JAPAN-PHILIPPINE

STEEL
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION

ACID FUMES
SCRUBBER
ENGINEER’S REPORT

Date : MAY 20, 2018

Prepared By: JP STEEL MANNUFACTURING
CORPORATION

I. INTRODUCTION

JP Steel Manufacturing Corporation is a company officially

registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission primarily
engaged in steel fabrication and manufacturing of different metal
products, such as metal clamps, levers, and other Kakuta metal
Products. Produced finished products are 100% exported to Japan
that will form part of the materials in the assembly of car frames
and electrical panel boards.

II. PROCESSES

Majority of the raw materials in the form of raw steel plates and
rods are coming from abroad and some parts are locally acquired.
These materials will undergo the different processes of fabrication
from metal punching, welding, cutting, grinding and quality control.
After the materials are formed out of these processes, final
production will be through metal plating utilizing Zinc, Aluminum
and Chromium done in the Chemical and Plating Section. After the
plating process, finished products that did not passed the stringent
Quality Control Selection will be separated from the selected good
quality products that marked for export quality. The
separated/rejected product will then be recycled to undergo acid
stripping process using Sulfuric Acid. This process removes the
metal plated on the materials that will allow again undergoing with
the re-plating procedures.

III. ACID FUMES SCRUBBING PROCESS

During the acid stripping process of the rejected plated materials,

large amount of acid fumes evaporate into the air polluting the
atmosphere in the area that serves as health hazard. Aside from
this air pollution effect, the acid fumes generated accelerate also
the corrosion on the steel structure and roofing materials in the
plant and other nearby communities. To prevent such irreversible
damage, Acid Fumes Scrubber is employed by the company
primarily to absorb the Acid Fumes dissipated from the stripping of
rejected plated metal products.
Scrubbing process is through separation and purification of gas
streams as it passes through the packing saddles and mists filters.
It also acts as product recovery devices, and as pollution control
devices.

Absorption of acid air pollutants on gas streams with typical

pollutant concentration ranges from 250 to 5,000 ppm into the
system through Forced Draft Fan. Counter flow direction against
the stream of water effect the absorption in the packing and mists
absorber section of the equipment. This will then allow 80 to 98%
recovery of acid fumes from the incoming polluted air before being
discharged through the 8 inches diameter Pipe Stack, then to the
outside atmosphere. Circulating water is also continuously pump
into the systems Similar to other industrial applications, Acid
Fumes Absorbers are most widely used to remove water soluble
inorganic contaminants from air streams which in this case sulfuric
acid in the streams. This absorption process in the system can be
categorized as physical or chemical. Note that physical absorption
occurs when the absorbed compound dissolves in the solvent,
while chemical absorption occurs when the absorbed compound
and the solvent react. Liquid that is used as solvents in this
application is water.

IV. ACID FUMES SCRUBBER SPECIFICATIONS

Pump : Motor Power : 1 HP, Pump Total Head : 8 meters,
Flow Rate : 120 L/min.

Fan : Motor Power : 1.5 HP

Acid Scrubber's Dimension : 90 x 90 x 162 ( cm ),

Packing Thickness : 8mm, Packing Type : PVC Sheet,
Stack Height ; 651.5 ( cm ), No of Nozzle : 19System

Efficiencies and Performance

Removal efficiencies for gas absorbers vary for each pollutant-
solvent system and with the
type of absorber used. Most absorbers have removal efficiencies
in excess of 90 percent, and
packed tower absorbers may achieve efficiencies as high as 99.9
percent for some pollutant-solvent
systems.[1, 3]
The suitability of gas absorption as a pollution control method is
generally dependent on the
following factors: 1) availability of suitable solvent; 2) required
removal efficiency; 3) pollutant
concentration in the inlet vapor; 4) capacity required for handling
waste gas; and, 5) recovery value
of the pollutant(s) or the disposal cost of the spent solvent.[4]
Physical absorption depends on properties of the gas stream and
solvent, such as density
and viscosity, as well as specific characteristics of the pollutant(s)
in the gas and the liquid stream
(e.g., diffusivity, equilibrium solubility). These properties are
temperature dependent, and lower
temperatures generally favor absorption of gases by the solvent.[1]
Absorption is also enhanced by
greater contacting surface, higher liquid-gas ratios, and higher
concentrations in the gas stream.[1]
The solvent chosen to remove the pollutant(s) should have a high
solubility for the gas, low
vapor pressure, low viscosity, and should be relatively
inexpensive.[4] Water is the most common
solvent used to remove inorganic contaminants; it is also used to
absorb organic compounds having
relatively high water solubilities. For organic compounds that have
low water solubilities, other
solvents such as hydrocarbon oils are used, though only in
industries where large volumes of these
oils are available (i.e., petroleum refineries and petrochemical
plants).[5]
1-4
Pollutant removal may also be enhanced by manipulating the
chemistry of the absorbing solution
so that it reacts with the pollutant(s), e.g., caustic solution for acid-
gas absorption vs. pure water as
a solvent. Chemical absorption may be limited by the rate of
reaction, although the rate limiting step
is typically the physical absorption rate, not the chemical reaction
rate.
1.2 Process Description
Absorption is a mass transfer operation in which one or more
soluble components of a gas
mixture are dissolved in a liquid that has low volatility under the
process conditions. The pollutant
diffuses from the gas into the liquid when the liquid contains less
than the equilibrium concentration
of the gaseous component. The difference between the actual
concentration and the equilibrium
concentration provides the driving force for absorption.
A properly designed gas absorber will provide thorough contact
between the gas and the solvent
in order to facilitate diffusion of the pollutant(s). It will perform
much better than a poorly designed
absorber.[6] The rate of mass transfer between the two phases is
largely dependent on the surface
area exposed and the time of contact. Other factors governing the
absorption rate, such as the
solubility of the gas in the particular solvent and the degree of the
chemical reaction, are characteristic
of the constituents involved and are relatively independent of the
equipment used.
1.2.1 Absorber System Configuration
Gas and liquid flow through an absorber may be countercurrent,
crosscurrent, or cocurrent. The
most commonly installed designs are countercurrent, in which the
waste gas stream enters at the
bottom of the absorber column and exits at the top. Conversely,
the solvent stream enters at the
top and exits at the bottom. Countercurrent designs provide the
highest theoretical removal
efficiency because gas with the lowest pollutant concentration
contacts liquid with the lowest
pollutant concentration. This serves to maximize the average
driving force for absorption throughout
the column.[2] Moreover, countercurrent designs usually require
lower liquid to gas ratios than
cocurrent and are more suitable when the pollutant loading is
higher.[3, 5]
In a crosscurrent tower, the waste gas flows horizontally across
the column while the solvent
flows vertically down the column. As a rule, crosscurrent designs
have lower pressure drops and
require lower liquid-to-gas ratios than both cocurrent and
countercurrent designs. They are
applicable when gases are highly soluble, since they offer less
contact time for absorption.[2, 5]
In cocurrent towers, both the waste gas and solvent enter the
column at the top of the tower and
exit at the bottom. Cocurrent designs have lower pressure drops,
are not subject to flooding
limitations and are more efficient for fine (i.e., submicron) mist
removal. Cocurrent designs are only
efficient where large absorption driving forces are available.
Removal efficiency is limited since the
gas-liquid system approaches equilibrium at the bottom of the
tower.[2]
1-5
1.2.2 Types of Absorption Equipment
Devices that are based on absorption principles include packed
towers, plate (or tray)
columns, venturi scrubbers, and spray chambers. This chapter
focuses on packed towers, which
are the most commonly used gas absorbers for pollution control.
Packed towers are columns filled
with packing materials that provide a large surface area to facilitate
contact between the liquid and
gas. Packed tower absorbers can achieve higher removal
efficiencies, handle higher liquid rates, and
have relatively lower water consumption requirements than other
types of gas absorbers.[2]
However, packed towers may also have high system pressure
drops, high clogging and fouling
potential, and extensive maintenance costs due to the presence of
packing materials. Installation,
operation, and wastewater disposal costs may also be higher for
packed bed absorbers than for
other absorbers.[2] In addition to pump and fan power
requirements and solvent costs, packed
towers have operating costs associated with replacing damaged
packing.[2]
Plate, or tray, towers are vertical cylinders in which the liquid and
gas are contacted in stepwise
fashion on trays (plates). Liquid enters at the top of the column and
flows across each plate
and through a downspout (downcomer) to the plates below. Gas
moves upwards through openings
in the plates, bubbles into the liquid, and passes to the plate
above. Plate towers are easier to clean
and tend to handle large temperature fluctuations better than
packed towers do.[4] However, at high
gas flow rates, plate towers exhibit larger pressure drops and have
larger liquid holdups. Plate
towers are generally made of materials such as stainless steel,
that can withstand the force of the liquid
on the plates and also provide corrosion protection. Packed
columns are preferred to plate towers
when acids and other corrosive materials are involved because
tower construction can then be of
fiberglass, polyvinylchloride, or other less costly, corrosive-
resistant materials. Packed towers are
also preferred for columns smaller than two feet in diameter and
when pressure drop is an important
consideration.[3, 7]
Venturi scrubbers are generally applied for controlling particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide.
They are designed for applications requiring high removal
efficiencies of submicron particles,
between 0.5 and 5.0 micrometers in diameter.[4] A venturi
scrubber employs a gradually
converging and then diverging section, called the throat, to clean
incoming gaseous streams. Liquid
is either introduced to the venturi upstream of the throat or injected
directly into the throat where it
is atomized by the gaseous stream. Once the liquid is atomized, it
collects particles from the gas and
discharges from the venturi.[1] The high pressure drop through
these systems results in high energy
use, and the relatively short gas-liquid contact time restricts their
application to highly soluble gases.
Therefore, they are infrequently used for the control of volatile
organic compound emissions in dilute
concentration.[2]
Spray towers operate by delivering liquid droplets through a spray
distribution system. The
droplets fall through a countercurrent gas stream under the
influence of gravity and contact the
pollutant(s) in the gas.[7] Spray towers are simple to operate and
maintain, and have relatively low
1-6
energy requirements. However, they have the least effective mass
transfer capability of the
absorbers discussed and are usually restricted to particulate
removal and control of highly soluble
gases such as sulfur dioxide and ammonia. They also require
higher water recirculation rates and
are inefficient at removing very small particles.[2, 5]
1.2.3 Packed Tower Internals
A basic packed tower unit is comprised of a column shell, mist
eliminator, liquid distributors,
packing materials, packing support, and may include a packing
restrainer. Corrosion resistant alloys
or plastic materials such as polypropylene are required for column
internals when highly corrosive
solvents or gases are used. A schematic drawing of a
countercurrent packed tower is shown in
Figure 1.1. In this figure, the packing is separated into two
sections. This configuration is more
expensive than designs where the packing is not so divided.[5]
Figure 1.1: Packed Tower for Gas Absorption
1-7
The tower shell may be made of steel or plastic, or a combination
of these materials
depending on the corrosiveness of the gas and liquid streams, and
the process operating conditions.
One alloy that is chemical and temperature resistant or multiple
layers of different, less expensive
materials may be used. The shell is sometimes lined with a
protective membrane, often made from
a corrosion resistant polymer. For absorption involving acid gases,
an interior layer of acid resistant
brick provides additional chemical and temperature resistance.[8]
At high gas velocities, the gas exiting the top of the column may
carry off droplets of liquid
as a mist. To prevent this, a mist eliminator in the form of
corrugated sheets or a layer of mesh can
be installed at the top of the column to collect the liquid droplets,
which coalesce and fall back into
the column.
A liquid distributor is designed to wet the packing bed evenly and
initiate uniform contact
between the liquid and vapor. The liquid distributor must spread
the liquid uniformly, resist plugging
and fouling, provide free space for gas flow, and allow operating
flexibility.[9] Large towers
frequently have a liquid redistributor to collect liquid off the column
wall and direct it toward the
center of the column for redistribution and enhanced contact in the
lower section of packing.[4]
Liquid redistributors are generally required for every 8 to 20 feet of
random packing depth.[5, 10]
Distributors fall into two categories: gravitational types, such as
orifice and weir types, and
pressure-drop types, such as spray nozzles and perforated pipes.
Spray nozzles are the most
common distributors, but they may produce a fine mist that is
easily entrained in the gas flow. They
also may plug, and usually require high feed rates to compensate
for poor distribution. Orifice-type
distributors typically consist of flat trays with a number of risers for
vapor flow and perforations in
the tray floor for liquid flow. The trays themselves may present a
resistance to gas flow.[9] However,
better contact is generally achieved when orifice distributors are
used.[3]
Packing materials provide a large wetted surface for the gas
stream maximizing the area available
for mass transfer. Packing materials are available in a variety of
forms, each having specific
characteristics with respect to surface area, pressure drop, weight,
corrosion resistance, and cost.
Packing life varies depending on the application. In ideal
circumstances, packing will last as long
as the tower itself. In adverse environments packing life may be as
short as 1 to 5 years due to
corrosion, fouling, and breakage.[11]
Packing materials are categorized as random or structured.
Random packings are usually
dumped into an absorption column and allowed to settle. Modern
random packings consist of
engineered shapes intended to maximize surface-to-volume ratio
and minimize pressure drop.[2]
Examples of different random packings are presented in Figure
1.2. The first random packings
specifically designed for absorption towers were made of ceramic.
The use of ceramic has declined
because of their brittleness, and the current markets are
dominated by metal and plastic. Metal
packings cannot be used for highly corrosive pollutants, such as
acid gas, and plastic packings are
not suitable for high temperature applications. Both plastic and
metal packings are generally limited
to an unsupported depth of 20 to 25. At higher depths the weight
may deform the packing.[10]
1-8
Structured packing may be random packings connected in an
orderly arrangement,
interlocking grids, or knitted or woven wire screen shaped into
cylinders or gauze like arrangements.
They usually have smaller pressure drops and are able to handle
greater solvent flow rates than
random packings.[4] However, structured packings are more costly
to install and may not be
practical for smaller columns. Most structured packings are made
from metal or plastic.
In order to ensure that the waste gas is well distributed, an open
space between the bottom
of the tower and the packing is necessary. Support plates hold the
packing above the open space.
The support plates must have enough strength to carry the weight
of the packing, and enough free
area to allow solvent and gas to flow with minimum restrictions.[4]
High gas velocities can fluidize packing on top of a bed. The
packing could then be carried
into the distributor, become unlevel, or be damaged.[9] A packing
restrainer may be installed at the
top of the packed bed to contain the packing. The packing
restrainer may be secured to the wall
so that column upsets will not dislocate it, or a “floating”
unattached weighted plate may be placed
on top of the packing so that it can settle with the bed. The latter is
often used for fragile ceramic
packing.
Figure 1.2: Random Packing Material
1-9
1.2.4 Packed Tower Operation
As discussed in Section 1.2.1, the most common packed tower
designs are countercurrent.
As the waste gas flows up the packed column it will experience a
drop in its pressure as it meets
resistance from the packing materials and the solvent flowing
down. Pressure drop in a column is
a function of the gas and liquid flow rates and properties of the
packing elements, such as surface
area and free volume in the tower. A high pressure drop results in
high fan power to drive the gas
through the packed tower. and consequently high costs. The
pressure drop in a packed tower
generally ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 in. H2O/ft of packing.[7]
For each column, there are upper and lower limits to solvent and
vapor flow rates that ensure
satisfactory performance. The gas flow rate may become so high
that the drag on the solvent is
sufficient to keep the solvent from flowing freely down the column.
Solvent begins toaccumulate and
blocks the entire cross section for flow, which increases the
pressure drop and present the packing
from mixing the gas and solvent effectively. When all the free
volume in the packing is filled with liquid
and the liquid is carried back up the column, the absorber is
considered to be flooded.[4] Most
packed towers operate at 60 to 70 percent of the gas flooding
velocity, as it is not practical to operate
a tower in a flooded condition.[7] A minimum liquid flow rate is also
required to wet the packing
material sufficiently for effective mass transfer to occur between
the gas and liquid.[7]
The waste gas inlet temperature is another important scrubbing
parameter. In general, the
higher the gas temperature, the lower the absorption rate, and
vice-versa. Excessively high gas
temperatures also can lead to significant solvent loss through
evaporation. Consequently,
precoolers (e.g., spray chambers) may be needed to reduce the air
temperature to acceptable
levels.[6]
For operations that are based on chemical reaction with
absorption, an additional concern
is the rate of reaction between the solvent and pollutant(s). Most
gas absorption chemical reactions
are relatively fast and the rate limiting step is the physical
absorption of the pollutants into the solvent.
However, for solvent-pollutant systems where the chemical
reaction is the limiting step, the rates of
reaction would need to be analyzed kinetically.
Heat may be generated as a result of exothermal chemical
reactions. Heat may also be
generated when large amounts of solute are absorbed into the
liquid phase, due to the heat of
solution. The resulting change in temperature along the height of
the absorber column may damage
equipment and reduce absorption efficiency. This problem can be
avoided by adding cooling coils
to the column.[7] However, in those systems where water is the
solvent, adiabatic saturation of the
gas occurs during absorption due to solvent evaporation. This
causes a substantial cooling of the
absorber that offsets the heat generated by chemical reactions.
Thus, cooling coils are rarely
required with those systems.[5] In any event, packed towers may
be designed assuming that
isothermal conditions exist throughout the column.[7]
1-10
The effluent from the column may be recycled into the system and
used again. This is usually
the case if the solvent is costly, i.e., hydrocarbon oils, caustic
solution. Initially, the recycle stream
may go to a waste treatment system to remove the pollutants or
the reaction product. Make-up
solvent may then be added before the liquid stream reenters the
column. Recirculation of the solvent
requires a pump, solvent recovery system, solvent holding and
mixing tanks, and any associated
piping and instrumentation.
1.3 Design Procedures
The design of packed tower absorbers for controlling gas streams
containing a mixture
of pollutants and air depends on knowledge of the following
parameters:
• Waste gas flow rate;
• Waste gas composition and concentration of the pollutants in the
gas stream;
• Required removal efficiency;
• Equilibrium relationship between the pollutants and solvent; and
• Properties of the pollutant(s), waste gas, and solvent: diffusivity,
viscosity,
density, and molecular weight.
The primary objectives of the design procedures are to determine
column surface area and pressure
drop through the column. In order to determine these parameters,
the following steps must be
performed:
• Determine the gas and liquid stream conditions entering and
exiting the column.
• Determine the absorption factor (AF).
• Determine the diameter of the column (D).
• Determine the tower height (Htower) and surface area (S).
• Determine the packed column pressure drop ( P).
To simplify the sizing procedures, a number of assumptions have
been made. For example,
the waste gas is assumed to comprise a two-component waste
gas mixture (pollutant/air), where the
pollutant consists of a single compound present in dilute quantities.
The waste gas is assumed to
behave as an ideal gas and the solvent is assumed to behave as
an ideal solution. Heat effects
associated with absorption are considered to be minimal for the
pollutant concentrations
1-11
encountered. The procedures also assume that, in chemical
absorption, the process is not reaction
rate limited, i.e., the reaction of the pollutant with the solvent is
considered fast compared to the rate
of absorption of the pollutant into the solvent.
The design procedures presented here are complicated, and
careful attention to units is
required. Appendix A has a list of all design variables referred to in
this chapter, along with the
appropriate units.
1.3.1 Determining Gas and Liquid Stream Conditions
Gas absorbers are designed based on the ratio of liquid to gas
entering the column (Li/Gi),
slope of the equilibrium curve (m), and the desired removal
efficiency (η). These factors are
calculated from the inlet and outlet gas and liquid stream variables:
• Waste gas flow rate, in actual cubic feet per minute (acfm),
entering and exiting
column (Gi and Go, respectively);
• Pollutant concentration (lb-moles pollutant per lb-mole of
pollutant free gas) entering
and exiting the column in the waste gas (Yi and Yo, respectively);
• Solvent flow rate, in gallons per minute (gpm), entering and
exiting the column (Li
andLo, respectively); and
• Pollutant concentration (lb-moles pollutant per lb-mole of
pollutant free solvent)
entering and exiting the column in the solvent (Xi and Xo,
respectively).
This design approach assumes that the inlet gas stream variables
are known, and that a
specific pollutant removal efficiency has been chosen as the
design basis; i.e., the variables Gi, Yi,
and η are known. For dilute concentrations typically encountered in
pollution control applications
and negligible changes in moisture content, Gi is assumed equal
to Go. If a once-through process
is used, or if the spent solvent is regenerated by an air stripping
process before it is recycled, the value
of Xi will approach zero. The following procedures must be
followed to calculate the remaining
stream variables Yo, Li (and Lo), and Xo. A schematic diagram of
a packed tower with inlet and outlet
flow and concentration variables labeled is presented in Figure 1.3.
The exit pollution concentration, Yo, may be calculated from using
the following equation:
Yo = Yi 1 -
100
η

 
(1.1)
1-12
The liquid flow rate entering the absorber, Li (gpm), is then
calculated using a graphical
method. Figure 1.4 presents an example of an equilibrium curve
and operating line. The equilibrium
curve indicates the relationship between the concentration of
pollutant in the waste gas and the
concentration of pollutant in the solvent at a specified temperature.
The operating line indicates the
relation between the concentration of the pollutant in the gas and
solvent at any location in the gas
absorber column. The vertical distance between the operating line
and equilibrium curve indicates
the driving force for diffusion of the pollutant between the gas and
liquid phases. The minimum
amount of liquid which can be used to absorb the pollutant in the
gas stream corresponds to an
operating line drawn from the outlet concentration in the gas
stream (Yo) and the inlet concentration
in the solvent stream (Xi) to the point on the equilibrium curve
corresponding to the entering pollutant
concentration in the gas stream (Yi). At the intersection point on
the equilibrium curve, the diffusional
driving forces are zero, the required time of contact for the
concentration change is infinite, and an
infinitely tall tower results.
The slope of the operating line intersecting the equilibrium curve is
equal to the minimum L/
G ratio on a moles of pollutant-free solvent (Ls) per moles of
pollutant-free gas basis Gs. in other
words, the values Ls and Gs do not include the moles of pollutant
in the liquid and gas streams. The
values of Ls and Gs are constant through the column if a negligible
amount of moisture is transferred
Figure 1.3: Schematic Diagram of Countercurrent Packed Bed
Operation
1-13
from the liquid to the gas phase. The slope may be calculated from
the following equation:
L
G
=
Y-Y
X-X
s
s m in
io
o
*
i




