Advertisement

Heat and Mass Transfer

, Volume 55, Issue 8, pp 2235–2245 | Cite as

Bubble size distribution and mass transfer on a three-phase electroflotation column

  • Maroua MejriEmail author
  • Lassaad Ben Mansour
Original
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

This work aims to experimentally study the bubble size distribution and the oxygen transfer on the electroflotation process. The distribution of bubbles was measured using a high-speed camera. The measurements were conducted in a three-phase electroflotaion column (water- gas-olive stone) equipped with insoluble electrodes, stainless steel as cathode and titanium, covered with ruthenium oxide, as anode. The volumetric mass transfer coefficient kla was determined for some operating parameters such as current density, solid concentrations and sizes. In order to calculate the global coefficient of mass transfer kl, the specific interfacial area, a, was determined. It was chiefly found that bubble size distribution depends on current density and solid concentration, and the wide range of bubble sizes was found to be affected by the phenomenon of break up and coalescence. kla tended to decrease with the increase of solid concentrations. kl exhibited the same behavior as the volumetric mass transfer coefficient. The experimental results were also fitted with the theoretical models, relating ‘kla’, ‘kl’ and ‘a’ with Reynolds number, Schmidt number and operating conditions.

Nomenclature

a

Specific interfacial area (m2 m−3)

A

Gas liquid interface area (m2)

C

Oxygen concentration (Kg m−3)

C*

The saturated oxygen concentration in liquid phase (Kg m−3)

C0

The initial dissolved oxygen concentration (Kg m−3)

Cs

Solid concentration (Kg m−3)

dB

Bubble diameter (m)

DO2

Diffusion coefficient (m2 s−1)

dp

Particle diameter (m)

G

The slip velocity (m s−1)

Hd

Expanded height of the gas liquid solid bed (m)

Hs

Static height of the liquid bed (m)

J

Current density (A m−2)

kL

The liquid side mass transfer coefficient (m s−1)

kLa

The volumetric mass transfer coefficient (s−1)

l

The lap course of the bubble at time t

Re

Reynolds number

Sc

Schmidt number

T

Solution temperature (°C)

tc

The effective contact time

UG

The superficial gas velocity (m s−1)

UL

The superficial liquid velocity (m s−1)

V

aerated liquid volume (m3)

VB

Bubble rise velocity (m s−1)

VG

Gas volume (m3)

Vl

Liquid volume (m3)

Vs

Solid volume (m3)

x

The major axis of the ellipse (m)

y

The minor axis of the ellipse (m)

Greek letters

μl

Liquid viscosity (Pa.s)

μm

Mixture viscosity (Pa.s)

Ɛg

Gas hold up

Ɛs

Solid hold up

Ɵ

The temperature correction factor

ρL

Liquid density (Kg m−3)

ρm

Mixture density (kg m−3)

