Scrubbers Design

249
CHAPTER 10
Wet Scrubbers for Emission ControI
I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and receiving the bad air.
William Shakespeare
10.1 INTRODUCTION
How do scrubbers work? To answer this question, we need only look to a critical part of Earth`s
natural pollution control system: how rain cleans the lower atmosphere. Obviously, this is most
evidenced by the freshness of the air following a rainstorm. The simplicity of spraying water into
a gas stream to remove a relatively high percentage of contaminants has contributed to scrubbers`
extensive use within industry since the early 1900s. Heumann and Subramania (1997) point out
that 'most pollution control problems are solved by the selection of equipment based upon two
simple questions . (1) will the equipment meet the pollution control requirements? and (2) which
selection will cost the least?¨
How are scrubbing systems capabilities evaluated? They are evaluated based on empirical
relationships, theoretical models, and pilot scale test data. Two important parameters in the design
and operation of wet scrubbing systems as a function of the process being controlled are dust
properties and exhaust gas characteristics. Particle size distribution is the most critical parameter
in choosing the most effective scrubber design and determining the overall collection effciency.
In operation, scrubbers are considered universal control devices because they can control
particulate and/or gaseous contaminants. Numerous types of scrubbers are available, including wet
scrubbers, wet-dry scrubbers, and dry-dry scrubbers. Scrubbers use chemicals to accomplish
contaminant removal, whereby the gaseous contaminants are absorbed or converted to particles,
then wasted or removed from the stream.
In this chapter, our focus is on the calculations used for wet scrubber systems. Much of the
information is excerpted from Spellman (1999); USEPA-84/03 USEPA-84/09; and USEPA-81/10.
10.1.1 Wet Scrubbers
Wet scrubbers (or collectors) have found widespread use in cleaning contaminated gas streams
(acid mists, foundry dust emissions, and furnace fumes, for example) because of their ability to
remove particulate and gaseous contaminants effectively. These types of scrubbers vary in com-
plexity from simple spray chambers used to remove coarse particles to high-effciency systems
(Venturi types) that remove fne particles.
Whichever system is used, operation employs the same basic principles of inertial impingement
or impaction, and interception of dust particles by droplets of water. The larger, heavier water
250 ENVÌRONMENTAL ENGÌNEER'S MATHEMATÌCS HANDBOOK
droplets are easily separated from the gas by gravity. The solid particles can then be independently
separated from the water, or the water can be otherwise treated before reuse or discharge. Increasing
the gas velocity or the liquid droplet velocity in a scrubber increases the effciency because of the
greater number of collisions per unit time. For the ultimate in wet scrubbing, where high collection
effciency is desired, Venturi scrubbers are used. These scrubbers operate at extremely high gas
and liquid velocities with a very high-pressure drop across the Venturi throat. Venturi scrubbers
(see Figure 10.1) are most effcient for removing particulate matter in the size range of 0.5 to 5 µm,
which makes them especially effective for the removal of submicron particulates associated with
smoke and fumes.
Although wet scrubbers require relatively small space for installation, have low capital costs,
and can handle high-temperature, high-humidity gas streams, their power and maintenance costs
are relatively high. They may also create water disposal problems, their corrosion problems are
more severe than dry systems, and their fnal product is collected wet (Spellman, 1999).
10.2 WET SCRUBBER COLLECTION MECHANISMS AND EFFICIENCY
(PARTICULATES)
As mentioned, wet scrubbers capture relatively small dust particles with large liquid droplets. This
is accomplished by generating easily collected large particles by combining liquid droplets with
relatively small dust particles. In this process, the dust particles are grown into larger particles by
Figure 10.1 Venturi wet scrubber. (From USEPA, Control Techniques for Gases and Particulates, 1971).
WET SCRUBBERS FOR EMÌSSÌON CONTROL 251
several methods. These include impaction; diffusion; direct interception; electrostatic attraction;
condensation; centrifugal force; and gravity.
10.2.1 CoIIection Efñciency
Collection effciency is commonly expressed in terms of penetration, which is defned as the fraction
of particles in the exhaust system that passes through the scrubber uncollected. Simply put,
penetration is the opposite of the fraction of particles collected (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-3). It is
expressed as:
(10.1)
where
P
t
= penetration
= collection effciency (expressed as a fraction)
Wet scrubbers usually have an effciency curve that fts the relationship of:
(10.2)
where
= collection effciency (expressed as a fraction)
e = exponential function
f(system) = some function of the scrubbing system variables
Substituting for effciency, penetration can be expressed as:
10.2.2 Impaction
In a wet scrubbing system, particulate matter tends to follow the streamlines of the exhaust system.
When liquid droplets are introduced into the exhaust stream, however, particulate matter cannot
always follow these streamlines as they diverge around the droplet. Instead, because of the particle`s
mass, the particles break away from the streamlines and impact on the droplet. When gas stream
velocity exceeds 0.3 m/sec (1 ft/sec), impaction is the predominant collection mechanism. Most
scrubbers do operate with gas stream velocities well above 0.3 m/sec, allowing particles with
diameters greater than 1.0 µm to be collected by this mechanism (USEPA-84/03, p. 1-4). Impaction
increases as the velocity of the particles in the exhaust stream increases relative to the liquid
droplet`s velocity. In addition, as the size of the liquid droplet decreases, impaction also increases.
In impaction, after the design, the key parameter is known as the impaction parameter
(USEPA-81/10, p. 9-5) and is expressed by:
(10.3)
P
t
1 - =
1 - e
|-[f(system)]¦
=
P
t
=1 -
=1 - [1 - e
|-[f(system)]¦
]
e
|-[f(system)]¦
=
C p v(d ) /18d µ
f p p
2
d
=
where
p
p
= particle density
v = gas velocity at Venturi throat, feet per second
d
p
= particle diameter, feet
d
d
= droplet diameter, feet
µ = gas viscosity, pounds per foot-second
C
f
= Cunningham correction factor
The collection effciency associated with this impaction effect (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-7) is expressed
as:
10.2.3 Interception
If a small particle is moving around an obstruction (a water droplet, for example) in the fow stream,
it may come in contact with (be intercepted by) that object because of the particle`s physical size.
This interception of particles on the collector usually occurs on the sides before reaching the top
or bottom. Because the center of a particle follows the streamlines around the droplet, collusion
occurs if the distance between the particle and droplet is less than the radius of the particle.
Collection of particles by interception results in an increase in overall collection effciency.
This effect is characterized by the separation number, which is the ratio of the particle diameter