(1.2)
where X*
o would be the maximum concentration of the pollutant in the liquid
phase if it were allowed
to come to equilibrium with the pollutant entering the column in the
gas phase, Yi. The value of X*
o
is taken from the equilibrium curve. Because the minimum Ls/Gs,
ratio is an unrealistic value, it must
be multiplied by an adjustment factor, commonly between 1.2 and
1.5, to calculate the actual L/G
ratio:[7]
L
G
=
L
G
s
s act
s
s m in








. (adjustment factor) (1.3)
The variable Gs may be calculated using the equation:
G=
G
MW + Y s
Gi
Gi
60
1
ρ
( ) (1.4)
where 60 is the conversion factor from minutes to hours, MWG, is
the molecular weight of the gas
stream (lb/lb-mole), and ρG is the density of the gas stream
(lb/ft3). For pollutant concentrations
typically encountered, the molecular weight and density of the
waste gas stream are assumed to be
equal to that of ambient air.
The variable Ls may then be calculated by:
L=
L
G
sG
s
s act
s




. (1.5)
The total molar flow rates of the gas and liquid entering the
absorber (Gmol,i and Lmol,i) are
calculated using the following equations:
G mol, i = G s (1 + Yi ) (1.6)
L mol, i = L s (1 + X i ) (1.7)
The volume flow rate of the solvent, Li, may then be calculated by
using the following
relationship:
L=
. L MW
ir
mol,i L
L
7 48
60 (1.8)
1-14
where 60 is the conversion factor from minutes to hours, MWL, is
the molecular weight of the liquid
stream (lb/lb-mole), ρL is the density of the liquid stream (lb/ft3),
and 7.48 is the factor used to convert
cubic feet to gallons. If the volume change in the liquid stream
entering and exiting the absorber is
assumed to be negligible, then Li = Lo.
Gas absorber vendors have provided a range for the Li/Gi ratio for
acid gas control from
2 to 20 gpm of solvent per 1000 cfm of waste gas.[12] Even for
pollutants that are highly soluble
in a solvent (i.e., HCl in water), the adjusted Li/Gi ratio calculated
using Equations 1.2 to 1.8 would
be much lower than this range, because these equations do not
consider the flow rate of the solvent
required to wet the packing.
Figure 1.4: Minimum and Actual Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
1-15
Finally, the actual operating line may be represented by a material
balance equation over
the gas absorber:[4]
X L + Y G = X L + Y G i s i s o s o s (1.9)
Equation 1.9 may then be solved for Xo:
X=
Y-Y
L
G
+Xo
io
s
s
i



(1.10)
1.3.2 Determining Absorption Factor
The absorption factor (AF) value is frequently used to describe the
relationship between the
equilibrium line and the liquid-to-gas ratio. For many pollutant-
solvent systems, the most
economical value for AF ranges around 1.5 to 2.0.[7] The following
equation may be used to
calculate AF:[4, 7]
AF =
L
mG
mol, i
mol, i
(1.11)
where m is the slope of the equilibrium line on a mole fraction
basis. The value of m may be obtained
from available literature on vapor/liquid equilibrium data for specific
systems. Since the equilibrium
curve is typically linear in the concentration ranges usually
encountered in air pollution control, the
slope, m would be constant (or nearly so) for all applicable inlet
and outlet liquid and gas streams.
The slope may be calculated from mole fraction values using the
following equation:[4]
m=
y-y
x-x
o
*
i
*
oi
(1.12)
where yi
* and yo
* are the mole fractions of the pollutant in the vapor phase in
equilibrium with the
mole fractions of the pollutant entering and exiting the absorber in
the liquid, xi and xo, respectively.
The slope of the equilibrium line in Figure 1.4 is expressed in
terms of concentration values Xi, Xo,
Yi
*, and Yo
*. These values may be converted to xi, xo, yi
*, and yo
* using the equations:
x=
X
i+X
i
i 1 (1.13)
x=
X
o+X
o
o 1 (1.14)
1-16
y=
Y
+Y
i
*i
*
i
1 * (1.15)
y=
Y
+Yo
*o
*
o
1*
(1.16)
where the units for each of these variables are listed in Appendix
A.
The absorption factor will be used to calculate the theoretical
number of transfer units and
the theoretical height of a transfer unit. First, however, the column
diameter needs to be determined.
1.3.3 Determining Column Diameter
Once stream conditions have been determined, the diameter of the
column may be
estimated. The design presented in this section is based on
selecting a fraction of the gas flow rate
at flooding conditions. Alternatively, the column may be designed
for a specific pressure drop (see
Section 1.3.6.). Eckert’s modification to the generalized correlation
for randomly packed towers
based on flooding considerations is used to obtain the superficial
gas flow rate entering the absorber,
Gsfr,i (lb/sec-ft2), or the gas flow rate per crossectional area based
on the Lmol,i/Gmol,i ratio calculated
in Section 1.3.2.[10] The cross-sectional area (A) of the column
and the column diameter (D) can
then be determined from Gsfr,i. Figure 1.5 presents the
relationship between Gsfr,i and the Lmol,i/
Gmol,i ratio at the tower flood point. The Abscissa value (X axis) in
the graph is expressed as:[10]
Abscissa =
L
G
MW
MW
mol, i
mol, i
L
G
G
L








ρ
ρ (1.17)
The Ordinate value (Y axis) in the graph is expressed as:[10]
()
Ordinate =
GF
g
sfr, i p
L
LGc
2
02
2 42
Ψ
μ
ρρ
.
.

 
(1.18)
where Fp is a packing factor, gc is the gravitational constant
(32.2), μ L is the viscosity of the solvent
(lb/ft-hr), 2.42 is the factor used to convert lb/ft-hr to centipoise,
and Ψ is the ratio of the density
of the scrubbing liquid to water. The value of Fp may be obtained
from packing vendors (see
Appendix B, Table 1.8).
1-17
After calculating the Abscissa value, a corresponding Ordinate
value may determined from
the floo ding curve. The Ordinate may also be calculated using the
following equation:[10]
Ord in ate [ ] Abscissa Abscissa = - - 10 −1.668 1.085 (lo g ) 0 .297
(lo g ) 2 (1.19)
Equation 1.18 may then be rearranged to solve for Gsfr,i:
G=
g
F
sfr, i
Gc
p
L
ρρ
μ
1
02
2 42
()
.
.
Ordinate
Ψ
 
 
(1.20)
The cross-sectional area of the tower (ft2) is calculated as:
A
G MW
Gf
mol, i G
sfr,i
=
3,6 0 0 (1.21)
where f is the flooding factor and 3600 is the conversion factor
from hours to seconds. To prevent
flooding, the column is operated at a fraction of Gsfr,i. The value of
f typically ranges from 0.60 to
Figure 1.5: Eckert’s Modification to the Generalized Correlation at
Flooding Rate
1-18
0.75.[7]
The diameter of the column (ft) can be calculated from the cross-
sectional area, by:
D=A
4
π
(1.22)
If a substantial change occurs between inlet and outlet volumes
(i.e., moisture is transferred
from the liquid phase to the gas phase), the diameter of the
column will need to be calculated at the
top and bottom of the column. The larger of the two values is then
chosen as a conservative number.
As a rule of thumb, the diameter of the column should be at least
15 times the size of the packing
used in the column. If this is not the case, the column diameter
should be recalculated using a smaller
diameter packing.[10]
The superficial liquid flow rate entering the absorber, Lsfr,i (lb/hr-
ft2 based on the crosssectional
area determined in Equation 1.21 is calculated from the equation:
L=
L MW
A sfr, i
mol, i L (1.23)
For the absorber to operate properly, the liquid flow rate entering
the column must be high
enough to effectively wet the packing so mass transfer between
the gas and liquid can occur. The
minimum value of Lsfr,i that is required to wet the packing
effectively can be calculated using the
equation:[7, 13]
(L ) MW R a sfr, i m in L = ρ (1.24)
where MWR is defined as the minimum wetting rate (ft2/hr), and a
is the surface area to volume ratio
of the packing (ft2/ft3). An MWR value of 0.85 ft2/hr is
recommended for ring packings larger than
3 inches and for structured grid packings. For other packings, an
MWR of 1.3 ft2/hr is
recommended.[7,13] Appendix B, Table 1.8 contains values of a
for common packing materials.
If Lsfr,i (the value calculated in Equation 1.23) is smaller than
(Lsfr,)min (the value calculated
in Equation 1.24), there is insufficient liquid flow to wet the packing
using the current design
parameters. The value of Gsfr,i, and A then will need to be
recalculated. See Appendix C for details.
1.3.4 Determining Tower Height and Surface Area
Tower height is primarily a function of packing depth. The required
depth of packing (Hpack)
is determined from the theoretical number of overall transfer units
(Ntu) needed to achieve a specific
removal efficiency, and the height of the overall transfer unit (Htu):
[4]
1-19
H pack = N tu H tu (1.25)
The number of overall transfer units may be estimated graphically
by stepping off stages on the
equilibrium-operating line graph from inlet conditions to outlet
conditions, or by the following
equation:[4]
N=
y-mx
y-mx
-
AF
+
AF
-
AF
tu
ii
oi
ln




 
 

 

 
1
11
1
1 (1.26)
where ln is the natural logarithm of the quantity indicated.
The equation is based on several assumptions: 1) Henry’s law
applies for a dilute gas
mixture; 2) the equilibrium curve is linear from xi to xo; and 3) the
pollutant concentration in the
solvent is dilute enough such that the operating line can be
considered a straight line.[4]
If xi≈ 0 (i.e., a negligible amount of pollutant enters the absorber in
the liquid stream) and
1/A ≈ 0 (i.e., the slope of the equilibrium line is very small and/or
the Lmol/Gmol ratio is very large),
Equation 1.26 simplifies to:
N=
y
y tu
i
o
ln




(1.27)
There are several methods that may be used to calculate the
height of the overall transfer
unit, all based on empirically determined packing constants. One
commonly used method involves
determining the overall gas and liquid mass transfer coefficients
(KG, KL). A major difficulty in using
this approach is that values for KG and KL are frequently
unavailable for the specific pollutant-solvent
systems of interest. The reader is referred to the book Random
Packing and Packed Tower Design
Applications in the reference section for further details regarding
this method.[14]
For this chapter, the method used to calculate the height of the
overall transfer unit is based
on estimating the height of the gas and liquid film transfer units, HL
and HG, respectively:[4]
H=H+
AF
tu G H L
1
(1.28)
The following correlations may be used to estimate values for HL
and HG:[13]
()
()H=
fG
LDG
sfr, i
sfr, i
G
GG
α
μ
ρ
β
3,6 00
Γ