Ψs

The volume fraction of the solid in the mixture

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Jamshidi N, Mostoufi N (2017) Measurement of bubble size distribution in activated sludge bubble column bioreactor. Biochem Eng J 125:212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben Mansour L, Ben Abdou Y, Gabsi S (2001) Effects of some parameters on removal process of nickel by electroflotation. Water Wastes Environ Res 2:51–58Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen G (2004) Electrochemical technologies in wastewater treatment. Sep Purif Technol 38:11–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alam R, Shang JQ, Khan AH (2017) Bubble size distribution in a laboratory-scale electroflotation study. Environ Monit Assess 189:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Issaoui R, Ksentini I, Kotti M, Ben Mansour L (2017) Effect of current density and oil concentration on hydrodynamic aspects in electroflotation column during oil/water emulsion treatment. J Water Chem Technol 39:166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung YK, Han MY (2002) Simultaneous removal of cadmium and turbidity in contaminated soil-washing water by electroflotation. Water Sci Technol 46:225–230Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyzas GZ, Matis KA (2016) Electroflotation process: a review. J Mol Liq 220:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhatia B, Nigama KDP, Aubanb D, Hebrard G (2004) Effect of a new high porosity packing on hydrodynamics and mass transfer in bubble columns. Chem Eng Process 43:1371–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pease JD, Curry DC, Young MF (2006) Designing flotation circuits for high fines recovery. Miner Eng 19:831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ben Mansour L, Kolsi K, Ksentini I (2007) Influence of current density on oxygen transfer in an electroflotation cell. J Appl Electrochem 37:887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandu CO, Krishna R (2004) Volumetric mass transfer coefficients in slurry bubble columns operating in churn-turbulent flow regime. Chem Eng Process 43:987–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mena P, Ferreira A, Teixeira JA, Rocha F (2011) Effect of some solid properties on gas–liquid mass transfer in a bubble column. Chem Eng Process 50:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Albal RS, Shah YT, Schumpe A (1983) Mass transfer in multiphase agitated contactors. Chem Eng J 27:61–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wongwailikhit K, Warunyuwong P, Chawaloesphonsiya N, Dietrich N, Hébrard G, Painmanakul P (2018) Gas Sparger orifice sizes and solid particle characteristics in a bubble column – relative effect on hydrodynamics and mass transfer. Chem Eng Technol 41:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garcia Maldonado JG, Bastoul D, Baig S, Roustan M, Hébrard G (2008) Effect of solid characteristics on hydrodynamic and mass transfer in a fixed bed reactor operating in co-current gas–liquid up flow. Chem Eng Process 47:1190–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tobajas M, García-Calvo E (2000) Comparison of experimental methods for determination of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient in fermentation processes. Heat Mass Transf 36:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alvarez E, Correa JM, Navaza JM, Riverol C (2011) Theoreticla prediction of the mass transfer coefficients in bubble columns operating in churn-turbulent flow regime. Study in Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids under different operation condition. Heat Mass Transf 37:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis WK, Whitman WG (1924) Principles of gas absorption. Ind Eng Chem 16:1215–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASCE (1984) Standard measurement of oxygen transfer in clean water [M]. American Society of Civil EngineersGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasconcelos JMT, Rodrigues JML, Orvalho SCP, Alves SS, Mendes RL, Ries A (2003) Effect of contaminants on mass transfer coefficients in bubble column and airlift contactors. Chem Eng Sci 58:1431–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ksentini I, Kotti M, Ben Mansour L (2014) Effect of liquid phase physicochemical characteristics on hydrodynamics of an electroflotation column. Desalin Water Treat 52:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barnea E, Mizrahi J (1973) A generalized approach to the fluid dynamics of particulate systems: part 1. General correlation for fluidization and sedimentation in solid multiparticle systems. Chem Eng J 5:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keshavarz M, Mona M, Fakhari E, Mohsenzadeh E, Davarnejad R (2013) Hydrodynamics and oxygen mass transfer in a packed bed split-cylinder airlift reactor containing dilute alcoholic solutions. Heat Mass Transf 49:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah YT, Deckwer WD, Kelkar BG, Godbole SP (1982) Design parameters column reactors estimations for bubble. AICHE J 28:353–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lau YM, Deenn NG, Kuipers JAM (2013) Development of an image measurement technique for size distribution in dense bubbly flows. Chem Eng Sci 94:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grau RA, Heiskanen K (2005) Bubble size distribution in laboratory scale flotation cells. Miner Eng 18:1164–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vazirizadeh A, Bouchard J, Chen Y (2016) Effect of particles on bubble size distribution and gas hold-up in column flotation. Int J Miner Process 157:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zahradnik J, Dripal L, KaStinek F (1992) Hydrodynamic and mass transfer characteristics of sectionalized aerated slurry reactors. Chem Eng Process 31:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luo X, Lee DJ, Lau R, Yang G, Fan L (1999) Maximum stable bubble size and gas holdup in high-pressure slurry bubble columns. AICHE J 45:665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim JO, Kim SD (1990) Gas–liquid mass transfer in a three-phase fluidized bed with floating bubble breakers. Can J Chem Eng 68:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nicolella C, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Vander Lans RGJM, Heijnen JJ (1998) Hydrodynamic characteristics and gas–liquid mass transfer in a biofilm airlift suspension reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 60:627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ozkan O, Calimli A, Berber R, Oguz H (2000) Effect of inert solid particles at low concentrations on gas–liquid mass transfer in mechanically agitated reactors. Chem Eng Sci 55:2737–2740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Painmanakul P, Loubière K, Hébrard G, Mietton-Peuchot M, Roustan M (2005) Effect of surfactants on liquid-side mass transfer coefficients. Chem Eng Sci 60:6480–6491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Randall EW, Goodall CM, Fairlamb PM, Dold PL, O’Connor CT (1989) A method for measuring the sizes of bubbles in two- and three-phase systems. J Phys E: Sci Instrum 22:827–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Fluid Mechanics – Process Engineering and Environment Sciences Faculty of SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations