Absorption Column Lab

By: Ashley Poe, Blue Team

11-27-12
 Topics of the Experiment

Introduction

Discussion

Results

Conclusion

Limitations

Recommendations
 The Absorption Column:
A Brief Introduction
Characteristics of the absorption column:

Packed with ¼” glass Raschig rings

3” diameter Pyrex column

12’ tall

3 digital webcams

flooding control device

pressure relief vent

various operator controls
The Absorption Column:Pictures of Interest

Webcams

Bottom of column Top of column

The Absorption Column:Pictures of Interest
Flooding Control Device Pressure Relief Vent

The column will not flood. The column is maintained

at atmospheric pressure .
 To
Vent CP

Gas
CT
Outlet
CE
CO2 Sensor

½” SS Hex 3" Glass

Solvent
Top Camera Inlet

Top
Pressure

FT CP

The Absorption Column:

Pictures of Interest
CWS

Packing Camera
This is a schematic of the
absorption column.
CO2 Inlet (10 psi)

CP CP

PT

To PE
Vent

Bottom
Pressure
To
Drain Liquid FT CP

Outlet

Desiccant
Bottom Camera Filter

House Air (40 psi)

 Turn
lights
on & off
The Absorption Column:
Reset
Turn Timer Pictures of Interest
system CO₂ Valves
on & off and Meter
operated by
user

Change
% valve
open

Change
interval of
time to
record
data.

Note the various operator controls above as designated by arrows.

The Absorption Column:Pictures of Interest

U tube Phenomenon: Notice the distribution of bubbles in the U tube.

As you increase the water flow rate the bubble distribution becomes for distinct.
 Details of the Experiment

Data was collected every 5 seconds

Started experiment with 20% CO₂ by volume

Increased the water valve % opening by 10%
 Results of the Experiment

After the experiment was completed the data was

analyzed by generating three graphs.
 Graph #1
Outlet CO₂ % by Volume vs. Time
19.5

19.0

18.5
by volume
CO %

₂ 18.0

17.5
Notice this point and
all the points after on
all three graphs.

17.0

16.5
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700
Time (sec)
 Graph #2
Water Flow vs. Time
14

13

12

11

10
Water Flow (lb/min)

2
Notice this point and
1
all the points after on
all three graphs.
0
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700
Time (sec)
 Graph # 3
Outlet CO₂ % by Volume vs. Water Flow
19.5

y = -0.217x + 19.614

19

18.5
Outlet CO % by Volume

18

₂17.5

Notice this point and

17 all the points after on
all three graphs.

16.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Flow (lb/min)
Conclusions from the Experiment

The amount of the outlet CO₂ % by volume decreased

over time.

This was due to the increasing amount of water flow added to the
system.

It is can be observed by the graph that there is a linear

relationship between the amount of outlet CO₂ % and
water flow rate over time.
 Limitations
of the Experiment

The water flow rate fluctuated due to pressure drops in

the system.

This is only a hypothesis made based on how periodically
the water flow rate fluctuated.

More experiments could not be accomplished because
the CO₂ canister was empty.
 Recommendations
for Future Experiments

More experiments need to be run to validate the
conclusions of this experiment.

The water flow rate needs to be investigate to validate
the hypothesis or null-hypothesis.

Make observations of the U tube phenomenon with the
bubble distribution.

Take pictures if possible.
 References

Chase Lemonds, Educational Analysis and Physical

Implementation of a Remote Lab, 2012