(1.29)
1-20
H=
L
DL
sfr, i
L
b
L
LL
φ
μ
μ
ρ




(1.30)
The quantity μ /ρ D is the Schmidt number and the variablesβ , b
and Γ are packing
constants specific to each packing type. Typical values for these
constants are listed in Appendix
B, Tables 1.9 and 1.10. The advantage to using this estimation
method is that the packing constants
may be applied to any pollutant-solvent system. One packing
vendor offers the following
modifications to Equations 1.29 and 1.30 for their specific packing:
[15]
()
()H=
fG
LDG
sfr, i
sfr, i
G
GG
L
G
α
μ
ρ
μ
μ
β
β
3,6 00
Γ
Γ






 

 
(1.31)
H=
L
D
T
L
sfr, i
L
b
L
LL
φ
μ
μ
ρ




 
 
−
286
4 .255
(1.32)
where T is the temperature of the solvent in Kelvin.
After solving for Hpack using Equation 1.25, the total height of the
column may be calculated
from the following correlation:[16]
H tower = 1.4 0 H pack + 1.0 2 D + 2.8 1 (1.33)
Equation 1.33 was developed from information reported by gas
absorber vendors, and is applicable
for column diameters from 2 to 12 feet and packing depths from 4
to 12 feet. The surface area (S)
of the gas absorber can be calculated using the equation:[16]
S=DH+
D
π tower
2
 
 
(1.34)
Equation 1.34 assumes the ends of the absorber are flat and
circular.
1.3.5 Calculating Column Pressure Drop
Pressure drop in a gas absorber is a function of Gsfr,i and
properties of the packing used.
The pressure drop in packed columns generally ranges from 0.5 to
1 inch of H2O per foot of packing.
The absorber may be designed for a specific pressure drop or
pressure drop may be estimated using
Leva’s correlation:[7, 10]
( ) ΔP = c
j L f G sfr, i sfr, i
G
10
3 600
2
,




ρ
(1.35)
1-21
The packing constants c and j are found in Appendix B, Table
1.11, and 3600 is the conversion
factor from seconds to hours. The equation was originally
developed for air-water systems. For
other liquids, Lsfr,i is multiplied by the ratio of the density of water
to the density of the liquid.
1.3.6 Alternative Design Procedure
The diameter of a column can be designed for a specific pressure
drop, rather than being
determined based on a fraction of the flooding rate. Figure 1.6
presents a set of generalized
correlations at various pressure drop design values. The Abscissa
value of the graph is similar to
Equation 1.17:[10]
Abscissa =
L
G
MW
MW -
mol, i
mol, i
L
G
G
LG








ρ
ρ ρ (1.36)
The Ordinate value is expressed as:[10]
()
( ) Ordinate
L
=
GF
-g
sfr, i p
LGGc
2
01
2 42
μ
ρρρ
.
.

 
(1.37)
For a calculated Abscissa value, a corresponding Ordinate value
at each pressure drop can be
read off Figure 1.6 or can be calculated from the following
equation:[10]
()()
()()
Ordinate Abscissa Abscissa
Abscissa Abscissa
=k+k+k
+k + k
exp[ ln ln
ln ln ]
012
2
3
3
4
4 (1.38)
The constants k0, k1, k2, k3, and k4, are shown below for each
pressure drop value.
ΔP
(inches water/ k0 k1 k2 k3 k4
ft packing)
Table 1.1: Values of Constants k0 through k4 for Various Pressure
Drops
0.05 -6.3205 -06080 -0.1193 -0.0068 0.0003
0.10 -5.5009 -0.7851 -0.1350 0.0013 0.0017
0.25 -5.0032 -0.9530 -0.1393 0.0126 0.0033
0.50 -4.3992 -0.9940 -0.1698 0.0087 0.0034
1.00 -4.0950 -1.0012 -0.1587 0.0080 0.0032
1.50 -4.0256 -0.9895 -0.0830 0.0324 0.0053
1-22
Equation 1.37 can be solved for Gsfr,i.
()()
G=
-g
F
sfr, i
LGGc
p
L
ρρρ
μ
Ordinate
2 42
01
.
.

 
(1.39)
The remaining calculations to estimate the column diameter and
Lsfr,i are the same as
presented in Section 1.3.3, except the flooding factor (f) is not
used in the equations. The
flooding factor is not required because an allowable pressure drop
that will not cause flooding is
chosen to calculate the diameter rather than designing the
diameter at flooding conditions and
then taking a fraction of that value.
Figure 1.6: Generalized Pressure Drop Correlations [10]
1-23
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Surface A rea of T ower (ft 2)
Equipment Cost, 3rd Quarter 1991 Dollars
Figure 1.7: Packed Tower Equipment Cost [16]
1.4 Estimating Total Capital Investment
This section presents the procedures and data necessary for
estimating capital costs for
vertical packed bed gas absorbers using countercurrent flow to
remove gaseous pollutants from
waste gas streams. Equipment costs for packed bed absorbers are
presented in Section 1.4.1, with
installation costs presented in Section 1.4.2.
Total capital investment, TCI, includes equipment cost, EC, for the
entire gas absorber unit,
taxes, freight charges, instrumentation, and direct and indirect
installation costs. All costs are
presented in third quarter 1991 dollars1. The costs presented
are study estimates with an
expected accuracy of ± 30 percent. It must be kept in mind that
even for a given application, design
and manufacturing procedures vary from vendor to vendor, so
costs vary. All costs are for new plant
installations; no retrofit cost considerations are included.
1.4.1 Equipment Costs for Packed Towers
Gas absorber vendors were asked to supply cost estimates for a
range of tower dimensions
(i.e., height, diameter) to account for the varying needs of different
applications. The equipment for
which they were asked to provide costs consisted of a packed
tower absorber made of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP), and to include the following equipment
components:
1-24
• absorption column shell;
• gas inlet and outlet ports;
• liquid inlet port and outlet port/drain;
• liquid distributor and redistributor;
• two packing support plates;
• mist eliminator;
• internal piping;
• sump space; and
• platforms and ladders.
The cost data the vendors supplied were first adjusted to put them
on a common basis, and
then were regressed against the absorber surface area (S). The
equation shown below is a linear
regression of cost data provided by six vendors.[16, 12]
T o tal Tow er Co st ($ ) = 1 1 5 S (1.40)
where S is the surface area of the absorber, in ft2. Figure 1.7
depicts a plot of Equation 1.40. This
equation is applicable for towers with surface areas from 69 to
1507 ft2 constructed of FRP. Costs
for towers made of materials other than FRP may be estimated
using the following equation:
TTCM = CF . TTC (1.41)
where TTCM is the total cost of the tower using other materials,
and TTC is the total tower cost as
estimated using Equation 1.40. The variable CF is a cost factor to
convert the cost of an FRP gas
Table 1.2: Random Packing Costsa
Nominal
Diameter Construction Packing Type Packing cost ($/ft3)
(inches) Material <100 ft3 >100 ft3
304 stainless steel Pall rings, Rasching rings, Ballast rings 70-109
65-99
Ceramic Rasching rings, Berl saddles 33-44 26-36
Polypropylene Tri-Pak, Pall rings, Ballast rings, 141-37 12-34
Flexisaddles, Berl saddles, Rasching rings
Ceramic Tri-Pac, Lanpac, Flexiring, Flexisaddle 13-32 10-30
Polypropylene Tellerette , Ballast rings 3-20 5-19
304 stainless steel Tri-pack, Lanpac, Ballast rings 30 27
Polypropylene 6-14 6-12
1
1
1
2
2
3.5
3.5
a Provided by packing vendors. [17]
 Denotes registered trademark.
1-25
absorber to an absorber fabricated from another material. Ranges
of cost factors provided by
vendors are listed for the following materials of construction:[12]
304 Stainless steel: 1.10 - 1.75
Polypropylene: 0.80 - 1.10
Polyvinyl chloride: 0.50 - 0.90
Auxiliary costs encompass the cost of all necessary equipment not
included in the absorption
column unit. Auxiliary equipment includes packing material,
instruments and controls, pumps, and
fans. Cost ranges for various types of random packings are
presented in Table 1.2. The cost of
structured packings varies over a much wider range. Structured
packings made of stainless steel
range from $45/ft3 to $405/ft3, and those made of polypropylene
range from $65/ft3 to $350/ft3.[17]
Similarly, the cost of instruments and controls varies widely
depending on the complexity
required. Gas absorber vendors have provided estimates ranging
from $1,000 to $10,000 per
column. A factor of 10 percent of the EC will be used to estimate
this cost in this chapter. (see
eq. 1.42, below.) Design and cost correlations for fans and pumps
will be presented in a chapter
on auxiliary equipment elsewhere in this manual. However, cost
data for auxiliaries are available
from the literature (see reference [18], for example).
The total equipment cost (EC) is the sum of the component
equipment costs, which includes
tower cost and the auxiliary equipment cost.
EC = TTC + Packing C ost + Auxilia ry E quipment (1.42)
The purchased equipment cost (PEC) includes the cost of the
absorber with packing and
its auxiliaries (EC), instrumentation (0.10 EC), sales tax (0.03 EC),
and freight (0.05 EC). The PEC
is calculated from the following factors, presented in Section 1 of
this manual and confirmed from
the gas absorber vendor survey conducted during this study:[12,
19],
PEC = (1+ 0.1 0+0.0 3+0.0 5)EC = 1.1 8 EC (1.43)
1.4.2 Installation Costs
The total capital investment, TCI, is obtained by multiplying the
purchased equipment cost,
PEC, by the total installation factor:
TCI = 2 .2 0 PEC (1.44)
The factors which are included in the total installation factor are
also listed in Table 1.3.[19] The
factors presented in Table 1.3 were confirmed from the gas
absorber vendor survey.
1-26
1.5 Estimating Annual Cost
The total annual cost (TAC) is the sum of the direct and indirect
annual costs.
1.5.1 Direct Annual Costs
Direct annual costs (DC) are those expenditures related to
operating the equipment, such
as labor and materials. The suggested factors for each of these
costs are shown in Table 1.4. These
factors were taken from Section 1 of this manual and were
confirmed from the gas absorber vendor
survey. The annual cost for each item is calculated by multiplying
the number of units used annually
(i.e., hours, pounds, gallons, kWh) by the associated unit cost.
Operating labor is estimated at ½-hour per 8-hour shift. The
supervisory labor cost is
estimated at 15 percent of the operating labor cost. Maintenance
labor is estimated at 1/2-hour per
8-hour shift. Maintenance materials costs are assumed to equal
maintenance labor costs.
Solvent costs are dependent on the total liquid throughput, the
type of solvent required, and
the fraction of throughput wasted (often referred to as blow-down).
Typically, the fraction of solvent
wasted varies from 0.1 percent to 10 percent of tire total solvent
throughput.[12] For acid gas
systems, the amount of solvent wasted is determined by the solids
content, with bleed off occurring
when solids content reaches 10 to 15 percent to prevent salt carry-
over.[12]
The total annual cost of solvent (Cs) is given by:
C = L WF s i 60
m in
hr
annual
operating
hours
solvent
unit cost
 