to the droplet diameter (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-8) and is expressed as:
where
d
p
d
d
The collection effciency associated with this interception effect as a function is d
p
and d
d
or:
10.2.4 Diffusion
Very small particles with aerodynamic particle diameters of less than 0.1 µm are primarily collected
by Brownian diffusion because they have little inertial impaction (bumping) due to their small
mass. Interception is limited by their reduced physical size. This bumping causes them to move
frst one way and then another randomly (diffused) through the gas. The Brownian diffusion process
leading to particle capture is most often described by a dimensionless parameter called the Peclet
number, Pe (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-8):
(10.4)
where
Pe = Peclet number
µ = gas viscosity
impaction
f( ) =
d /d
p d
interception p d
f(d /d ) =
Pe µvd d C k T)
p f B
=3
d
/(
v = gas stream velocity
d
p
= particle diameter
d
d
= droplet diameter
C
f
k
B
= Boltzmann`s constant
T = temperature of gas stream
Equation 10.4 shows that, as temperature increases, Pe decreases. As temperature increases,
gas molecules move around faster than they do at lower temperatures. This action leads to increased
bumping of the small particles, increased random motion, and increased collection effciency by
this mechanism. Collection effciency by the diffusion process is generally expressed as:
(10.5)
Equation 10.5 shows that as the Peclet number decreases, collection effciency by diffusion
increases.
10.2.5 CaIcuIation of Venturi Scrubber Efñciency
Several models are available for the calculation of Venturi particle collection effciency. USEPA-
84/03, p. 9-1, and USEPA-81/10, p. 9-1, list the following models:
· Johnstone equation
· Infnite throat model
· Cut power method
· Contact power theory
· Pressure drop
10.2.5.1 Johnstone Equation
The collection effciency for liquid Venturi scrubbers (considering only the predominant mechanism
of inertial impaction) is often determined with an equation from Johnstone, given as:
where
= fractional collection effciency
k = correlation coeffcient whose value depends on the system geometry and operating con-
ditions, typically 0.1 to 0.2, 1000 acf/gal
Q
L
/Q
G
= liquid-to-gas ratio, gal/1000 acf
= C
f
p
p
v(d
p
)
2
/18d
d
µ = inertial impaction parameter
p
p
= particle density
d
p
d
d
C
f
diffusion
(1/Pe) =f
1 - exp[-k(Q /Q ) ]
L G
=
10.2.5.2 Inhnite Throat Model
Another method for predicting particle collection effciency in a Venturi scrubber is the infnite
throat model (Yung et al., 1977). This model is a refned version of the Calvert correlation given
in the Wet Scrubber System Study (Calvert et al., 1972). The equations presented in the infnite
throat model assume that the water in the throat section of the Venturi captures all particles. Two
studies found that this method correlated very well with actual Venturi scrubber operating data
(Yung et al., 1977; Calvert et al., 1972).
The equations listed in the model can be used to predict the penetration (P
t
) for one particle
size (diameter) or for the overall penetration (P
t
*), which is obtained by integrating the entire
particle-size distribution. The equations are provided below (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-4):
(10.6)
where
P
t
(d
p
) = penetration for one particle size
B = parameter characterizing the liquid-to-gas ratio, dimensionless
K
po
= inertial parameter at throat entrance, dimensionless
Note: Equation 10.6 was developed assuming that the Venturi has an infnite-sized throat length
(l). This is valid only when l in the following equation is greater than 2.0.
where
l = throat length parameter, dimensionless
l
t
= Venturi throat length, centimeters
C
D
= drag coeffcient for the liquid at the throat entrance, dimensionless
p
g
= gas density, grams per cubic centimeter
p
t
= liquid density, grams per cubic centimeter
d
d
= droplet diameter, centimeters
The following equation is known as the Nukiyama and Tanasawa (1983) equation.
(10.7)
where
d
d
v
gt
= gas velocity in the throat, centimeters per second
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio, dimensionless
The parameter characterizing the liquid-to-gas ratio (B) can be calculated using Equation 10.8.
(10.8)
where
InP (d ) -B|[4K 4.2 - 5.02(K ) (1
t p po po
0.5
= + ++ + 0.7/K )tan (K /0.7) ]/(Kpo 0.7)¦
po
-1
po
0.5
l (3l C p )/(2d p )
t D g d t
=
d 50/v 91.8(L/G)
d gt
1.5
= +
B (L/G)p /(p C )
l g D
=
p
g
p
l
C
D
The inertial parameter at the throat entrance is calculated in Equation 10.9:
(10.9)
where
K
po
= inertial parameter at throat entrance, dimensionless
d
p
= particle aerodynamic resistance diameter, centimeters
v
gt
µ
g
= gas viscosity, grams per second-centimeter
d
d
The value for K
pg
is calculated using Equation 10.10:
(10.10)
where
K
pg
= inertial parameter for mass-median diameter, dimensionless
d
pg
= particle aerodynamic geometric mean diameter, centimeters
v
gt
µ
g
= gas velocity, grams per second-centimeter
d
d
The value for C
D
is calculated using Equation 10.11:
(10.11)
where
C
D
N
Reo
= Reynolds number for the liquid droplet at the throat inlet, dimensionless
The Reynolds number is determined in Equation 10.12:
(10.12)
where
N
Reo
v
gt
d
d
v
g
= gas kinematic viscosity, square centimeters per second
The value for d
pg
is calculated by using Equation 10.13:
(10.13)
K (d ) v /(9µ d )
po p
2
gt g d
=
K (d ) v /(9µ d )
pg pg
2
gt g d
=
C 0.22 (24/N )[1 0.15(N ) ]
D Reo Reo
0.6
= + +
N v d /v
Reo gt d g
=
d d (C p )
pg ps f p
0.5
= ×
where
d
pg
= particle aerodynamic geometric mean diameter, micrometers A (where A[=](g/cm
3
)
0.5
, where
[=] means 'has units of¨)
d
ps
= particle physical, or Stokes diameter, micrometers
C
f
= Cunningham slip correction factor, dimensionless
p
p
= particle density, grams per cubic centimeter
The Cunningham slip correction factor (C
f
) can be found by solving Equation 10.14:
(10.14)
where
C
f
= Cunningham slip correction factor, dimensionless
T = absolute temperature, Kelvin
d
ps
= particle physical, or Stokes diameter, micrometers
Example 10.1 illustrates how to use the infnite throat model to predict the performance of a
Venturi scrubber. When using the equations given in the model, make sure that the units for each
equation are consistent.
Example 10.1
Problem:
Cheeps Disposal Inc. plans to install a hazardous-waste incinerator to burn liquid and solid
waste materials. The exhaust gas from the incinerator will pass through a quench spray, then into
a Venturi scrubber, and fnally though a packed bed scrubber. Caustic added to the scrubbing liquor
will remove any HCl from the fue gas and will control the pH of the scrubbing liquor. The
uncontrolled particulate emissions leaving the incinerator are estimated to be 1100 kg/h (maximum
average). Local air pollution regulations state that particulate emissions must not exceed 10 kg/h.
Using the following data, estimate the particulate collection effciency of the Venturi scrubber
(USEPA-84/03, p. 9-8).
Given:
Mass-median particle size (physical) d
ps
= 9.0 µm
Geometric standard deviation
gm
= 2.5
Particle density p
p
= 1.9 g/cm
3
Gas viscosity µ
g
= 2.0 ×10
-4
g/cm-sec
Gas kinematic viscosity v
g
= 0.2 cm
2
/sec
Gas density p
g
= 1.0 kg/m
3
Gas fow rate Q
G
= 15 m
3
/sec
Gas velocity in Venturi throat v
gt
= 9000 cm/sec
Gas temperature (in Venturi) T
g
= 80°C
Water temperature T
l

Liquid density p
l
= 1000 kg/m
3
Liquid fow rate Q
L
= 0.014 m
3
/sec
Liquid-to-gas ratio L/G = 0.0009 L/m
3
C 1 [(6.21 10 )T]/d
f
-4
ps
= + ×
Solution:
Step 1. Calculate the Cunningham slip correction factor. The mass-median particle size (physical) d
ps
is 9.0 µm. Because the particle aerodynamic geometric mean diameter d
pg
is not known, we must
use Equation 10.13 to calculate d
pg
, and Equation 10.14 to calculate the Cunningham slip correction
factor C
f
. From Equation 10.14:

From Equation 10.13
where A[=](g/cm
3
)
0.5
Note: If the particle diameter is given as the aerodynamic geometric mean diameter d
pg
and
expressed in units of µmA, this step is not required.
Step 2. Calculate the droplet diameter d
d
from Equation (10.7) (Nukiyama and Tanasawa equation):
where
d
d
v
gr
Step 3. Calculate the inertial parameter for the mass-median diameter K
pg
, using Equation 10.10:
C 1 [(6.21 10 )T]/d
f
-4
ps
= + ×
= + × + 1 [(6.21 10 )(273 80]/9
-4
=1.024
d d (C p )
pg ps f p
0.5
= ×
= × 9 µm(1.024 1.9 g/cm )
3 0.5
=12.6 µmA
= × 12.6 10 cmA
-4
d 50/v 91.8(L/G)
d gr
1.5
= +
d 50/(9000 cm/sec) 91.8(0.0009)
d
1.5
= +
0.00080 cm =
K (d ) v /(9µ d )
pg pg
2
gt g d
=
where
K
pg
= inertial parameter for mass-median diameter, dimensionless
d
pg
= particle aerodynamic geometric mean diameter, centimeters
v
gt
µ
g
= gas velocity, grams per second-centimeter
d
d
Step 4. Calculate the Reynolds number N
Reo
, using Equation 10.12:
where
N
REO
v
gt
d
d
v
g
= gas kinematic viscosity, square centimeters per second

Step 5. Calculate the drag coeffcient for the liquid at the throat entrance C
D
, using Equation 10.11.
where
C
D
N
Reo

Step 6. Now, calculate the parameter characterizing the liquid-to-gas ratio B, using Equation 10.8:
K (12.6 10 cm) (9000 cm/sec)/|[9(2.0
pg
-4 2
= × ×10 (g/cm-sec)(0.008 cm)]¦
-4
=992
N v d /v
Reo gt d g
=
N v d /v
Reo gt d g
=
= (9000 cm/sec)(0.008 cm)(0.2 cm /sec)
2
=360
C 0.22 (24/N )[1 0.15(N ) ]
D Reo Reo
0.6
= + +
C 0.22 (24/N )[1 0.15(N ) ]
D Reo Reo
0.6
= + +
= + + 0.22 (24/360)[(1 0.15(360) ]
0.6
= 0.628
B (L/G)p /(p C )
l g D
=
where
p
g
p
l
C
D
Step 7. The geometric standard deviation
gm
is 2.5. The overall penetration P
t
is 0.008.
Step 8. The collection effciency can be calculated using the equation:
Step 9. Determine whether the local regulations for particulate emissions are being met. The local
regulations state that the particulate emissions cannot exceed 10 kg/h. The required collection
effciency is calculated by using the equation:
where
dust
in
= dust concentration leading into the Venturi
dust
out
= dust concentration leaving the Venturi

The estimated effciency of the Venturi scrubber is slightly higher than the required effciency.
B (L/G)p /(p C )
l g D
=
= (0.0009)(1000 kg/m )/(1.0 kg/m )(0.628)
3 3
= 1.43
1 - P*
t
=
= 1 - 0.008
= 0.992
= 99.2%
required in out in
(dust - dust )/dust =
required
(1100 kg/h - 10 kg/h)/1100 kg/ = hh
=0.991
=99.1%
10.2.5.3 Cut Power Method
The cut power method is an empirical correlation used to predict the collection effciency of a
scrubber. In this method, penetration is a function of the cut diameter of the particles to be collected
by the scrubber. Recall that the cut diameter is the diameter of the particles collected by the scrubber
with at least 50% effciency. Because scrubbers have limits to the size of particles they can collect,
knowledge of the cut diameter is useful in evaluating the scrubbing system (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-11).
In the cut power method, penetration is a function of particle diameter and is given as:
(10.15)
where
P
t
= penetration
A
cut
= parameter characterizing the particle size distribution
B
cut
= empirically determined constant, depending on the scrubber design
d
p
= aerodynamic diameter of the particle
Penetration, calculated by Equation 10.15, is given for only one particle size (d
p
). To obtain
the overall penetration, the equation can be integrated over the log-normal particle size distribution.
By mathematically integrating P
t
over a log-normal distribution of particles and by varying the
geometric standard deviation
gm
and the geometric mean particle diameter d
pg
, the overall pene-
tration P
t
can be obtained.
Example 10.2
Problem:
Given conditions similar to those used in the infnite throat section example, estimate the cut
diameter for a Venturi scrubber. The following data are approximate (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-12).
Given:
Geometric standard deviation
gm
= 2.5
Particle aerodynamic geometric mean diameter d
pg
= 12.6 µmA
Required effciency = 99.1% or 0.991
Solution:
Step 1. For an effciency of 99.1%, the overall penetration can be calculated from

Step 2. The overall penetration is 0.009 and the geometric standard deviation is 2.5. The fgures in
USEPA-84/03, p. 9-12, provide us with the following information:
P exp[-A d (B )]
t cut p cut
=
P * 1 -
t
=
=1 - 0.991
=0.009
P * 0.009
t
=
Step 3. The cut diameter (d
p
)
cut
is calculated from
Example 10.3
Problem:
A particle size analysis indicated that (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-14):
d
gm
(geometric mean particle diameter) = 12 µm
gm
(standard deviation of the distribution) = 3.0
(wet collector effciency) = 99%
If a collection effciency of 99% were required to meet emission standards, what would the cut
diameter of the scrubber need to be?
Solution:
Step 1. Write the penetration (P
t
) equation:

