where are interfacial and bulk concentrations of in the liquid respectively and
is the liquid phase mass transfer coefficient for physical absorption of and is given by

= 2 (4.1.35)

To solve the mathematical model the diffusivities of different species and Henrys law
constant of are required which are tabulated in Table (4.1.2). We also need the
equilibrium constants and the forward rate coefficients of all chemical reactions (4.1.2)
through (4.1.5), which are tabulated in Table (4.1.3).
91
Table 4.1.2: Henerys law constant of and diffusion coefficients of ( ),
( ), and ( ) (Ashour et al., 1996)
[] 10 10 10
/ . / / /
/
293 0.09985 13.44 1.29 1.34 2.99
298 0.10000 16.36 1.47 1.54 3.43
303 0.09960 19.55 1.68 1.75 3.89
312 0.09970 26.98 2.05 2.14 4.76
Table 4.1.3: Values for Equilibrium constants of Reactions (4.1.2) and (4.1.5) at various
temperatures, (Ashour et al., 1996)
10 10 10 10

( / ) / 10 ( / ) /
293 3.890 5.722 3.726 0.6798 1.157
298 4.500 4.491 2.790 1.002 16.4
303 5.181 3.580 2.109 1.447 23
308 5.938 2.895 1.609 2.051 32
313 6.776 2.371 1.238 2.858 44

* rate of reactions and are instantaneous having large value of and are eliminated.
4.1.2 Results and discussion
The penetration model has been used to develop mathematical model for absorption of in
to aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide. The mathematical model to predict absorpaiton rate
is presented by equation (4.1.19 ) - (4.1.29).
To solve this model the value of , , and were required. The value of was
determined by the correlation given by Brian et al. (1966)
6138.6
= 1.4527 10 . (4.1.36)

92
The reaction and are instantaneous hence eliminated.
There is large variation in the value of in the literature as clear from Table (4.1.1). Hence
attempt has been made to estimate value of by using data obtained for absorption of in
aqueous sodium hydroxide solution in the jet ejector. The value of was adjusted until the
theoretically predicted rate of absorption was within 1% of the experimentally measured rate
of absorption of .
Thus following correlation is developed to predict the value of :
1610
= 3.39 10 . (4.1.37)

The predicted values of from equation (4.1.1) reported by Ashour et al. (1996) and
predicted value of from equation (4.1.37) by proposed model, along with the value
obtained from the experimental result of present work are presented in table (4.1.4) and
plotted in figure (4.1.1) and (4.1.1b).
Table 4.1.4 : The values of rate constants for reaction 4.1.3, , at atmospheric pressure
for -Aqueous system
[] 10 10 10, Measu- Measu- Estima- Predicted Predicted

/ / . /
red red ted 10 10
10 10 10

. .
. . . Ashour et present
Ashour Present present al. (1996) model
et al. work model) Eq.(4.1.1) Eq.(4.1.37)
(1996)
293 0.09985 0.787 7.19 4.7805 7.94 - - 1.42 1.39
298 0.10000 0.836 6.89 5.2136 7.73 - - 1.57 1.5
303 0.09960 0.750 7.63 5.2945 7.60 - - 1.7 1.7
312 0.09970 0.829 6.86 6.1669 7.98 - - 2 1.95
303 0.03 110 69.9 0.0986 - 0.05 1.669 - -
93
Figure 4.1.1 : Comparison of obtained by Ashour et al. (1996), proposed mathematical
model and experimental result by Ashour et al. (1996) with present experimental result
over the temperature range of 293-312 K
Figure 4.1.1a : Detailed view of figure (4.1.1) at a temperature T-1 =3.3x10-3
94
Figure 4.1.2 : Error estimates for k2 and Ashour et al. (1996)
The experimental value and value predicted by present model (equation 4.1.37) are
comparable. The values estimated by Ashour et al. (1996) are a little higher for which error is
estimated. The error in-general may be defined as the absolute value of difference between
estimated or measured value and actual value. Here error is defined as follow:
| =
(1996) |
The error estimates for Ashour et al. (1996) and proposed model along with error between
proposed model and present experimental value are presented in figure (4.1.2). The error
between proposed model and Ashour et al. (1996) are less than 5.2 x 10-4 and the error
between proposed model and experimental value is about 0.8 x 10-4 . As the error is very less
it may be concluded that the proposed model is good.
95
The figure (4.1.3) presents vs ,, ( as parameter). The values obtained by
experiment and by proposed model are in good agreement.Thus the chemical absorption
mechanism proposed in the present work may be considered to be correct.
Figure 4.1.3 : Comparison between the values for rate of absorption obtained
experimentally and predicted by proposed model with respect to at different
4.1.3 Conclusion
The value obtained by experiment and predicted from the proposed model are in
good agreement. Hence, the proposed mathematical model may be used to predict the
value of reaction rate, . These values may be further utilized to predict
enhancement factor and interfacial area using following co-relations:

=
( )
.
=

The correlation obtained to estimate rate constant for forward part of absorption of
chlorine in aqueous is
1610
= 3.39 10 .

96
4.2 Effect of the diffusivities on absorption of chlorine into aqueous
sodium hydroxide solution
The absorption of chlorine into aqueous sodium hydroxide solutions is one of the important
systems having industrial importance and also is of theoretical interest.
Danckwerts (1950a and 1950b) and Sherwood and Pigford (1952) showed that absorption
rate could be predicted by the penetration theory for absorption accompanied by an
instantaneous irreversible reaction of the type + .
Spalding (1962) studied the absorption rate of into water and aqueous solutions of
and using liquid-jet column. They have also established that the absorption
rate of will be affected by the reactions (4.2.1) and /or (4.2.2):
+ + + (4.2.1)
or
+ + (4.2.2)
depending upon the value of the solution.
Further, they have observed that when value was higher than 12.6 (i.e.
concentration more than 0.04 / the forward part of reaction (4.2.2) was rate-
controlling and the effect of this reaction on the absorption rate could be predicted by the
penetration theory for absorption accompanied by an instantaneous irreversible reaction.
Brian et al. (1965) studied gas absorption accompanied by a two-step chemical reaction,
+ followed by + . They have considered both steps irreversible and of
finite reaction rates and presented the theoretical analysis based on both, the film theory and
the penetration theory, with numerical solutions for the enhancement factor, .
Takahashi et al. (1967) used two different types of absorbers viz. liquid-jet column and a
stop-cock type absorber to study the absorption rates of into aqueous
(0.05 0.2 /). The predicated absorption rate using penetration theory was in good
agreement with experimental results.
97

Hikita et al. (1972) studied gas absorption of two-step chemical reaction, +

followed by + , accompanied by + 2. They have studied the effect of ratio
of chemical equilibrium constants, P (which is defined as / ), on enhancement factor, .
They have developed mathematical models for = 0, finite value and , for equal
diffusivity and unequal diffusivities of species on the basis of penetration theory.
Hikita et al. (1973) stated that in case of strong hydroxide solution the forward part of
reaction (4.2.2) is not only reaction which governs the absorption rate of but the rapid
reaction
+ + (4.2.3)
also affects the absorption rate of as the equilibrium constant of this reaction is very large.
In this section, the author has developed a mathematical model to study the effect of
diffusivities on the enhancement factor and analyzed the experimental data obtained by him
and Hikita et al. (1973) on the basis of the penetration theory for gas absorption accompanied
by a two step instantaneous chemical reaction. In this work, the rate of absorption in the jet
ejector is studied by using - aqueous system at 30.
4.2.1 Mechanism of chemical absorption
Spalding (1962) mentioned that, when concentration is more than 0.04 / the
forward part of reaction (4.2.2) is rate-controlling which affects the absorption rate.
Hikita et al. (1973) stated that (hypochlorous acid) formed by reaction (4.2.2) can react
again with ions results in rapid reaction (4.2.3) having equilibrium constant
= 2.2 10 / . Hence considering two step mechanism of the reaction
(absorption) between and an aqueous hydroxide solution, may be written as follows:
,
+ + (4.2.4)
,
+ + (4.2.5)
+ 2 + + (4.2.6)
98
The values of the equilibrium constants of reactions (4.2.2) and (4.2.3) are and . They
are stated as follows:
[] []
=
[][]
[]
=
[] []
The values of and at 30 is given by 3.1 10 (Connick et al., 1959) and

2.2 10 / ( Morris, 1966) respectively.
The hydrolysis of dissolved with water takes place according to the reaction
+ + + (4.2.1)
The equilibrium constant of this reaction is given by
[ [] ][]
=
[]
and having value 4.5 10( /) (Connick et al.,1959) at 30.
The values of is very low compared to the value of , and hence reaction (4.2.1) will not
have a significant contribution to the total reaction rate of
Therefore, the absorption of into aqueous hydroxide solutions can be considered as an

instantaneous two-step reaction, which is equivalent to say that reaction (4.2.4) followed by
reaction (4.2.5) and having over all reaction (4.2.6).
4.2.2 Mathematical models related to absorption
Enhancement factor,
The rate of absorption of reactant ( gas) with instantaneous chemical reaction can be
predicted by summing
(a) Amount of diffuse away unreacted and
(b) Amount of reacted ( in the form of )diffuse away from the gas-liquid interface.
99
Therefore,
1
= + (4.2.7)
2
The integration of equation (4.2.7) from time zero to the total exposure time gives the
average absorption rate and which may be written as:
1
=

1 1
= (4.2.8)
2
The average absorption rate of in absence of the chemical reaction is given by the well-
known Higbie equation

= 2 (4.2.9)

It is known that the enhancement factor is the ratio of average rates of absorption with
chemical reaction and without chemical reaction. Therefore from equation (4.2.8) and (4.2.9):
1
= = + (4.2.10)
2
Desorption of the
Lahiri et al. (1983) studied the process of desorption of the intermediate product
hypochlorous acid, , during the process of absorption of in aqueous alkaline
hydroxides. They gave correlation for the rate of desorption of the product:

, ,
, = (4.2.10)

erf

Therefore, average rate of desorption over a total exposure time, , is given by
1
, =
,
100

, ,
= 2

erf

1
= 2 ( , ) (4.2.10)
,
erf

Substituting,
, = enhancement factor for desorption
1
=

erf

and
= true liquid side mass transfer coefficient without chemical reaction.

= 2

The equation (4.2.10b) will become:

, = ,. . , , (4.2.10)

One reaction-plane model
Hikita et al. (1972) developed the model based on penetration theory for absorption with
instantaneous chemical reaction and found that for = 0 there exists only one reaction
plane, where the over-all reaction of reactions + and + is + 2 ,
proceeds irreversibly. The average rate of absorption of the solute gas can be calculated by
following equations which were derived by Danckwerts (1950) and Sherwood and Pigford
(1952).

= 2 (4.2.11)

101
1
= (4.2.12)
erf ()
Where is root of the equation

exp 1= erf() (4.2.13)
2
This absorption mechanism is called a one reaction-plane model.
Two reaction plane model
Hikita et al. (1972) developed a two reaction plane model when = and established the
fact that two reaction planes are formed within the liquid, which are as follows:
The reaction + 2 which is the sum of forward part of the first-step reaction
( + ) and the backward part of second step reaction ( + ) take place
irreversibly at the first reaction plane (which is located closer to the gas-liquid
interface)
The reaction ( + ) take place irreversibly at the second reaction plane.
Further, the absorption rate may be calculated by equation (4.2.11) and following equation:
1
= (4.2.14)
erf()
where is the root of following equations.

2 exp 1 + = erf() (4.2.15)

exp 1 2

exp 1 + = erf() (4.2.16)

102
Two reaction plane model for absorption of into aqueous solution
The reaction scheme for the system studied in this work is similar to
the work of Hikita et al. (1972). The present reaction system (Equation (4.2.4) and (4.2.5))
may be described in the form
+ + '
and
The present system is different than the work of Hikita et al. (1972) due to presence of
which was not present in Hikita et al. (1972). However the species ( )is non-reactive.
Hence it does not affect reactive mechanism.
Figure 4.2.1: Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous solution
Since, the equilibrium constant ratio = / = 1.4 10 /, is very high, so we

can apply the two reaction plane model to the present system.
The diffusion coefficients of all species, based on the penetration theory is modeled by partial
differential equations. The concentration profile for each species which will be derived by
solving the developed model will be similar to that as shown in Figure 4.2.1.
103
Region 1 (0 < < )

= + (4.2.17)

= + (4.2.18)

Region 2 ( < < )

= + (4.2.19)

= + (4.2.20)

Region 3 ( < ) <

= + (4.2.21)

= + (4.2.22)

with the following initial and boundary conditions:
=0, > 0; = , = (4.2.23)

= 0, >0; = , = 0, = (4.2.24)

= , >0; = = 0, 2 = 2 = (4.2.25)

= , >0, = = 0, = (4.2.26)

= , 0; = 0 , = 0 (4.2.27)
where and are the locations of the first and the second reaction planes, respectively,
and ( / ) and ( / ) represent the values of / when approaches from
region 2 and from region 3, respectively.
This proposed model is more general.
Specifically, when the effect of , , are negligible and hence if removed from the
equations, the proposed model will reduce to model of Hikita et al. (1973)
104
The analytical solution of this problem (i.e. concentration profile in the liquid) was given by
Hikita et al. (1973) and is as follows:
Region 1 (0 < < )

erf (/ 2 )
= 1 (4.2.28)
erf ()
= 0 (4.2.29)
D D
= exp (4.2.30)
D D
erf / /
/
= 0 (4.2.31)
Region 2 ( < < )
= 0 (4.2.32)
= 0 (4.2.33)

= (4.2.34)

/ erf (/ 2 )
/

= 1 (4.2.35)

erf (/ 2 ) /
()
Region 3( < ) <
= 0 (4.2.36)
105
erf (/ 2 /
= (4.2.37)
( / )
= 0 (4.2.38)

= 1 (4.2.39)

/ /
/ 2
erf () /
/ 2 /
+
/
Proposed mathematical model I: This model is represented by equations (4.2.17 4.2.27),

when , , are non zero.
Proposed mathematical model II: This model is represented by equations (4.2.17 4.2.22)
when effect of , , are negligible with modifying boundary conditions which are
as follows:
=0, > 0; = , = (4.2.40)

= 0, >0; = , = 0, = (4.2.41)

= , >0; = = 0,

2 = 2 = 2 = (4.2.42)

= , >0, = = 0, = = (4.2.43)

= , 0; = , = (4.2.44)
In proposed mathematical model II, we have consider the effect of jump at = and
= . The two plane model theory suggest us that at = there is a instantaneous
106
reaction between species () and ) (and causes jump in concentration of species
)( . Similarly, at = there is a sudden reaction between species )( and
) ( and causes jump in concentration of species ) ( . This jump values are defined
by the last term of the Equation (4.2.42) and Equation (4.2.43) respectively.
The absorption rate for proposed mathematical model I can be calculated by equation (4.2.11)
and
1
= (4.2.45)
erf()
where the constant can be determined by solving the following pair of simultaneous
equations.

=

2 1

(4.2.46)
erf ()

2 1

(4.2.47)
erf ()
Similarly the absorption rate for proposed mathematical model II can be calculated by
equation (4.2.11) and
1
= (4.2.48)
erf()
107
where the constant can be determined by solving the following pair of simultaneous
equations.

2 1

(4.2.49)
erf ()

2 2
2
=

2 12

(4.2.50)
erf ()
The equations (4.2.45), (4.2.46) (4.2.47) (4.2.48) (4.2.49) and (4.2.50) are solved by the trial
and error procedure based on Newton Raphson technique to evaluate and . In this
technique the first guess values of and was calculated by considering equal diffusivities
i.e. D = D = D = D .
There are several numerical methods like finite difference method, finite volume method,
finite element method etc. to solve proposed mathematical model I and proposed
mathematical Model II. Looking to the nature of the mathematical model (time dependent
and in one dimension) FDM is the best suitable technique. Other methods are expensive from
time point of view. Hence, we have used the numerical technique, finite difference method, to
solve the model using Matlab software.
4.2.3 Results and discussion
The effect of the diffusivity ratio on enhancement factor
Figure 4.2.2 shows the plot of the enhancement factor versus the concentration ratio

/ for different diffusivities ratio of / with constant / and / . The
108
value of / are taken 2.43, 1 and 0.1. In this figure the plots of Hikita (1972), proposed
mathematical model I [equations (4.2.17 4.2.27) with , , are non zero] and
proposed mathematical model II [equations (4.2.17 4.2.22 and 4.2.40 4.2.44) with
, , are zero] are presented.
Figure 4.2.2 : Variation in enhancement factor with respect to / at different

/ = . , 1, 0.1 and constant / = and / = . for absorption
of into aqueous solution
The following results may be drawn from figure (4.2.2).
The lines in the figure having higher / are at higher position for the same

/. This indicates that at higher ratio of diffusivities of reactants (liquid and
gas), the enhancement factor is higher. It can be concluded that higher the diffusivity
of liquid reactant with respect to gaseous reactant, higher is the enhancement factor.
The increase in enhancement factor is due to reduction in thickness of interfacial film.
The reduction in thickness in interfacial film is due to movement of reactant
) ( is faster toward interface compared to movement of ( ) toward
bulk of liquid.
109
For same / plots shows that enhancement factor increases with increase in the

reactant ratio (/) . The increase in enhancement factor is steeper at initial

increase of /. After that the rate of rise in enhancement factor with respect to

rate of rise in reactant ratio is reducing and after certain value of /, there is
hardly any rise is enhancement factor with respect to reactant ratio. It can be
concluded that there is increase in enhancement factor with increase in liquid reactant
concentration up to certain limits. This may be taken to mean that at higher

enhancement factor is higher. The reduction of at higher / is due to high
viscosity of solution at higher .

For the same ratio of / the value of enhancement factor derived from proposed
mathematical model II is higher than the value from proposed mathematical model I.
The value derived from Hikita (1972) is the lowest. The predicted values from
proposed mathematical model I and proposed mathematical model II are higher than
Hikita (1972) as the effect of diffusing out have been considered.
Figure 4.2.3 : Error estimates between experimental data and proposed

mathematical model at different / = . , 1, 0.1 and constant / = and
/ = . .
110
Figure 4.2.3 shows the error estimates between Hikita (1972) model and proposed
mathematical model I. Here error is defined as follow:
| =
( 1972) |
for diffusivities / = 2.43, 1 ,0.1

It is observed that the lower value of / for different / , the proposed
mathematical model I and Hikita (1972) model are comparable. However, for higher values
of / , the comparison shows that there is a numerical instability in Hikita (1972) model
(higher value of error). Therefore, we conclude that the proposed model I is well-posed.
Comparison of experimental results with simulated results
Figure (4.2.4) is a comparison of predicted by the simulated results of Hikita (1973),

proposed mathematical model I and proposed mathematical model II with experimentally
determined values ( for , = 0.602 10 / ) at actual value of diffusivity ratio:
/ = 2.32, / = 1.04, / = 1.4 and / = 0.786 (Table A 3.4). It may be

observed that the values obtained by experiment, Hikita (1973) model and proposed model I
are comparable. Equations (4.2.17) to (4.2.22) and (4.2.45) to (4.2.50) indicate that is a
function of rate of reactions and three diffusivity (in liquid) ratios, / / and
/ . The predicted values by proposed mathematical model I are higher to some extent
than Hikita (1973) model which is due to the effect of reaction on , have been consider in
mathematical model I. It may be make out that the influence of rate of reaction are marginal
that may be because being instantaneous reaction diffusivity ratio of species are rate
controlling.
, / 0.95 0.75 0.525 0.031
Exp. value of , = 0.602 10 / 1.55 1.5 2.24 1.94
111
Figure 4.2.4 : Comparison of value of determined experimentally and by proposed
mathematical model for different at , = . /
The values predicted by proposed mathematical model II for are higher than experimental
values. It may be concluded that the effect of jumping in the concentration of and
which have been considered in the model at the interface 1 and 2 are not appreciable. Hence
the values predicted by model II are higher. So model II is not appropriate under operating
conditions of the experiment.
4.2.4 Conclusion
The enhancement factor depends on the five independent dimensionless parameters

i.e., three diffusivity ratios, / / and / , and two concentration

ratios / and / .
The enhancement factor increases as the value of with respect to increases.
The value of enhancement factor increases as the value increases, and the effect

of / becomes large at low values and low at high values /
The proposed mathematical model I is more appropriate to experimental results at
operating conditions i.e. at 300C.
112
4.3 Numerical model of rate of absorption in multi nozzle jet ejector
(chlorine- aqueous solution)
High velocity jet from the nozzles entrains the gas and due to very high turbulence in the
throat, gas is split into bubbles. In the diffuser section partial separation of the gas and liquid
may occur. The high interfacial area formed by bubbles is desirable for increasing rate of
mass transfer. Different researchers, including Kuznetsov and Oratovskii (1962), Boyadzhiev
(1964), Volgin et al. (1968) and Beg and Taheri (1974), attempted to simulate the operation
of the jet ejector for gas absorption.
Johnstone et al. (1954) reported a jet ejector study in which was absorbed in 0.6
solution, and the amount of sulfur dioxide absorbed in the liquid, was measured at various
distances from the point of liquid injection. It was found that the mass transfer increased
substantially as the liquid injection rate increased.
Kuznetsov and Oratovskii (1962) developed a mathematical model for predicting absorption
of by reacting with solution in the throat and the divergent section of a venturi
scrubber.
removal efficiency of a jet ejector was investigated by Talaie et al. (1997) using a three-
dimensional mathematical model based on a non uniform droplet concentration distribution
predicted from a dispersion model in the gas flow where the gas-phase mass transfer
coefficient was calculated by empirical equations.
Mandal et al (2003) studied the jet ejector followed by bubble column and developed two
simple correlations of and as a function of superficial gas velocity. This correlation can
be combined to calculate liquid-side mass transfer coefficient .
Utomo et al. (2008) investigated the influence of operating conditions and ejector geometry
on the hydrodynamics and mass transfer characteristics of the ejector by using three-
dimensional CFD modeling. The CFD results were validated with experimental data.
Taheri et al. (2010) studied the three-dimensional mathematical model, based on annular two-
phase flow model for the prediction of the amount of removed in a venturi scrubber.
Author has made an attempt to predict mass transfer characteristics by numerical modeling.
Here, the author has described the mathematical model for the prediction of the amount of
113
chlorine removed in jet ejector. The results of simulation are compared with the experimental
data.
4.3.1 Mathematical modeling
In this study the model developed by Taheri et al. (2010) is modified to suit the jet ejector
used in the present work. Taheri et al. (2010) developed a three-dimensional mathematical
model based on annular two-phase flow model in rectangular geometry of the venturi
scrubber. They develop a model to predict interfacial area by predicting drop size and droplet
concentration. Instead in this work an attempt is made to predict the change in concentration
of reactant, , through the ejector.
The concentration of bubbles has been assumed uniform across the cross section of the
scrubber.
For developing the model, the pollutant concentration distribution in gas phase was obtained
by the following model using mass balance.
The general equation can be obtained by writing differential mass balance for pollutants over
a differential control volume.
The rate of reaction of pollutant per unit volume at time for constant volume system may
be written as
The may be calculated by using rate of mass transfer per unit area as
where = interfacial area per unit volume
= (number of bubble / volume) x (interfacial area / bubble)
= ( )

may be computed from velocity in case of moving gas as

114
equation (4.3.1) may be written as
( )
= ( ) (4.3.1)

Boundary conditions for Equation (4.3.1) are as follows:
= 0; = , (4.3.2)
The value of may be estimated by using the following equation (Ogawa et al., 1983)

.
,
= 1.213 10, (4.3.3)

Substituting equation (4.3.3) in equation (4.3.1) it will reduce to

( ) .
,
= 1.213 10 , ( ) (4.3.4)

In order to evaluate the bubble concentration distribution, , in the above equations, the
following one-dimensional dispersion equation, expressing material balance for bubble in a
differential control volume, must be solved:
()
= (0.0024 0.0309 + 0.1108 + 0.5156) (4.3.5)

with the boundary conditions of:
= 0; = 0 (4.3.6)
where is a number of nozzle (orifice). The expression for have been determined by using
multi regression to suit the experimental result.
In equation (4.3.3), the bubbles are convected in the Z direction.
It is assumed that for each nozzle the source of bubbles is limited to one element. The source
strength, S, is the number of bubbles generated per unit volume per unit time. Bubbles are
carried from element to element and are dispersed by convection and eddy diffusion effects.
Number of bubbles per second is defined by the following equation:

= = (4.3.7)
6
where is the total gas flow rate.
115
Substituting equation (4.3.3) and (4.3.7) in equation (4.3.4) it will reduce to
()
= = (4.3.8)
6
,
.
6 1.213 10
() ()
= = (4.3.9)

. ,
6 1.213 10
The bubble velocity can be obtained by solving the following equation. This is obtained by
writing a force balance for bubbles.
3( )
= (4.3.10)
4
The modified drag coefficient, , can be calculated by using the following expressions
given by Taheri et al. (2010) adopted for bubbles:
= (4.3.11)
.
= (4.3.12)

Here can be obtained by the formula given by Tahari et al. (2010) adopted for bubbles:
24
= 0.22 + 1 + 0.15 . (4.3.13)

Substituting Equation (4.3.11) (4.3.12) and (4.3.13) in Equation (4.3.10) it will reduce to
3( )
= (4.3.14)
4
.
3 ( )
= (4.3.15)
4
.
3 ( ) 24
= 0.22 + 1 + 0.15 . (4.3.16)
4
116
The gas velocity is computed by the following equation:
G
= (4.3.17)

+ 4
The equation (4.3.1) can be solved simultaneously with equation (4.3.3), (4.3.5), (4.3.7),
(4.3.9), (4.3.16) and (4.3.17).
The mass transfer rate , in each element can be evaluated by model developed in previous
section presented by equation 4.1.32.
When pollutants undergo a very fast reaction into the liquid phase such as absorption of
into aqueous solution, the bulk concentration of gas in the liquid phase can be
considered equal to zero.
4.3.2 Results and discussions
Figure 4.3.1 is a plot of variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of ejector for
different values of initial gas concentration for nozzle N1 having number of orifice1. For
comparison of the experimental results and predicted results obtained by the proposed model
are plotted in the same figure. From both the profiles shown in the figure, it is clear that the
proposed model is in good agreement with experimental results.
Figure (4.3.2) shows the variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of the ejector
for different nozzles N5 (no. of orifice 1), N6 (no. of orifice 3) and N7 (no. of orifice 5). The
results predicted by the model are in good agreement with the experimental results. Thus the
model is applicable for multi nozzle jet ejector.
It is also shows that the conversion in the jet ejector first increases then decreases and finally
becomes almost constant. The number of orifice in the nozzle affects the gas conversion in
the jet ejector with three orifice (N6) the conversion obtained is maximum with five orifice
(N7) minimum and with one orifice (N5) in between maximum and minimum.
117
Figure 4.3.1 : Variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of ejector for
different values of initial gas concentration , at = . /
(comparison between proposed model and experimental value)
Figure 4.3.2 : Variation of gas phase concentration along the axis of ejector for
different nozzles N5 (no. orifice 1), N6 (no. of orifice 3) and N7 (no. of orifice 5) for setup
3 at = . / and initial gas concentration , = .
/ (comparison between proposed model and experimental value)
118
The figure (4.3.3) shows the variation of bubble velocity along the axis of the ejector. It
indicates that the bubble velocity suddenly increases to a maximum value and then it remains
constant.
Figure 4.3.3 : Velocity profiles (m/sec.) of gas and droplet along axial direction (mm)
4.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed model is in good agreement with experimental values for single nozzle
as well as for multi nozzles. Hence the proposed model may be used for designing the
industrial ejectors.
The number of nozzle (orifice) affects the gas conversion. In present work the
maximum conversion is obtained for no. of nozzle 3 (N6).
119
4.4 Mass transfer characteristics in multi nozzle jet ejector
In this section a mathematical model to predict hold up, mass transfer coefficient and
interfacial area has been proposed for multi nozzle jet ejector and compared with
experimental data obtained.
Many researchers have published their work on jet ejectors (Jackson, 1964; Volmuller and
Walburg, 1973; Nagel et al., 1970; Hirner and Blenke, 1977; Zehner, 1975; Pal et al., 1980;
Ziegler et al., 1977) because of the high energy efficiency in gas liquid contacting.
The kinetic energy of a high velocity liquid jet is used for getting fine dispersion and intense
mixing between the phases in the jet ejectors.
Zlokamik, (1980) has reported that oxygen absorption efficiency is as high as 3.8 kg O2/kwh
in ejectors as compared to 0.8 kg O2/kwh in a propeller mixer. The higher gas dispersion
efficiency of the ejector type can be understood from the well known fact : gas dispersion is
possible only if the fraction of micro turbulence is high (Schugerl, 1982).
Radhakrishnan et al. (1984) have used a vertical column fitted with a multi jet ejector for gas-
dispersion for studying the pressure drop, holdup and interfacial area.
Agrawal (1999) has reported about 13000 m2/m3 interfacial area in horizontal single nozzle
jet ejector. The range of measured values of the interfacial area in the jet ejector is about 3000
to 13000 m2/m3.
4.4.1 Hold up
Yamashita and Inoue (1975), Koetsier et al. (1976) and Mandal et al. (2004) reported the
holdup characteristics with respect to gas flow rate in the jet ejector. At lower range of gas
flow rate, gas hold up increases with increase in gas flow rate but at higher range of gas flow
rates the increase in gas flow rate decreases the gas hold up or it remain constant depending
on the height of liquid in the follow up column is high or low respectively. At lower gas flow
rates small bubbles produced are in large number and at higher gas flow rate due to
coalescence the bubbles of larger size are produced which lead to decrease in number of
bubbles.
120
Hills (1976) has reported that the holdup is not affected by liquid flow rate. Mandal et al.
(2004) observed that for the same gas flow rate the increase in liquid flow rate decreases the
gas hold up.
The variables , , and affect the liquid holdup in a jet ejector.
Radhakrishnan et al. (1984) obtained following correlation by applying multi linear

regressions analysis on their experimental data:
.
= 1 exp 38.176 ... (4.4.1)
A new mathematical model has been attempted to predict the gas hold up as follows:
It is assumed that the model is of the form:
= 1 exp

Therefore log[ log(1 )] = log + log + log + log + log .
Using experimental data and multi linear regression analysis the values of , , , and
were obtained. The values obtained are = 51.467, = 0.03, = 0.03, =
0.0002 and = 0.41.
Figure 4.4.0 : Comparison of liquid holdup predicted by Radhakrishnan (1984), present

model and experimental value at different /ratio.
121
Thus mathematical model for gas hold up is as follows.
.
= 1 exp 51.467 ... (4.4.2)
Liquid holdup may be determined by following equation.
.
= 1 = exp 51.467 ... (4.4.3)
The results predicted from Radhakrishnan (1984) model and present model (equation 4.4.3)
is compared with actual experimental value at different / in figure (4.4.0).
4.4.2 New model to predict mass transfer characteristics, and
To predict mass transfer characteristics the value of and are required to be predicted.
Here a mathematical model is developed to predict the value of and using chlorine-
aqueous sodium hydroxide solution.
Doraiswamy and Sharma (1984) have reported that if
]
[
>3 (4.4.4)

and
]
[
(4.4.5)
2
then the reaction is considered to be pseudo first order and in the fast reaction regime.
As absorption of in aqueous solution of studied in the present work satisfy the

condition (4.4.4) and (4.4.5), it is treated as pseudo first order fast reaction.
Levenspiel (1999) presented a simplified solvable pseudo first order rate expression as a
replacement for second order reaction rate equation when the value of is so high that it do
not change appreciably, which is presented here as follows:
1
= . (4.4.6)
1
+

122
Now,
= (1 )

= ( = ) = (4.4.7)
1 (1 )
and
= = (4.4.8)
Substituting equation (4.4.7) and (4.4.8) in equation (4.4.6) we have:
1
= . (4.4.9)

(1 ) 1
+

where =
By rearranging equation (4.4.9) and integrating between = 0 will yield the equation:
1 1 1
= + (4.4.10)
1 (1 ) (1 )
where,
1 1
= + (4.4.11)

Interfacial area
Sharma and Danckwerts, (1970) stated that when
. (4.4.12)
Then gas phase resistance is negligible.
But for chlorine-aqueous system
Hence, to predict interfacial area few experiments were carried out for -aqueous
system.
-aqueous system satisfies the condition as of equation (4.4.12). Therefore gas

phase resistance is negligible. Hence equation (4.4.11) will turn to
1
= (4.4.13)

123
And equation (4.4.10) may be written for calculating interfacial area as follows:
1 1 1
= +
(4.4.14)
1 (1 ) (1 )
True gas side mass transfer coefficient for chlorine
For aqueous system

(4.4.15)

Table 4.4.1 : Typical range of experimental values
Interfacial area aqueous aqueous Condition required for

solution solution

/ 0.525 0.525

/ at 300 9.63 10 1.7 10
(Hikita, 1976) (Eq.4.2.37)
. / 32 19.55
(Table A3.4) (Patel, 2004) (Ashour, 1996)
/ . 00037 . 00037
at 303 / 2.05 10 1.68 10

(Table A3.4)
at 303 / 3.89 10 3.89 10
at 303 in water 1.88 10 1.39 10
/
(Calculated from Table
A3.4)

0.0032 1.22
= /
/ apx avg 3.2 10 0.009515
(Radhakrishnan, 1984) and
calculated
= ( / ) / 6.072 10 0.022 10
/ 10 > 3 121 > 3 Fast reaction
(eq. no. 4.4.4)

2 139 188 Pseudo first order

(eq. no. 4.4.5) / 2 / 2
. 0.01184 7.2 10 Gas phase resistance
(eq. no. 4.4.12) . > . negligible
. 1.09 10
. / 5.78 10 Gas resistance control
(eq. no. 4.4.15) . . /
124
That implies that gas phase resistance controls the rate of reaction (Levenspiel, 1999).
Therefore the rate of absorption of may be written as
. = . . (4.4.16)
.
. = (4.416)

The true gas side mass transfer coefficient, , is given by,

= (4.4.17)

The model presented by the equations (4.4.10), (4.4.14) and (4.4.17) are the models to predict
the value of , and .
4.4.3 New mathematical model related to interfacial area for multi nozzle ejectors
Radhakrishnan et al. (1986) have suggested the following correlations to estimates interfacial
area i.e.
= 225. where is liquid holdup (4.4.18)
Mandal et al. (2003) have suggested the following estimates for interfacial area of system i.e.
= 0.38 10 , where is gas superficial velocity
In this work a new model has been proposed for estimation of . This model is easy to
apply and require minimum input data.
is determined experimentally and is equal to .
can be estimated by the model developed in section 4.1 given by expression (4.1.32).
So can be determined
= (4.4.19)
or

= (4.4.20)

125
This mathematical model is employed for multi nozzle ejector with number of orifice 3, 5 and
7. The dimensions of multi nozzle ejector are given in chapter 3. The results obtained with
this model for multi nozzle ejector are compared with experimental data.
A new mathematical model has been proposed as per experiment (4.4.16a), (4.4.17) and
(4.4.20) to predict mass transfer characteristics by determining the value of , and .
The predicted values by using this proposed model is presented graphically in the figures
(4.4.1) to (4.4.16). The figures show the effect of , on predicted value of , and
for different nozzles and different values of . The values of is obtained
experimentally.
4.4.4.1 Comparison of experimental results of mass transfer characteristics with

simulated results
Experimental results and simulated results of mass transfer characteristics, , and are
plotted together for set up 1 in the figure (4.4.2), (4.4.3) and (4.4.4) respectively. The
experimental results are based on equation (4.4.16a), (4.4.14) and (4.4.17). The simulated
results are based on the equation (4.4.20) and (4.4.18). The experimental and simulated
results are in good agreement. So the model proposed is well fitted.
Nozzle N1
CAg,in kmol/m3)
Figure 4.4.1 : Effect of , on for different for setup 1 with nozzle N1

(no. of orifice 1) (comparison of experimental results and present model)
126
Nozzle N1

Nozzle N1
Figure 4.4.3 : Effect of , on interfacial area generated in jet ejector for different
for setup 1 with nozzle N 1 (no. of orifice 1) (comparison of experimental results
and present model)
127
Nozzle N1

(a) Nozzle N2
(b) Nozzle N3
CAg,in kmol/m3)
Figure 4.4.5 : Effect of , on for = . for set up 2.

(a) with nozzle N2 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N3 (no. of orifice 3)
128
(a) Nozzle N2
(b) Nozzle N3

(a) Nozzle N2
(b) Nozzle N3
Figure 4.4.7 : Effect of , on interfacial area for = . for set up 2.

129
(a) Nozzle N2
(b) Nozzle N3

(a) Nozzle N5
(b) Nozzle N6
(c) Nozzle N7
CAg,in kmol/m3)
Figure 4.4.9: Effect of , on for different for set up 3.

(a) with nozzle N5 (no. of orifice 1), (b) with nozzle N6, (no. of orifice 3),
130
(a) Nozzle N5
(b) Nozzle N6
(c) Nozzle N7
Figure 4.4.10 : Effect of , on for different for set up 3.

(a) Nozzle N5
(b) Nozzle N6
(c) Nozzle N7
Figure 4.4.11 : Effect of , on interfacial area for different for set up 3.

131
(a) Nozzle N5
(b) Nozzle N6
(c) Nozzle N7
Figure 4.4.12 : Effect of , on for different for set up 3.

(a) CB0 = 0.79
(b) CB0 = 0.57
(c) CB0 = 0.11
CAg,in kmol/m3)
Figure 4.4.13 : Effect of , on for different nozzle for set up 3.

(a) with = . (b) with = . (c) with = .
132
(a) CB0 = 0.79
(b) CB0 = 0.57
(c) CB0 = 0.11

(a) CB0 = 0.79
(b) CB0 = 0.57
(c) CB0 = 0.11
Figure 4.4.15 : Effect of , on interfacial area for different nozzle for set up 3.
133
(a) CB0 = 0.79
(b) CB0 = 0.57
(c) CB0 = 0.11

4.4.4.1 Factors affecting rate of absorption ( ) in liquid jet ejector
Figure (4.4.1), (4.4.5), (4.4.9) and (4.4.13) show the effect of , on using different
nozzles. The following conclusions can be derived from the study of the figures.
A common trend has emerged that as , increases the also increases in all
setups for all nozzles. This is because rate of reaction is function of concentration of
both reactants i.e. chlorine (, ) and ( ).
As increases the decreases.The concentration of aqueous solution in

is kept high to maintain pseudo first order condition i.e. rate of reaction is
independent of concentration of . The reduction in rate of absorption is due to (1)
the increase in viscosity of aqueous solution (2) reduction of physical
solubility of (Krevelen and Hoftijzer theory, 1948).and (3) decrease in diffusivity
coefficient (Stokes-Einstein equation) when concentration of increases.
is higher for higher number of nozzles (figure-4.4.13). This is because the

exposed outer surface of liquid jet in the free jet section is higher for more number of
nozzles having same flow area. The high liquid jet exposed outer surface counters the
134
effect of increase in viscosity of aqueous solution due to increase in its
concentration. But for lower concentration of , the value of is maximum for
nozzle N6 (three nozzle). The value of is minimum for nozzle N5 (single nozzle).
The maximum absorption obtained is in vertical installation in setup 3 having nozzle

N6 (no. of orifice 3).
4.4.4.3 Effect of different parameters on mass transfer characteristics ( , and )

in jet ejectors
Effect of on , and
Volumetric mass transfer coefficient ( ) predicted by proposed model versus , for

setup 1, 2 and 3 are shown in figure (4.4.2), (4.4.6), (4.4.10) and (4.4.14).
Interfacial area () predicted by proposed model versus , for setup 1, 2 and 3 are
presented in figure (4.4.3), (4.4.7) and (4.4.11).
True gas side mass transfer coefficient ( ) predicted by proposed model versus , for
setup 1, 2 and 3 are presented in figure (4.4.4), (4.4.12) and (4.4.16).
The figures shows that the interfacial area first decreases with increase in then it rises
with increase in . The increase in have two phenomenon simultaneously: (1) the
viscosity increases (2) electrolyte concentration increases. By increasing viscosity the
diffusivity and solubility of gas both decreases which have negative effect on absorption.
While increase in electrolytes leads to a strong hindrance on bubble coalescence. This will
lead to major decrease of the mean bubble size. Therefore interfacial area and the volumetric
mass transfer coefficient both increases. (Bailer, 2001; Havelka et al., 2000; Kordac and
Linek, 2008). Thus depending upon the influence of these parameters, there is net rise or fall
in and . In most of cases the value of and are lower at higher .
Effect of number of nozzles on , and
The effect of number of nozzle on volumetric mass transfer coefficient predicted by

proposed model with respect to , at different are shown in figure (4.4.6) and
(4.4.14). The figure (4.4.6) is a plot of the vs , for setup 2 at = 0.527 for
nozzle N2 (having number of orifice 1) and N3 (having number of orifice 3). The
135
figure (4.4.14) is a plot of the vs , for setup 3 at different for nozzle N5
(having number of orifice 1), N6 (having number of orifice 3) and N7 (having number of
orifice 5).
The effect of number of nozzle (orifice) on interfacial area generated are shown in the
figure (4.4.7) and (4.4.15).
True gas side mass transfer coefficient ( ) is studied in the figure (4.4.8) and (4.4.16) for
different nozzles (N2, N3, N5, N6 and N7) at different .
It is observed that at lower the and are higher for nozzle N7 (no. of orifice 5) and
at higher the and are higher for nozzle N5 (no. of orifice 1). Similar effect is
observed for setup 2 (figure 4.4.6 and 4.4.8) where the is higher for nozzle N2 (no. of
orifice 1) compared to nozzle N3 (no. of orifice 3).
As numbers of nozzle (orifice) are increased the outer exposed area of free jet is more for
same flow area. The higher outer exposed area makes entrainment of gas easy to the free jet.
The higher also lead to increase in viscosity, which resist gas to enter in the liquid
stream. So at higher the effect of higher outer exposed area is compensated and we are
getting lower value of and for higher number of orifice.
It is also observed that at high (0.79 kmol/m3) the higher interfacial area is obtained for
nozzle N5 and N7 (no. of orifice 1 and 5 respectively). For intermediate (0.57 kmol/m3
for setup 3 and 0.52 kmol/m3 for setup 2) the interfacial area is almost same for all nozzle.
While for lower (0.11 kmol/m3) the interfacial area is more for nozzle 6 (no. of orifice 3).
As number of orifice (nozzle) increases there is collision of jet at the entry of throat which
has negative effect on the interfacial area. Thus the effect of more outer exposed area and
collision of jet enhances the interfacial area for number of more nozzles.
Effect of , on , and
The variation , and with respect to , is shown in figures (4.4.1) to (4.4.16).
Volumetric mass transfer coefficient ( ): The effect of , on by

variation in and no. of nozzle are shown in figures (4.4.2), (4.4.6), (4.4.10) and
(4.4.14). All the figures are almost similar qualitatively i.e. as the value of ,
136
increases the value of decreases. The decrease is very sharp at initial values
of , . Afterwards the decrease in with respect to , is reduced.
Mass transfer coefficient ( ): The effect of , on is shown in figures (4.4.4),
(4.4.8), (4.4.12) and (4.4.16). Form figures it is seen that there is decrease in he value
of with respect to , except some exception.
The trend of decrease in and is because of effect of reactant ratio / on reaction

factor. As discussed in section (4.2); the increase of reaction ratio / this will lead to
increase in enhancement factor. The rate of increase in enhancement factor is sharp at the
lower value of / ratio and then decreases and become negligible. The is the
function of , as per Henrys law. Therefore as increases the enhancement factor also
decreases. The enhancement factor is direct function of mass transfer coefficient ratio of
absorption with and without chemical reaction.
Interfacial area : The effect of , on interfacial area for different nozzles and at
different is shown in figures (4.4.3), (4.4.7), (4.4.11) and (4.4.15). It is observed that
there is only a little variation in interfacial area with change in , . This is because the
interfacial area generated depends on liquid to gas ratio and viscosity of the liquid. In the
present experiment the liquid to gas ratio is kept constant and very low concentration of
has been used. Under these conditions the viscosities of liquid and gas will not change
significantly.
4.4.5 Conclusion
Correlations for prediction of the liquid holdup in a multi-jet ejector contactor system
have been proposed by the equation (4.4.3).
The model to predict interfacial area is presented by the equation (4.4.14). A new
model have also been proposed to predict the interfacial area by the correlation
(4.4.20). For utilizing this correlation the experimental data of the system does not
required to satisfy the condition (4.4.12).
To predict and a model is presented by the equation (4.4.10) and (4.4.17).
These model is compared with the model developed in section (4.1) by equation
(4.1.28).
137
The figures (4.4.1) to (4.4.16) are plotted on the basis of the prediction from proposed
new model presented by equations (4.4.20). The behavior of , are
shown against different initial concentration of gases for different nozzles and in
these figures. The results are summarized in the following table.
Table 4.4.2 : Summary of analysis of results for different and nozzles
, Number of nozzle
decreases increases increases
decreases except N5 decreases increases except =0.79
decreases then constant constant for =0.57

increases except N1
decreases except N5 constant except N1 increases except =0.79

at =0.95
4.5 Removal efficiency of chlorine in jet ejector (Chlorine aqueous

solution)
The major factors which affect the efficiency of jet ejector are liquid flow rate, gas flow rate,
the concentration of absorbing liquid and the concentration of the solute in the gas.
Ravindram and Pyla (1986) proposed a theoretical model for the absorption of and
in dilute based on simultaneous diffusion and irreversible chemical reaction for
predicting the amount of gaseous pollutant removed.
Many researchers (Volgin et al., 1968; Ravindram and Pyla, 1986; Cramers et al., 1992,
2001; Gamisans et al., 2001, 2002; Mandal, 2003, 2004, 2005; Balamurugan et al., 2007,
2008; Utomo et al., 2008; Yadav, 2008; Li and Li, 2011.) have reported different theories
and correlations to predict scrubbing efficiency of jet ejectors.
Uchida and Wen (1973) developed a mathematical model to predict the removal efficiency
of 2 into water and alkali solution. The simulated results of their model were compared
with experimental results and they found that there is a good agreement with the
experimental results. They have also found enhancement factor to predict rate of the
chemical absorption.
138
Gamisans et al. (2001) evaluated the suitability of an ejector-venturi scrubber for the
removal of two common stack gases, sulphur dioxide and ammonia. They studied the
influence of several operating variables for different geometries of venturi tube. A statistical
approach was presented by them to characterize the performance of scrubber by varying
several factors such as gas pollutant concentration, gas flow rate and liquid flow rate. They
carried out the computation by multiple regression analysis making use of the method of the
least squares method. They have used commercial software package, STATGRAPHICS, to
determine the multiple regression coefficients.
Less attention has been paid in the area of mathematical and statistical modeling. The
statistical models have edge over other models due to their capacity to handle random data
correctly. There are several techniques available to relate the controllable factors and
experimental facts.
In this chapter, we have made an attempt to develop statistical model based on non linear
quadratic multiple regression analysis to predict removal efficiency of jet ejector for -
aqueous system.
4.5.1 Statistical modeling
We have used the non linear quadratic relation between independent variables and dependent
variables and is as follows:

= + X+ XX (4.5.1)

Here, is a response variable, is the main factor; is the constant value of the
regression; is the linear coefficient; is the quadratic coefficient and is the
interaction coefficient. When = .; = and 2 = '.
The computation was carried out by non linear regression analysis making use of the
generalized minimal residual method.
The non linear regression coefficients determined by computation with the software
package, STATGRAPHICS Plus 4.0, were used to determine the optimal model fitting.
The factors which affect the absorption efficiency are gas concentration and the scrubbing
liquid concentration. In this work the jet ejector is operated on critical value of liquid flow
139
rate. For a given geometry, reduction in the liquid flow rate will lead to reduction of induced
gas flow rate. Therefore, in the present work the liquid flow rate is kept constant. Effect of
and , on the removal efficiency (% )of the ejector have been investigated in this
work.
The experimental values for the operating variables used in the present work are presented
in Table 4.5.1 and the experimental data are tabulated in Table 4.5.2 and 4.5.3.
Table 4.5.1 : Codification of the operating variables for the statistical analysis
Code Variable Values

Gas concentration (kmole/m3) (0.6 4.3) 10
Liquid concentration (kmole/m3) 0 0.95
Removal efficiency (%) 0 100
Table 4.5.2 : Experimental matrix for chlorine removal efficiency using setup 1
10, 10
No. ( %)
( / ) ( / )
1 0.605 0.950 10.0
2 1.193 0.950 83.2
3 2.315 0.950 75.1
4 4.386 0.950 56.3
5 0.605 0.750 61.0
6 1.193 0.750 82.4
7 2.315 0.750 82.28
8 4.386 0.750 86.86
9 0.605 0.525 91.40
10 1.193 0.525 82.41
11 2.315 0.525 21.23
12 4.386 0.525 95.27
13 0.605 0.310 81.25
14 1.193 0.310 61.80
15 2.315 0.310 74.32
16 4.386 0.310 68.09
17 0.605 0.0 41.00
18 1.193 0.0 41.20
19 2.315 0.0 42.50
20 4.386 0.0 25.21
140
Table 4.5.3 : Experimental matrix for chlorine removal efficiency using setup 3
Run Nozzle 10, 10 ( %)

No. No. ( / ) ( / )
301 N5 2.95538 0.79 21.07
302 1.966803 0.79 43.18
303 1.475102 0.79 69.09
304 0.983402 0.79 97.88
321 N5 2.984934 0.57 47.42
322 1.986471 0.57 57.01
323 1.489853 0.57 57.01
324 0.993236 0.57 62.71
325 N5 2.984934 0.11 36.04
326 1.986471 0.11 34.20
327 1.489853 0.11 34.20
328 0.993236 0.11 34.20
305 N6 2.95538 0.79 17.24
306 1.966803 0.79 28.79
307 1.475102 0.79 19.19
308 0.983402 0.79 28.79
317 N6 2.95538 0.57 45.98
318 1.966803 0.57 57.58
319 1.475102 0.57 69.09
320 0.983402 0.57 63.33
329 N6 2.984934 0.11 49.32
330 1.986471 0.11 42.75
331 1.489853 0.11 38.00
332 0.993236 0.11 51.31
309 N7 2.95538 0.79 22.99
310 1.966803 0.79 28.79
311 1.475102 0.79 26.87
312 0.983402 0.79 23.03
313 N7 2.95538 0.57 19.16
314 1.966803 0.57 20.15
315 1.475102 0.57 19.19
316 0.983402 0.57 23.03
333 N7 2.984934 0.11 45.53
334 1.986471 0.11 62.71
335 1.489853 0.11 57.01
336 0.993236 0.11 45.61
141
4.5.2.1 Statistical analysis
STATGRAPHICS Plus 4.0 is used to predict the removal efficiency (Y) using statistical
model (4.5.1) for the nozzles N1, N5, N6 and N7.The results are summarized in table
(4.5.4) and (4.5.5) Table (4.5.4) demonstrates the parameters as outcome of simulated
results of STATGRAPHICS plus 4.0. The regression coefficients of fitted models are
summarized in table (4.5.5).
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the operational variables and , indicate that
removal efficiency is well described by nonlinear quadratic models. The convergence is
obtained successfully after 4 iterations for estimation of regression coefficients.
Furthermore, the statistical analysis showed that both factors ( and , ) had
significant effects on the response ( )and the liquid concentration is more significant
between two.
It may be observed that fitted models do not contain the independent term (). This implies
that the removal efficiency ( )is a function of the factors considered only.
Table 4.5.4 : Parameters for multiple regression analysis
Properties to Nozzle N1 Nozzle N5 Nozzle N6 Nozzle N7

be Operated for Setup 1 for Setup 3 for Setup 3 for Setup 3
with no. of with no. of with no. of with no. of
orifice 1 orifice 1 orifice 3 orifice 5
Adopted Nonlinear Nonlinear Nonlinear Nonlinear
Technique Regression Regression Regression Regression
Dependent
variable
Independent , , , ,
variables
Function to
be estimated + + + +

+ + + +
+ + + +
Initial =0.1 =0.1 =0.1 =0.1
parameter =0.1 =0.1 =0.1 =0.1
estimates =0.1 =0.1 =0.1 =0.1
=0.1 =0.1 =0.1 =0.1
=0.1 =0.1 =0.1 =0.1
Estimation Marquardt Marquardt Marquardt Marquardt
method
Table 4.5.4 continued
142
Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation

stopped due to stopped due to stopped due to stopped due to
convergence of convergence of convergence of convergence of
residual sum of residual sum of residual sum of parameter
squares. squares. squares. estimates.
Number of 4 4 4 4
iterations
Number of 26 26 26 25
function calls
Fitted model
= 11.1059 = 20.6505 = 67.9698 = 17.4129
+ 205.385 + 263.417 99.2834 + 166.782
+ 0.688086 4.09009 15.4581 0.923805
72.5912 293.901 + 95.9406 88.6827
56.7127 16.134 17.0609 19.0502
Table 4.5.5 : Regression coefficient from multi regression analysis
Parameters Nozzle N1 Nozzle N5 Nozzle N6 Nozzle N7

for Setup 1 for Setup 3 for Setup 3 for Setup 3
with no. of with no. of with no. of with no. of
orifice 1 orifice 1 orifice 3 orifice 5
11.1059 20.6505 67.9698 17.4129
205.385 263.417 - 99.2834 166.782
0.688086 - 4.09009 - 15.4581 - 0.923805
+ 72.5912 + 293.901 + 95.9406 + 88.6827
+ 56.7127 + 16.134 + 17.0609 + 19.0502
Tests are run to determine the goodness of fit of a model and how well the non linear
regression plot approximates the experimental data. As the results are multi numerical they
are presented in figures (4.5.1) to (4.5.20) and tables (4.5.A-1) to (4.5.D-4). Statistical tests
like R-squared, R-squared (adjusted for d.f.), standard error of estimate, mean absolute error
and Durbin-Watson statistic are covered. The tables containing confidence interval, analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and residual analysis are also reported.
143
4.5.2.2 Results of statistical analysis in STATGRAPHICS Plus 4 for different nozzles:
Nozzle N1 for Setup 1 with no. of orifice 1
Table 4.5.A-1 : Estimation Results for nozzle N1
Parameter Estimate Asymptotic Asymptotic 95.0%

Standard Error Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
b1 11.1059 10.7826 -14.391 36.6028
b2 205.385 53.6661 78.4841 332.285
b11 0.688086 3.79419 -8.28378 9.65995
b22 -72.5912 58.9481 -211.982 66.7993
b12 -56.7127 12.1159 -85.3623 -28.0631
Table 4.5.A-2 : Analysis of Variance for nozzle N1
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square

Model 33479.5 5 6695.9
Residual 672.16 7 96.0228
Total 34151.7 12
Total (Corr.) 4747.67 11
Table 4.5.A-3 : Results of statistical tests for nozzle N1
Estimation Validation
N 12
MSE 96.0228
MAE 6.18318
MAPE 12.8496
ME 0.257439
MPE -0.445066
Table 4.5.A-4 : Residual Analysis for nozzle N1
R-Squared 85.8423 %
R-Squared (adjusted for d.f.) 77.7522 %
Standard Error of Estimate 9.79912
Mean absolute error 6.18318
Durbin-Watson statistic 0.891519
144
Plot of Fitted Model
100
X2=0,4
80
60
Y
40
20
0
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.1: Removal efficiency (Y) versus gas concentration (X1) for constant liquid
concentration (X2 = 0.4) for nozzle N1
Estimated Response Surface
100
80
60
Y
40
20 0,8
0,6
0 0,4 X2
0,9 1,3 1,7 0,2
2,1 2,5 2,9 0
3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.2 : Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration (X1) and
liquid concentration (X2) for nozzle N1
Contours of Estimated Response Surface

0,8 Y
10,0
20,0
0,6
30,0
40,0
X2
0,4 50,0
60,0
70,0
0,2
80,0
90,0
0
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.3 : Contour plot for Removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N1
145
Residual Plot
3
Stude ntized re sidual 2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0 20 40 60 80 100
predicted Y
Figure 4.5.4 :Predicted removal efficiency (Y) versus observed removal efficiency (Y)
for nozzle N1
Plot of Y
100
80
obser ved
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
predicted
Figure 4.5.5 :Residual Plot for nozzle N1

Table 4.5.B-1 : Estimation Results for nozzle N5

Lower Upper
b1 20.6505 8.51199 0.522786 40.7782
b2 263.417 42.0993 163.868 362.966
b11 - 4.09009 2.9974 -11.1778 2.99764
b22 - 293.901 46.3188 -403.427 -184.374
b12 - 16.134 9.4982 -38.5937 6.32578
146
Table 4.5.B-2 : Analysis of Variance for nozzle N5

Model 24459.2 5 4891.85
Residual 414.451 7 59.2073
Total 24873.7 12
Total (Corr.) 3082.07 11
Table 4.5.B-3 : Results of statistical tests for nozzle N5

R-Squared 86.5528 %
Standard Error of Est. 7.69463
Table 4.5.B-4 : Residual Analysis for nozzle N5
N 12
MSE 59.2073
MAE 5.15937
MAPE 14.7485
ME 0.271349
MPE -0.381023
Plot of Fitted Model

80
X2=0,4
60
40
Y
20
0
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.6 : Removal efficiency (Y) versus gas concentration (X1) for constant liquid
147
80
60
Y
40
20
0,8
0,6
0 0,4 X2
0,9 1,3 1,7 0,2
2,1 2,5 2,9 0
3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.7: Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration (X1) and
liquid concentration (X2) for nozzle N5
Contours ofEstimated Response Surface

0,8 Y
0,0
8,0
0,6
16,0
24,0
X2
0,4 32,0
40,0
48,0
0,2
56,0
64,0
0 72,0
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.8 :Contour plot for removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N5
Plot of Y
80
60
obser ved
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
predicted
Figure 4.5.9 : Predicted removal efficiency (Y) versus observed removal efficiency (Y)
for nozzle N5 for setup 3 with no. of nozzle 1
148
Residual Plot
Stude ntized re sidual 2
-1
-2
0 20 40 60 80
predicted Y
Figure 4.5.10 : Residual plot for nozzle N5

Table 4.5.C-1 : Estimation Results for nozzle N6

b1 67.9698 7.85634 48.746 87.1937
b2 -99.2834 42.5687 -203.445 4.87873
b11 -15.4581 2.76621 -22.2268 -8.6894
b22 95.9406 44.9216 -13.9789 205.86
b12 -17.0609 10.17 -41.9459 7.82414
Table 4.5.C-2 : Analysis of Variance for nozzle N6

Model 14787.6 5 2957.52
Residual 301.333 6 50.2222
Total 15088.9 11
Total (Corr.) 2570.73 10
Table 4.5.C-3 : Results of statistical tests for nozzle N6
R-Squared 88.2783 %
149
Table 4.5.C-4 : Residual Analysis for nozzle N6
N 11
MSE 50.2222
MAE 4.43336
MAPE 17.9304
ME 0.347291
MPE -0.243646
Plot ofFitted Model

69
X2=0,4
59
49
Y
39
29
19
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
.Figure 4.5.11: Removal efficiency (Y) versus gas concentration (X1) for constant liquid
92
72
52
Y
32
12 0,8
0,6
-8 0,4 X2
0,9 1,3 1,7 0,2
2,1 2,5 2,9 0
3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.12 : Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration (X1)
150
Contours ofEstimated Response Surface
0,8 Y
-8,0
2,0
0,6
12,0
22,0
X2
0,4 32,0
42,0
52,0
0,2
62,0
72,0
0 82,0
0,9 1,3 1,7 2,1 2,5 2,9 3,3
X1
Figure 4.5.13: Contour plot for removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N6
Plot ofY
80
60
observed
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
predicted
for nozzle N6
Residual Plot
4,8
Stude ntized re sidual
2,8
0,8
-1,2
-3,2
19 29 39 49 59 69
predicted Y
Figure 4.5.15 :Residual plot for nozzle N6
151
Table 4.5.D-1 : Estimation Results for nozzle N7
Parameter Estimate Asymptotic Confidence Interval

Standard Error Asymptotic 95.0%
b1 17.4129 17.0439 -20.5635 55.3892

b2 166.782 82.0164 -15.962 349.527
b11 -0.923805 3.77345 -9.33159 7.48398
b22 -88.6827 92.8142 -295.486 118.121
b12 -19.0502 14.3113 -50.9379 12.8375
Table 4.5.D-2 : Analysis of Variance for nozzle N7

Model 64257.3 5 12851.5
Residual 10632.7 10 1063.27
Total 74890.1 15
Total (Corr.) 7155.6 14
Table 4.5.D-3 : Results of statistical tests for nozzle N7
R-Squared -48.5931 %
Table 4.5.D-4 : Residual Analysis for nozzle N7
n 15
MSE 1063.27
MAE 17.9461
MAPE 43.8221
ME 4.7561
MPE -14.4586
152
Plot ofFitted Model
100
X2=0,5
80
Y 60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
X1
Figure 4.5.16:Removal efficiency (Y) versus gas concentration (X1) for constant liquid
80
60
Y
40
20
0,6 0,8 1
0 X2
0 1 2 0 0,2 0,4
3 4 5
X1
Figure 4.5.17: Removal efficiency (Y) response surface versus gas concentration (X1)
Contours of Estimated Response Surface

1 Y
0,0
0,8 8,0
16,0
X2 0,6 24,0
32,0
0,4 40,0
48,0
0,2 56,0
64,0
0 72,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 80,0
X1
Figure 4.5.18:Contour plot for removal efficiency (Y) for nozzle N7
153
Plot of Y
100
80
obser ved
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
predicted
for nozzle N7
Residual Plot
3,3
S tude ntiz e d re s idua l
2,3
1,3
0,3
-0,7
-1,7
-2,7
0 20 40 60 80 100
predicted Y
Figure 4.5.20 : Residual plot for nozzle N7
4.5.2.3 Interpretation of the results of statistical analysis in STATGRAPHICS Plus 4

for different nozzles
The results of fitted model, R-squared test, R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) test, standard error of
estimates, mean absolute error and Durbin-Watson statistic test are summarized in table
(4.5.6) and may be interpreted as follow.
The R-Squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 85.84% , 86.55 %,
88.27% and 48.59% of the variability in Y for N1, N5, N6 and N7 respectively.
154
The adjusted R-Squared statistic which is more suitable for comparing models with
different numbers of independent variables are 77.75%,78.86%, 80.46% and 0.0% for
N1, N5, N6 and N7 respectively
The standard error of the estimate shows the standard deviation of the residuals to be
9.79, 7.69, 7.08 and 32.60 for N1, N5, N6 and N7 respectively. This value can be
used to construct prediction limits for new observations.
The mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.18, 5.15, 4.43 and 17.94 is the average value of
the residuals for N1, N5, N6 and N7 respectively
Table 4.5.6 : Summary of statically results
Set Up Fitted Model R-Squared R-Squared Standard Mean Durbin-

(adjusted Error of absolute Watson
for d.f.) Est. error statistic
N1 85.8423% 77.7522%. 9.79912 6.18318 0.891519
= 11.1059
+ 205.385
+ 0.688086
72.5912
56.7127
N5 86.5528 % 78.8687 % 7.69463 5.15937 1.95717

= 20.6505
+ 263.417
4.09009
293.901
16.134
N6 88.2783% 80.4638% 7.08676 4.43336 2.20699
= 67.9698
99.2834
15.4581
+ 95.9406
17.0609
N7 48.5931% 0.0 % 32.6079 17.9461 1.67242
= 17.4129
+ 166.782
0.923805
88.6827
19.0502
155
The Durbin-Watson (DW) statistic tests the residuals to determine if there is any
significant correlation based on the order in which they occur. Since, the DW value is
less than 1.4 for N1 there may be some indication of serial correlation. Similarly,
since, the DW value is greater than 1.4 for N5, N6, N7 there is probably not any
serious autocorrelation in the residuals.
The output also shows asymptotic 95.0% confidence intervals for each of the
unknown parameters.
4.5.2.4 Interpretation of figures (graphs)
For each set of experiment a mathematical model describing the effect of related variables on
removal efficiency were derived and plotted in the figures (4.5.1) to (4.5.20).These figures
may be analyzed as follows:
Figures (4.5.2), (4.5.7), (4.5.12) and (4.5.17) show the response surfaces for the removal of
chlorine with variation in initial gas concentration and the scrubbing liquid concentration.
The response surface shows removal efficiency varies from 50% to maximum value of 95%.
It is observed that the effect of liquid concentration is greater than the gas concentration
on .
Dependency of removal efficiency () on gas concentration (, ) and on initial

concentration of liquid ()
Figures (4.5.1), (4.5.6), (4.5.11) and (4.5.16) are demonstrative curve of the fitted model
showing the effect of , on % at constant .The similar curve may be obtained and
plotted for other value of .
Figures (4.5.3), (4.5.8), (4.5.13) and (4.5.18) show the contours of estimated response surface
for nozzle N5, N6, N7 and N1 respectively. The presentation of contours is for visualization
of the best region where the % is maximum.
A common trend (except small variation for nozzle N6) may be observed that at higher
concentration of there is decrease of % with increase in initial concentration of , .
But a reverse trend is observed at lower i.e. % is increasing with increase in , .
The reason for this behavior is that at higher the viscosity of liquid increases. The higher
156
viscosity has adverse effect on diffusivity and physical solubility. And this effect becomes
more appreciable at higher , because of higher scrubbing load due to higher initial
concentration of ( , ,).
The figures (4.5.3), (4.5.8), (4.5.13) and (4.5.18) showing contours have significance that
they show the correlations of all the parameters .The counters are useful to identify the
regions of maximum efficiency The following table shows the regions of the maximum
efficiency.
Analysis of the contours suggests the following regions to have maximum .
Table 4.5.7 : Summary of analysis of contours for removal efficiency
Nozzle No. Best region , Best region Maximum efficiency

achievable
N1 (0.9 2.4) 10 1.5- 0 90
N5 0.9 3.3 0.02 -0 72

0.9 3.3 0.8 0.75
N6 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 82
2.5 3.3 0.8 0.25
N7 0 2.00 0.2 0 80
Observed versus Predicted %

The figures (4.5.4), (4.5.9), (4.5.14) and (4.5.19) show the observed versus predicted plot for
N1, N5, N6 and N7 respectively. The Y axis shows the observed value of % and X axis
show the predicted value by fitted model of %. It may be observed that the points are
randomly scattered around the diagonal line indicating that model fits well. It may also be
observed that the plot is straight line having no curve that means no need to try for higher
order polynomial.
Residuals versus Predicted
The figures (4.5.5), (4.5.10), (4.5.15) and (4.5.20) show of the residual analysis. The Y axis
shows Studentized residual and X axis shows the predicted % from the fitted models. It
may be observed that there is uniformity in variability with change in mean value shown by
line in the center.
157
4.5.3 Conclusion
The models developed as shown in table (4.5.4) for nozzles N1, N5, N6 and N7 to predict
% by using STATGRAPHICS considering variation with respect to , and are
well fitted.
Statistical analysis showed that both factors and , have significant effect on removal
efficiency ( )but the liquid concentration is more significant between two.
158
Chapter 5
FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK
159
The present thesis is on the modeling of multi nozzle jet ejector used for absorption with
chemical reaction. The mathematical models are developed for optimum design of the ejector
by considering the effects of multi nozzle in primary fluid. To validate the developed model,
experimental data of chlorine-aqueous and -aqueous reaction systems
were used.
The work is divided in two parts
1. Performance of the jet ejector

2. The mass transfer characterization of multi nozzle jet ejector
1. Performance of the jet ejector
A jet ejector when used as a scrubber is considered to have given optimum performance
when its desired scrubbing efficiency is achieved at minimum pressure drop. For
optimization of performance of jet ejector, models to predict pressure drop and scrubbing
efficiency are required. Pressure drop and scrubbing efficiency are complex functions of gas
velocity, liquid-to-gas ratio, ejector geometry (shape of nozzle, number of nozzles, area ratio,
throat diameter, throat length, projection ratio, angle of divergence and convergence),
operating and suction pressure, properties of gas and liquid (temperature, concentration,
diffusivity, viscosity, surface tension, etc.), reactivity of fluids, variation in composition of
fluids, etc.
In this work the model is developed to predict the removal efficiency of the single and multi
nozzle ejectors having specific geometry as described in chapter 3. The jet ejectors studied
have important geometrical parameters: area ratio 9.3, aspect ratio 6 and divergent angle 70.
There is ample scope to study the effect of geometrical parameters on the rate of absorption
with chemical reaction.
There is also scope of to investigate the effect of variation of hydrodynamic factors like
suction, operating and discharge pressure on rate of absorption with chemical reaction in
multi nozzle jet ejector.
There is a scope to study the effect of variation in configuration of the ejector like- type of
nozzle(convergent divergent nozzle, annular nozzle, premixed fluid nozzle, long straight
nozzle, etc), type of follow up contactors (bubble column, packed column, static mixture, etc)
and type of installation (vertically upward, at angle, multi stage etc.)
160
The effect of plate configuration in this work nozzle plate having straight orifices at pitch of
twice the diameter of orifice was used. This type of orientation has limitation of maximum 5
orifices on the plate for area ratio 9.3. More than five nozzles are likely to cause flooding in
the suction chamber. This disadvantage may be overcome by providing inclined orifice.
2. The mass transfer characterization of multi nozzle jet ejectors
The experimental investigation has been carried out with very low concentrations of
gas and liquid. There is scope to study further the effect of gas liquid concentration
variation on mass transfer characteristics on multi nozzle jet ejector
There are other systems like -Aquous solution, chlorine-sulfite/bisulfate
solution, Oxygen in alkaline dithionite solution, etc. having commercial importance
may also be considered for further investigation.
The mathematical model developed for rate constant may be extended to other gas-
liquid reaction systems.
The model developed for two step reaction system may be extended for multistep
chemical reaction.
161
APPENDICES
162
APPENDIX - I EXPERIMENTAL DATA
A1.1 - Setup - 1 Single nozzle horizontal jet ejector
A1.1.1 - Temperature 300C, Cl2 - Aquas NaOH system

L = 396 10-3 m3/hr, Gair = 1458 10-3 m3/hr, Pressure = 1.00 atm.
Number 103
Run Nozzle 103 GCl2 CB0 BR1 BR2 BR3 103 CAg1 103 CAg2 103 CAg3 103 RAa
of CAg,in
No. No. m3/hr kmol/m3 ml ml ml kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/sec.m3
Orifice kmol/m3
101 N1 1 22.05 0.95 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.331
102 N1 1 44.10 0.95 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.059
103 N1 1 88.20 0.95 0.75 0.65 0.7 2.409 0.001 0.001 0.001 19.350
104 N1 1 176.40 0.95 0.8 0.7 1 4.818 0.003 0.003 0.002 27.641
105 N1 1 22.05 0.75 0.175 0.125 0.15 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.151
106 N1 1 44.10 0.75 0.325 0.35 0.4 1.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.059
107 N1 1 88.20 0.75 0.9 0.65 0.775 2.409 0.000 0.001 0.001 21.431
108 N1 1 176.40 0.75 1.6 1.3 1.55 4.818 0.001 0.002 0.001 42.851
109 N1 1 22.05 0.525 0.2 0.175 0.225 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.221
110 N1 1 44.10 0.525 0.4 0.35 0.4 1.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.059
111 N1 1 88.20 0.525 0.25 0.24 0.2 2.409 0.002 0.002 0.002 5.569
112 N1 1 176.40 0.525 1.55 1.6 1.7 4.818 0.001 0.001 0.001 47.003
113 N1 1 22.05 0.03 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.535
114 N1 1 44.10 0.03 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.204 0.001 0.000 0.000 8.291
115 N1 1 88.20 0.03 0.7 0.6 0.7 2.409 0.002 0.002 0.002 19.924
116 N1 1 176.40 0.03 4.25 6.35 5 4.818 0.002 0.001 0.002 33.604
117 N1 1 22.05 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.602 0.000 0.000 0.000 --
118 N1 1 44.10 0.00 0.125 0.25 0.2 1.204 0.001 0.001 0.001 --
119 N1 1 88.20 0.00 0.15 0.3 0.25 2.409 0.002 0.002 0.002 --
120 N1 1 176.40 0.00 0.2 0.4 0.3 4.818 0.004 0.004 0.004 --
BR = ml of 0.0905 N Na2 S2O3 required to neutralized 5 ml of sample.
A1.1.2 - Temperature 300C, CO2 - Aquas NaOH system

Number 103 103

Run Nozzle CB0 BR1 BR2 BR 103 RAa
of GCO2 CAg,in
No. No. kmol/m3 ml ml ml kmol/sec.m3
Orifice m3/hr kmol/m3
121 N1 1 88.200 0.95 2.555 47.50 47.00 0.50 16.364

122 N1 1 88.200 0.75 2.555 37.50 37.15 0.35 11.864
123 N1 1 88.200 0.525 2.555 26.30 26.00 0.30 10.739
124 N1 1 88.200 0.31 2.555 15.50 15.25 0.25 9.641
BR = ml of 0.1 N HCl required to neutralized 5 ml of sample.
163
A1.2 - Setup - 2 Vertical multi nozzle jet ejector
A1.2 - Temperature 300C, Cl2 - Aquas NaOH system

Number 103 103

Run Nozzle CB0 BR1 BR2 BR3 103 CAg1 103 CAg2 103 CAg3 103 RAa
of GCl2 CAg,in
No. No. kmol/m3 ml ml ml kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/sec.m3
201 N2 1 110.00 0.52 2.45 1.75 1.25 2.950 1.937 2.588 2.691 2.917
202 N2 75.00 0.52 1.55 1.05 1.20 2.011 1.370 1.794 1.763 2.793
203 N2 50.00 0.52 1.20 0.95 0.80 1.341 0.845 1.144 1.175 1.869
204 N2 35.00 0.52 0.85 0.75 0.60 0.938 0.587 0.783 0.814 1.396
205 N3 3 110.00 0.52 2.50 1.45 1.25 2.950 1.916 2.650 2.691 2.917
206 N3 75.00 0.52 1.60 1.20 1.00 2.011 1.350 1.763 1.804 2.331
207 N3 50.00 0.52 1.20 0.95 0.85 1.341 0.845 1.144 1.165 1.982
208 N3 35.00 0.52 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.938 0.628 0.804 0.825 1.273
209 N4 5 110.00 0.52 2.55 0.65 1.00 2.950 1.896 2.815 2.743 30.016
210 N4 75.00 0.52 1.65 0.50 0.60 2.011 1.329 1.908 1.887 20.475
211 N4 50.00 0.52 1.25 0.35 0.25 1.341 0.824 1.268 1.289 0.586
212 N4 35.00 0.52 0.80 0.30 0.20 0.938 0.608 0.876 0.897 0.462
A1.2 - Temperature 300C, CO2 - Aquas NaOH system ( Pressure = 1.00 atm.)
103
Number 103 103
Run Nozzle 103 L Gair CB0 BR1 BR2 BR 103 RAa
of GCO2 CAg,in
No. No. m3/hr kmol/m3 ml ml ml kmol/sec.m3
m3/hr
221 N2 1 310 2940 150.000 0.14 2.54 2.70 2.45 0.25 14.504
222 N2 1 310 2940 150.000 0.13 2.54 2.55 2.30 0.25 14.504
223 N2 1 310 2940 150.000 0.11 2.54 2.15 1.95 0.20 13.519
224 N2 1 310 2940 150.000 0.09 2.54 1.70 1.55 0.15 12.533
225 N2 310 2940 150.000 0.08 2.54 1.50 1.35 0.15 12.533
226 N3 3 483 2880 150.000 0.22 2.20 4.30 4.00 0.30 13.591
227 N3 3 483 2880 150.000 0.13 2.20 2.55 2.30 0.25 11.778
228 N3 3 483 2880 150.000 0.09 2.20 1.70 1.50 0.20 9.965
229 N3 3 483 2880 150.000 0.08 2.20 1.50 1.35 0.15 8.152
230 N3 3 483 2880 150.000 0.06 2.20 1.20 1.05 0.15 8.152
231 N4 5 428 1500 150.000 0.18 4.22 4.95 4.55 0.40 15.566
232 N4 5 428 1500 150.000 0.14 4.22 3.55 3.20 0.35 13.959
233 N4 5 428 1500 150.000 0.10 4.22 2.85 2.55 0.30 12.353
234 N4 5 428 1500 150.000 0.08 4.22 1.90 1.65 0.25 10.746
235 N4 5 428 1500 150.000 0.06 4.22 1.50 1.30 0.20 9.139
BR = ml of 0.1 N HCl required neutralized 5 ml of sample.
164
A.1.3 - Setup - 3 Multi nozzle jet ejector (Industrial scale)
A1.1 - Temperature 300C, Cl2 - Aquas NaOH system

