CDB 3082

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LAB IV

LABORATORY 6
Particulate Monitoring
-Spray ChamberGroup 10:
Nam
1. Lam Jun Jiee
2. Muhamad Fawwaz bin
Md.
Isa
3. Swarnalaxmi
Karunamurthy
4. Teoh Wei Yee
5. Mahfuzoh binti Abu
Hassan

Student I.D.
20055
20236
19704
19776
19902
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
No.
1.0
2.0
3.0

Section
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology

Page
2
4
6

3.1 Experiment A: Effect of droplet size upon separation efficiency

3.2 Experiment B: Effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation
efficiency
4.0

Results & Discussions

4.1 Experiment A: Effect of droplet size upon separation efficiency

4.2 Experiment B: Effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation
5.0
6.0
7.0

efficiency
Conclusion & Recommendation
References
Appendices

12
13
14

7.1 Sample Calculations

7.2 Experimental Setup

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Air pollution occurs in the presence of undesirable material in the surrounding air in with
quantities that are large enough to produce harmful effects to human beings and the environment.
Particulate matter is the sum of all solid and liquid particles that are suspended in air.
Airborne particulate matter represents a complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances.
Mass and composition in urban environments tend to be divided into two principal groups, which
are coarse particles and fine particles. The presence of particulate matter causes air to be
contaminated by a range of different particles such as dust, pollen, soot and smoke. When inhaled,
these tiny particles can cause severe coughing, headaches and lung damage; hence measures to
eliminate the formation and spreading of these particles are of utmost necessity.
A spray chamber, also known as dust scrubber, is a wet scrubber that is categorized as one
of the particulate control techniques. In spray chambers or spray towers, scrubbing liquid,
commonly water, is sprayed or dispersed in fine droplets via sprayers or nozzles at the top of the
scrubber, while gas is fed tangentially from underneath, thus forming a counter-current flow (Emis,
2015). Generally, a spray chamber removes pollutants such as fine, sticky or hygrscopic dust
particles from gas streams by capturing the particles in liquid droplets or in sheets of scrubbing
liquid. The droplets containing the pollutant particles are then separated from the gas stream as
cleaner gas flows to the top of the spray chamber, while the liquid containing pollutants flows out
of the spray chamber.

Figure 1.1: Diagram of spray chamber and

the flow of gas and liquid

2

Typically, the efficiency of a spray chamber ranges from 70% to 99% depending on the
distribution of the pollutant particles in the gas stream. Due to its good separation efficiency, spray
chambers are widely used in various industries. For example, as stated in Lenntech (n.d.), the
chemical industry uses spray chambers to separate dust and aerosols, the metal industry uses it for
waste gases, the pharmaceutical industry, plastic industry and such for the purification process.
Besides that, some industries also use spray chambers as a cooler to quench hot flue gases.
In this experiment, the spray chamber model used consists of a separation chamber, water
recirculation system, dust feeding system, variable speed air blower and instruments for
measurement of incoming air flow and pressure drop across the spray chamber. The spray chamber
incorporates a range of spray nozzles that produce different droplet sizes. Besides that, a mist
eliminator is also installed at the top of the chamber to prevent the escaping of water droplets.
There are two objectives that this experiment aims to achieve. First, is to determine the effect of
droplet size upon separation efficiency of the spray chamber unit by using different nozzle sizes.
Next, is to determine the effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation efficiency of the spray
chamber unit.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