From the fgures in USEPA-84/03, p. 9-12, we read (d
p
)
cut
/d
gm
, for P
t
= 0.01, and
gm
= 3.0;
[d
p
]
cut
/d
gm
equals 0.063. Because d
gm
= 12 µm, the scrubber must be able to collect particles of size
0.063 ×12 = 0.76 µm (with at least 50% effciency) to achieve an overall scrubber effciency of 99%.
10.2.5.4 Contact Power Theory
A more general theory for estimating collection effciency is the contact power theory based on a
series of experimental observations made by Lapple and Kamack (1955). The fundamental assump-
tion of the theory is: 'When compared at the same power consumption, all scrubbers give substan-
tially the same degree of collection of a given dispersed dust, regardless of the mechanism involved
and regardless of whether the pressure drop is obtained by high gas fow rates or high water fow
rates¨ (Lapple and Kamack, 1955).
In other words, collection effciency is a function of how much power the scrubber uses, not
of how the scrubber is designed - an assumption with a number of implications in the evaluation
and selection of wet collectors. Once we know the amount of power needed to attain certain
collection effciency, the claims about specially located nozzles, baffes, etc. can be evaluated more
objectively. For example, the choice between two different scrubbers with the same power requirements
may depend primarily on ease of maintenance (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-16; USEPA-84/03, p. 9-13).
gm
2.5 =
(d ) /d 0.09
p cut pg
=
(d ) /d 0.09(12.6 mA) 1.134 mA
p cut pg
= = µ µ
P * 1 -
t
=
=1 - 0.99
=0.01
Semrau (1960, 1963) developed the contact power theory from the work of Lapple and Kamack
(1955). This theory is empirical in approach and relates the total pressure loss (P
T
) of the system
to the collection effciency. The total pressure loss is expressed in terms of the power expended in
injecting the liquid into the scrubber, plus the power needed to move the process gas through the
system (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-13):
(10.16)
)
where
P
T
= total contacting power (total pressure loss), kilowatt hours per 100 m
3
(horsepower per 1000
acfm)
P
G
= power input from gas stream, kilowatt hours per 100 m
3
(horsepower per 1000 acfm)
P
L
= contacting power from liquid injection, kilowatt hours per 100 m
3
(horsepower per 1000 acfm)
Note: The total pressure loss P
T
should not be confused with penetration P
t
.
The power expended in moving the gas through the system P
G
is expressed in terms of the
scrubber pressure drop:
(10.17)
or
where p = pressure drop, kilopascals (inches H
2
O)
The power expended in the liquid stream P
L
is expressed as
(10.18)
or
where
p
L
= liquid inlet pressure, 100 kPa (pounds per square inch)
Q
L
= liquid feed rate, cubic meters per hour (gallons per minute)
Q
G
= gas fow rate, cubic meters per hour (cubic feet per minute)
The constants given in the expressions for P
G
and P
L
incorporate conversion factors to put the
terms on a consistent basis. The total power can therefore be expressed as:
P P P
T G L
= +
P 0.157 p
G
=
P 0.583p (Q /Q )
L t L G
=
P 2.724 10 P, kWh/1000 m (metric un
G
-4 3
= × iits)
P 0.1575 p, hp/1000 acfm (British/US custo
G
mmary units)
P 0.28p (Q /Q ), kWh/1000 m (metric uni
L L L G
3
= tts)
P = 0.583p (Q /Q ), hp/1000 acfm (British/
G L L G
UUS customary units)
(10.19)
or
Correlate this with scrubber effciency by using the following equations:
(10.20)
where f (system) is defned as:
(10.21)
and where
N
t
= number of transfer units
P
T
= total contacting power
and = empirical constants determined from experiment and dependent on characteristics of
the particles
The effciency then becomes:
(10.22)
Note: The values of and (used in metric or British units) can be found in USEPA-84/03, p. 9-15.
Scrubber effciency is also expressed as the number of transfer units (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-17):
(10.23)
where
N
t
and = characteristic parameters for the type of particulates collected
Unlike the cut power and Johnstone theories, the contact power theory cannot predict effciency
from a given particle size distribution. The contact power theory gives a relationship that is
independent of the size of the scrubber. With this observation, a small pilot scrubber could frst be
used to determine the pressure drop needed for the required collection effciency. The full-scale
scrubber design could then be scaled up from the pilot information. Consider the following example:
Example 10.4
Problem:
Stack test results for a wet scrubber used to control particulate emissions from a foundry
cupola reveal that the particulate emissions must be reduced by 85% to meet emission standards.
P P P
T G L
= +
2.724 10 p 0.28p (Q /Q ), kWh/1000
-4
L L G
= × + m (metric units)
3
P 0.1575 p 0.583p (Q /Q ), hp/1000 ac
T L L G
= + ffm (British/US customary units)
1 - exp[- (system)] = f
f N P
t T
(system) ( ) = =
1 exp[- (P ) ]
T
=
N (P ) ln[l/(l - )]
t T
= =
If a 100-acfm pilot unit is operated with a water fow rate of 0.5 gal/min at a water pressure of 80
psi, what pressure drop ( p) would be needed across a 10,000-acfm scrubber unit (USEPA-84/03,
p. 9-15; USEPA-81/10, p. 9-18)?
Solution:
Step 1. From the table in USEPA-84/03, p. 9-15, read the and parameters for foundry cupola dust:
Step 2. Calculate the number of transfer units N
t
using Equation 10.20:

Step 3. Calculate the total contacting power P
T
using Equation 10.21:
Step 4. Calculate the pressure drop p using Equation 10.19:
1.35 =
0.621 =
1 exp(-N )
t
=
N ln[l/(l )]
t
=
=ln[l/(l 0.85)]
=1.896
N P
t T
( ) =
1.896 1.35 (P )
T
0.621
=
1.404 (P )
T
0.621
=
ln 1.404 0.621(ln P )
T
=
0.3393 0.621(ln P )
T
=
0.5464 ln P
T
=
P 1.73 hp/1000 acfm
T
=
P 0.1575 p 0.583p (Q /Q )
T L L G
= +
10.2.5.5 Pressure Drop
A number of factors affect particle capture in a scrubber. One of the most important for many
scrubber types is pressure drop, which is the difference in pressure between the scrubbing process
inlet and outlet. Static pressure drop of a system is dependent on the system`s mechanical design,
as well as on the required collection effciency: the sum of the energy required to accelerate and
move the gas stream and the frictional losses as the gases move through the scrubbing system
(UESPA-84/03, p. 9-17).
The following factors affect the pressure drop in a scrubber:
· Scrubber design and geometry
· Gas velocity
· Liquid-to-gas ratio
As with calculating collection effciency, no single equation can predict pressure drop for all
scrubbing systems.
Many theoretical and empirical relationships are available for estimating the pressure drop
across a scrubber. Generally, the most accurate are those developed by scrubber manufacturers for
their particular scrubbing systems. Because of the lack of validated models, users should consult
the vendor`s literature to estimate pressure drop for the particular scrubbing device of concern.
One widely accepted expression was developed for Venturis. The correlation proposed by
Calvert (Yung et al., 1977) is:
(metric units) (10.24)
or
(English units) (10.25)
where
p = pressure drop, centimeters H
2
O (inches H
2
O)
v
gt
= gas velocity in the Venturi throat, centimeters per second (feet per second)
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio, dimensionless (actually in liters per cubic meter [gallons per 1000 ft
3
])
Using Equation 10.24 for the conditions given in the example in the infnite throat model section,
we obtain:
1.73 0.1575 p 0.583(80)(0.5/100) = +
p 9.5 in. H O
2
=
p 10 (v ) (L/G)
-4
gt
2
= × 8 24 .
p 4 10 (v ) (L/G)
-5
gt
2
= × .0
v 9000 cm/sec
gt
=
L/G 0.0009 L/m
3
=

10.3 WET SCRUBBER COLLECTION MECHANISMS AND EFFICIENCY
(GASEOUS EMISSIONS)
Although Venturi scrubbers are used predominantly for control of particulate air pollutants, these
devices can simultaneously function as absorbers. Consequently, absorption devices used to remove
gaseous contaminants are referred to as absorbers or wet scrubbers (USEPA-84/03, p. 1-7). To
remove a gaseous pollutant by absorption, the exhaust stream must be passed through (brought
into contact with) a liquid. The process involves three steps:
1. The gaseous pollutant diffuses from the bulk area of the gas phase to the gas-liquid interface.
2. The gas moves (transfers) across the interface to the liquid phase. This step occurs extremely
rapidly once the gas molecules (pollutants) arrive at the interface area.
3. The gas diffuses into the bulk area of the liquid, thus making room for additional gas molecules
to be absorbed. The rate of absorption (mass transfer of the pollutant from the gas phase to the
liquid phase) depends on the diffusion rates of the pollutant in the gas phase (frst step) and in the
liquid phase (third step).
To enhance gas diffusion, and therefore absorption, steps include:
· Providing a large interfacial contact area between the gas and liquid phases
· Providing good mixing of the gas and liquid phases (turbulence)
· Allowing suffcient 'residence¨ or 'contact¨ time between the phases for adsorption to occur
10.4 ASSORTED VENTURI SCRUBBER EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
In this section, we provide several example calculations environmental engineers would be expected
to perform for problems dealing with a Venturi scrubber design; scrubber overall collection eff-
ciency; scrubber plan review; spray tower; packed tower review; and tower height and diameter.
10.4.1 Scrubber Design of a Venturi Scrubber
Example 10.5
Problem:
Calculate the throat area of a Venturi scrubber to operate at specifed collection effciency
(USEPA-84/09, p. 77).
Given:
Volumetric fow rate of process gas stream = 11,040 acfm (at 68°F)
Density of dust = 187 lb/ft
3
Liquid-to-gas ratio = 2 gal/1000 ft
3
Average particle size = 3.2 µm (1.05 ×10
-5
ft)
Water droplet size = 48 µm (1.575 ×10
-4
ft)
Scrubber coeffcient k = 0.14
p 8.24 10 (9000) (0.0009)
-4 2
= ×
=60 cm H O
2
Required collection effciency = 98%
Viscosity of gas = 1.23 ×10
-5
lb/ft-sec
Cunningham correction factor = 1.0
Solution:
Step 1. Calculate the inertial impaction parameter, , from Johnstone`s equation. (Johnstone`s equation
describes the collection effciency of a Venturi scrubber [USEPA-81/10, p. 9-11]).
where
k = correlation coeffcient whose value depends on the system geometry and operating conditions,
typically 0.1 to 0.2, 1000 acf/gal
Q
L
/Q
G
= liquid-to-gas ratio, gallons per 1000 acf
= C
f
p
p
v(d
p
)
2
/18d
d
p
p
= particle density
d
p
d
d
C
f
Step 2. From the calculated value of the preceding (internal impaction parameter), back calculate
the gas velocity at the Venturi throat v.
Calculate :
Solving for :
Calculate v:
1 exp[-k(Q /Q ) ]
L G
=
1 - exp[-k(Q /Q ) ]
L G
=
0.98 1 - exp[-0.14(2) ] =
=195.2
µ C p v(d ) /18d
f p p
2
d
=
v 18 d /C p (d )
d f p p
2
= µ
= × × (18)(195.2)(1.575 10 )(1.23 10 )/(1
-4 -5
))(187)(1.05 10 )
-5 2
×
=330.2 ft/sec
Step 3. Calculate the throat area S, using gas velocity at the Venturi throat v:
Example 10.6
Problem:
Calculate the overall collection effciency of a Venturi scrubber that cleans a fy ash-laden gas
stream, given the liquid-to-gas ratio, throat velocity, and particle size distribution (USEPA-84/09,
p. 79).
Given
Liquid-to-gas ratio = 8.5 gal/1000 ft
3
Throat velocity = 227 ft/sec
Particle density of fy ash = 43.7 lb/ft
3
Gas viscosity = 1.5 ×10
-5
lb/ft-sec
The particle size distribution data are given in Table 10.1. Use Johnstone`s equation with a k value
of 0.2 to calculate the collection effciency. Ignore the Cunningham correction factor effect.
Solution:
Step 1. What are the parameters used in Johnstone`s equation?
Johnstone`s equation
where
k = correlation coeffcient whose value depends on the system geometry and operating conditions,
typically 0.1 to 0.2, 1000 acf/gal
Q
L
/Q
G
= liquid-to-gas ratio, gallons per 1000 acf
= C
f
p
p
v(d
p
)
2
/18d
d
p
p
= particle density
d
p
TabIe 10.1 ParticIe Size Distribution Data
dp, Microns Weight, percent
<0.1 0.01
0.1-0.5 0.21
0.5-1.0 0.78
1.0-5.0 13
5.0-10.0 16
10.0-15.0 12
15.0-20.0 8
>20.0 50
S (volumetric flow rate)/(velocity) =
=11,040/(60)(330.2)
=0.557 ft
2
1 exp[-k(Q /Q ) ]
L G
=
d
d
C
f
Calculate the average droplet diameter in feet. The average droplet diameter may be calculated using
the equation:
where d
d
= droplet diameter, microns.

Express the inertial impaction parameter in terms of d
p
(feet):
Express the fractional collection effciency
i
, in terms of d
pi
(d
p
in feet):
Step 2. Calculate the collection effciency for each particle size appearing in Table 10.1:
d (16,400/V) 1.45(Q /Q )
d L G
1.5
= +
d (16,400/272) 1.45(8.5)
d
1.5
= +
=96.23 microns
= × 3.156 10 ft
-4
µ =C p v(dp) /18d
f p
2
d
(1)(43.7)(272)(d ) /18(3.156 10 )(1.5
p
2 -4
= × 10 )
-5
×
= × 1.3945 10 (d )
11
p
2
1 - exp[-k(Q /Q ) ]
L G
=
i
11
p
2
1 - exp[-(0.2)(8.5)(1.3945 10 (d ) ) = ×
00.5
]
= × 1 - exp[ -6.348 10 d
5
pi
]
For d 0.05 micron (1.64 10 ft), for
p
-7
= × eexample:
i
5
pi
1 - exp[-6.348 10 d ] = ×
= × × 1 - exp[-6.348 10 (1.64 10 )]
5 -7
=0.0989
w 0.01(0.0989) 9.89 1
i i
-4
= = ×
Table 10.2 shows the results (rounded) of the preceding calculations for each particle size.
Step 3. Calculate the overall collection effciency:
Example 10.7
Problem:
A vendor proposes to use a spray tower on a lime kiln operation to reduce the discharge of
solids to the atmosphere. The inlet loading must be reduced to meet state regulations. The vendor`s
design calls for a certain water pressure drop and gas pressure drop across the tower. Determine
whether this spray tower will meet state regulations. If the spray tower does not meet state
regulations, propose a set of operating conditions that will meet the regulations (USEPA-84/09, p.
81).
Given:
Gas fow rate = 10,000 acfm
Water rate = 50 gal/min
Inlet loading = 5.0 gr/ft
3
Maximum gas pressure drop across the unit = 15 in. H
2
O
Maximum water pressure drop across the unit = 100 psi
Water pressure drop = 80 psi
Gas pressure drop across the tower = 5.0 in. H
2
O
State regulations require a maximum outlet loading of 0.05 grains per cubic foot. Assume that
the contact power theory applies (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-15).
Solution:
Step 1. Calculate the collection effciency based on the design data given by the vendor. The contact
power theory is an empirical approach that relates particulate collection effciency and pressure
drop in wet scrubber systems. It assumes that particulate collection effciency is a sole function of
the total pressure loss for the unit:
TabIe 10.2 ParticIe Size Data
dp, Feet wi, Percent i wi i, Percent
1.64 ×10
-7
0.01 0.0989 9.89 ×10
-4
9.84 ×10
-7
0.21 0.4645 0.0975
2.62 ×10
-6
0.78 0.8109 0.6325
9.84 ×10
-6
13 0.9981 12.98
2.62 ×10
-5
16 1 16
4.27 ×10
-5
12 1 12
5.91 ×10
-5
8 1 8
6.56 ×10
-5
50 1 50
= w
i i
= × + + + + 9.89 10 0.0975 0.6325 12.980
-4
116.00 12.00 8.00 50.00 + + +
= 99.71%
where
P
T
= total pressure loss, horsepower per 1000 acfm
P
G
= contacting power based on gas stream input, horsepower per 1000 acfm
p = pressure drop across the scrubber, inches H
2
O
P
L
= contacting power based on liquid stream energy input, horsepower per 1000 acfm
p
L
= liquid inlet pressure, pounds per square inch
Q
L
= liquid feed rate, gallons per minute
Q
G
= gas fow rate, cubic feet per minute
The scrubber collection effciency is also expressed as the number of transfer units:
where
N
t
and = characteristic parameters for the type of particulates collected
Calculate the total pressure loss P
T
. To calculate the total pressure loss, we need the contacting pow-
er for the gas stream energy input and liquid stream energy input.
Calculate the contacting power based on the gas stream energy input P
G
in hp/1000 acfm. Because
the vendor gives the pressure drop across the scrubber, we can calculate P
G
:

