Chapter 5 (Summary of Findings & Analysis): CHF in Cation Exchange for Water Softening
description
Transcript of Chapter 5 (Summary of Findings & Analysis): CHF in Cation Exchange for Water Softening
54
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Water softening remains an area of concern among manufacturing plants
considering that the hard water used as feed water to boilers and which, are also
transported by pipes can eventually clog pipes and can cause scale formation on boiler
heating surfaces, thereby lowering its efficiency. The use of coconut husk fiber as
softening medium can potentially reduce the cost of soft water production while
minimizing organic and inorganic solid waste. Thus, the need to study the feasibility of
this material as organic cation exchanger becomes an important concern.
This study aims to evaluate the parameters of coconut husk fiber that define and
characterize its adsorbing properties. These parameters include the moisture content,
adsorption isotherm, hardness-removal capacity, minimum effective contact time, and
breakthrough time of the coconut husk fiber. The study will then try to describe the
comparability of CHF to commercial ion-exchangers.
Findings
Enumerated below are the major observations and discoveries noted by the
researchers along the course of the study:
1. Coconut husk fiber has an equilibrium moisture content of about 32.5% and when
wet but completely drained has a moisture content of 63.1 %.
2. The adsorption behavior of coconut husk follows that of the Langmuir isotherm.
Its hardness removal capacity is about 10 mg Ca2+/g CHF. This capacity is three times
less than that of commercial zeolite (and 8.5 times less than that of commercial
synthetic resins).
3. Most of the adsorption that take place during softening using CHF as medium had
occurred within 30 minutes of contact with hard water.
4. The breakthrough time of CHF is 11.90 minutes using a height of 30.5 cm, a flow
rate of 2.76 mL/s, and an initial concentration and breakthrough concentration of 27
55
and 4 mg Ca2+/L, respectively. The predicted breakthrough time using BDST model is
12.24 minutes.
5. A gram of CHF increases the apparent color of 200-ml of hard water by more
than 40% (25 PCU) from the apparent color of 60 PCU after the minimum contact
time (30 minutes). The changes in apparent color using equivalent and height-
equivalent masses of synthetic resin are 60 PCU (100%) and 840 PCU (1400%),
respectively.
6. A gram of CHF decreases the pH of hard water to 7.41 from 8.08 after 30 minutes
of contact. This corresponds to a pH change of 0.67. The changes in pH using
equivalent and height-equivalent masses of synthetic resin are 0.70 and 1.08,
respectively.
7. The pre-regeneration, material cost in the removal of 1 gram of hardness using
coconut husk fiber is P2.71 while the cost using synthetic resin is P3.31. If CHF is
employed in a softening facility, the adsorbent material cost annual savings is about
P3,000.00, while the equipment cost deficit is P 32, 676.00.
Conclusion and Implication
Based on the experiments conducted, it appears that the bed depth service time (BDST)
model can satisfactorily be used to estimate the breakthrough curve time for the CHF
calcium-adsorption for most of the concentrations higher than C/Co = 0.10. It also
appears that CHF is not better than synthetic resins in the pH comparison, nor
comparable in terms of hardness-removal capacity. However, CHF is significantly better
than synthetic resin in the effluent color comparison and in the cost per amount of
hardness removed but not in the total material and equipment costs.
In sum, coconut husk fiber is not comparable to synthetic resins in terms of performance
and over-all cost of soft water production. Employing CHF as synthetic resin- alternative
would only incur additional costs than savings, contrary to what was first expected.
56
Recommendations
In real-world applications, competitive adsorption is likely to take place. The presence of
other cations in hard water, especially magnesium, will decrease the calcium-removal
capacity of the coconut husk fiber. This in turn decreases the service life of the media.
Thus, for future works and studies, the researchers recommend that this area of the
adsorption using CHF be explored. A multi-component isotherm test and multi-
component kinetic experiment could be done to measure the effect of other ions on the
adsorption calcium hardness. Future researchers can also investigate the subsequent
effects of the presence of other cations on the breakthrough time of a CHF bed.
Interested individuals may also want to develop a high-adsorbance coconut husk (HACH)
fiber that has comparable hardness-removal capacity to commercial resins. Sulfonation
with sulfuric acid at elevated temperature to produce cross-linked CHF sulfonate (CCS)
is perhaps a good starting point. Cellulosic fibers are natural polymers and they can be
cross-linked to increase the porosity of the husk fiber material. This process is similar to
vulcanization and synthetic plastic-formation.
57
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abroguena, Honeylee A., et. al. “CHF in Cation Exchange for the Production of Soft Water”. Xavier University: 2004.
Baes, A. U., et. al. “Ion Exchange and Adsorption of Some Heavy Metals in Modified Coconut Coir (Fiber) Cation Exchanger”. 12 January 2007. http://www.iwaponline.com
Brown, Pauline, et. al. (2001). “Wastewater Treatment Using Low-Cost Adsorbents and Waste Materials”. 21 February 2007. http://www.dpo.uab.edu
Chen, Zhen, et al. “Recover and Recycle Rhodium from Spent Partial Oxidation Catalyst”. 21 February 2007. http://www.remco.com
Cooney, D.O. Adsorption Design for Wastewater Treatment. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, 1999.