 










(1.45)
where WF is the waste (make-up) fraction, and the solvent unit
cost is expressed in terms of
$/gal.
The cost of chemical replacement (Cc) is based on the annual
consumption of the chemical
and can be calculated by:
C
c
=
lbs chem ical u sed
hr
annual
operating
hours
chemical
unit cost
 
 










(1.46)
where the chemical unit cost is in terms of $/lb.
1-27
Cost Item Factor
Direct Costs
Purchased equipment costs
Absorber + packing + auxiliary equipment a, EC As estimated, A
Instrumentation b 0.10 A
Sales taxes 0.03 A
Freight 0.05 A
Purchased equipment cost, PEC B = 1.18 A
Direct installation costs
Foundations & supports 0.12 B
Handling & erection 0.40 B
Electrical 0.01 B
Piping 0.30 B
Insulation 0.01 B
Painting 0.01 B
Direct installation costs 0.85 B
Site preparation As required, SP
Buildings As required, Bldg.
Total Direct Costs, DC 1.85 B + SP +
Bldg.
Indirect Costs (installation)
Engineering 0.10 B
Construction and field expenses 0.10 B
Contractor fees 0.10 B
Start-up 0.01 B
Performance test 0.01 B
Contingencies 0.03 B
Total Indirect Costs, IC 0.35 B
Total Capital Investment = DC + IC 2.20 B + SP +
Bldg.
a Includes the initial quantity of packing, as well as items normally
not included with the unit supplied by vendors, such as ductwork,
fan,
piping, etc.
b Instrumentation costs cover pH monitor and liquid level indicator
in sump.
Table 1.3: Capital Cost Factors for Gas Absorbers [19]
1-28
Cost Item Factor
Direct Annual Costs, DC
Operating labor a
Operator 1/2 hour per shift
Supervisor 15% of operator
Operating materials b Application specific
Solvent (throughput/yr) x (waste fraction)
Chemicals Based on annual consumption
Wastewater disposal (throughput/yr) x (waste fraction)
Maintenance a
Labor 1/2 hour per shift
Material 100% of maintenance labor
Electricity (consumption rate) x (hours/yr) x (unit
cost)
Fan
Pump
Indirect Annual Costs, IC
Overhead 60% of total labor and material costs
Administrative charges 2% of Total Capital Investment
Property tax 1% of Total Capital Investment
Insurance 1% of Total Capital Investment
Capital recovery c 0.1098 x Total Capital Investment
Total Annual Cost DC + IC
a These factors were confirmed by vendor contacts.
b If system does not use chemicals (e.g., caustic), this quantity is
equal to annual solvent consumption.
c Assuming a 15-year life at 7%. See Chapter 2
Table 1.4: Suggested Annual Cost Factors for Gas Absorber
Systems
1-29
Solvent disposal (Cww) costs vary depending on geographic
location. type of waste
disposed of, and availability of on-site treatment. Solvent disposal
costs are calculated by:
C
ww
=L
i
WF
hr
annual
operating
hours
solvent
disposal t
60
min 

 










cos (1.47)
where the solvent disposal costs are in terms of $/gal of waste
solvent.
The electricity costs associated with operating a gas absorber
derive from fan requirements
to overcome the pressure drop in the column, ductwork, and other
parts of the control system, and
pump requirements to recirculate the solvent. The energy required
for the fan can be calculated using
Equation 1.48:
Energy =
.GDP
fan
i117.104
ε
(1.48)
where Energy (in kilowatts) refers to the energy needed to move a
given volumetric flow rate of air
(acfm), Gi is the waste gas flow rate entering the absorber, P is the
total pressure drop through the
system (inches of H2O) and is the combined fan-motor efficiency.
Values for typically range from
0.4 to 0.7. Likewise, the electricity required by a recycle pump can
be calculated using Equation
1.49:
Energy pump
i=
(0 .7 4 6 ) (2 .5 2 . 1 0 -1 ) L (p ressu re)
ε
(1.49)
where 0.746 is the factor used to convert horsepower to kW,
pressure is expressed in feet of water,
and is the combined pump-motor efficiency.
The cost of electricity (Ce) is then given by:
C e = Energy
annual
operating
hours
cost o f
fan + pump ele ctricity










(1.50)
where cost of electricity is expressed in units of $/KW-hr.
1.5.2 Indirect Annual Costs
Indirect annual costs (IC) include overhead, taxes, insurance,
general and administrative
(G&A), and capital recovery costs. The suggested factors for each
of these items also appear in
1-30
Table 1.4. Overhead is assumed to be equal to 60 percent of the
sum of operating, supervisory, and
maintenance labor, and maintenance materials. Overhead cost is
discussed in Section 1 of this
manual.
The system capital recovery cost, CRC, is based on an estimated
15-year equipment life.
(See Section 1 of this manual for a discussion of the capital
recovery cost.) For a 15-year life and
an interest rate of 7 percent, the capital recovery factor is 0.1098
The system capital recovery cost
is then estimated by:
CRC = 0.1 0 9 8 TC I (1.51)
G&A costs, property tax, and insurance are factored from total
capital investment, typically
at 2 percent, 1 percent, and 1 percent, respectively.
1.5.3 Total Annual Cost
Total annual cost (TAC) is calculated by adding the direct annual
costs and the indirect
annual costs.
TAC = DC + IC (1.52)
1.6 Example Problem
The example problem presented in this section shows how to
apply the gas absorber sizing
and costing procedures presented in this chapter to control a
waste gas stream consisting of HCl
and air. This example problem will use the same outlet stream
parameters presented in the thermal
incinerator example problem found in Section 3.2, Chapter 2 of this
manual. The waste gas stream
entering the gas absorber is assumed to be saturated with
moisture due to being cooled in the quench
chamber. The concentration of HCl has also been adjusted to
account for the change in volume.
1.6.1 Required Information for Design
The first step in the design procedure is to specify the conditions of
the gas stream to be
controlled and the desired pollutant removal efficiency. Gas and
liquid stream parameters for this
example problem are listed in Table 1.5.
The quantity of HCl can be written in terms of lb-moles of HCl per
lb-moles of pollutantfree-
gas (Yi) using the following calculation:
Yi =
−
=
0001871−
1 0 001871
0 00187
.
.
.
lb moles HCL
lb - mole pollu tant free gas
1-31
The solvent, a dilute aqueous solution of caustic, is assumed to
have the same physical
properties as water.
1.6.2 Determine Gas and Liquid Stream Properties
Once the properties of the waste gas stream entering the absorber
are known. the properties
of the waste gas stream exiting the absorber and the liquid
streams entering and exiting the absorber
need to be determined. The pollutant concentration in the entering
liquid (Xi) is assumed to be zero.
The pollutant concentration in the exiting gas stream (Yo) is
calculated using Equation 1.1 and a
removal efficiency of 99 percent.
Yo = − 

 
0001871=
99
100
. 0.0 0 0 0 1 8 7
The liquid flow rate entering the column is calculated from the
Ls/Gs ratio using Equation 1.2.
Since Yi, Yo, and Xi are defined, the remaining unknown, Xo
*, is determined by consulting the
equilibrium curve. A plot of the equilibrium curve-operating line
graph for an HCl-water system is
presented in Figure 1.8. The value of Xo
* is taken at the point on the equilibrium curve where Yi
intersects the curve. The value of Yi intersects the equilibrium
curve at an X value of 0.16.
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0.0018
0.002
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
lb -moles HCl/lb -mole Solv ent
lb-mole HCL/lb-mole Carrier Gas
(Xo,Yo)
Slope o f Equilibrium Curve
Operat ing Line
(Xo*,Yi)
Equilibrium Line
(Xi, Yo)
Figure 1.8: Equilibrium Curve Operating Line for the HCl-Water
System [7]
1-32
Parameters Values
Stream Properties
Waste Gas Flow Rate Entering Absorber 21,377 scfm (22,288
acfm)
Temperature of Waste Gas Stream 100oF
Pollutant in Waste Gas HCI
Concentration of HCl Entering Absorber in Waste Gas 1871 ppmv
Pollutant Removal Efficiency 99% (molar basis)
Solvent Water with caustic in solution
Density of Waste Gas a 0.0709 lb/ft3
Density of Liquid [7] 62.4 lb/ft3
Molecular Weight of Waste Gasa 29 lb/lb-mole
Molecular Weight of Liquid [7] 18 lb/lb-mole
Viscosity of Waste Gasa 0.044 lb/ft-hr
Viscosity of Liquid [7] 2.16 lb/ft-hr
Minimum Wetting Rate [7] 1.3 ft2/hr
Pollutant Properties b
Diffusivity of HCl in Air 0.725 ft2/hr
Diffusivity of HCl in Water 1.02 x 10-4 ft2/hr
Packing Properties c
Packing type 2-inch ceramic Raschig rings
Packing factor: Fp 65
Packing constant: _ 3.82
Packing constant: _ 0.41
Packing constant: _ 0.45
Packing constant: _ 0.0125
Packing constant: b 0.22
Surface Area to Volume Ratio 28
a Reference [7], at 100oF
b Appendix 9A.
c Appendix 9B.
Table 1.5: Example Problem Data
1-33
The operating line is constructed by connecting two points: (Xi, Yo)
and (Xo
*, Yi). The slope
of the operating line intersecting the equilibrium curve, (Ls/Gs)min,
is:
L
G
s
s




=
−
−
 

=
m in
..
.
.
0 00187 0 0000187
0 16 0
0 0116
The actual Ls/Gs ratio is calculated using Equation 1.3. For this
example, an adjustment
factor of 1.5 will be used.
( )( )( )
( )( )
G
acfm
s=
+
=
−
−
60 0 0709 22 288
29 1 0 00187
3 263
m in . ,
.
, hr
lb
ft
lb
lb mole
3 lb moles
hr
The flow rate of the solvent entering the absorber may then be
calculated using Equation 1.5.
Ls=
−

 
=
−
0.0 1 7 4 3,2 6 3 5 6.8
lb moles
hr
lb moles
hr
The values of Gmol,i and Lmol,i are calculated using Equations 1.6
and 1.7, respectively:
G ( ) mol ,i = , . ,
−


+=
−
3 263 1 0 00187 3 269
lb moles
hr
lb moles
hr
L ( ) mol ,i = . .
−
  
+
=
−
56 8 1 0 56 8
lb moles
hr
lb moles
hr
The pollutant concentration exiting the absorber in the liquid is
calculated using Equation 1.10.
xo=
−
=
−
−
0 00187 0 0000187
0 0174
..
.
0 .106 lb moles HCL
lb mole solvent
1-34
1.6.3 Calculate Absorption Factor
The absorption factor is calculated from the slope of the
equilibrium line and the Lmol,i/Gmol,i
ratio. The slope of the equilibrium curve is based on the mole
fractions of xi, xo, yi
*, and yo
*, which
are calculated from Xi, Xo, Yi
* and Yo
* from Figure 1.8. From Figure 1.8, the value of Yo
* in equilibrium
with the Xo value of 0.106 is 0.0001. The values of Yi
* and Xi are 0. The mole fraction values are
calculated from the concentration values using Equations 1.13
through 1.16.
xo=
+
=
0 106
1 0 106
0 096
.
.
.
yo
*.
.
=.
+
=
0 0001
1 0 0001
0 0001
The slope of the equilibrium fine from xi to xo is calculated from
Equation 1.12:
m=
−
−
=
0 0001 0
0 096 0
0 00104
.
.
.
Since HCl is very soluble in water, the slope of the equilibrium
curve is very small. The absorption
factor is calculated from Equation 1.11.
AF= =
0 0174
0 00104
17
.
.
1.6.4 Estimate Column Diameter
Once the inlet and outlet stream conditions are determined, the
diameter of the gas absorber
may be calculated using the modified generalized pressure drop
correlation presented in Figure 1.5.
The Abscissa value from the graph is calculated from Equation
1.17:
Abcissa = 


00174=
18
29
0 0709
62 4
.0000364
.
.
.
Since this value is outside the range of Figure 1.5, the smallest
value (0.01) will be used as a
default value. The Ordinate is calculated from Equation 1.19.
[ ( ) ( ) ] Ordinate= = − − − 10 0 207 1 668 1 085 0 01 0 297 0 01
2 . . log . . log . .
The superficial gas flow rate, Gsfr,i, is calculated using Equation
1.20. For this example calculation,
1-35
2-inch ceramic Rasching rings are selected as the packing. The
packing factors for Raching rings
are listed in Appendix B.
( )( )( )( )
G sfr ,i ( ) ( ) ( )
sec
.
....
.
==.
−
0 207 62 4 0 0709 32 2
65 1 0 893
0 681
2
02
lb
ft
ft
2
3 lb
sec ft
Once Gsfr,i is determined, the cross-sectional area of the column
is calculated using
Equation 1.21.
( )( )
( )( )( )
A= =
−
−
−
3 263 29
3600 0 681 0 7
55 1
,
..
.
sec
lb mol
hr
lb
lb mol
hr
lb
sec ft
2
2
ft
The superficial liquid flow rate is determined using Equation 1.23.
( )( ) L sfr ,i
.
.
==.
−
−
− 56 8 18
55 1
18 6
lb mol
hr
lb
lb mol
ft 2 2
lb
hr ft
At this point, it is necessary to determine if the liquid flow rate is
sufficient to wet the packed
bed. The minimum value of Lsfr,i is calculated using Equation
1.24. The packing constant (a) is found
in Appendix B.
(L ) sfr i
m in , = . . ,




 
 

   
=
−
1 3 62 4 28 2 271
ft
hr
lb
ft
ft
ft
lb
hr ft
2
3
2
32
The Lsfr,i value calculated using the L/G ratio is far below the
minimum value needed to wet the
packed bed. Therefore, the new value, (Lsfr,i)min will be used to
determine the diameter of the
absorber. The calculations for this revised diameter are shown in
Appendix C. Appendix C shows
that the cross-sectional area of the column is calculated to be 60
ft2, Lmol,i is 7572, and Gsfr,i is 0.627
lb/sec-ft2. (The diameter of the column is then calculated using
Equation 1.22)
( )( )
D= =
4 60
8 74
ft
ft
2
Π
.
The value of Xo is then:
xo=
−
=
0 00187 0 0000187
7 572
3 263
0 0008
..
,
,
.
1-36
Expressed in terms of mole fraction:
xo=
−
=
0 0008
1 0 0008
0 0008
.
.
.
The value of yo in equilibrium with xo cannot be estimated
accurately. However, the value will
approach zero, and the value of AF will be extremely large:
( )( ) AF =
≈
→∞
7 572
3 263 0
,
,
1.6.5 Calculate Column Surface Area
Since xi = 0 and AF is large, Equation 1.26 will be used to
calculate the number of
transfer units:
n n tu = 

 
1=
0 00187
0 0000187
4 61
.
.
.
The height of a transfer unit is calculated from , AF, HL, and HG.
The values of HG and HL are
calculated from Equations 1.29 and 1.30:
[( ) ( ) ( )]
( )( ) H G= =
3 82 3 600 0 7 0 627
2 271
0 044
0 725 0 0709
2 24
0 41
0 45
.,..
,
.
..
.
.
. ft
( )( ) H L = 

 
00125=
2 271
2 16
2 16
0 000102 62 4
1 06
0 22
.
,
.
.
..
.
.
ft
The height of the transfer unit is calculated using Equation 1.28:
H ( ) ( ) tu =
∞
2.2 4 ft +
1
1 .06 ft = 2 .24 ft
1-37
The depth of packing is calculated from Equation 1.25.
H N H ( ) ( ) pack tu tu = . = 4.6 1 2 .2 4 ft = 1 0 .3 ft
The total height of the column is calculated from Equation 1.33:
H ( ) ( ) tower= 1.4 0 1 0.3 + 1.0 2 8 .7 4 + 2 .8 1 = 2 6 .1 ft
The surface area of the column is calculated using Equation 1.34:
()()s=

 
3.1 4 8 .7 4 2 6 .1 +
8 .74
2
= 836 ft 2
1.6.6 Calculate Pressure Drop
The pressure drop through the column is calculated using
Equation 1.35.
()
( ) ( ) [( ) ( )] ΔP = 0 .24 10
0 7 0 627
0 0709
0 17 2 271
3 600
2
.,
,
..
.
= 0.83 inches water/foot packing
The total pressure drop (through 10.3 feet of packing) equals 8.55
inches of water.
1.6.7 Equipment Costs
Once the system sizing parameters have been determined, the
equipment costs can be
calculated. For the purpose of this example, a gas absorber
constructed of FRP will be costed using
Equation 1.40.
TTC($) = 115(836) = $96,140
The cost of 2-inch ceramic Raschig rings can be estimated from
packing cost ranges presented in
Section 1.5. The volume of packing required is calculated as:
Volume of packing = (60 ft2)(10.3 ft) = 618 ft3
Using the average of the cost range for 2-inch ceramic packings,
the total cost of packing is:
1-38
Packing cost = ($20/ft3)(618 ft3) = $12,360
For this example problem, the cost of a pump will be estimated
using vendor quotes. First, the flow
rate of solvent must be converted into units of gallons per minute:
L (g pm) = 2 ,2 7 1 ( )
lb
h - ft
ft
gal
8 .34 lb
hr
60 m in
gpm 2
2

 
 
 
 

60=272
The average price for a FRP pump of this size is $16/gpm at a
pressure of 60 ft water, based
on the vendor survey.[12] Therefore, the cost of the recycle pump
is estimated as:
C ( ) pump =




2 7 2 g pm =
$16
gpm
$ 4 ,3 5 0 g pm
For this example, the cost for a fan (FRP, backwardly-inclined
centrifugal) can be calculated using
the following equation:[18]
C d fan = 5 7.9 1.38
where d is the impeller (wheel) diameter of the fan expressed in
inches. For this gas flow rate and
pressure drop, an impeller diameter of 33 inches is needed. At this
diameter, the cost of the fan is:
C (h p ) motor = 104 0.821
The cost of a fan motor (three-phase, carbon steel) with V-belt
drive, belt guard, and motor starter
can be computed as follows:[18]
C ( ) motor= 1 0 4 4 2 6 = 2 6 0 0 821 . $2, .
As will be shown in Section 1.6.8, the electricity consumption of
the fan is 32.0kW. Converting to
horsepower, we obtain a motor size of 42.6 hp. The cost of the fan
motor is:
( )( )( )
Energy kw fan =
.
=
11710−22288855
0 70
32 0
.4,.
.
.
The total auxiliary equipment cost is:
1-39
$4,350 + $7,210 + $2,260 = $13,820
The total equipment cost is the sum of the absorber cost, the
packing cost, and the auxiliary
equipment cost:
EC = 96,140 + 12,360 + 13,820 = $122,320
The purchased equipment cost including instrumentation, controls,
taxes, and freight is estimated
using Equation 1.43:
PEC = 1.18(122,320) = $144,340
The total capital investment is calculated using Equation 1.44:
TCI = 2.20(144,340) = $317,550 $318,000
1.6.8 Total Annual Cost
Table 1.6 summarizes the estimated annual costs using the
suggested factors and unit costs
for the example problem.
Direct annual costs for gas absorber systems include labor,
materials, utilities, and
wastewater disposal. Labor costs are based on 8,000 hr/year of
operation. Supervisory labor is
computed at 15 percent of operating labor, and operating and
maintenance labor are each based
on 1/2 hr per 8-hr shift.
The electricity required to run the fan is calculated using Equation
1.48 and assuming a combined
fan-motor efficiency of 70 percent:
( )( )( )
Energy kw fan =
.
=
11710−22288855
0 70
32 0
.4,.
.
.
The energy required for the liquid pump is calculated using
Equation 1.49. The capital cost
of the pump was calculated using data supplied by vendors for a
pump operating at a pressure of
60 feet of water. Assuming a pressure of 60 ft of water a combined
pump-motor efficiency of 70
percent:
( )( )( )( )()
Energy kw pump =
.
=
074625210−272601
0 70
44
..4
.
.
The total energy required to operate the auxiliary equipment is
approximately 36.4 kW.
1-40
Cost Item Calculations Cost
Direct Annual Costs, DC
Operating Labor 0.5hr x shift x 8,000hr x $15.64 $7,820
Operator shift 8hr yr hr
Supervisor 15% of operator = 0.15 × 7,820 1,170
Operating materials
Solvent (water) 7.16 gpm x 60 min x 8,000hr x $0.20 690
hr yr 1000gal
Caustic Replacement 3.06lb-mole x 62lb x 8,000hr x ton x 1 x
$300 299,560
hr lb-mole yr 2000lb 0.76 ton
Wastewater disposal 7.16gpm x 60 min x 8,000 hr x $3.80 13,060
hr yr 100gal
Maintenance
Labor 0.5 x shift x 8,000hr x $17.21 8,610
shift 8hr yr hr
Material 100% of maintenance labor 8,610
Electricity 36.4kw x 8,000hr $0.0461 13,420
yr kWh
Total DC $352,940
Indirect Annual Costs, IC
Overhead 60% of total labor and maintenance material: 15,730
= 0.6(7,820 + 1,170 + 8,610 + 8,610)
Administrative charges 2% of Total Capital Investment =
0.02($317,550) 6,350
Property tax 1% of Total Capital Investment = 0.01($317,550)
3,180
Insurance 1% of Total Capital Investment = 0.01($317,550) 3,180
Capital recoverya 0.1315 × $317,550 41,760
Total IC $70,200
Total Annual Cost (rounded) $423,000
a The capital recovery cost factor, CRF, is a function of the
absorber equipment life and the opportunity cost of the capital (i.e.,
interest
rate). For this example, assume a 15-year equipment life and a
10% interest rate.
Table 1.6: Annual Costs for Packed Tower Absorber Example
Problem
1-41
The cost of electricity, Ce, is calculated using Equation 1.50 and
with the cost per kWh
shown in Table 1.6.
Ce = (36.4kW)(8,000 h/yr)($0.0461/kWh) = $13,420/yr
The costs of solvent (water), wastewater disposal, and caustic are
all dependent on the total
system throughput and the fraction of solvent discharged as waste.
A certain amount of solvent will
be wasted and replaced by a fresh solution of water and caustic in
order to maintain the system’s
pH and solids content at acceptable levels. Based on the vendor
survey, a maximum solids content
of 10 percent by weight will be the design basis for this example
problem.[12] The following
calculations illustrate the procedure used to calculate how much
water and caustic are needed, and
how much solvent must be bled off to maintain system operability.
From previous calculations, Lmol,i = 7,572 lb-moles/hr. The mass
flow rate is calculated as:
Lmass =
−

 
−
 

7 ,5 7 2 1 8  = 1 3 6,3 0 0
lb mole
hr
lb
lb mole
lb
hr
With Gmol,i at 3,263 lb-moles/hr, the mass flow rate of the gas
stream is calculated as:
G mass =
−

 
−
 
3,2 6
3
2
9

=
9
4
,8 0
0
lb mole
hr
lb
lb mole
lb
hr
The amount of HCl in the gas stream is calculated on a molar
basis as follows:
G mass , , . HCL 6
lb mole
hr
ppm v
1 10
lb - molHCL
hr
=
−
    .
  