Calculate the contacting power based on the liquid stream energy input P
L
, in horsepower per 1000
acfm. Because the liquid inlet pressure and liquid-to-gas ratio are given, we can calculate P
L
:
T
, in horsepower per 1000 acfm:
P P P
T G L
= +
P 0.157 p
G
=
P 0.583p (Q /Q )
L L L G
=
N (P ) ln[l/(l - )]
t T
= =
P 0.157 p
G
=
=(0.157)(5.0)
=0.785 hp/1000 acfm
P 0.583p (Q /Q )
L L L G
=
=0.583(80)(50/10,000)
=0.233 hp/1000 acfm
Calculate the number of transfer units N
t
:
The values of and for a lime kiln operation are 1.47 and 1.05, respectively. These coeffcients
have been previously obtained from feld test data. Therefore,
Calculate the collection effciency based on the design data given by the vendor:
Solving for .
Step 2. Calculate collection effciency required by state regulations. Because the inlet loading is known
and the outlet loading is set by the regulations, we can readily calculate the collection effciency:
Step 3. Does the spray tower meet the regulations? No. The collection effciency, based on the design
data given by the vendor, should be higher than the collection effciency required by the state
regulations.
P P P
T G L
= +
= + 0.785 0.233
=1.018 hp/1000 acfm
N (P )
t T
=
N (P )
t T
=
=(1.47)(1.018)
1.05
1.50 =
N ln[l/(l - )]
t
=
1.50 ln[l/(l - )] =
0.777 =
=77.7%
Collection efficiency [(inlet loading ou = ttlet loading)(inlet loading)](100)
=[(5.0 0.05)/(5.0)](100)
=99.0%
Step 4. Assuming the spray tower does not meet the regulations, propose a set of operating conditions
that will meet the regulations.
Note that the calculation procedure is now reversed.
T
, using the collection effciency required by the regulations in
horsepower per 1000 acfm.
Calculate the number of transfer units for the effciency required by the regulations:
T
, in horsepower per 1000 acfm:
Solving for P
T.
Calculate the contacting power based on the gas stream energy input P
G
, using a p of 15 in. H
2
O.
A pressure drop p of 15 in. H
2
O is the maximum value allowed by the design
Calculate the contacting power based on the liquid stream energy input P
L
:
Calculate Q
L
/Q
G
in gallons per actual cubic feet, using a p
L
of 100 psi:
N ln[l/(l )]
t
=
ln[l/(l .99)] 0
=4.605
N (P )
t T
=
4,605 1.47(P )
T
1.05
=
P 2.96 hp/1000 acfm
T
=
P 0.157 p
G
=
=(0.157)(15)
=2.355 hp/1000 acfm
P P P
L T G
= +
=2.96 2.355
= 0.605 hp/1000 acfm
P 0.583p (Q /Q )
L L L G
=

Determine the new water fow rate Q
L
, in gallons per minute:

What is the new set of operating conditions that will meet the regulations?

10.4.2 Spray Tower
Example 10.8
Problem:
A steel pickling operation emits 300 ppm HCl (hydrochloric acid), with peak values of 500
ppm, 15% of the time. The airfow is a constant 25,000 acfm at 75°F and 1 atm. Only sketchy
information was submitted with the scrubber permit application for a spray tower. We are requested
to determine if the spray unit is satisfactory (USEPA-84/09, p. 100).
Given
Emission limit = 25 ppm HCl
Maximum gas velocity allowed through the water = 3 ft/sec
Number of sprays = 6
Diameter of the tower = 14 ft
The plans show a countercurrent water spray tower. For a very soluble gas (Henry`s law constant
approximately zero), the number of transfer units (N
OG
) can be determined by the following
equation:
where
y
1
= concentration of inlet gas
y
2
= concentration of outlet gas
Q /Q P /0.583p
L G L L
=
=0.605/(0.583)(100)
=0.0104
(Q ) (Q /Q (10,000 acfm)
L L G
= )
=0.0104(10,000 acfm)
=104 gal/min
= Q 104 gal/min
L
P 2.96 hp/1000 acfm
T
=
N ln(y /y )
OG 1 2
=
In a spray tower, the number of transfer units N
OG
for the frst (or top) spray is about 0.7. Each
lower spray has only about 60% of the N
OG
of the spray above it. The fnal spray, if placed in the
inlet duct, has an N
OG
of 0.5.
The spray sections of a tower are normally spaced at 3-ft intervals. The inlet duct spray adds
no height to the column.
Solution:
Step 1. Calculate the gas velocity through the tower:
where
V = velocity
Q = actual volumetric gas fow
S = cross-sectional area
D = diameter of the tower

Step 2. Does the gas velocity meet the requirement? Yes, because the gas velocity is less than 3 ft/sec.
Step 3. Calculate the number of overall gas transfer units N
OG
required to meet the regulation. Recall that
where
y
1
= concentration of inlet gas
y
2
= concentration of outlet gas
Use the peak value for inlet gas concentration:
V Q/S =
=Q/( D /4)
2
V Q/( D /4)
2
=
=25,000/[ (14) /4]
2
=162.4 ft/min
=2.7 ft/sec
N ln(y /y )
OG 1 2
=
N ln(y /y )
OG 1 2
=
=ln(500/25)
=3.0
Step 4. Determine the total number of transfer units provided by a tower with six spray sections.
Remember that each lower spray has only 60% of the effciency of the section above it (because
of back mixing of liquids and gases from adjacent sections). Spray section N
OG
values are derived
accordingly:
This value is below the required value of 3.0.
Step 5. Calculate the outlet concentration of gas.

Step 6. Does the spray tower meet the HCl regulation? Because y
2
is greater than the required emission
limit of 25 ppm, the spray unit is not satisfactory.
10.4.3 Packed Tower
Example 10.9
Pollution Unlimited, Inc. has submitted plans for a packed ammonia scrubber on an air stream
containing NH
3
. The operating and design data are given by Pollution Unlimited. We remember
Top spray N 0.7 (given)
OG
=
2nd spray N 0.7(0.6) 0.42
OG
= =
3rd spray N 0.42(0.6) 0.252
OG
= =
4th spray N 0.252(0.6) 0.1512
OG
= =
5th spray N 0.1512(0.6) 0.0907
OG
= =
Inlet N 0.5 (given)
OG
=
Total N 0.7 0.42 0.252 0.1512 0
OG
= + + + + ..0907 0.5 2.114 + =
N ln(y /y )
OG 1 2
=
y /y exp(NOG)
1 2
=
=exp(2.114)
=8.28
y 500/8.28
2
=
=60.4 ppm
approving plans for a nearly identical scrubber for Pollution Unlimited in 1978. After consulting
our old fles, we fnd all the conditions were identical except for the gas fow rate. What is our
recommendation (USEPA-84/09, p. 102)?
Given
Tower diameter = 3.57 ft
Packed height of column = 8 ft
Gas and liquid temperature = 75°F
Operating pressure = 1.0 atm
Ammonia-free liquid fow rate (inlet) = 1000 lb/ft
2
-h
Gas fow rate = 1575 acfm
Gas fow rate in the 1978 plan = 1121 acfm
Inlet NH
3
gas composition = 2.0 mol%
Outlet NH
3
gas composition = 0.1 mol%
Air density = 0.0743 lb/ft
3
Molecular weight of air = 29
Henry`s law constant m = 0.972
Molecular weight of water = 18
Emission regulation = 0.1% NH
3
Colburn chart
Solution:
Step 1. What is the number of overall gas transfer units N
OG
? The number of overall gas transfer units
N
OG
is used when calculating packing height requirements. It is a function of the extent of the
desired separation and the magnitude of the driving force through the column (the displacement of
the operating line from the equilibrium line).
Calculate the gas molar fow rate G
m
and liquid molar fow rate L
m
, in pound-moles per square foot-
hour. The values of G
m
and L
m
are found on the Colburn chart (EPA-84/03, p. 104; EPA-81/12,
p. 4-30). As mentioned earlier, this chart graphically predicts the value of N
OG
.
Calculate the cross-sectional area of the tower S, in square feet:
where
S = cross-sectional area of the tower
D = diameter of the tower

Calculate the gas molar fow rate G
m
, in pound-moles per square foot-hour:
where
S D /4
2
=
S D /4
2
=
=( )(3.57) /(4)
2
10.0 ft
2
=
G Q /SM
m p
=
G
m
= gas molar fow rate, pound-moles per square foot-hour
Q = volumetric fow rate of gas stream
p = density of air
M = molecular weight of air

Calculate the liquid molar fow rate L
m
, in pound-moles per square foot-hour:
where
L
m
= liquid molar fow rate, pound-moles per square foot-hour
L = liquid mass velocity, pounds per square foot-hour
M
L
= liquid molecular weight
Calculate the value of mG
m
/L
m
:
where
m = Henry`s law constant
G
m
L
m

Calculate the value of (y
1
- mx
2
)/(y
2
- mx
2
), the abscissa of the Colburn chart:
where
y
1
= inlet gas mole fraction
y
2
= outlet gas mole fraction
x
2
= inlet liquid mole fraction
G Q /SM
m p
=
=(1575)(0.0743)/(10.0)(29)
=0.404 lb-mol/ft -min
2
=24.2 lb-mol/ft -h
2
L L/M
m L
=
L L/M
m L
=
=(1000)/(18)
=55.6 lb mol/ft -h
2
mG /L (0.972)(24.2/55.6)
m m
=
=0.423
Determine the value of N
OG
from the Colburn chart. From the Colburn chart, use the values of (y
1
-
mx
2
)/(y
2
- mx
2
) and mG
m
/L
m
to fnd the value of N
OG
:
Step 2. What is the height of an overall gas transfer unit H
OG
? The height of an overall gas transfer
unit H
OG
is also used to calculate packing height requirements. H
OG
values in air pollution are
almost always based on experience. H
OG
is a strong function of solvent viscosity and diffculty of
separation, increasing with increasing values of both.
Calculate the gas mass velocity G, in pounds per square foot-hour:
where
G = gas mass velocity, pounds per square foot-hour
p = density of air
H
OG
value is 2.2 ft (determined from USEPA chart).
Step 3. What is the required packed column height Z, in feet?
where
Z = height of packing
H
OG
= height of an overall gas transfer unit
N
OG

(y mx )/(y mx ) [0.02 (0.972)(0)
1 2 2 2
= ]]/[0.001 (0.972)(0)]
=20.0
N 4.3
OG
=
G pQ/S =
G pQ/S =
=(1575)(0.0743)/10.0
=11.7 lb/ft -min
2
=702 lb/ft -h
2
Z (N )(H )
OG OG
=
Z (N )(H )
OG OG
=
= (4.3)(2.2)
= 9.46 ft
Step 4. Compare the packed column height of 8 ft specifed by Pollution Unlimited, Inc. to the height
calculated previously. What is the recommendation? The submission is disapproved because the
calculated height (9.46 ft) is higher than that (8 ft) proposed by the company.
10.4.4 Packed CoIumn Height and Diameter
Example 10.10
Problem:
A packed column is designed to absorb ammonia from a gas stream. Given the operating
conditions and type of packing (see below), calculate the height of packing and column diameter
(USEPA-84/09, p. 106).
Given
Gas mass fow rate = 5000 lb/h
NH
3
concentration in inlet gas stream = 2.0 mol%
Scrubbing liquid = pure water
Packing type = 1-in. Raschig rings
Packing factor, F = 160
H
OG
of the column = 2.5 ft
Henry`s law constant m = 1.20
Density of gas (air) = 0.075 lb/ft
3
Density of water = 62.4 lb/ft
3
Viscosity of water = 1.8 cp
Generalized fooding and pressure drop correction graph (USEPA-84/09, p. 107)
Figure 10.2: graphical representation of the packed column
The unit operates at 60% of the fooding gas mass velocity; the actual liquid fow rate is 25%
more than the minimum and 90% of the ammonia must be collected to meet state regulations.
Figure 10.2 Graphical representation of the packed column. (Adapted from USEPA-84/09, p. 107).
Pure water
y
2
x
2
= 0
Z
D
Contaminated gas stream
x
1
y
1
= 0.02
2
D
1
Z = packed column height
D = column diameter
y
1
= inlet gas composition
y
2
= outlet gas composition
x
1
= outlet liquid composition
x
2
= inlet liquid composition
Solution:
Step 1. What is the number of overall gas transfer units N
OG
? Remember that the height of packing Z
is given by:
where
H
OG
N
OG
Because H
OG
is given, we only need N
OG
to calculate Z. N
OG
is a function of the liquid and gas fow
rates; however, it is usually available for most air pollution applications.
What is the equilibrium outlet liquid composition x
1
and the outlet gas composition y
2
for 90% re-
moval? Recall that we need the inlet and outlet concentrations (mole fractions) of both streams
to use the Colburn chart.
Calculate the equilibrium outlet concentration x
1
at y
1
= 0.02. According to Henry`s law, x
1
at
y
1
/m, the equilibrium outlet liquid composition is needed to calculate the minimum L
m
/G
m
:
where
x
1
= outlet concentration
y
1
L
m
G
m
Calculate y
2
for 90% removal. Because state regulations require the removal of 90% of NH
3
, by ma-
terial balance, 10% NH
3
will remain in the outlet gas stream:
where
y
1
y
2
Z (N )(H )
OG OG
=
x * = y /m
1 1
=(0.02)/(1.20)
=0.0167
y (0.1y )/[(1 - y ) (0.1)y ]
2 1 1 1
= +
y (0.1y )/[(1 - y ) (0.1)y ]
2 1 1 1
= +
(0.1)(0.02)/[(1 - 0.02) (0.1)(0.02)] +
= 0.00204
Determine the minimum ratio of molar liquid fow rate to molar gas fow rate (L
m
/G
m
)
min
by a mate-
rial balance. Material balance around the packed column:
where
y
1
y
2
x
1
= outlet concentration
x
2
L
m
G
m

Calculate the actual ratio of molar liquid fow rate to molar gas fow rate (L
m
/G
m
). Remember that
the actual liquid fow rate is 25% more than the minimum based on the given operating condi-
tions:
Calculate the value of (y
1
- mx
2
)/(y
2
- mx
2
), the abscissa of the Colburn chart:
where
y
1
y
2
x
1
= outlet liquid mole fraction
x
2
Calculate the value of mG
m
/L
m
:
G (y - y ) L (x * - x )
m 1 2 m 1 2
=
(L /G ) (y - y )/(x * - x )
m m min 1 2 1 2
=
(L /G ) (y - y )/(x * - x )
m m min 1 2 1 2
=
=(0.02 - 0.00204)/(0.0167 - 0)
=1.08
(L /G ) 1.25 (L /G )
m m m m min
=
=(1.25)(1.08)
= 1.35
(y mx )/(y mx ) [(0.02) (1.2)(0)]/[(0.
1 2 2 2
= 000204) (1.2)(0)]
= 9.80
where
G
m
L
m
Even though the individual values of G
m
and L
m
are not known, the ratio of the two has been previ-
ously calculated:
Determine number of overall gas transfer units N
OG
from the Colburn chart using the values calcu-
lated previously (9.80 and 0.899). From the Colburn chart N
OG
= 6.2.
Step 2. Calculate the height of packing Z:
where
H
OG
N
OG
Step 3. What is the diameter of the packed column? The actual gas mass velocity must be determined.
To calculate the diameter of the column, we need the fooding gas mass velocity. USEPA`s gener-
alized fooding and pressure drop correction graph (USEPA-84/09, p. 107) is used to determine the
fooding gas mass velocity. The mass velocity is obtained by dividing the mass fow rate by the
cross-sectional area.
Calculate the fooding gas mass velocity G
f
.
Calculate the abscissa of USEPA`s generalized fooding and pressure drop correction graph,
(L/G)(p/p
L
)
0.5
:
where
18/29 = ratio of molecular weight of water to air
L = liquid mass velocity, pounds per second-square foot
G = gas mass velocity, pounds per second-square foot
p = gas density
p
L
= liquid density
G
m
L
m
mG /L (1.2)/(1.35)
m m
=
=0.889
Z (N )(H )
OG OG
=
Z (N )(H )
OG OG
=
(6.2)(2.5) =
= 15.5 ft
(L/G)(p/p ) (L /G )(18/29)(p/p )
L
0.5
m m L
0.5
=
Note that the L and G terms (in USEPA`s generalized fooding and pressure drop correction graph)
are based on mass and not moles:
Determine the value of the ordinate at the fooding line using the calculated value of the abscissa:
Ordinate = G
2
F (µ
L
)
0.2
/P
L
pg
c
F = packing factor = 160 for 1-in. Raschig rings
= ratio, density of water/density of liquid
g
c
= 32.2 lb-ft/lb
f
-sec
2
µ
L
= viscosity of liquid, centipoise
G = gas mass velocity, pounds per square foot-second
From USEPA`s generalized fooding and pressure drop correction graph,
Solve the abscissa for the fooding gas mass velocity G
f
, in pounds per square foot-second. The G
value becomes G
f
for this case. Thus,
Calculate the actual gas mass velocity G
act
, in pounds per square foot-second:

Calculate the diameter of the column in feet:
(L/G)(p/p ) (1.35)(18/29)(0.075/62.4)
L
0.5 0
=
..5
=0.0291
G F ( ) /p pg
2
L
0.2
L c
µ = 0 19 .
G [0.19(p pg )/(F ( ) )]
f L c L
0.2 0.5
= µ
=[(0.19)(62.4)(0.075)(32.2)/(160)(1)(1.8)
0..2 0.5
]
=0.400 lb/ft -sec
2
G 0.6G
act f
=
=(0.6)(0.400)
=0.240 lb/ft -sec
2
=864 lb/ft -h
2
S (mass flow rate of gas stream)/G
act
=
=5000/G
act
10.5 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
Use the following approaches to evaluate the capabilities of scrubbing systems: empirical relation-
ships, theoretical models, and pilot scale tests.
· Two important parameters in the design and operation of wet scrubbing systems that are a function
of the process being controlled are dust properties and exhaust gas characteristics.
· Particle size distribution is the most critical parameter in choosing the most effective scrubber
design and determining the overall collection effciency.
· Static pressure drop of a system is dependent on the mechanical design of the system and collection
effciency required.
· The scrubber used most often to remove particulate matter from exhaust systems is a Venturi
scrubber.
· The term penetration is defned as the fraction of particles that passes through a scrubber uncol-
lected.
· No one simple equation can be used to estimate scrubber collection effciency for all scrubber types.
· Effcient particle removal requires high gas-to-liquid (relative) velocities.
· The infnite throat model is used to estimate particle collection in Venturi scrubbers.
· The contact power theory is dependent on pilot test data to determine required collection effciency.
· The total pressure loss, or contacting power, of the scrubbing system is represented by P
T
= P
G
+ P
L
, the symbol P
T
.
· Effcient particle removal requires high gas-to-liquid (relative) velocities.
· According to the contact power theory, the higher the pressure drop is across the scrubbing system,
the higher the collection effciency will be.
· The following factors affect the pressure drop of a scrubbing system: scrubber design, gas velocity,
and liquid-to-gas ratio.
REFERENCES
Calvert, S.J., Goldschmid, D., Leith, D., and Metha, D. (1972). Wet Scrubber System Study. Vol 1, Scrubber
Handbook. USEPA-R2-72-118a. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Heumann, W.L. and Subramania, V. (1997). Particle scrubbing. In Industrial Air Pollution Control Systems.
William L. Heumann (Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lapple, C.E. and Kamack, H.J. (1955). Performance of wet dust scrubbers. Chem. Eng. Prog. 51:110-121.
Nukiyama, S. and Tanasawa, Y. (1983). An experiment on atomization of liquid by means of air stream (in
Japanese). Trans. Soc. Mechanical Eng., Japan. 4:86.
Semrau, K.T. (1960). Correlation of dust scrubber effciency. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc., 10:200-207.
Semrau, K.T. (1963). Dust scrubber design - a critique on the state of the art. J. Air Control Assoc. 13:587-593.
Spellman, F.R. (1999). The Science of Air. Concepts & Applications. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing
Co. Inc.
S D /4
2
=
D /4 5000/G
2
act
=
D [(4(5000))/( G )]
act
0.5
=
=2.71 ft
USEPA (1971). Control Techniques for Gases and Particulates.
USEPA-81/10 (1981). Control of particulate emissions, Course 413, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute
(APTI), USEPA450-2-80-066.
USEPA-84/02 (1984). Wet scrubber plan review, Course SI:412C, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute
(APTI), EPA450-2-82-020.
USEPA-84/03, Web scrubber plan review, Course SI: 412C, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI),
EPA450-2-82-020, March, 1984.
USEPA-84/09 (1984). Control of gaseous and particulate emission, Course SI:412D. USEPA Air Pollution
Training Institute (APTI), USEPA450-2-84-007.
Yung, S., Calvert, S. and Barbarika, J.F. (1977). Venturi Scrubber Performance Model. USEPA 600/2-77-172.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Scrubbers Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Scrubbers Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

249

You might also like