L = 3520 X 10-3 m3/hr, Gair = 7771 X 10-3 m3/hr, Pressure = 1.00 atm.
Number 103
Run Nozzle 103 GCl2 CB0 BR1 BR2 BR3 103 CAg1 103 CAg2 103 CAg3 103 RAa
of CAg,in
No. No. m3/hr kmol/m3 ml ml ml kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/m3 kmol/sec.m3
Orifice kmol/m3
301 N5 1 571 0.79 1.8 0.8 0.55 2.955 0.917 2.049 2.333 1.069
302 N5 1 380 0.79 1.6 0.95 0.75 1.967 0.155 0.891 1.117 1.461
303 N5 1 285 0.79 1.25 0.7 0.9 1.475 0.06 0.682 0.456 1.751
304 N5 1 190 0.79 0.75 0.65 0.85 0.983 0.134 0.247 0.021 1.653
305 N6 3 571 0.79 2.5 1.75 0.45 2.955 0.124 0.974 2.446 0.875
306 N6 3 380 0.79 1.6 1.4 0.5 1.967 0.155 0.381 1.401 0.973
307 N6 3 285 0.79 1.25 1.3 0.25 1.475 0.06 0.003 1.192 0.486
308 N6 3 190 0.79 0.75 0.6 0.25 0.983 0.134 0.304 0.7 0.486
309 N7 5 571 0.79 2.55 0.75 0.6 2.955 0.068 2.106 2.276 1.167
310 N7 5 380 0.79 1.65 0.6 0.5 1.967 0.098 1.287 1.401 0.973
311 N7 5 285 0.79 1.25 0.4 0.35 1.475 0.06 1.022 1.079 0.681
312 N7 5 190 0.79 0.35 0.4 0.2 0.983 0.587 0.53 0.757 0.388
313 N7 5 571 0.578 2.6 0.6 0.5 2.955 0.011 2.276 2.389 0.973
314 N7 5 380 0.578 1.7 0.45 0.35 1.967 0.042 1.457 1.57 0.682
315 N7 5 285 0.578 1.3 0.3 0.25 1.475 0.003 1.135 1.192 0.486
316 N7 5 190 0.578 0.85 0.25 0.2 0.983 0.021 0.7 0.757 0.388
317 N6 3 571 0.578 2.55 1.4 1.2 2.955 0.068 1.37 1.596 2.336
318 N6 3 380 0.578 1.65 1.15 1 1.967 0.098 0.665 0.834 1.947
319 N6 3 285 0.578 1.25 1 0.9 1.475 0.06 0.343 0.456 1.751
320 N6 3 190 0.578 0.8 0.75 0.55 0.983 0.077 0.134 0.361 1.069
321 N5 1 571 0.578 2.5 1.5 1.25 2.985 0.154 1.286 1.569 2.382
322 N5 1 380 0.578 1.6 1.05 1 1.986 0.175 0.797 0.854 1.913
323 N5 1 285 0.578 1.2 1 0.75 1.49 0.131 0.357 0.641 1.433
324 N5 1 190 0.578 0.75 0.75 0.55 0.993 0.144 0.144 0.37 1.054
325 N5 1 571 0.11 2.55 1 0.95 2.985 0.097 1.853 1.909 1.798
326 N5 1 380 0.11 1.7 0.75 0.6 1.986 0.061 1.137 1.307 1.134
327 N5 1 285 0.11 1.25 0.5 0.45 1.49 0.074 0.924 0.98 0.851
328 N5 1 190 0.11 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.993 0.087 0.54 0.654 0.565
329 N6 3 571 0.11 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.985 0.154 1.286 1.513 2.478
330 N6 3 380 0.11 1.65 1 0.75 1.986 0.118 0.854 1.137 1.426
331 N6 3 285 0.11 1.2 0.65 0.5 1.49 0.131 0.754 0.924 0.947
332 N6 3 190 0.11 0.75 0.55 0.45 0.993 0.144 0.37 0.484 0.858
333 N7 5 571 0.11 1.8 1.6 1.2 2.985 0.947 1.173 1.626 2.284
334 N7 5 380 0.11 1.5 1.15 1.1 1.986 0.288 0.684 0.741 2.107
335 N7 5 285 0.11 1 0.8 0.75 1.49 0.357 0.584 0.641 1.433
336 N7 5 190 0.11 0.65 0.55 0.4 0.993 0.257 0.37 0.54 0.761
165
Appendix 2
Analytical procedure
A 2.1 Testing of available chlorine
The available chlorine was analyzed by the iodometric method. Known amount of (5
ml) of sample was pipetted in a 250 ml of conical flask. Then 5 ml of 10 % Aqueous
KI solution was added. Then 2 ml of glacial acetic acid was added. The liberated I2
was titrated against standard Sodium thiosulphate () by using freshly
prepared starch solution as indicator. The end point of titration was -blue color just
disappeared.
A 2.2 Determination of free sodium hydroxide
In a 250 ml conical flask 50 ml of 10% solution was taken. Then 30 ml of 3%

was added. This mixture was neutralized by 0.1 N NaOH using phenolphthalein
as indicator. After neutralizing solution, 5 ml of sample was added by pipette. It was
properly shaken. Carbonate ion precipitated out and will convert
sodium hypochloride to sodium chloride. This mixture was filtered, washed and
filtrate was titrated against standard 0.1 N HCl. The amount of 0.1 N HCl used gives
the amount of absorbed by NaOH solution.
A 2.3 Calculation of chlorine reacted
In this work the different concentration of - air mixture was brought in contact
with deferent concentrations of caustic soda (NaOH). The reaction is as follow.
2 + + + (A2.1)
40x2 71 74.5 58.5 18
The amount of chlorine reacted was estimated by using iodometry. The KI solution is
added. The iodine liberate is proportion to available chlorine. The liberated iodine is
titrated with standard sodium thiosulfate solution. The reactions are
+ 2 + + 2 + (A2.2)
74.5 166x2 18 58.5 56x2 254
166
+ 2 2 + (A.2.3)
254 2x158 2x150 270
Thus
71 gm of = 158 x 2 gms of
71 gm of = 2000 ml of 1 N
35.5 gm = 1000 ml of 1 N
0.0355 gm = 1 ml of 1 N
gm of = 0.0355 x BR x N
Where
N - Normality of Sol
BR - Burette Reading in ml
A 2.4 Calculation of
Different diameter of soap film meter were used to measure flow rate of chlorine and
air,
Volumetric flow rate = Cross section area x velocity
Now, inside diameter of soap film meter used for Air = 70 mm
/ 4 (7) 40 3600
= = (. 24)
1000
= 5.5389 10/ / (A2.4)
Where tf = time required in second to travel soap film 40 cm.

Similarly, inside diameter of film meter for chlorine = 25 mm
/ 4 2.5 400 3600
= = = (2.5)
1000
= 706.4/ / (2.5)
167
/ . 273
= (2.6)
22.4
Where P is pressure in atmosphere
T is temperature of
706.4 12.187
/ = (2.7)

= 8608.89 / x T
Similarly,
67.5053 10
= = (2.8)

, = Initial concentration gmole/lit = ( ) / ( + ) (A2.9)
= Initial mole fraction of A = ( ) / ( + ) (A2.10)
Now as >>

= , = ( )/ ( ) / (2.11)

A 2.5 Calculation Concentration of chlorine at different sample point in ejector ( )
= , moles of reacted litter of mixture
1000
= ,
. 71
0.0355 1000
= ,
. 71
0.5
= , (2.12)
.
(2.13)
168
a) volumetric rate of reaction for
A 2.6 Calculation of (.

. a = =

1
=
3600
, 10
=
3600 1000 ( )
a) volumetric rate of reaction for CO2

A 2.7 Calculation of (.
a) the carbon dioxide (pure) and sodium hydroxide solution is used.

For measuring (.
The react with NaOH to produce . The amount of reacted in
particular part of system is measured by estimating amount of NaOH un-reacted. It
involves the following reactions.
+ + (A2.14)
40 36.5 58.5 18
2 + + (A2.15)
80 44 106 18
+ + 2 (A2.16)
Thus,
44 gm = 2000 ml 1 N NaOH
44 gm = 2000 ml 1 N HCl
0.022 gm = 1ml 1 N HCl.
If ( ) = Differential Amount of HCl required to neutralize w ml of

sample before and after addition to solution.
Then,
( ) 0.022
= (2.17)

169
If flow rate of liquid is L lit / hr
Then Now
( ) 0.022
/= (A2.18)
3600
( ) 0.022
/= (A2.19)
44 3600
( ) 0.022
, = , / (A2.20)
44 3600

. a =

= (A2.21)
1000
Now, a = ( )/ sec ( )
( ) . . ( )
. a = =
(A2.22)

1.3889 10( )
. a = / sec (2.23)

where - is a burette reading before adding barium carbonate
- is a burette reading after adding barium carbonate
ml of sample titrated
Normality of hydrochloric acid
-Volume of reactor m3
-Liquid flow in lit/hr m3/hr
170
Appendix 3
Prediction of physical properties
For different calculations we need different physico-chemical properties. In some cases we
have properties at particular temperature developed by researchers. We can predict the value
at required temperature followings are some of the co-relation used to predict value at
required temperature.
A 3.1 Henrys law constants
The well known expression of Henrys law is given by the correlation:
= = '
Where = mole fraction of the solute in the liquid phase;
= concentration of A in kmole/m3
= partial pressure of the solute in the gas phase, expressed in atmospheres
or kilopascals
= the Henrys law coefficient expressed in kilopascals/ mole-fraction
solute in liquid
' = the Henrys law coefficient expressed in kilopascals/ kmole m3
In case of electrolyte solution Henrys law constants can be estimated by using the
method of evan Krevelen and Hoftijzr described by Danckwerts (1970). According to
this method Henrys law constant for electrolyte solutions ( ) is related with
Henrys law constant of pure water ( ) by the correlation :

=

or

=

or

=

where is the salting-out factor, and is the ionic strength of the aqueous electrolyte
solution. The salting out factor , is defined in terms of the contributions of the
positive and negative ions in the aqueous solution, respectively, and the contribution
of the gas,
= + + (8.37)
when the value of ks for ion or gas is not known then the value of a similar ion/gas
can be used.
171
The ionic strength of the aqueous electrolyte solution , is defined in terms of the
concentration of the ionic species that are present in the solution and their
valences, , according to the following equation:
1
= (8.38)
2
The compiled values of, , evaluated by Barret (1966) and van Krevelen and Hoftijzr
(1948) are reported in Danckewert (1970).
Calculated values for - aqueous solution system.

20 0.1005 - 0.0145
30 0.0903 - 0.0247
40 0.0854 - 0.0296
50 0.0793 - 0.0357
A 3.2 Temperature correction of diffusivity

The diffusivities are either predicted theoretically by using different correlations
available in the literature or determined experimentally. But the diffusivities are
corrected for temperature by using Stokes-Einstein equation

= (8.39)

Where is temperature in , is the viscosity at temp in /( . ), and is the
diffusivity of solute in /.
In the present work , we have assumed that the diffusion coefficients of the ionic
chemical spices ( , and ) are equal to the that of . The value of the
diffusion coefficient for in water at 298 is considered to be 3.42
10 /, (Hikita et al., 1973) and was correct for temperature and viscosity of the
aqueous solutions by using above Stokes-Einstein equation.
A 3.3 Dissociation equilibrium constant
Values of equilibrium constant of a chemical reaction can be estimated at 298.15 in

standard Gibbs energy change of reaction . by using the following equations:

.
(298.15) =
298.15
The correction of equilibrium constant of a chemical reaction for temperature may be carried
by can be done by vant Hoffs equation.
172
A3.4 - Average properties used
Species Property Value Condition Reference

Chlorine Diffusivity 1.48 10 / , 298 Splalding (1962)

1.68 10 / , 303 Calculated
1.67 10 / 0.03 303 Calculated
1.636 10 / 0.11 303 Calculated

1.51 10 / 0.523 303 Calculated

1.44 10 / 0.578 303 Calculated
1.435 10 / 0.75 303 Calculated
1.42 10 / 0.79 303 Calculated

1.38 10 / 0.95 303 Calculated

Physical Solubility 0.0525 / , 303 Brian et al. (1996)
0.0520 / 0.03 , , 303 Calculated

0.0473 / 0.523 , , 303 Calculated

0.0444 / 0.75 , , 303 Calculated
0.0438 / 0.95 , , 303 Calculated
0.0513 / 0.11 , , 303 Calculated

0.0464 / 0.57 , , 303 Calculated

0.044 / 0.79 , , 303 Calculated
Henrys law const. 19.55 . / , 303 Ashour (1996)
16.4 . / Water, 298.15 Rulz-Ibanez (1991)

Diffusivity 1.75 10 / 0.1 , 303 Ashour (1996)

Diffusivity 3.89 10 / 0.1 , 303 Ashour (1996)
Density 0.9960 10/ 0.0996 , 303 Ashour (1996)
Solution
Viscosity 0.802 10/ 0.0996 , 303 Ashour (1996)
/ 2.32 At infinity dilution of Hikita (1993)
solution
/ 1.04
/ 1.4
/ 0.786
Diffusivity 2.05 10 / 0.5 , 303 Hikita (1976)
2.15 10 / 0.25 , 303 Hikita (1976)

2.19 10 / 0.125 , 303 Hikita (1976)

Physical Solubility 2.66 / 0.125 , 303 Hikita (1976)
2.49 / 0.25 , 303 Hikita (1976)

2.17 / 0.5 , 303 Hikita (1976)

32 . / 0.5 , 303 Patel (2004)
173
Values of rate constant
Equilibrium at reaction Reference

constant

4.5 10 298 ,
+ + + (8.2)
Connick et al. (1959)
( / )
2.2 10 303 ,
+ + (8.3)
Morris (1966)
/
3.1 10 303 ,
+ + (8.4)
Connick et al. (1959)
/
1.447 10 303 ,
+ Olofsson and Hepler
( /) (1975)
9.61 10 303 2 + + Hikita (1976)

/
1.57 293 For equation (8.2)

16.4 298 6138.6 Brian et al. (1966)
= 1.4527 10 .
23.0 303
/ .
32.0 308
44.0 313
174
APPENDIX 5
PHOTOGRPAHS OF EXPERIMENTS
A.5.1 : Photograph of experimental set up 2
178
A.5.2 : Photograph of experimental set up 3
179
A.5.3 : Photograph of industrial scale ejector used in set up 3
180
REFERENCES
Acharjee, D. K., Bhat, P. A., Mitra, A. K., and Roy, A. N., (1975), Studies on momentum
transfer in vertical liquid jet ejectors, Indian Journal of Technology, 13, 205-210.
Agrawal, K. S. (1999), Studies on Ejector, M.E. Dissertation, The Maharaja Sayajirao

University of Baroda, Vadodara.
Ahari, J. S., Forsat, K., Djenab, M. H., Mohammadbigy, K., Vahidi, M., and Shafiei, Z.,
(2008), Predictive model of hydrogen sulfide absorption by chelate solution in a venturi
scrubber, Chemical Enginering Technology, 31(10), 1481-86.
Akafuah Nelson Kudzo, (2009), Visualization and characterization of ultrasonic cavitating

atomizer and other automotive paint sprayers using infrared thermography, A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
the College of Engineering at the University of Kentucky.
AlvarezFuster, C., Midoux, N., Laurent, A., and Charpentier, J. C., (1981), Chemical
kinetics of the reaction of CO2 with amines in pseudo m-nth order conditions in polar and
viscous organic solutions, Chemical Engineering Science, 36, 1513-1518.
AlvarezFuster, C., Midoux, N., Laurent, A., and Charpentier, J. C., (1980), Chemical
kinetics of the reaction of carbon dioxide with amines in pseudo m-nth order conditions in
aqueous and organic solutions, Chemical Engineering Science, 35, 1717-1723.
Ananthanarayanan, N. V., and Viswanathan, S., (1999), Predicting the liquid flux
distribution and collection efficiency in cylindrical venturi scrubbers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
38, 223-232.
Ananthanarayanan, N. V., and Viswanathan, S, (1998), Estimating Maximum Removal

Efficiencyin Venturi Scrubbers, AIChE Journal, 44(11), 2539-2560.
Appusamy, A., Iyyaswamy, R. and Murugesan T., (2008), Gas holdup and energy dissipation
in liquid-gas ejectors, Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology , 83, 1064-1071.
Asai, S., Yasuhiro, K., and Hiroaki, Y., (1986), Mass transfer with chemical reaction in two
phases, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam, 25, 3452-454.
178
Ashour, S. S., Edward, R. B., and Orville, C., (1996), Absorption of chlorine into aqueous
bicarbonate solutions and aqueous hydroxide solutions, AIChE Journal, 42(A3), 671-682.
Atay I., Gordon, L., and Richard, T., (1987), Fluid flow and gas absorption in an ejector
venturi scrubber, Environmental Progress, 6 (3), 198-203.
Atay, I., (1986), Fluid flow and gas absorption, in an ejector venturi scrubber, Dissertationlty
for the degree of Doctor of Engineering Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Azad, M., and Sultana, R. A., (2006), Numerical model for bubble size distribution in
turbulent gas-liquid dispersion, Journal of Chemical Engineering, IEB., 24(1), 25-34.
Azzopardi, B. J., Teixeira, S., Govan, A., and Bott, T., (1991), An improved model for
pressure drop in venturi scrubbers, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., B 69, 5564.
Bailer Frank Oliver, (2001), Mass Transfer Characteristics of a Novel Gas-Liquid Contactor,
The Advanced Buss Loop Reactor, A Dissertation submitted to the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology for degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences, Zurich.
Bakshi, B.R., Jiang, P. and Fan, L. S., (1995), Analysis of flow in gas-liquid bubble columns
using multi-resolution methods, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Gas-
Liquid-Solid Reactor Engineering, Cambridge, U.K., 27-29 March, pp. A1-A8.
Balamurugan, S., Gaikar, V. G., and Patwardhan, A. W., (2008), Effect of ejector
configuration on hydrodynamic characteristics of gasliquid ejectors, Chemical Engineering
Science, 63, 721-731.
Balamurugan, S., Lad, M. D., Gaikar, V. G., and Patwardhan, A. W., (2007), Effect of
geometry on mass transfer characteristics of ejectors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,46, 8505-8517
Bandyopadhyay Amitava and Biswas Manindra, N., (2006), Prediction of the removal
efficiency of a novel two-stage hybrid scrubber for flue gas desulfurization, Chem. Eng.
Technol., 29, 1, 130-145.
Bandyopadhyay Amitava and Biswas Manindra, N., (2007a), SO2 scrubbing in a tapered
bubble column scrubber, Chemical Engineering Communications, 193(12), 1562-1580.
Bandyopadhyay Amitava and Biswas Manindra, N., (2007b), Spray scrubbing of particulates
with a critical flow atomizer, Chem. Eng. Technol. 30, 12, 16741685.
179
Barreras, F., Amaveda, H., Lozano, A., (2002), Transient high-frequency ultrasonic water
atomization, Experiments in Fluids, 33, 405413.
Beg, S.A., and Taheri, M., (1974), Gas absorption studies in butterfly valve scrubber, Atmos.
Environ., 8, 947955.
Beltran, F. J., Fernandez, L. A., Alvarez P., and Rodriguez E., (1998), Comparison of kinetic
data from film and Danckwerts theories, Ozone Science and Engineering, 20, 403-420.
Ben Brahim, A., Prevost, M., and Bugarel, R., (1984), Momentum transfer in a vertical down
flow liquid jet ejector: case of self gas aspiration and emulsion flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
10 (1), 7994.
Ben Ebrahim, A., Prevost, M., and Bugarel, R., (1984), Momentum transfer in a vertical
down flow liquid jet ejector: case of self aspiration and emulsion flow, International Journal
of Multiphase Flow, 10 (1), 79-94.
Bergwerk, W., (1959), Flow pattern in diesel nozzle spray holes, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 173, 655.
Bhat, P.A., Mitra, A.K., and Roy, A.N., (1975), Momentum transfer in a horizontal liquid jet
ejector, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 50, 313-317.
Bhat, P.A., Mitra, A.K., Roy, A.N., (1972), Momentum transfer in a horizontal liquid jet
ejector, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 50, 313-317.
Bhatt Nirav, Amrhein Michael, and Bonvin Dominique, (2007), Incremental Identification of
Reaction and Mass Transfer Kinetics Using the Concept of Extents, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, A-
O.
Bhatt Nirav, Amrhein Michael, and Bonvin Dominique, (2010), Extents of Reaction, Mass
Transfer and Flow for Gas-Liquid Reaction Systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 49, 77047717.
Bhutada, S.R., and Pangarkar, V.G., (1987), Gas induction and hold-up characteristics of
liquid jet loop reactors, Chemical Engineering Communications 61, 239-261.
Bin, A. K., (1993), Gas entrainment by plunging liquid jet, Chem Eng Science, 48,
35853630.
180
Biswas, M. N., and Mitra, A. K., (1981), Momentum transfer in horizontal multi-jet liquid
gas ejector, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 59, 634-637.
Biswas, M. N., Mitra, A. K., and Roy, A. N., (1975), Studies on gas dispersion in a horizontal
liquid jet ejector, Second Symposium on Jet Pumps and Ejectors and Gas Lift Techniques
Cambridge, England, March 24-26, BHRA, E3-27-42.
Biswas, M. N., Mitra, A. K., and Roy, A. N., (1977), Effective interfacial area in a liquid-jet
induced horizontal gas-liquid pipeline contactor, Indian Chemical Engineering,
XIX (2), 15-21.
Black, D. L., McQuay, M. Q., and Bonin, M. P., (1996), Laser-based techniques for particle
size measurement: a review of sizing methods and their industrial applications, Progress in
Energy Combustion Science, 22, 267-306.
Blenke, H., Bohner, K., and Vollmerhaus, E., (1963), Investigations into the calculation of jet
pump performance, Cheme Ingenieur Technik, 35(3), 201-208.
Boll, R. H., (1973), Particle collection and pressure drop in venturi scrubbers, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fund., 12(1), 40-50.
Boll, R. H., Flais, L. R., Maurer, P. W., and Thompson, W. L., (1974), Mean drop size in a
full scale venturi scrubber via transmissometer, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 24(10),
934938.
Bonnington, S. T., (1956), Water jet ejectors, BHRA Publication, RR540.
Bonnington, S. T., (1960), Water driven air ejectors, BHRA Publication, SP664.
Bonnington, S. T., (1964), A guide to jet pump design, British Chemical Engineering, 9(3),
150-154.
Bonnington, S. T., and King, A. L., (1972), Jet pumps and ejectors, a state of the art review
and bibliography, Published by BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, Bedford, England.
Botton, R., Cosserat, D., and Charpentier, J. C., (1987), A new laboratory apparatus for the
study of International Chemical Engineering, 27(2), 143.
181
Boyadzhiev Kh., (1964), On the optimal flow rate of liquids during chemisorptions in a
venturi tube, Int. Chem. Eng., 4 2226.
Brennen, C.E., (1995), Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Oxford University Press.
Brian, P. L. T. and Beaverstock, M. C., (1965), Gas absorption accompanied by a two-step

chemical reaction, Chem. Eng. Sci, 20, 47-56.
Brian, P. L. T., Vivian, J.E., and Piazza, C., (1966), The effect of temperature on the ratio of
absoraption of chlorine in to water, Chem. Eng. Sci, 21, 551.
Calvert, S., (1970), Venturi and other atomizing scrubbers efficiency and pressure drop,
16, 392-396.
Calvert, S., (1970), Venturi and other atomizing scrubers, AIChE Journal, 16(3), 392.
Cao, J., and Christensen, R. N., (2000), Analysis of moving boundary problem for bubble
collapse in binary solutions, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications, 38(7), 681-699.
Castleman, R. A., (1931), Mechanism of atomization of liquids, U.S. National Bureau of

Standard Journal Research, 6, 281.
Cents, A., Bruijn, H. G., F. T. de., Brilman, D. W. F., and Versteeg, G. F., (2005),
Validation of the Danckwerts-plot technique by simultaneous chemical absorption of CO2
and physical desorption of O2, Chemical Engineering Science, 60, 58095818.
Ceylan, K., Altunbas, A., and Kelbaliyev, G., (2001), A new model for estimation of drag
force in the flow of Newtonian fluids around rigid or deformable particles, Powder
Technology, 119, 250256.
Chandrasekhar, S., (1961), The capillary instability of a liquid jet, In Hydrodynamic and
Hydromagnetic Stability, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 537-542.
Charpentier, J. C., (1976), Review paper- recent progress in two phase gas -liquid mass
transfer in packed beds, Chemical Engineering Journal,,11, 161-181.
Charpentier, J. C., (1982), Whats new in absorption with chemical reaction?, Trans. Institute
of Chemical Engineers,60, 131.
182
Chaves, H., Knapp, M., Kubitzek, A., Obermeier, F., and Schneider, T., (1991),
Experimental study of cavitation in the nozzle hole of diesel injectors using transparent
nozzles, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 950290, 645-657.
Chehroudi, B., Onuma, Y., Chen, S., and Bracco, F., (1985), On the intact core of full-cone
sprays, SAE, Paper No. 850126.
Chigier, N., and Reitz, R. D., (1996), Regimes of jetbreakup and breakup mechanisms
(physical aspects). In Recent Advances in Spray Com-bustion: Spray Atomization and Drop
Burn-ing Phenomena, 1, 10935.
Chilton, T. H., and Colburn, A. P., (1934), Mass transfer (absorption) coefficients prediction
from data on heat transfer and fluid friction, Ind. Eng. Chem., 2(11), 1183-1187.
Ciborowski, J., and Bin, A., (1972b), Investigation of the aeration effect of plunging liquid
jets. Ini. Chem., (Polish), 2, 557-577.
Connick, A. E. and Chia,Y. T. (1959), The hydrolysis of chlorine and its variation with
temperature, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 81, 1280.
Cooney, D. O., (1985), Modeling venturi scrubber performance for H2S removal from oil-
shale retort gases, Chemical Engineering Communications, 35, (1-6), 315-338.
Cooney, D. O., (1992) Simultaneous absorption of an acid gas (H2S) and a basic gas (NH3) in
a scrubbing device, Chemical Engineering Communications, 114 (1),103-116.
Cooney, D. O., and Daniel P. O., (1987), Absorption of SO2 and H2S in small-scale venturi
scrubbers, Chemical Engineering Communications, 51, 1-6.
Cramers, P. H. M. R., and Beenackers, A. A. C. M., (2001), Influence of the ejector

configuration, scale and the gas density on the mass transfer characteristics of gasliquid
ejectors, Chemical Engineering Journal, 82, 131141.
Cramers, P. H. M. R., Beenackers, A. A. C. M. and Van Dierendonck, L. L., (1992).

Hydrodynamics and mass transfer characteristics of a loop-venturi reactor with a down flow
liquid jet ejector, Chem. Engg. Sci., 47, 3557-3564.
Crane, L., Birch, S., and McCormack, P. D., (1964), The effect of mechanical vibration on
the breakup of a cylindrical water jet in air, British Journal of Applied Physics, 15, 743-750.
183
Crowder, J. W., Wu, T. K. L., and Winkle, W. V., (1981), Modeling of venturi scrubber
performance, Environmental Technology Letters, 2, 8, 337-346.
Crowder, J.W., Noll, K.E., and Davis, W.T., (1982), Modeling of venturi scrubber efficiency,
Atmospheric Environment, 16 (8), pp. 2009-2013.
Cunningham, R. G., (1974a), Gas Compression with the Liquid Jet Pump, ASME Publication,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, 203-217.
Cunningham, R. G., and Dopkin, R. J., (1974b), Jet breakup and mixing throat lengths for the
liquid jet gas pump, Transactions on ASME, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 96, 216-226.
Danckwert, P. V., Kennedy, A. M., and Roberts, D., (1963), Kinetics of CO2 absorption in
alkaline solutions-II, Chemical Engineering Science, 18, 63-72.
Danckwerts, P. V. and Gillham, P. V., (1966),The design of gas absorbers, Trans. Inst.
Chern. Engrs., 44, T42-TS4.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1950a), Absorption by simultaneous diffusion and chemical reaction.

Trans. Faraday Society, 46, 300.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1950b), Unsteady-state diffusion or heat conduction with moving

boundary, Trans. Faraday Society, 46, 701.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1951), absorption by simultaneous diffusion and chemical reaction into
particles of various shapes and into falling drops, Trans. Faraday Society, 47, 1014.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1967), Gas-absorption accompanied by first-order reaction: concentration

of product, temperature-rise and depletion of reactant, Chemical Engineering Science, 22,
472-473.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1968), Gas absorption with instantaneous reaction, Chemical

Engineering Science , 23, 1045-1051.
Danckwerts, P. V., (1970), Gas-Liquid Reactions, Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Danckwerts, P. V., and Kennedy, A. M., (1958), The kinetics of absorption of carbon dioxide
into neutral and alkaline solutions, Chemical Engineering Science-Genie Chimique, 8, (3/4),
201-215.
184
Danckwerts, P. V., and Kennedy, B.E., (1954), Kinetics of liquid-film process in gas
absorption. part I : Models of the absorption process, Transactions of the Institution Chemical
Engineers, 32, S101-S104.
Danckwerts, P.V., and Sharma, M.M., (1966), Absorption of carbon dioxide into solutions of
alkalis and amines, The Chemical Engineer, CE, 244280.
Das, S. K., and Biswas, M. N., (2006), Studies on ejector-venturi fume scrubber, Chemical
Engineering Journal, 119, 153-160.
Dasappa, S., Paul, P. J., and Mukunda, H. J., (1993), Fluid dynamic studies on ejectors for
thermal applications of gasifiers, Proceedings of Forth National Meet on Biogass
Gassification and Combution, Mysure.
Davies, (1972), Turbulence Phenomena, Academic, New York.
Davis, G.S., Mitra, A.K., and Roy, A.N., (1967), Momentum transfer studies in ejectors,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, 6, 293-299.
Davis, W. J., (1963), The effect of the Froude number in estimating vertical 2-phase gas-
liquid friction losses, Brit. Chem. Eng., 8, 462-465.
Dehkordi Asghar Molaei and Chiya Savari, (2011), Determination of interfacial area and
overall volumetric mass-transfer coefficient in a novel type of two impinging streams reactor
by chemical method, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50, 64266435.
DeJuhasz, K. J., (1960), Spray Literature Abstracts, New York, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Dennis Gary A., (1966), A study of injector spray characteristics in simulated rocket
combustion chamber including longitudinal mode pressure oscillation, NASA, Technical
Report No 730.
Dierendonck, L. L., Zahradnk , J., and Linek V., (1998), Loop venturi reactorsa feasible
alternative to stirred tank reactors?, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 37, 734-738.
Dimiccoli, A., Serio, M., and Santacesaria, E., (2000), Mass transfer and kinetics in spray-
tower-loop absorbers and reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 39, 4082-4093.
185
Dirix, C. A. M. C., and Wiele, K., (1990), Mass transfer in jet loop reactors, Chemical
Engineering Science, 45(8), 2333-2340.
Doraiswamy, L. K., and Sharma, M. M., (1984), Heterogeneous Reactions: Analysis,

Examples, and Reactor Design, In Fluid-Fluid-Solid Reactions Volume-2, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Dutta, N. N., and Raghawan, K. V., (1987), Mass transfer and hydrodynamic characteristics
of loop reactors with down flow liquid jet ejector, Chemical Engineering Journal,
36, 111-121.
Economopoulou Alexia, A., and Harrison Roy, M., (2007), Graphical analysis of the
performance of venturi scrubbers for particle abatement, Part I : Rapid collection efficiency
evaluation, Aerosol Science and Technology, 41, 5162.
Elgozali, A., Linek, V., Fialova, M., Wein, O., and Zahradnik, J., (2002), Influence of
viscosity and surface tension on performance of gas--liquid contactors with ejector type gas
distributor, Chemical Engineering Science, 57, 2987-2994.
Engel, O. G., (1958), Fragmentations of water drops in the zone behind an air shock, Journal
of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 60, 245.
Eroglu, H., Chigier, N., and Farago Z., (1991), Coaxial atomizer liquid intact lengths,
Phys. Fluids, A.3, 303308.
Evans, G. M., Jameson, G. J., and Atkinson, E. W., (1992), Prediction of the bubble size
generated by a plunging liquid jet bubble column, Chemical Engineering Science, 47, 3265-
3272.
Faeth, G., (1990), Structure and atomization properties of dense turbulent sprays, In 23rd
International Symposium on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, 13451352.
Faeth, G., (1995), Structure and breakup properties of sprays, International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, 21, 99-127.
Faeth, G., (1999), Liquid atomization in multiphase flows : a review, In 30th AIAA Fluid
Dynamics Conference, Paper Number 99, 3639.
186
Fernandez, R., (2001), Calculation of injector characteristics using a commercial CFD code,
Thesis for Diploma, The Institute of Thermal Turbo machines and Power plants, University
of Technology, Vienna.
Frago, Z., and Chigier, N., (1992), Morphological classification of disintegration of round
liquid jet in a coaxial airstream, Atomization and spays, 2, 137152.
Frank Thomas, (2005), Advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) of 3-dimensional

gas-liquid multiphase flows, NAFEMS Seminar: Simulation of Complex Flows (CFD),
Niedernhausen/Wiesbaden, Germany April 25 - 26.
Fraser, R. P., and Paul Eisenklam Norman, (1962), Drop formation from rapidly moving
liquid sheets, AIhE Journal, 8(5), 672-680.
Gamisans, X., Sarra, M., and Lafuente, F.J., (2004), The role of the liquid film on the mass
transfer in venturi-based scrubbers, Trans IChemE, Part A, 82(A3), 372-380.
Gamisansa, X., Sarrab, M., and Lafuente, F. J., (2002), Gas pollutants removal in a single and
two-stage ejector venturi scrubber, Journal of Hazardous Materials, B90, 251-266.
Gandhi Ankit, B., Gupta Prashant, P., Joshi Jyeshtharaj, B., Valadi K. Jayaraman, and
Kulkarni Bhaskar, D., (2009), Development of unified correlations for volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient and effective interfacial area in bubble column reactors for various gas-
liquid systems using support vector regression, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 48, 42164236.
Gelfland, B., (1996), Droplet breakup phenomena in flows with velocity lag, Progress in
Energy and Combustion Sciences, 22, 20126.
Geschner, F., Chaves, H., and Obermeier, F. (2001), Investigation of Different Phenomena of
the Disintegration of a Sinusoidally Forced Liquid Jet. ILASS-Europe, Zurich, 2-6 September.
Geschner, F., Chaves, H., and Obermeier, F. (2004), Non-Dimensional Map for the
Appearance of Spray Structures of a Periodically Excited Liquid Jet, DFG Schwerpunk
programm Fluidzerst Aaubung und SprAuhvorg Aange DFG-Priority Program Atomization
and Spray Processes, Dortmund, 18-19 March.
Goel, K.C., and Hollands, K.G.T., (1977), Optimum design of venturi scrubbers, Atmospheric
Environment, 11(9), 837-845.
187
Gokalp, I., and Chauveau, C., (2000), Improving droplet break-up and vaporization models
by including high pressure and turbulence effects, Atomization and Sprays, 10, 475510.
Gokalp, I., Chauveau, C., Morin, C., and Vieille, B., (2001), Cassure et vaporisation des
gouttes : effets de la pression, In Combustion Dans Les Moteurs Fusees, Actes du Colloque
de Synthese du Groupe de Recherche, CNES/CNRS/ONERA/SNECMA.
Gokalp, I., Vieille, B., and Bodele, E., (2000), Modeling droplet break-up effects for
highpressure cryogenic spray combustion codes. In 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibits, Huntsville (USA), July.
Gomez-Daz, D., and Navaza, J. M., (2005), Gas/liquid mass transfer processes in a carbon
ioxide/alkane system, J Chem Technol Biotechnol, 80, 812818.
Gourich, B., Azher, N., Vial, C., Soulami, M. B., Ziyad, M., and Zoulalian, A., (2007),
Influence of operating conditions and design parameters on hydrodynamics and mass transfer
in an emulsion loopventuri reactor, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46, 139149.
Govatos, G. C., (1981), The slurry pump, Journal of Pipelines, 1, 145-157.
Gulbeyi Dursun, and Cevdet, (2006), Akosman Gasliquid interfacial area and mass transfer
coefficient in a co-current down flow contacting column, J Chem Technol Biotechnol, 81,
18591865.
Haenlein A., (1932), On the Disruption of a Liquid Jet, National Advisory Committee
Aeronautics, Technical Memorandum, 659.
Havelka P., V. Linek, J., Sinkule, J., Zahradnik, M., and Fialova, (2000), Hydrodynamic and
mass transfer characteristics of ejector loop reactors, Chemical Engg. Science, 55, 535-549.
Havelka, P., Linek, V., Sinkule, J., Zahradnnik, J., and FialovaH. M., (1997), Effect of the
ejector confugaration on the gas suction rate and gas hold-up in ejector loop reactors.
Chemical Engineering Science, 52, 1701-1713.
Henzler, H.J., (1983), Design of ejectors for single-fluid material systems, German Chemical
Engineering, 6, 292-30.
188
Herrero Edgar, Vallea, P., Del, E. M. M., and Galan, M. A., (2007), Instability study of an
annular liquid sheet of polymer produced by atomization, Proceedings of European Congress
of Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6) Copenhagen, 16-20 September.
Hikita H., Asai, S., and Takatsuka, T., (1876), Absorption of carbon dioxide in to aqueous
sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate-bicarbonate solutions, The Chemical Engineering
Journal, 11, 131-141.
Hikita, H., Asai, S., and Takatsuka, T., (1972), Gas absorption with a two-step instantaneous
chemical reaction, The Chemical Engineering Journal, 4 (1), 31-40.
Hikita, H., Asai, S., Himukashi Y., and Takatsuka, T., (1973), Absorption of chlorine into
aqueous sodium hydroxide solutions, Chemical Engineering Journal,, 5, 77-84.
Hills, J. H., (1976), The operation of a bubble column at high throughputs in gas holdup
measurements, Chem. Eng., 12, 89-99.
Hinze, J. O., (1949), Forced deformations of viscous liquid globules, Applied Scientific
Research, 1(1), 263-272.
Hinze, J. O., (1955), Fundamentals of the hydrodynamic mechanism of splitting in dispersion

processes, AIChE J, 1(3), 289-295.
Hinze, J., (1959), Turbulence, New-York : Mc Graw-Hill.
Hirner, W., and Blenke, H., (1969), Gas gehalt und phascngren zflache in schlaufen und
strahl reaktoren, Verfahrenstechnik 11, York.
Hiroyasu H., Arai M., and Shimizu M., (1991), Breack up length of a liquid jet and internal
flow in a nozzle, Procedings of ICLASS-91, Paper No. 26.
Hopfinger, E., (2001), Atomization of a Liquid Jet by a Coaxial Gas Jet : A Critical Review,
In Combustion Dans Les Moteurs Fuses, Actes du Colloque de Synthse du Groupe de
Recherche CNES/CNRS/ONERA/SNECMA, Toulouse, Cit de lEspace (FRANCE), June.
Hwang, S., Z., Liu, and Reitz, R., (1996), Breakup mechanisms and drag coefficients of high-
speed vaporizing liquid drops, Atomization and Sprays, 6, 353376.
189
Ingebo Robert D., (1991), Effect of gas mass flux on cryogenic liquid jet breakup, Paper
Presented at Space Cryogenics Workshop, Clevlend,OH, USA, June.
Jackson, M. L., (1964), Gas Absorption in Venturis, A.I.Ch.E.J., 10.
Jhaveri, A. S. and Sharma, M.M., (1968), Effective interfacial area in packed column,
Chemial Engineering Science, 23, 669-676.
Johnstone, H. F. Tassler, M. C., and Field, R. B., (1954), Gas absorption and aerosol
collection in a venturi atomizer, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 46, 1601-1608.
Joosten, G. E. H., and Danckwerts, P. V., (1973), Chemical reaction and effective interfacial
areas in gas absorption, Chemial Engineering Sience, 28, 453-461.
Kandakure, M.T., Gaikar, V.G., and Patwardhan, A.W., (2005), Hydrodynamic aspects of
ejectors, Chemical Engineering Science, 60, 63916402.
Kankkunen, A. and Nieminen, K., (1997), Black liquor sheet breakup mechanisms and the
effect on drop size, International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, 24 (1-3), 350-357.
Kashdan, J. T., Shrimpton J. S., Booth H. J., and Whybrew A., (2000), Assessment of particle
characterization via phase doppler anemometry and automated particle image analysis
techniques, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Application of Laser
Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, 10-13 July.
Kashdana J.T., Shrimptona J.S., Whybrew A., (2007), A digital image analysis technique for
quantitative characterisation of high-speed sprays, Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 45,
106-115.
Kazuya Shibata, Seiichi Koshizuka, and Yoshiaki Oka, (2004), Numerical analysis of jet
breakup behavior using particle method, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 41, 7,
715722.
Kendoush, A.A., Al-khatab, S.A.W., (1989), Flow regimes characterization in vertical

downward two phase flow, In: Chen, X.Z., Veziroglu, T.N., Tien, C.L. (Eds.), Multiphase
Flow and Heat Transfer, Second International Symposium, I, 215-220.
Kim M., Kim O, Leea D, Kim S., (2007), Numerical and experimental investigations of gas-
liquid dispersion in an Ejector, Chemical Engineering Science, 62, 7133-7139.
190
Kitscha, J. & Kocamustafaogullari, G., (1989), Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 15 (4), 573-588.
Knapp, R.T, Daily, J.W., and Hammitt, F.G. (1970). Cavitation, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Koetsier, W. T., Van Swaiij, W. P. M., and Van der Most. M., (1976), Maximum gas holdup
in bubble columns, J. Chem. Eng. (Japan), 9. 332-333.
Kolmogorov, A., (1949), On the desintegration of drops by turbulent flows. dokl. acad. nauk.
SSSR, 66, 825828.
Kordac, M., and Linek, V., (2008), Dynamic measurement of carbon dioxide volumetric
mass transfer coefficient in a well-mixed reactor using a ph probe:analysis of the salt and
supersaturation effects, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 47, 1310-1317.
Krauss, W. E., (1970), Water Drop Deformation and Fragmentation Due to Shock Wave
Impact, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida.
Kroll, A. E., (1947), The design of jet pump, Chemical Engg. Progress, 43(2), 21-24.
Krzeczkowski Stefan A., (1980), Measurement of liquid droplet disintegration mechanisms,

In I. J. Multiphase Flow, 6, 227-239.
Kuferath, A., Wende, B., and Leuckel, W., (1999), Influence of liquid flow conditions on
spray characteristics of internal-mixing twin fluid atomizers, International Journal of Heat
and Fluid Flow, 20, 513-519.
Kundu, G., Mukherjee, D., and Mitra, A.K., (1994), Gas entrainment and depth of penetration
in a cocurrent gas liquid downflow bubble column, Journal of Chemical Engineering of
Japan, 27 (5), 621-626.
Kundu, G., Mukherjee, D., and Mitra, A.K., (1995), Experimental studies on a co-current
gas-liquid downflow bubble column, International Journal of Multifluid Flow, 21 (5), 893-
906.
Kuznetsov, M.D., Oratovskii, V.I., (1962), Rate of chemisorption in a venturi-type apparatus,

Int. Chem. Eng., 2, 185188.
191
Lahiri N., Yadav, G. D., and Sharma, M. M., (1983), Absorption of chlorine in aqueous
solutions of sodium hydroxide desorption of hypochlorous acid followed by its dissociation
to chlorine monoxide, Chemical Engineering Science , 38(7), 1119-1133
Lane, W. R., (1951), Shatter of Drops in Streams of Air, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, 43, 1312.
Lang, R. J., (1962), Ultrasonic Atomization of Liquids, Journal of the Acoustic Society of
America, 34(1), 6-8.
Laurent Andre, (1978), Fonteix christian, besson gerard and charpentier jean-claude, pilot-
scale study of absorption with chemical reaction in a venturi-jet scrubber, atmospheric
pollution, Proceedings of the 13th International Colloquium, Pans, France, April 25-28,
Studies in Environmental Science, 1, 251-254.
Laurent, A., and Charpentier, J. C., (1974), Aires Interfaciales et coefficients de transfert de
matiere dans les divers types dabsorbeurs et de reacteurs gaz-liquide, The Chemical
Engineering Journal, 8, 85-101.
Lefebvre, H., (1989), Atomization and Sprays, Hemisphere Pub. Cor., New York.
Leick Philippe, (2008), Quantitative investigations about the influence of nozzle geometry
and ambient gas density on the primary break-up region of diesel sprays, Dissertation
submitterd for Doctor of Engineering to Technical University Darmstadt.
Leith, D., and Cooper, D.W., (1980),Venturi scrubber optimization, Atmos Environ, 14, 657
664.
Leroux, S., Dumouchel, C., Ledoux, M., (1996), The Stability Curve of Newtonian liquid
Jets, Atomization and sprays, 6, 623-647.
Levenspiel Octave, (1999), Chemical Reaction Engineering, Third ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Levich, V. G., (1962), Physicochemical Hydrodynamics, Prentice Hall, New York.
Li, C., and Li, Y. Z., (2011), Investigation of entrainment behavior and characteristics of gas-
liquid ejectors based on CFD simulation, Chemical Engineering Science, 66, 405416.
192
Li, M., and Christofides, P., (2005), Multiscale modeling and analysis of an industrial HVOF
thermal spray process, Chemical Engineering Science, 60, 3649-3669.
Li, X., and Tankin, R. S., (1987), Droplet size distribution: a derivative of a Nukiyama-
Tanasawa type distribution function, Combustion Science and Technology, 56, 65-76.
Li, X., and Tankin, R., S., (1988), Droplet size distribution in sprays by using information
theory, Combustion Science and Technology, 60, 345-357.
Lifshitz, A., and Perlmutter-Hayman, B. (1962), The kinetics of the hydrolysis of chlorine
III, The reaction in the presence of various bases and discussion of the mechanism, J. Phys.
Chem., 66, 701-705.
Lifshitz, A., and Perlmutter-Hayman, B., (1961), The kinetics of the hydrolysis of chlorine
II, The hydrolysis in the presence of acetate, J. Phys. Chem., 65, 753-757.
Lin, S. P., and D. R. Woods. (1991), A branching liquid jet, Physics of Fluids, A3, 241- 244
Lin, S. P., and Reitz, R.D., (1998), Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet, Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics, 30, 85105.
Littay, G., (1943), Sur latomisation of liquids, Wydawnictwo Naukowo-Techniczne.
Liu, H., (2000), Science and Engineering of Droplets: Fundamentals and Applications, New
York: Noyes Publications.
Liu, Z., and Reitz, R., (1997), An analysis of the distortion and breakup mechanisms of high
speed liquid drops, Inter. J. of Multiphase Flow, 23 (4), 631650.
Lydersen, A.L., (1983), Mass transfer in engineering practice, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Mahajani, V. V., and Sharma, M. M., (1981), Gas absorption with photochemical reaction,
Chemical Engineering Science, 36, 295-597.
Mahajani, V., and Sharma, M. M., (1979), Effetive interfacial area and liquid side mass
transfer coefficient in trickle bed reactors, Chemical Engineering Science, 34, 1425-1428.
Mahajani, V., and Sharma, M. M., (1980), Mass transfer in packed columns: co-current
(downflow) operation- 1 m. and 1.5 m. metal pall rings and ceramic intalox saddles. multi
193
filament gauze packings in 20 cm and 38 cm I.D. columns, Chemical Engineering Science ,
35, 941-947.
Majumder, S.K., Kundu, G., Mukherjee, D., (2005), Mixing mechanism in a modified co-
current downflow bubble column, Chemical Engineering Journal, 112, 45-55.
Mandal Aj., (2010), Characterization of gas-liquid parameters in a down-flow jet loop bubble
column, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 27 (02), 253-264.
Mandal Ajay, Kundu Gautam and Mukherjee Dibyendu, (2004), Gas-holdup distribution and
energy dissipation in an ejector-induced down flow bubble column: the case of non-
Newtonian liquid, Chemical Engineering Science, 59, 2705 2713.
Mandal, A., Kundu, G, and Mukherjee, D., (2003b), Interfacial area and liquid-side
volumetric mass transfer coefficient in a downflow bubble column, Can J of Chem Eng, 81,
212219.
Mandal, A., Kundu, G. and Mukherjee, D., (2003a), Gas holdup and entrainment
characteristics in a modified downflow bubble column with Newtonian and non-Newtonian
liquid, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 42, 777-787.
Mandal, A., Kundu, G., and Mukherjee, D., (2005), A comparative study of gas holdup,
bubble size distribution and interfacial area in a downflow bubble column, Trans IChemE,
Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(A4), 423428.
Mandal, A., Kundu, G., and Mukherjee, D., (2005a), Comparative study of two fluid gas-
liquid flow in the ejector induced up flow and downflow bubble column, International
Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 3 Article A13.
Mandal, A., Kundu, G., and Mukherjee, D., (2005b.), Energy analysis and air entrainment in
an ejector induced downflow bubble column with non-Newtonian motive fluid, Chemical
Engineering Technology, 28 (2), 210-218.
Mansour, A. and Chigier, N., (1994), Effect of turbulence on the stability of liquid jets and
resulting droplet size distributions, Atomization and Sprays, 4, 583-604.
Mansour, A., and Chigier, N., (1993), A phase doppler investigation of co-axial air blast
atomizers, Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer in Spray, ASME 270, 95-101.
194
McCabe, W. L., Smith, J. C., and Harriott Peter, (1993), Unit Operations in Chemical
Engineering, International Edition, 7th Edition, McGraw- Hill Inc., New Delhi.
McCarthy, M. J., and Molloy, N.A., (1974), Review of stability of liquid jets and the
influence of nozzle design, Chemical Engineering Journal, 7, 1.
McCormack, P.D., Crane, L., and Birch, S., (1965), An experimental and theoretical analysis
of cylindrical liquid jets subjected to vibration, British Journal of Applied Physics, 16, 395-
408.
Meier, G.E.A., Loose, S., and Stasicki, B., (1997), Unsteady Liquid Jets, Applied Scientific
Research, 58, 207-216.
Meikap, B. C., Kundu, G., and Biswas, M. N., (2001), Prediction of the Interfacial Area of
Contact in a Variable-Area Multistage Bubble Column, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2001, 40,
6194-6200.
Meikap, B.C., and Biswas, M.M, (2004), Mass transfer characteristics of a cuurrent multi-
stage bubble column scrubber, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 37(10),1185-1193.
Meyers Nicolas, (2006), Modelisation de la combustion cryotechnique avec prise en compte

de latomisation primaire du jet doxygene liquide, May, Universite Daix-Marseille, France.
Midoux N., Laurent A., Charpentier J. C., (1980), Limits of the chemical method for the
determination of physical mass transfer parameters in mechanically agitated gas-liquid
reactors, AIChE Journal, 26, 1, 157162, January.
Midoux, N., Morsi, B. I., Purwasasmita, M., Laurent, A., and Charpentier, J. C., (1984),
Interfacial area and liquid side mass transfer coefficient in trickle bed reactors operating with
organic liquids, Chemical Engineering Science, 39, 5, 781-794.
Mitchell D., (1981), Improving the efficiency of free-jet scrubbers, Environmental

International, 6, 21-24.
Mitchell J. F. B., (1989), Reviews of Geophysics, 27 (1), 115-139, Paper number 89RG00094.
Mitra, A. K., and Roy, A. N., (1964), Studies on the performance of ejector : correlation for
air-air system, Indian Journal of Technology, 2(9), 315-316.
Mitra, A. K., Guha, D. K., and Roy, A. N., (1963), Studies on the performance of ejector
Part-I,air-air system, Indian Chem. Eng. Trans., 5, 59.
195
Mohebbi A., Taheri M., Fathikaljahi J., and Talaie M.R., (2003), Simulation of an orifice
scrubber performance based on Eulerian/Lagrangian method, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, A100, 13-25.
Monabbati, M., Ayatollahi, S., and Taheri, M., (1989), Test of mathematical modeling for
the design of high energy scrubbers, J. Aerosol Sol., Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 1441-1444.
Moresi, M., Gianturco, G.B., and Sebastini, E., (1983), The ejector loop fermenter:
description and performance of the apparatus, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 25, 2889-
2904.
Morris, J. C., (1966), The Acid Ionization Constant of HOCl from 50 to 350, J. Phys. Chem.,
70, 3798.
Morris, J.C, (1946), The mechanism of the hydrolysis of chlorine, J Am Chem Soc., 68(9),
1692-4.
Mukherjee, D., Biswas M. N., and Mitra, A. K., (1981), Holdup studies in liquid; liquid
ejector system, Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1, 1-5.
Mukherjee, D., Biswas M. N., and Mitra, A. K., (1988), Hydrodynamics of liquid-liquid
dispersion in ejectors and vertical two phase flow, Can. J.Chem. Eng., 66, 896907.
Mukherjee, S., Das, S.K., and Biswas, M.N., (2007), Absorption of carbon disulphide in
alkaline solution in spray and ejector columns, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46,
181186.
Nagel, O., Kurten, H., and Sinn, R., (1970), Strahldiisenreaktoren -Teil I, Chem. Eng. Tech.,
42, 474-479.
Nasseh S., Mohebbbi A., Sarrafi A., and Taheri M., (2009), Estimation of pressure drop in
venturi scrubbers based on annular two-phase flow model, artificial neural networks and
genetic algorithm, Chemical Engineering Journal, 150, 131138.
Neppiras, E.A., (1980), Acoustic Cavitation, Physics Report, 61, 160-251.
Nijsing, R. A. T. O., Hendrikz,. R. H., and Kramers, H., (1959), Absorption of carbondioxide
in jets and falling films of electrolytic solutions, with and without chemical reactions, Chem.
Eng. Sci., 10, 88-104.
196
ORourke, P., and A. Amsden, (1987), The TAB method for numerical calculations of spray
droplet breakup, SAE Paper, (872089).
Ogawa S., Yamaguchi H.,Tone S. and Otake T., (1983), Gas-liquid mass transfer in the jet
reactor with liquid jet reactor, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 16(5), 419-425.
Ohkawa, A., Kawai, Y., Ksabiraki, D., Saki, N. and Endoh, K., (1987), Bubble size,
interfacial area and volumetric liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient in downflow bubble
columns with gas entrainment by a liquid jet, J of Chem Eng of Japan, 20, 99101.
Ohkawa, A., Kusabiraki, D., Kawai, Y., and Sakai, N., (1986), Some flow characterstics of a
vertical liquid jet system having downcomers, Chemicla Engineering Science, 41 (9), 2247-
2361.
Ohnesorge, W., and Angew, Z., (1936), Math. Mech., 11, 136159.
Otake, T., Tone, S., Kuboi, R., Takahashi, Y., and Nakao, K., (1981), Dispersion of a gas by
a liquid jet ejector, Int. Chem. Eng., 21, 7280.
Ott, Robert M., Wu, T. K. L., and Crowder Jerry W., (1987), Modelling of Surace tension
Effects in Venturi Scrubbing, Atmospheric Enviornment, 21(3), 479-482.
Oyevaar, M.H., and Westerterterp, K.R., (1989), The use of the chemical method for the
determination of interfacial areas in gas-liquid contactors, Chemical Engineering Science,
44(11), 2691-2701.
Pal, S. S., Mitra, A. K. and Roy, A. N., (1979), Pressure drop and holdup in a vertical two-
phase counter current flow with improved gas mixing liquid, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 19(1), 67-75.
Panchal, N.A., Bhutada, S.R., and Pangarkar, V.G., (1991), Gas induction and hold-up
characteristics of liquid jet loop reactors using multi orifice nozzles, Chem. Engg.
Communiation, 102, 59-68.
Park, S. H., Suh, H. K., and Lee, C. S., (2008), Effect of cavitation flow on the flow and fuel
atomization characteristics of biodiesel and diesel fuels, Energy and Fuels, 22, 605-613.
197
Patel, H.J., (2004), Studies on the performance and measurement of interfacial area
generated by mult-jet ejector, M.E. Dissertation, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Baroda, Vadodara.
Pawelczyk, R., and Pindur, K., (1999), A dynamic method for dispersing gases in liquids,
Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 38 (2), 95-107.
Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., and Maloney, J.O., (1997), Perrys Chemical Engineers
Handbook, Seventh ed., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Pfeifer C., Kuhan D. and Class A., (2010), Coupled measurement of droplet size distribution
and velocity distribution in a fuel spray with digital imaging analysis under elevated
pressure, 15th Int Symo on Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics, Lisbon,
July 5-8.
Ping-fang and HanLi-xin Tang, (2005), Experimental study on the hydrodynamics and mass
transfer characteristics of ultasonic air lift loop reactor, Canadian Journal of Chemical
Enginering, 83, 204.
Plateau, J., (1873), Statique experimentale et the-orique des liquids soumie aux seules
forcesmoleculaire, Paris: cauthier vil-lars, 1, 2, 450-495.
Pohorecki, R., (1968), The absorption of C02 in carbonatebicarbonate buffer solutions

containing hypochlorite catalyst on a sieve plate, Chemical Engineering Science, 23, 1447-
1451.
Pulley, R.A., (1997), Modelling the Performance of Venturi Scrubber, Chemical Engineering
Journal, 67, 9-18.
Radhakrishnan, V. R., and Mitra, A. K., (1984), Pressure drop, holdup and interfacial area in
vertical two-phase flow of multi-jet ejector induced dispersions, The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 62, 2, 170178.
Raghuram, P. T., (2009), Interfacial area measurement in gas-liquid ejector for a sodium
chloride-air system, Indian Journal of Chemical Technology, 16, 278-282.
Raghuram, P. T., and Mukherjee, A.K., and Das, T.R., (1992), Studies on a gas-liquid
ejector-contactor, Indian Chemical Engineer, 34(1), 40-49.
198
Rahimi A., Taheri M. and Fathikalajahi J. (2004), Prediction of pressure drop in a venturi
scrubber: effect of liquid film and re-entrainment, Chemical Engineering Communications,
191 (3), 315-334.
Rahimi, A., Niksiar, A., and Mobasheri, M., (2011), Considering roles of heat and mass
transfer for increasing the ability of pressure drop models in venturi scrubbers, Chemical
Engineering and Processing, 50, 104112.
Rahman F., Umesh D.B., Subbarao D., and Ramasamy M., (2010), Enhancement of
entrainment rates in liquidgas ejectors, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 49, 1128
1135.
Ranger, A. A., and Nicholls, J. A., (1969), Aerodynamic shattering of liquid drops, AIAA
Journal, 7, 285.
Ranz, W. E., (1956), On sprays and spraying, Department of Engineering Resources,