32631874=612
On a mass basis:
G mass , . . . HCL
lb - molHCL
hr
lb
lb - mole
lb HCL
hr
=

 
 

612365=2234
For this example problem, the caustic is assumed to be Na2O,
with one mole of caustic required for
neutralizing 2 moles of HCl. Therefore, 3.06 lb-moles/hr of caustic
are required.
1-42
The unit cost of a 76 percent solution of Na2O is given in Table
1.6. The annual cost is
calculated from:
Cc = 

 
 
 








 
 
 
 
=
3 06 62
1
0 76
560
.
.
$300
$299,
lb - moles
hr
lb
lb - mole
8 ,000 hr
yr
ton
2 ,000 lb ton
yr
Mass of the salt formed in this chemical reaction, NaC1, is
calculated as:
Mass NaCl = 

 
 
 








=
223 4
58 5
358 1
.
.
.
lb - HCL
hr
lb - mole
36.5 lb HCL
1 lb - mole NaCl
lb - mole HCL
lb N aCl
lb - mole NaCl
lb N aCl
hr
If the maximum concentration of NaC1 in the wastewater (ww) is
assumed to be 10 weight percent,
the wastewater volume flow rate is calculated as:
Wastewater flowrate = 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
=
358 1
1
7 16
.
.
lb N aCl
hr
1 lb ww
0 .1 lb N aCl
gal ww
8 .3 4 lb ww
hr
60 m in
gpm
where 8.34 is the density of the wastewater.
The cost of wastewater disposal is:1
C ( ) ww = 

 








7168000=
80
1 000
060
.,
$3.
,
$13,
gpm
60 m in
lh r
hr
yr gal yr
The cost of solvent (water) is:
C()s=

 








7168000=
20
1 000
.,
$0.
,
$690
gpm
60 m in
lh r
hr
yr gal yr
_____________________
1Because the wastewater stream contains only NaC1, it probably
will not require pretreatment before discharge to a municipal
wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, the wastewater disposal
unit cost shown here is just a sewer usage rate. This unit cost
($3.80/1,000 gal) is the average of the rates charged by the seven
largest municipalities in North Carolina.[20] These rates
range from approximately $2 to $6/1,000 gal. This wide range is
indicative of the major differences among sewer rates
throughout the country. Indirect annual costs include overhead,
administrative charges, property tax, insurance, and capital
recovery. Total annual cost is estimated using Equation 1.52. For
this example case, the total annual cost is estimated to be
$423,000 per year (Table 1.6).
1-43
1.6.9 Alternate Example
In this example problem the diameter of a gas absorber will be
estimated by defining a
pressure drop. A pressure drop of 1 inch of water per foot of
packing will be used in this example
calculation. Equation 1.38 will be used to calculate the ordinate
value relating to an abscissa value.
If the Lmol, i/Gmol,i ratio is known, the Abscissa can be calculated
directly. The Ordinate value is
then:
Ordinate = exp [-4.0950-1.00121n(0.0496)-0.1587(1n 0.0496)2 +
0.0080(1n 0.0496)3 + 0.0032(1n 0.0496)4]
= 0.084
The value of Gsfr is calculated using Equation 1.39.
( )( ) ( ) ( )
G sfr ,i ( ) .
.....
.
=.
−
=
−
62 4 0 0709 0 0709 32 2 0 084
65 0 893
0 43 0 1
lb
ft 2 sec
The remaining calculations are the same as in Section 1.3.4,
except the flooding factor is not used
in the equations.
1.7 Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following companies for
contributing data to this
chapter:
• Air Plastics, Inc. (Cincinnati, OH)
• April, Inc. (Teterboro, NJ)
• Anderson 2000, Inc. (Peachtree City, GA)
• Calvert Environmental (San Diego, CA)
• Ceilcote Air Pollution Control (Berea, OH)
• Croll-Reynolds Company, Inc. (Westfield, NJ)
• Ecolotreat Process Equipment (Toledo, OH)
• Glitsch, Inc. (Dallas, TX)
• Interel Corporation (Englewood, CO)
• Jaeger Products, Inc. (Spring, TX)
• Koch Engineering Co., Inc. (Wichita, KS)
• Lantec Products, Inc. (Agoura Hills, CA)
• Midwest Air Products Co., Inc. (Owosso, MI)
• Monroe Environmental Corp., (Monroe, MI)
• Norton Chemical Process Products (Akron, OH)
1-44
References
[1] Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Office of
Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Par,, North
Carolina, Publication No. EPA 625/6-91-014.
[2] McInnes, R., K. Jameson, and D. Austin, “Scrubbing Toxic
Inorganics”, Chemical
Engineering, September 1990, pp. 116-121.
[3] Letter from Jose L. Bravo of Jaeger Products, Inc., to William
M. Vatavuk, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 8, 1992.
[4] Treybal, Robert E., Mass Transfer Operations (Third edition),
McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, 1980.
[5] Letter from Jack D. Brady of Anderson 2000, Inc., to William M.
Vatavuk, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 9, 1992.
[6] Letter from S. Raymond Woll of Air Products, Inc., to William M.
Vatavuk, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 25, 1992.
[7] Perry, R.H. and C.H. Chilton, Eds., Chemical Engineers’
Handbook (Sixth edition),
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1984.
[8] Crowe, Charles R., and D. Cooper, “Brick/Membrane Linings
Pass the Acid Test”,
Chemical Engineering, July 1988, pp. 83-86.
[9] Harrison, Mark E., and John J. France, “Distillation Column
Troubleshooting, Part 2:
Packed Columns”, Chemical Engineering, April 1989, pp. 121-128.
[10] Coker, A.K., “Understanding the Basics of Packed-Column
Design”, Chemical
Engineering Progress, November 1991, pp. 93-99.
[11] Telephone conversation between Roy Oommen, Radian
Corporation and Gerald
Nealon, Norton Process Equipment, April 4, 1992.
[12] Gas absorber questionnaire responses from nine gas
absorber vendors to Radian
Corporation August-December, 1991.
[13] Buonicore, A.J., and L. Theodore, Industrial Control
Equipment for Gaseous
Pollutants, Volume I, CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 1975.
1-45
[14] Strigle, Ralph F., Random Packings and Packed Towers,
Design Applications, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1987.
[15] Questionnaire response from K.C. Lang of Lantec Products,
Inc. To R.V. Oommen,
Radian Corporation, August 23, 1991.
[16] Memorandum from Vatavuk, W.M. of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to
Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, March 27, 1992.
[17] Packing vendor questionnaire responses from seven packing
vendors to Radian
Corporation, August 1991 - January 1992.
[18] Vatavuk, W.M., “Pricing Equipment for Air-Pollution Control”,
Chemical
Engineering, May 1990, pp. 126-130.
[19] Vatavuk, W.M., and R.B. Neveril, “Estimating Costs of
Pollution Control Systems,
Part II: Factors for Estimating Capital and Operating Costs”,
Chemical Engineering,
November 3, 1980, pp. 157-162.
[20] Telephone conversation between William M. Vatavuk, U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency, and Cindy Kling, City of Raleigh, N.C., July 16, 1992.
[21] “Air Pollution Engineering Manual” (AP-40), (Second Edition),
Danielson, John A., Los
Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, CA, May 1973.
1 For information on escalating these prices to more current
dollars, refer to the EPA report
Escalation Indexes for Air Pollution Control Costs and updates
thereto, all of which are
installed on the OAQPS Technology Transfer Network (CTC
Bulletin Board).
1-46
Appendix A
Properties of Pollutants
1-47
Table 1.7: List of Design Variables
Variable Symbol Units
_ Surface to volume ratio of packing a ft2/ft3
Cross-sectional area of absorber A ft2
Abscissa value from plot of generalized press
drop correlation
Abscissa —
Absorption factor AF —
Diameter of absorber D feet
_ Diffusivity of pollutant in gas DG ft2/hr
_ Diffusivity of pollutant in liquid DL ft2/hr
_ Flooding factor f —
_ Packing factor Fp —
_ Waste gas flow rate entering absorber Gi acfm
Waste gas flow rate exiting absorber Go acfm
Waste gas molar flow rate entering absorber Gmol lb-moles/h
Molar flow rate of pollutant free gas Gs lb-moles/h
Waste gas superficial flow rate entering
absorber
Gsfr,i lb/sec-ft2
Height of gas transfer unit HG feet
Height of liquid transfer unit HL feet
Height of overall transfer unit Htu feet
Height of packing Hpack feet
Height of absorber Htower feet
Pressure drop constants k0, k1, k2, k3,
k4
—
Liquid rate entering absorber Li gpm
Liquid rate exiting absorber Lo gpm
Liquid molar flow rate entering absorber Lmol,i lb-moles/h
Molar flow rate of pollutant free solvent L? lb-moles/h
Liquid superficial flow rate entering absorber Lsfr,i lb/hr-ft2
Slope of equilibrium line m —
_ Molecular weight of gas stream MWG lb/lb-mole
_ Molecular weight of the liquid stream MWL lb/lb-mole
_ Minimum wetting rate MWR ft2/hr
Number of overall transfer units Ntu —
Ordinate value from plot of generalized
pressure drop correlation
Ordinate —
Surface area of absorber S ft2
_ Temperature of solvent T K
1-48
Table 1.7: List of Design Variables (continued)
Maximum pollutant concentration in liquid
phase in equilibrium with pollutant entering
column in gas phase
X*o lb-moles pollutant
lb-moles pollutant free
solvent
Pollutant concentration exiting absorber in
liquid
Xo lb-moles pollutant
lb-moles pollutant free
solvent
Mole fraction of pollutant entering absorber in
waste gas
yi lb-moles pollutant
lb-mole of total gas
Mole fraction of pollutant in gas phase in
equilibrium with mole fraction of pollutant
entering in the liquid phase
y*i lb-moles pollutant
lb-mole of total gas
Mole fraction of pollutant exiting scrubber in
waste gas
yo lb-moles pollutant
lb-mole of total gas
Mole fraction of pollutant in gas phase in
equilibrium with mole fraction of pollutant
exiting in the liquid phase
y*o lb-moles pollutant
lb-mole of total gas
_ Pollutant concentration entering scrubber in
waste gas
Yi lb-moles pollutant
lb-moles pollutant free gas
Pollutant concentration entering scrubber in
equilibrium with concentration in liquid phase
Y*i lb-moles pollutant
lb-moles pollutant free gas
Pollutant concentration exiting scrubber in
waste gas
Yo lb-moles pollutant
lb-moles pollutant free gas
_ Pollutant removal efficiency _ %
Pollutant concentration exiting scrubber in
equilibrium with concentration in liquid phase
Yo lb-moles pollutant
lb-mole of total gas
_ Density of waste gas stream _G lb/ft3
_ Density of liquid stream _L lb/ft3
_ Viscosity of waste gas μG lb/ft-hr
_ Viscosity of solvent μL lb/ft-hr
Ratio of solvent density to water _ —
Pressure drop __ inches H2O/feet of packing
_ Packing factors a,_,_,b,_,_,c,
j
—
_ Denotes required input data.
Variable Symbol Units
1-49
Table 1.8: Physical Properties of Common Pollutantsa
Pollutant Molecular Diffusivity in Diffusivity in
Weight Air Water
at 25°C at 20°C
(cm2/sec) (cm2/sec)x105
Ammonia 17 0.236 1.76
Methanol 32 0.159 1.28
Ethyl Alcohol 46 0.119 1.00
Propyl Alcohol 60 0.100 0.87
Butyl Alcohol 74 0.09 0.77
Acetic Acid 60 0.133 0.88
Hydrogen Chloride 36 0.187 2.64
Hydrogen Bromide 36 0.129 1.93
Hydrogen Fluoride 20 0.753 3.33
a Diffusivity data taken from Reference [7, 21].
lb
lb − mole
 
 
1-50
Appendix B
Packing Characteristics
1-51
Packing
Type
Construction
Level
Nominal
Diameter
(inches)
Fp a
Raschig rings ceramic 1/2
5/8
3/4
1
1 1/2
2
3
640
380
255
160
95
65
37
111
100
80
58
38
28
Raschig rings metal 1/2
5/8
3/4
1
1 1/2
2
3
410
290
230
137
83
57
32
118
72
57
41
31
21
Pall rings metal 5/8
1
1 1/2
2
3 1/2
70
48
28
20
16
131
66
48
36
Pall rings polypropylene 5/8
1
1 1/2
2
97
52
32
25
110
63
39
31
Berl saddles ceramic 1/2
3/4
1
1 1/2
2
240
170
110
65
45
142
82
76
44
32
Intalox saddles ceramic 1/2
3/4
1
1 1/2
2
3
200
145
98
52
40
22
190
102
78
60
36
Tri-Packs® plastic 2
3 1/2
16
12
48
38
Table 1.9: Packing Factors for Various Packings[3,7,10,13]
1-52
Packing
Type
Size
(inches)
Packing Constants Applicable Rangeaa
_ _ _ Gssffrr Lssffrr
Raschig
Rings
3/8
1
1
1 1/2
1 1/2
2
2.32
7.00
6.41
1.73
2.58
3.82
0.45
0.39
0.32
0.38
0.38
0.41
0.47
0.58
0.51
0.66
0.40
0.45
200-500
200-800
200-600
200-700
200-700
200-800
500-1,500
400-500
500-4,500
500-1,500
1,500-4,500
500-4,500
Berl Saddles 1/2
1/2
1
1 1/2
32.4
0.81
1.97
5.05
0.30
0.30
0.36
0.32
0.74
0.24
0.40
0.45
200-700
200-700
200-800
200-1,000
500-1,500
1,500-4,500
400-4,500
400-4,500
Partition
Rings
3 640 0.58 1.06 150-900 3,000-10,000
LanPac® 2.3 7.6 0.33 -0.48 400-3,000 500-8,000
Tri-Packs® 2
3 1/2
1.4
1.7
0.33
0.33
0.40
0.45
100-900
100-2,000
500-10,000
500-10,000
aUnits of lb/hr-ft2
Table 1.10: Packing Constants Used to Estimate HG [1, 3, 7, 13]
Packing
Type
Size
(inches)
Packing Constants Applicable Rangeaa
_ b Laa
ssffrr
Raschig Rings 3/8
1
1 1/2
2 1/2
2
0.00182
0.00357
0.0100
0.0111
0.0125
0.46
0.35
0.22
0.22
0.22
400-15,000
400-15,000
400-15,000
400-15,000
400-15,000
Berl Saddles 1/2
1
1 1/2
0.00666
0.00588
0.00625
0.28
0.28
0.28
400-15,000
400-15,000
400-15,000
Partition Rings 3 0.0625 0.09 3,000-14,000
LanPac® 2.3
3.5
0.0039
0.0042
0.33
0.33
500-8,000
500-8,000
Tri-Packs® 2
3 1/2
0.0031
0.0040
0.33
0.33
500-10,000
500-10,000
aUnits of lb/hr-ft2
Table 1.11: Packing Constants Used to Estimate HL [1, 3, 13]
1-53
Packing
Type
Construction
Material
Nominal
Diameter
(inches)
cj
Raschig rings ceramic 1/2
3/4
1
1 1/4
1 1/2
2
3.1
1.34
0.97
0.57
0.39
0.24
0.41
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.17
Raschigrings metal 5/8
1
11/2
2
1.2
0.42
0.29
0.23
0.28
0.21
0.20
0.135
Pallrings metal 5/8
1
11/2
2
0.43
0.15
0.08
0.06
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.12
Berlsaddles ceramic 1/2
3/4
1
11/2
1.2
0.62
0.39
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.13
Intaloxsaddles ceramic 1/2
3/4
1
11/2
0.82
0.28
0.31
0.14
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.14
Table 1.12: Packing Constants Used to Estimate Pressure Drop
[1, 7, 13]
1-54
Appendix C
Minimum Wetting Rate Analysis
1-55
Minimum Wetting Rate Analysis
As explained in the design procedures, the liquid flow rate entering
the column must be high
enough to effectively wet the packing. If the liquid flow rate, as
determined theoretically in Equation
1.23, is lower than the flow rate dictated by the minimum wetting
rate, calculated in Equation 1.24,
then the packing will not be wetted sufficiently to ensure mass
transfer between the gas and liquid
phases. The minimum liquid flow rate should then be used as a
default value. The superficial gas
flow rate, Gsfr, , and cross-sectional area of the column must then
be recalculated to account for the
increased liquid flow rate. The approach is outlined below
• The value of L mol,i must be recalculated from the value of
(Lsfr,i) min using the equation:
()
()L
LA
mol i MW
sfr i
L
,
, m in =
The value of A (the cross-sectional area of the absorber column) is
the only unknown in the
equation.
• The Abscissa value is calculated in terms of A by substituting the
new Lmol,i into
Equation 1.17.
• The value of Gsfr,i is recalculated by rearranging Equation 1.21,
with A as the only
unknown.
• The Ordinate value is calculated in terms of A from the new Gsfr,i
using the Equation 1.18.
• An iterative process is used to determine A, Abscissa, and
Ordinate. Values of A are chosen
and the Abscissa and Ordinate values are calculated. The
Ordinate value corresponding to
the Abscissa value is determined from Figure 1.5 (or Equation .
19), and this value is compared
to the Ordinate value calculated using Equation 1.18. This process
is continued until both
Ordinate values are equal.
Step 1: The first step is to recalculate the liquid flow rate. The
liquid molar flow rate may be
calculated using Equation 1.23.
L A A mol ,i = .
−
 
 
−

 
=
−
−
 
 
2 ,271
lb
hr ft
lb mole
18 lb
lb mole
2 h r ft 2 126 2
1-56
Step 2: The Abscissa value from Figure 1.5, and presented in
Equation 1.17, is calculated
as:
( ) Abscissa
A
=

 
−
−
−
126 2
3 263
18
29
0 0709
62 4
.
,
.
.
lb mole
hr ft
lb mole
hr
2
Step 3: The value of Gsfr,i is then recalculated in terms of the
cross-sectional area of the
column.
( )( )
( )( )
G
A sfr A = =
−
− 3 263 29
3 600 0 7
,376
,.
.
lb mole
hr
lb
lb mole
sec
hr
Step 4: The ordinate value from Figure 1.5, and presented in
Equation 1.18, is calculated as:
Step 5: At this point the simplest solution is an iterative approach.
Choose a value for A, calculate
the Abscissa value using Equation 1.53, and find the
corresponding Ordinate value off
the flooding curve in Figure 1.5 (or use Equation 1.19 to calculate
the Ordinate value).
Compare the calculated Ordinate value from Equation 1.54 to the
value obtained from
the graph or from Equation 1.19. By continuing this process until
the Ordinate values
converge the value of A is determined to be 60 ft2. The following
table illustrates the
intermediate steps in the calculational process.
Assumed
Value of A
Abscissa
Calculated From
Equation 9.53
Ordinate
Calculated From
Equation 9.19
Ordinate
Calculated From
Equation 9.54
65 0.0526 0.1714 0.1493
62 0.0503 0.1740 0.1642
60 0.0485 0.1757 0.1752
1-57
The value of Gsfr is then:
G sfr= =
−
37 6
60
0 627
.
.
lb
sec ft 2
The liquid molar flow rate is:
L ( ) ( ) mol ,i = . = ,
−
126 2 60 7 572
lb mole
hr
The diameter and height of the column using the results of this
calculation are presented in the
first Example Problem.
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
452/B-02-001
2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual
5. REPORT DATE
January, 2002
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Daniel Charles Mussatti
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division
Innovative Strategies and Economics Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Updates and revises EPA 453/b-96-001, OAQPS Control Cost
Manual, fifth edition (in English only)
16. ABSTRACT
In Spanish, this document provides a detailed methodology for the
proper sizing and costing of numerous air
pollution control devices for planning and permitting purposes.
Includes costing for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs); particulate matter (PM); oxides of nitrogen
(NOx); SO2, SO3, and other acid gasses;
and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c.
COSATI Field/Group
Economics
Cost
Engineering cost
Sizing
Estimation
Design
Air Pollution control
Incinerators
Absorbers
Adsorbers
Filters
Condensers
Electrostatic Precipitators
Scrubbers
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
1,400
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EEPPAA FFoorrm 22222200--11 ((RReevv.. 44--7777))
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE