Results and Discussion :

Table 1: flow rates, concentrations and conductivities calculations

Fa (L/min) 0.050165
Fb (L/min) 0.04653
a0 (M) 0.051879621
b0 (M) 0.048120379
ƛc∞
(mS/cm) 4.243745805
ƛa0 (mS/cm) 11.81974454
ƛ∞ (mS/cm) 4.243745805

a∞ (M) 0.003759243

Table 2: Results with starring

K
t Conductivity Conversion (mol/L*mi
C1 (M) a1 (M)
(min) (mS/cm) % n)

0.031873 1.904193
0 8.67
4
0.02299148 0.028888 2.663987
1 8.2 44.32%
7 1
0.02521457 3.429029
2 7.85 0.026665 48.60%
8
0.025077 4.121202
3 7.6 0.0268025 51.66%
1
0.023870 4.753252
4 7.41 0.02800932 53.99%
3
0.023044 5.250334
5 7.28 0.02883504 55.58%
6
0.02947020 0.022409 5.674483
6 7.18 56.80%
9 4
0.02972427 0.022155 5.855423
7 7.14 57.29%
6 3
0.022028 5.948466
8 7.12 0.02985131 57.54%
3
0.02997834 0.021901 6.04328
9 7.1 57.78%
4 3
10 7.09 0.03004186 0.021837 57.91% 6.091365
 1 8
0.03010537 0.021774 6.139909
11 7.08 58.03%
7 2
0.03016889 0.021710 6.188917
12 7.07 58.15%
4 7
0.03023241 0.021647 6.238396
13 7.06 58.27%
1 2
0.03029592 0.021583 6.288351
14 7.05 58.40%
8 7
0.03035944 0.021520 6.338787
15 7.04 58.52%
5 2
0.03035944 0.021520 6.338787
16 7.04 58.52%
5 2
0.03035944 0.021520 6.338787
17 7.04 58.52%
5 2

Table 3: Results without starring

K
Conductivit Conversio (mol/L*min
t (min) C1 (M) a1 (M)
y (mS/cm) n% )

0.02806 2.924454
1 8.07 0.023817207 45.91%
2
0.02634 3.556429
2 7.8 0.025532162 49.21%
7
0.02996 2.359211
3 8.37 0.0219117 42.24%
8
0.03816 0.910841
4 9.66 0.013718023 26.44%
2
0.04667 0.231123
5 11 0.005206761 10.04%
3
- 0.05842 -0.18538
6 12.85 -12.61%
0.006543861 3
- 0.06693 -0.32493
7 14.19 -29.02%
0.015055123 5
- 0.07030 -0.36042
8 14.72 -35.51%
0.018421517 1
- 0.07195 -0.37491
9 14.98 -38.69%
0.020072956 3
- 0.07176 -0.37332
10 14.95 -38.32%
0.019882405 2
- 0.07144 -0.37063
11 14.9 -37.71%
0.019564821 4
12 14.68 -0.01816745 0.07004 -35.02% -0.35803
 7
0.07023 -0.35982
13 14.71 -0.018358 -35.39%
8
0.07106 -0.36732
14 14.84 -0.01918372 -36.98%
3
- 0.07303 -0.38348
15 15.15 -40.77%
0.021152743 2
0.07430 -0.39273
16 15.35 -0.02242308 -43.22%
3
- 0.07811 -0.41573
17 15.95 -50.57%
0.026234093 4
- 0.08052 -0.42718
18 16.33 -55.22%
0.028647734 7
- 0.08389 -0.43983
19 16.86 -61.71%
0.032014129 4
- 0.08414 -0.44065
20 16.9 -62.20%
0.032268196 8

 According to table 2 the conversion is increased as the reaction procced with time
which make sense because almost the reaction is homogeneous and as we can see
we achieved 58% within 17 minute. In the other hand according to table 3 without
starring the conversion is decreased as the reaction procced with time and as we
can see we got a conversion with negative sign when we reached 6 minute which
is does not make sense but this may be due to the partial heterogeneity in the
reactor.
 As we know the rate constant k is directly proportional to the conversion and that
was shown by table 1 as rate constant increased the conversion increased as well.
 We can notice from the graphs in case with starring that the concentration of
sodium hydroxide is decreasing with time which true since it is reactant and it is
consumed also its conductivity is reduced with time in a relation can be described
linearly by plot 1. while the opposite can be noticed in case without starring, for
example in plot 4 it is obvious there is such of random variation of concentrations
with respect to time as well as in plot 8 the conversion behavior is random with
time.
In conclusion, we have seen the value of starring in CSTR in which the
homogeneity take place inside the reactor where the conversion can be achieved
faster and more efficient and we have seen how the conversion results were
different in case there is no starring and how the results were unacceptable for
conversion since they were having negative sign. So it is important to have
agitation in CSTR to produce the product efficiently.