Pennsylvania State University, Bulletin 65.
Ravi, G., Viswanathan, S., Gupta, S.K., and Ray, M. B., (2003), Multi-objective optimization
of venturi scrubbers using a three-dimensional model for collection efficiency, Chemical
Enginering T
Ravindram Maddury and Pyla Naldu, (1986), Modeling of a venturi scrubber for the control
of gaseous pollutants, ,Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 25(1), 35.
Rayleigh L, (1879b),On the instability of jets, Proc. London Math. Soc., 10, 406-46.
Rayleigh, L., (1879a), On the capillary phe-nomenon of jets., Proc. R. Soc. London., 29,
71-97
Reitz Rolf, D., (2004), Modeling the primary breakup of high-speed jets, Atomization and
Spray, 14 (1), 99.
Reitz, R. D., (1978), Atomization and Other Breakup Regimes of a Liquid Jet, Ph. D.
Dissertation, Princeton University.
Reitz, R., and Bracco, F., (1982), Mechanism of atomization of a liquid jet, Phys. Fluids,
25 (10).
199
Reitz, R., and Bracco, F., (1986), Mechanics of breakup of round liquid jets, Volume
3,Chapter 10, 233249.
Rice, R.G., and Littlefield, M.A., (1987), Dispersion coefficients for ideal bubbly flow in
truly vertical bubble columns., Chem. Engg. Sci., 42, 2045-2053.
Richards, G. M., Ratliff, G. A., and Danckwert, P. V., (1964), Kinetics of CO2 absorption-III,
First-order reation in a packed column, Chemical Engineering Science, 19, 325-328.
Roy Sharmistha and Rochelle Gary, T., (2004), Chlorine Absorption in Sulfite Solutions,
Separation Science and Technology, 39, 13, 3057-3077.
Ruff, G., Wu, P., Bernal, L., and Faeth, G., (1992), Continuous and dispersed-phase structure
of dense non-evaporating pressure-atomized sprays, J. Prop. Power, 8, 280289.
Rulz-Ibanez, G., Bldarlan, A., Davis, R.A., and Sandall, O.C., (1991) Solubility and
diffusivity of oxygen and chlorine in aqueous hydrogen peroxide solutions , J. Chem. Eng.
Data, 36, 459-466.
Rushton, J. H. and Oldshue, J. Y., (1953), Mixing: present theory and practice, Chem. Eng.
Prog., 49, 161.
Rusly, E., Aye, L., Charters, W.W.S., and Ooi, A., (2005), CFD analysis of ejector in a
combined ejector cooling system, International Journal of Refrigeration, 28, 1092-1101.
Rylek, M., and Zahradnik, J., (1984), Design of Venturi-tube gas distributors for bubble type
reactors, Collect. Czech. Chem. Commun., 49, 19391948.
Sadek Shafik E., Nawrocki Daniel A., Sterbis Eugene E., and Vivian J. Edward, (1977),
Absorption with reaction of sulfur dioxide and chlorine, Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., 16(1),
1977, 36.
Sahay, B. N., and Sharma, M. M., (1973), Effective interfacial area and liquid and gas side
mass transfer coefficient in packed column, Chemical Engineering Science, 28, 41-47.
Sandall, O. C., Goldberg, I. B., Hurlock, S. C., Laeger, H. O., Wagner, R. I., (1981),
Solubility and rate of hydrolysis of chlorine in aqueous sodium hydroxide at 273K, AIChE
Journal, 27(5), 856859.
200
Schick, R. J., (2006), Spray Technology Reference Guide: Understanding Drop Size, Bulletne
no. 4598 Wheaton, Illinois: Spraying Systems Co.
Schmidt, D., P., Rutland, C., J., and Corradini, M. L., (1997), A Numerical Study of
Cavitating Flow Through Various Nozzle Shapes, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper
No. 971597.
Schugerl, K., (1982), New Bioreactors for Aerobic Processes, Int. Chem. Eng., 22, 591610.
Sedelies, R.S., A., Weinspach, P.M., (1987), Mass transfer area in different gas-liquid
reactors as a function of liquid properties, Chem. Eng. Technol., 10, 1-15.
Shabani Amir, Tavoosi Siamakl and Shahraki Bahram Hashemi, (2010), Calculation of
effective interfacial area in a turbulent contact absorber, International Journal of Chemical
Engineering and Applications, 1, 1, June.
Sharma, M. M., and Danckwerts, P. V., (1970), Chemical methods of measuring interfacial
area and mass transfer coefficients in two-fluid systems, Brit. Chem. Eng., 15. 522-528.
Shende, B. W., and Sharma, M. M., (1974), Mass transfer in packed columns: co-current
Operation, Chemical Engineering Science, 29, 1763-1772.
Sheng, Y. Y. and Irons, G. A., (1995), The Impact of Bubble Dynamics on the Flow in
Plumes of Ladle Water Models, Metallurgical Trans., B, 26B, 625-635.
Sherwood, T. K. and Pigford, R. L., (1952), Absorption and Extraction, 2nd Edn. McGraw-
Hill, New York, 332.
Silva, A. M., Teixeira, J. C. F., Teixeira, S.F.C.F., (2009a), Experiments in a large-scale

venturi scrubber Part I: Pressure drop, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 48, 59-67.
Silva, A. T. D., and Danckwert, P. V., (1973), The effect of halogens on the rate of
absorption of carbon dioxide, Chemical Engineering Science, 28, 847-854.
Silva, A.M., Teixeira, J.C.F., Teixeira, S.F.C.F., (2009b), Experiments in large scale venturi
scrubber Part II Droplet size, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 48, 424-431.
201
Silva, Marcela K., Avila Marcos, A. D., and Mori Milton, (2011), CFD modelling of a bubble
column with an external loop in the heterogeneous regime, The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 89, 671-681.
Simonin, R. F., (1959), Recherches theoretiques et experimentales sur Ientrainment dair par
une veine deau cylindrique percutant dans mass deau, in Proceedings of the 8th Congress of
IAHR, Montreal, 6-D.
Sindayihebura, D., and Bolle, L., (1998), Ultrasonic atomization of liquid: stability analysis
of the viscous liquid film free surface. Atomization Sprays, 8, 217-233.
Singh, K. P., Purohit, N. K., and Mitra, A. K., (1974), Performance characteristics of a
horizontal ejector: water-water system, India Chemical Engineer, XVI (3), 1-6.
Smallwood, G. J., and Gulder, O. L., (2000), Views on the structure of transient diesel sprays,
Automization and Sprays, 10 (3-5), 355-386.
Soteriou, R., Andrews, R., and Smith, M., (1995), Direct injection diesel sprays and the effect
of cavitation and hydraulic flip on atomization, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No.
950090, 27-51.
Sou A., Maulana, M. I., Hosokawa, S. and Tomiyama, A., (2008), Ligament Formation
Induced by Cavitation in a Cylindrical Nozzle, Journal of Fluid Science and Technology, 3,5,
633-644.
Sou, A., Hosokawa, S., and Tomiyama, A., (2009), Dimensionless Numbers on Cavitation in
a Nozzle of Pressure Atomizers, ICLASS 2009, 11th Triennial International Annual
Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Vail, Colorado USA, July.
Sou, A., Maulana, M. I., Hosokawa, S., and Tomiyama, A., (2007), Effect of cavitation in a
nozzle on liquid jet atomization, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 50, 17-18,
3575-3582.
Sou, A., Tomiyama, A., Hosokawa, S., Nigorikawa, S., and Maeda, T., (2006), Cavitation in
a two-dimensional nozzle and liquid jet atomization (ldv measurement of liquid velocity in a
nozzle), Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering, International Journal, Series B, 49(4),
1253-1259.
202
Spalding C. W., (1962), Reaction kinetics in the absorption of chlorine in to aqueous,
A.I.Ch.E.J., 8, 685.
Sriveerakul, T., Aphornratana, S., and Chunnanond, K., (2007), Performance prediction of
steam ejector using computational fluid dynamics: part 1, Validation of the CFD results,
International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 46, 812-822.
Stein, W.A., Schafer, H., (1984), Aeration of viscous liquids with a downward directed two-
fluid nozzle, Ger. Chem. Eng., 7, 115-125.
Sun, H, and Azzopardi, B. J., (2003), Modelling gas-liquid flow in venturi scrubbers at high
pressure, Trans.Institute of Chemical Engineers, 81(B), 250-256.
Taheri Mahboobeh and Mohebbi Ali, (2008), Design of artificial neural networks using a
genetic algorithm to predict collection efficiency in venturi scrubbers, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 157, (2008), 122129.
Taheri Mahboobeh, Mohebbi Ali and Taheri Alireza, (2010), Simulation of SO2 absorption in
a venturi scrubber, Chemical Engineering Communications, 197, 7, 934-952.
Takahashi, T., Hatanaka, M., and Konaka, R., (1967), Absorption of chlorine into still liquid
in a simple stop-cock type absorber, Can. J. Chem Engrs, 45, 145.
Talaie, M.R., Fathikalajahi, J., Taheri, M., (1997), Mathematical modeling of SO2 absorption
in a venturi scrubber, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 47, 12111215.
Tamaki N., Shimizu M., and Hiroyuki, (2001), Enhancement of the Atomization of a liquid
jet by cavitation in a nozzle hole, Atomization and Sprays, 11, 2, 125-137.
Tamaki, N. A., Kato, K., Imano and Kato, K., (2010), Improvement of atomization
characteristics of spray by multi-hole nozzle for pressure atomized type injector, ILASS
Europe 2010, 23rd Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Brno,
Czech Republic, September.
Tamaki, N., (2009), Effects of cavitation in a nozzle hole on atomization of spray and
development of high-efficiency atomization enhancement nozzle, 11th International
Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Vail Colorado, USA, 26-30 July.
203
Tamaki, N., and Shimizu, M., (2002), Enhancement of atomization of high-viscous liquid jet
by pressure atomized nozzle , ILASS Europe, September 9-11.
Tamaki, N., Nishida, Y. and Hosokawa, T., (2007), Practical study on high-dispersion and
high-penetration diesel injection nozzle: 1st report, effects of geometric shape of high-
dispersion atomization enhancement nozzle on atomization of intermittent spray, Proc. 21st
Institute for Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems-Europe, CD-R, 6.
Tamaki, N., Shimizu, M., Nishida, K., and Hiroyasu, (1998), Effects of cavitation and
internal flow on atomization of a liquid jet, Atomization and Sprays, 8, 2, 179-197.
Tamir, A., Danckwerts, P.V., and Virkar, P. D., (1975), Penetration model for absorption
with chemicalreaction in the presence of heat generation, bulk flow and effects of the gaseous
environment, Chemical Engineedng Science, 30, 1243-1250.
Tang Liang-Guang, Li Xiao-Sen, Feng Zi-Ping, Lin Yu-La, and Fan Shuan-Shi, (2006),
Natural Gas Hydrate Formation in an Ejector Loop Reactor: Preliminary Study, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 7934-7940.
Terasaka, K., Tsuge, Hideki H, (1991), Mass transfer in highly viscous liquids in a bubble
column with constant-flow nozzles, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 24(4), 424-
429.
Tie Li Keiya, and Nishida Hiroyuki Hiroyasu, (2011), Droplet size distribution and
evaporation characteristics of fuel spray by a swirl type atomizer, Fuel, 90, 2367-2376.
Tomotika, S., (1935), On the instability of a cylindrical thread of a viscous liquid surrounded
by another viscous fluid, Proc. R. Soc. Lon-don Ser. A., 150, 322-37.
Tseng, L., (1992a), Effects of gas density on the structure of liquid jets in still gases, AIAA,
30, 15371544.
Tseng, L., and Wu, P., (1992b), Dispersed-phase structure of pressure-atomized sprays at
various gas densities, J. Prop. Power, 8, 1157-1166.
Tuve, (1953), Heat. Piping Air Cond., 25(1), 181191.
Uchida, S., and Wen, C.Y., (1973), Gas absorption by alkaline solutions in a venturi
scrubber, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Develop, 12 (4), 437-443.
204
Utomo, T., Jin, Z., Rahman, M., Jeong, H. and Chung, H., (2008), Investigation on
hydrodynamics and mass transfer characteristics of a gas-liquid ejector using three-
dimensional CFD modeling, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 22, 1821-1829.
Vamos Lenard, (2010), Simulation models for aerosol characterization by elastic light
scattering with special emphasis on photon correlation experiments in the nano-particle size
range, PhD Theses, Institute for Solid State Physics and Optics, Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary.
Vidwans, A., D., and Sharma, M. M., (1967), Gas-side mass transfer coefficient in packed
column, Chemical Engineering Science, 22, 673-683.
Vieth, W. R., Porter, J. H., and Sherwood, T. K., (1963), Mass transfer and chemical reaction
in a turbulent boundary layer, Ind. Eng. Chem.Fund, 2(1), 1-3.
Virkar, P. D., and Sharma, M. M., (1975), Mass Transfer in Venturi Scrubbers, Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 53, 512-516.
Viswanathan, S., Lim, D. S., and Ray, M. B., (2005), Measurement of drop size and
distribution in an annular two-phase, two-component flow occurring in a venturi scrubber,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 44, 74587468.
Viswanathan, S., (1997), Modeling of Venturi Scrubber Performance, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Research, 36(10), 4308-4317.
Viswanathan, S., (1998), Examination of liquid film characteristics in the prediction of

pressure drop in a Venturi scrubber, Chemical Engineering Science, 53(17), 3161-3175.
Viswanathan, S., Gnyp, A. W., and St. Pierre, C. C., (1985), Annular flow pressure drop
model for PeaseAnthony type venturi scrubbers, AIChE Journal, 31, 19471958.
Volgin, B.P., Efimova, T.F., Gofman, M.S., (1968), Absorption of sulfur dioxide by
ammonium sulfite-bisulfite solutions in a venturi scrubber, International Chemical
Engineering, 1 (8), 113-118.
Volmuller, H., and Walburg, R., (1973), Blasengrope bei der Begasung mit Venturidiisen,
Chern. Ing. Tech., 45, 913-920.
205
Waal, K.J.A., and Beek, W.J., (1967), A comparison between chemical absorption with rapid
first-order reactions and physical absorption in packed column, Chemical Engineering
Science, 22, 585-593.
Weber, C.Z., (1931), Zum zerfall eines flus-sigkeitsstrahles, Math. Mech.,11, 13654.
Weisweiler, W., and Rosch, S., (1978), Interfacial area and bubble-size distribution in jet
reactors, German Chemical Engineering, 1(4), 212-218.
Wen, C. Y., and Fan, L. T., (1975), Models for Flow Systems and Chemical Reactors, 390
420, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Witte, J. H., (1969), Mixing shocks in two phase flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 36,
639-655.
Wolfe, H. E., and Andersen, W.H., (1964), Kinetics mechanism and resultant droplet sizes of
the aerodynamic breakup of liquid drops, Aero jet General Corporation, CA, USA, Report
no-0395-04(18)SP.
Wu, P., and Faeth, M., (1993), Aerodynamic effects on primary breakup of turbulent liquids,
Atomization and Sprays, 3, 265289.
Wu, P., Miranda, R. and Faeth, G., (1995), Effect of initial flow conditions on primary
breakup of nonturbulent and turbulent round liquid jets, Atomization and Sprays, 5, 175196.
Yadav, R. L., and Patwardhan, A. W., (2008), Design aspects of ejectors: Effects of suction
chamber geometry, Chemical Engineering Science, 63, 3886-3897
Yaici, W., Laurent, A., Midoux, N., and Charpentier, J.C., (1988), Determination of gas-side
mass transfer coefficients in trickle-bed reactors in the presence of an aqueous or an organic
liquid phase, International chemical Engineering, 28 (2), 299-305.
Yamagiwa, K., Kusabiraki, D., and Ohkawa, A., (1990), Gas holdup and gas entrainment rate
in down flow bubble column with gas entrainment by a liquid jet operating at high liquid
throughput, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 23, 343348
Yamashita, F. and Inoue, H., (1975), Gas Holdup in Bubble Columns, J. Chern. Eng.
(Japan), 8, 334-340.
206
Yongyingsakthavorn, P., Vallikul, P., Fungtammasan, B., Dumouchel, C., and Joulain, P.,
(2004), An Investigation on Line-of-Sight and Local Drop Size Distributions of Palm Oil
Based Biodiesel Sprays Using Laser Diffraction Data, The Joint International Conference
on Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE), December 1-3.
Yung, S. C., Barbarika, H. F., and Calvert, S., (1977), Pressure loss in venturi scrubbers, J.
Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 27, 348351.
Yung, S., Calvert, S., and Barbarlka, H. F., (1978), Venturi Scrubber Performance Model
Environmental Science & Technology, 1978, 456-459.
Yusuf Adewuyi G., Xiangdong H. E., Henry Shaw & Wanna Lolertpihop, (1999),
Simultaneous absorption and oxidation of no and SO2 by aqueous solutions of sodium
chlorite, Chemical Engineering Communications, 174, 1, 21-51.
Zahradnik, J., and Fialova, M., (1996), The effect of bubbling regime on gas and liquid
phase mixing in bubble column reactors, Chemical Engineering Science, 51(10), 2491-2500.
Zahradnik, J., Fialova, M., Linek, V., Sinkule, J., Renickoca, J., and Kastanek, F., (1997),
Dispersion efficiency of ejector-type gas distributors in different operating modes, Chem.
Eng. Sci., 52 (24), 44994510.
Zahradnik, J., Kratochvil, J., and Rylek, M., (1985), Gas holdup and interfacial mass transfer
in gasliquid tower contactors with ejector type gas distributors, Collect. Czech. Chem.
Commun., 50, 25352544.
Zahradnlk, J., and Kastanek, F., (1982), Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in uniformly
aerated bubble column reactors, Collect, Czech. Chem. Commun., 47, 262-276.
Zehner, P., (1975), Stoffaustausflache und Gasverteilung in einer neu entwickelten Ejektor
Strahlduse, Chem. Ing. Tech., 47, 209-214.
Zheng, Q., and Jasuja, A., (1994), Droplet size and velocity correlations for a coaxial airblast
atomized jet, In Proc. ICLASS, 664671.
Zheng, S., Yao, Y., Guo, F., Bi, R., and Li, J., (2010), Local bubble size distribution,gas
liquid interfacial areas and gas holdups in an up-flow ejector, Chemical Engineering Science,
65, 52645271.
207
Ziegler, H., Meister, D., Dunn, I . J ., Blanch, H. W., and Russel, W. F., (1977) Schlaufen
reaktoren, Biotech. Bioeng., 19, 507-511.
Zlokarnik, M., (1980), Eigung und Leistungsfahigkeit von Beluftingungs Vorrichtungen fur
die biologische Abwasserreinigung, Chem. Ing. Tech., 52, 330-331.
208

7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling of Multi Nozzle Jet Ejector for

Absorption with Chemical Reaction

For the award of

Chemical Engineering Department

Prof. Vasdev Singh

2nd September, 2012

I express my sincere thanks to staff of Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of

Thank you all.

The experimental study of rate of absorption with chemical reaction in single/multi

The mathematical model to study the effect of different diffusivity ratio on

The statistical models for determining removal efficiency of by aqueous sodium

Present thesis consists of Five Chapters.

Chapter One covers introductory part.

Chapter Two deals with literature survey.

Section Four deals with literature review of:

The estimation of mass transfer characteristics of gas-liquid contactors.

References and Appendices are given at the end.

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... III

Appendix - 1 Experimental data 163

References ........................................................................................................................... 181

Figure 2.3 Images of cavitation in a 2D nozzle and liquid jet (water) 15

Figure 2.4 Different schemes of secondary atomization (Meyers, 2006) 18

Figure 2.8 Bubble size distributions at different reaction mixer configurations 30

Figure 2.10 Bubble size distributions with nitrogen at different pressures 32

Figure 2.11 versus the gas density (Bailer, 2001) 32

Figure 2.12 Comparison of axial pressure drop predicted by 37

Figure 2.19 Schematic diagram showing geometry of an ejector 43

Figure 2.21 Variation of entrainment of air with projection ratio of 46

Figure 2.22 Effect of projection ratio (LTN/DT ) on energy efficiency 47

Figure 2.23 Effect of area ratio ( )/( ) on efficiency of ejectors for 48

Figure 2.24 Effect of angle of converging section () on rate of entrainment 49

Figure 2.26 Influence of the mixing tube length on (Bailer, 2001) 63

Figure 2.29 Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous 68

Figure 3.1 Detail of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 1 75

Figure 3.2 Schematic diagram of experimental setup 1 75

Figure 3.3 Details of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 2 78

Figure 3.4 Schematic diagram of experimental setup 2 79

Figure 3.5 Detail of the jet ejector used in experimental setup 3 80

Figure 3.6 Schamatic diagram of experimental setup 3 81

Figure 4.1.1 Comparison of obtained by Ashour et al. (1996), proposed 94

Figure 4.1.1a Detailed view of Figure 4.1.1 at a temperature T-1 =3.3x10-3 94

Figure 4.1.2 Error estimates for k2 and Ashour et al. (1996) 95

Figure 4.2.1 Concentration profiles for absorption of into aqueous 103

Figure 4.4.0 Comparison of liquid holdup predicted by Radhakrishnan (1984), 121

Figure 4.4.1 Effects of , on for different for setup 1 with 126

Figure 4.4.2 Effects of , on for different for setup 1 with 127

Figure 4.4.3 Effects of , on ejector interfacial area for different 127

Figure 4.4.4 Effects of , on for different for setup 1 with 128

Figure 4.4.5 Effects of , on for = 0.525 for set up 2 (a) 128

Figure 4.4.13 Effects of , on for different nozzle for set up 3 132

Figure 4.4.14 Effects of on for different nozzle for set up 3 133

Figure 4.4.16 Effects of , on for different nozzle for set up 3 134

Figure 4.5.5 Residual Plot for nozzle N1 146

Figure 4.5.10 Residual plot for nozzle N5 149

Figure 4.5.15 Residual plot for nozzle N6 151

Figure 4.5.20 Residual plot for nozzle N7 154

Table 2.2 References on jet breakup and primary atomization 13

Table 2.4 Optical methods of characterization of two-phase flow 27

Table 2.5 Performance of HEVS versus EVS 34