According to The Lancet (1995), it is stated that based on epidemiological studies, it
consistently shown an association between particulate air pollution and not only exacerbations of
illness in people with respiratory disease but also rises in the numbers of deaths from
cardiovascular and respiratory disease among older people. This shows that air pollution slowly
getting worst each day and some action need to be taken to solve this problem. Rosenfeld (2000)
discuss in his article that one of the major source of this type of pollution is from industrial activity.
As it is almost impossible to solve this problem completely, actions are taken to reduce the amount
of air pollutant each day. Industrial company mostly will be using spray chamber in their process
plant to remove harmful materials from industrial exhaust gases before they are released into
environment (Lieberman, 1997). Spray chamber or also known as spray tower is a gas-liquid
contactor with function to achieve mass and heat transfer between a continuous gas phase in which
can contain dispersed solid particles or liquid phase. This type of technology can be used as wet
scrubber for air pollution control purposes.
Devices that removes pollutants from a furnace flue gas or from other gas streams is expressed
as wet scrubbers. In which, for this experiment is spray chamber scrubber. This type of wet
scrubber is the simplest type of particulate wet scrubber for commercial use. In wet scrubber, the
polluted gas stream is brought into contact with the scrubbing liquid to remove the pollutants. Sets
of spray nozzles located near the top of the scrubber vessel which will produce water droplets that
gives an impact to the gas particles in gas stream (Ebert and Buttner, 1996). Wet scrubbers remove
large drops with sufficient gravity settling velocity by capturing them in liquid droplets which will
be collected at the base of the tower at the end of process. The gas that flows upward in gas stream
which going through the spray nozzles will pass through the mist eliminator. This device function
as to prevent excessive carryover of droplets with the clean gas (Peukert and Wadenpohl, 2001).
On the other hand, as this wet scrubber function as separation equipment, there are a few
factors which will affect the separation process inside the spray chamber. The first factor is
impaction (Jiuan, 2005). The impact of water droplets from the nozzles plays an important part in
separating the particulate matter that enter the chamber. Dust particles will tend to follow the gas
stream but as the liquid droplets introduces to the system, the dust particles will be force to move
down to the base of the chamber. Impaction does increase with the decrease of liquid droplet size
due to the presence of more droplets within the vessel that increase the likelihood of the particles
that will impact on the droplets (Kim et al., 2001). As being stated by Pilat and Prem (1976), the
4

other factor that affected the separation process is diffusion. Particles with very small diameter that
is less than 0.1m will likely to move in random manner in the streamline. As the diameter of the
particles is too small, it will diffuse with the water droplet when it hit with them in the middle of
the way and be collected at the end of the process. The smaller the diameter of the particles, the
higher the rate of diffusivity.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the use of a wet scrubber. Firstly, this scrubber is
beneficial as they can handle high temperature and high humidity gas streams which make them
ideal in any environment. In addition, wet scrubber can be used to remove wide range of pollutant
from mercury to acidic gases that contribute to acid rain as it is minimal fire and explosion hazards
due to the uses of water that eliminates the possibility of explosion (Chang and Ghorishi, 2003).
Beside, only small space requirement to install this wet scrubber in the process plant. However,
despite all the advantages, there are also a few downsides of this device. First and foremost, as
being stated by Vidic, Chang and Thurnau (1998) is the corrosion problem due to solution formed
from water and dissolved pollutants that can produce highly corrosive acid solution. High acidity
waste also will contribute to water disposal problem that will needed the settling ponds or sludge
clarifier to meet waste water regulations. Wet scrubber also requires high power to operate that add
up point to the disadvantages of the scrubber.

3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Experiment A: To study the effect of droplet size upon separation efficiency
1. All the valves were checked and ensured closed except for valve V9 which is to be opened.
2. Centrifugal Pump, P1 was switched ON.
3. The isolation valve was opened depending on the nozzle to be tested which was outlined in
Table 3.1 below.
4. Next, the appropriate control valve was adjusted to ensure that the nozzle pressure, PT1,
was set based on Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Conditions of variable to be tested for Experiment A
Nozzle Particle size Isolation
Set Pressure, Flowmete Control
N1
N2
N3
N4
N5

(m )
520
290
130
1000
190

valve
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5

PT1
2 bar
2 bar
5 bar
2 bar
2 bar

r
FM1
FM2
FM2
FM1
FM2

Valve
CV1
CV2
CV2
CV1
CV2

5. The nozzle water flowrate from either FM1 or FM2 was recorded based on the nozzle to be
tested.
6. Valve V9 was closed. The water level inside the spray chamber was allowed to increase
until it reached the desired level indicated by the line on the chamber. After that, the valve
V9 was adjusted to maintain this water height.
7. Air blower speed was set to its minimum. The blower was switched ON. Then, the air
blower speed controller was slowly adjusted to achieve blower frequency of 20.0 Hz.
8. 100g of sample (300m sand) was then measured and poured into the feed vessel with the
feed control valve, V11 was fully closed. Then, control valve V11 was slightly opened to
allow the sample to flow down steadily.
9. After all the sand was delivered into the air stream, a time of 2 minutes was given to ensure
all the dust has cleared from the pipeline then centrifugal pump P1 and centrifugal air
blower was switched OFF.
10. Valve V9 was slowly opened to allow the dust-laden water in the spray chamber to flow
down by gravity to the dust collecting bucket.
11. The dust was allowed to settle down in the bucket for (approximately 5 minutes) once the
water has flowed down from the chamber.
12. The bucket was taken out carefully to avoid dust sample from spill. Excess water was
drained. The, the dust was collected on a suitable oven tray. The wet dust sample was
subsequently heated up in the oven at 180 C for around 2 hours until the sample was dried.
6

13. The collection efficiency was determined.

3.2 Experiment B: To study the effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation efficiency
1. All the valves were ensured closed first except for valve V9 which is to be opened.
2. Centrifugal Pump, P1 was switched ON.
3. Nozzle N5 (190 m nozzle size) was used for the first test. Appropriate isolation valve was
opened and the control valve was adjusted to ensure that nozzle pressure, PT5 was set based
on Table 1.
4. The nozzle water flowrate was recorded from flowmeter (FM 2).
5. Valve V9 was closed. The water level inside the spray chamber was allowed to increase
until it reached the desired level indicated by the line on the chamber. After that, the valve
V9 was adjusted to maintain this water height.
6. Air blower speed was set to its minimum. The blower was switched ON. Then, the air
blower speed controller was slowly adjusted to achieve blower frequency of 20.0 Hz.
7. 100g of sample (300m sand) was then measured and poured into the feed vessel with the
feed control valve, V11 was fully closed. Then, control valve V11 was slightly opened to
allow the sample to flow down steadily.
8. After all the sand was transferred into the air stream, a time of 2 minutes was given to
ensure all the dust has cleared from the pipeline then centrifugal pump P1 and centrifugal
air blower was switched off.
9. Valve V9 was slowly opened to allow the dust-laden water in the spray chamber to flow
down by gravity to the dust collecting bucket.
10. The dust was allowed to settle down in the bucket for (approximately 5 minutes) once the
water has flowed down from the chamber.
11. The bucket was removed carefully to avoid dust sample from spilling. Excess water was
drained. The, the dust was collected on a suitable oven tray. The wet dust sample was
subsequently heated up in the oven at 180 C for around 2 hours until the sample was dried.
12. The collection efficiency was determined.
13. The above procedure was repeated by using nozzle N5 with step 6 modified to 27.5 Hz and
42.5 Hz instead of 20.0 Hz set frequency for the second test.

4.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Experiment A: To study the effect of droplet size upon separation efficiency
7

Table 4.1: Data table for Experiment A

Nozzle

Droplet Size

Water flow rate

Weight of sand

Separation

(m)
520
290
1,000
190

(m3/h)
3.2
0.81
17.5
0.491

collected (g)
196.59
114.04
182.28
190.68

efficiency (%)
98.295
57.02
91.14
95.34

N1
N2
N4
N5

Droplet Size vs Flowrate

20
15
Flowrate (m3/h)

10
5
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Droplet Size (m)

Figure 4.1 (a): Relationship between droplet size and water flowrate

Droplet Size vs Separation Efficiency

100
90
80
Separation Efficiency (%)

70
60
50
100

300

500

700

900

1100

Droplet Size (m)

Figure 4.1 (b): Relationship between droplet size and separation efficiency
For this experiment, the frequency of air blower was fixed at 20Hz and the pressure of the
chamber was set at 2 bar. 200g of sand was loaded into the chamber and the water droplet size was
varied between 190m, 290m, 520m, and 1,000m.
Our results for the relationship between droplet size and separation efficiency does not
exhibit a certain trend, as seen in Figure 4.1 (b). The separation efficiency was highest when
droplet size = 520m, followed by 190m, then 1,000m and finally 290m. This makes it
difficult to conclude the effect of droplet size on the collection efficiency. However, if we were to
follow the theory, smaller water droplets would generally produce higher collection efficiencies.
This is due to the basic aerodynamic principle on which a spray chamber (scrubber) operates.
When the size of water droplets is bigger than that of gas stream particles, the chances of collision
9

between the droplets and the particles, statistically, would be slim. Previous studies have revealed
that a water droplet typically has a surrounding film whose thickness is approximately 1/200 the
droplets diameter; any gas stream particles with diameter less than this size will basically glide
through the streamline film of the water droplet, making the occurrence of collision impossible.
The chance of collision, however, can be improved when the size of water droplets is increased
(Flynn, 2009).
There are a few reasons as to why our experimental data is less than accurate. First, there
might have been some leftover sand inside the chamber or the pipelines from previous experiments.
Because of this, the amount of sand we collected became higher than the initially added sand, thus
affecting the final results we obtained. Other than that, the collection efficiency of the spray
chamber might have been affected by pressure losses. From Figure 4.1 (a), we can see that the
water flowrate increases as the droplet size increases since we fixed the chamber pressure at 2 bar.
According to Jafari, Ghasemi, Mehrabi, Yazdanbakhsh, and Hajibabaei (2012), an increased liquid
flow would increase pressure losses inside the chamber. This results in the inaccurate data we
obtained since increased pressure losses would mean higher collection efficiencies.
4.2 Experiment B: To study the effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation efficiency
Table 4.2 (a): Raw data table for experiment B
Nozzle
N5
N5
N5

Droplet size

Set frequency

Water flow rate,

Weight of sample

(m)

(Hz)

L (m3/h)

collected (g)

190
190
190

20.0
27.5
42.5

0.491
0.491
0.489

190.68
191.04
191.33

Table 4.2 (b): Calculated data table for experiment B

Set frequency
(Hz)
20
27.5
42.5

Separation
efficiency
(%)
10.00
13.75
21.25

Air velocity

Air flow rate, G

(m/hr)

(m3/h)

25.1328
34.5576
53.4072

3.158690304
4.343199168
6.712216896

10

L/G ratio
0.155444172
0.113050307
0.072852235

Separation Efficiency vs L/G Ratio

25
20
15
Separation Efficiency (%) 10
5
0
0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17
Liquid to Gas Ratio (L/G)

Figure 4.2 (c): Effect of liquid to gas ratio on separation efficiency of spray chamber

11

For this experiment, we fixed the pressure of the spray chamber at 2 bar and the water
droplet size at 190m. 200g of sand was loaded into the chamber and the gas flow rate was varied
by changing the frequency of the air blower.
In Figure 4.2 (c), we can observe that the separation efficiency decreases when liquid to gas
ratio increases. According to many, this relationship would be otherwise since a lower L/G ratio
would suggest a larger surface area per volume of water droplet, thus increasing the chance for
collisions between gas-stream particles and the water droplets. However, our experimental result is
supported by Jafari et al. (2012), who claimed that a smaller liquid to gas ratio will result in higher
efficiencies. A study was conducted and results showed that the pressure loss inside a scrubber was
raised by 171.6% when the flow rate of gas was increased and this highly interfered with gas flow
rates direct effect on the separation efficiency. As previously explained in Experiment A, a higher
pressure loss will result in higher separation efficiency; hence it is important to keep the pressure
loss across the tower constant. A Tukey post-hoc test was performed and further attested the
influence of pressure loss on the separation efficiencies. When pressure loss was kept constant,
final results revealed that a lower L/G ratio actually increased the separation efficiency of the
tower.

5.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

Spray chamber experiment is a study on the characteristics and behaviour of particulate
matter in the atmosphere. The objectives of the experiment are to determine the effect of droplet
size upon separation efficiency of the spray chamber unit by using different nozzles and to
determine the effect of liquid to gas ratio (L/G) upon separation efficiency of the spray chamber
unit. Spray chamber is commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry, fertiliser industry and glass
industry.
There are several factors that may affect the efficiency of a spray chamber such as nozzle
diameter for liquid droplets in the chamber, pressure of the water flowrate and nozzle, and the size
of particulate matter in air. Hence, we conducted an experiment to determine the efficiency of a
spray chamber by manipulating the variables mentioned.

12

In experiment A, the results show that as the droplet size decreases, the efficiency will
increase. This is due to the fact that a smaller nozzle size will produce smaller water droplets that
can help in increasing the overall surface area of the scrubbing process. The size of the droplet is
also affected by the flowrate of the liquid.
For experiment B, we observed the effect of particle inflow velocity to the spray chamber
efficiency. Based on the results, we are able to conclude that the efficiency is inversely proportional
to the frequency. The frequency indicates the air blower speed in the spray chamber. However, an
optimum particle flow inlet velocity and water droplet size needs to be obtained for better
efficiency of the spray chamber.
There are several errors that may have occurred when the experiment was conducted, which
can affect the accuracy of the results. First, clogging occurred at the feeder due to the relatively
large and irregular sample size. In order to rectify this, the diameter of the feeder should be
increased to avoid clogging. Besides that, the flowrate could not be regulated precisely since it
experienced fluctuation, as displayed on the control panel. Next, regular maintenance should be
done on the spray chamber since it is a quite backdated instrument. Despite the occurrence of the
errors, the objectives of this experiment were successfully achieved.

6.0 REFERENCES
Chang, J. C., & Ghorishi, S. B. (2003). Simulation and evaluation of elemental mercury
concentration increase in flue gas across a wet scrubber.Environmental science &
technology, 37(24), 5763-5766.
Ebert, F., & Bttner, H. (1996). Recent investigations with nozzle scrubbers.Powder
technology, 86(1), 31-36.
Emis. (2015). Spray Chamber. Retreived from https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/spray-chamber

Flynn, D. (2009). Wet Gas Scrubbers. In The NALCO Water Handbook (3rd ed.) (pp. 120).
McGraw-Hill Professional.

13

Jafari, M. J., Ghasemi, R., Mehrabi, Y., Yazdanbakhsh, A. R., & Hajibabaei, M. (2012). Influence
of liquid and gas flow rates on sulfuric acid mist removal from air by packed bed tower.
Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 9(1), 20.
http://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-9-20

Jiuan, Y. L. (2005). Evaluation of wet scrubber systems (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Southern Queensland).
Kim, H. T., Jung, C. H., Oh, S. N., & Lee, K. W. (2001). Particle removal efficiency of
gravitational wet scrubber considering diffusion, interception, and
impaction. Environmental Engineering Science, 18(2), 125-136.
Lieberman, E. (1997). Air Pollution Control Technology and Transferable Pollution Credits.
In Environmental Infrastructure Management (pp. 47-75). Springer Netherlands.
Lenntech. (n.d.). Dust purification techniques. Retrieved from http://www.lenntech.com/airpurification/dust-purification-techniques/spray-chamber.htm
Peukert, W., & Wadenpohl, C. (2001). Industrial separation of fine particles with difficult dust
properties. Powder Technology, 118(1), 136-148.
Pilat, M. J., & Prem, A. (1976). Calculated particle collection efficiencies of single droplets
including inertial impaction, Brownian diffusion, diffusiophoresis and
thermophoresis. Atmospheric Environment (1967),10(1), 13-19.
Rosenfeld, D. (2000). Suppression of rain and snow by urban and industrial air
pollution. Science, 287(5459), 1793-1796.
Seaton, A., Godden, D., MacNee, W., & Donaldson, K. (1995). Particulate air pollution and acute
health effects. The lancet, 345(8943), 176-178.
Solteq. (n.d.). Spray Chamber System: Model AP03. Retrieved from
http://www.solution.com.my/A3pdf/AP03(A3).pdf

Vidic, R. D., Chang, M. T., & Thurnau, R. C. (1998). Kinetics of vapor-phase mercury uptake by
virgin and sulfur-impregnated activated carbons. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 48(3), 247-255.

14

7.0 APPENDICES
7.1 Sample Calculation
1. The separation efficiency, is calculated using the formula:
=

Weight of sample collected

Weight of sample loaded

Example:
=

196.59 g
200 g

100%

100% = 98.295%

Note: For experiment B only

2. Assuming the radius of air duct, r = 0.2m, the cross-sectional area of the air duct is
calculated.
A = r2
Example:
A = (0.2m)2 = 0.126 m2
3. Convert the air blower frequency to air velocity using formula
v = 0.10472 r RPM
Example:
v = 0.10472(0.2m)(20 Hz

60 RPM
)
1 Hz

v = 25.1328 m/h
4. Calculate the air flow rate using formula
G = Av
Example:
G = (0.126 m2)( 25.1328 m/h) = 3.158690304 m3/h
5. Calculate liquid to gas ratio (L/G).
Example:
L/G =

0.491
3.158690304

7.2 Experimental Setup

15

= 0.155444172

Figure 8.2: Experimental setup of the spray chamber model

16