Davis, Arden D. and Webb, Cathleen J. “Arsenic Remediation of Drinking Water.” 24 February 2007. http://water.usgs.gov
“Designing a System with Both Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange Resins”. 21 February 2007. http://www.dow.com
Geankoplis, Christie J. Transport Processes and Unit Operations. 3rd Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Hankins, N. P.”Removal of NH 4 + Ion from NH 4Cl Solution Using Clinoptilolite: A Dynamic Study Using a Continuous Packed-Bed Column in Up-Flow Mode.” 21 February 2007. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com
Harris, Daniel C. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 5th Ed. W.H. Freeman: New York, 1998.
Klein, Elias, et al. “Ion-exchange Hollow Fibers.” 21 February 2007. http://www.freepatentsonline.com
Malej, Sonja. Structural Characteristics of New and Conventional Regenerated Cellulosic Fiber. Textile Research Journal, 2003.
McCabe, Warren L., et. al. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. 7th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
Price, R. M. (2003). “Lecture Notes: Adsorption”. 2 March 2007. http://www.cbu.edu
Smith, Robin. Chemical Process Design and Integration. England: John Wiley and Sons, 2005
Society of Chemical Industry. Ion Exchange and Its Applications. London: Society of Chemical Industry, 1985.
Stanek, Vladimir. Fixed Bed Operations: Flow Distribution. New York: Ellis Horwood, 1994.
58
About Coir. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.karan-carpets.com
Allen, D. T., & Shonnard, D. R. (2002). Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ashby, M. F. (2005). Materials Selection in Mechanical Design (Third ed.). Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Brown, P. (n.d.). Wastewater Treatment Using Low-Cost Adsorbents and Waste Materials. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from htttp://dpo.uab.edu
Harriott, P., Smith, J. C., & McCabe, W. L. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering (McGraw-Hill International Edition ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Hazard and Operabilty Study: Recontek Waste Recycling Facility. (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov
Lihou, M. (n.d.). Hazard And Operability Studies (HAZOPS). Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.lihuotech.com
59
APPENDICES
Appendix A. STANDARD PROCEDURES
I. ASTM D 4456-99: Standard Test Methods for Physical and Chemical
Properties of Powdered Ion Exchange Resins
TEST METHOD B—SOLIDS CONTENT
17. Summary of Test Method
17.1 This test method consists of determining the loss of mass on drying at 104 6 2°C for 18 h.
18. Significance and Use
18.1 Powdered ion exchange resins are manufactured and shipped in a moist form. However, they are sold and used on a dry weight basis. Thus, it is important that the actual solids content of the resin be determined.
19. Sampling
19.1 Obtain a representative sample of the powdered ion exchange resin in accordance with Practices D 2687, Practice A, but substitute a 12.5-mm (1⁄2-in.) inside diameter tube
20. Procedure
20.1 Weigh three approximately 15-g representative samples of material to the nearest 1 mg into previously tared weighing vessels.
20.2 Heat the samples for 18 h at 104 6 2°C.
20.3 Remove the samples from the oven, cool at least 30 min in a desiccator to room temperature and reweigh.
21. Calculation
21.1 Calculate the solids content, in percent, as follows:
22. Report
22.1 Reject and repeat any sample analysis in which the result differs by more than 2 % from either of the other two samples.
22.2 Report the percent solids content as the average of the three values obtained.
23. Precision and Bias
23.1 The overall precision of this test method may be expressed as follows: SA 5 1.43 SC 5 0.391 where: SA = overall precision for powdered anion exchange resins in hydroxide form expressed as weight percent solids, and SC = overall precision for powdered cation exchange resins in hydrogen or ammonium forms expressed as weight percent solids.
60
23.2 For the collaborative study, completed in 1982, eight powdered IEX resin samples were sent to eight laboratories. Two samples each of hydrogen form, ammonium form, hydroxide form and hydrogen/hydroxide mixed beds with fibers, were evaluated.
23.3 Bias—Ion Exchange resins are the product of a complex, multiple step synthesis involving a polymerization reaction followed by one or more additional reactions to put functional groups on the polymeric structure. Consequently, the true value for any property of the finished product is unknown and a bias statement cannot be given.
61
II. ASTM D1293- 99: Standard Test Methods for pH of Water
1. Scope
1.1 These test methods cover the determination of pH by electrometric measurement using the glass electrode as the sensor. Two test methods are given as follows:
Sections
Test Method A —Precise Laboratory Measurement 8 to 15
Test Method B —Routine or Continuous Measurement 16 to 24
1.2 Test Method A covers the precise measurement of pH in water utilizing at least two of seven standard reference buffer solutions for instrument standardization.
1.3 Test Method B covers the routine measurement of pH in water and is especially useful for continuous monitoring. Two buffers are used to standardize the instrument under controlled parameters, but the conditions are somewhat less restrictive than those in Test Method A.
1.4 Both test methods are based on the pH scale established by NIST (formerly NBS) Standard Reference Materials.2
1.5 Neither test method is considered to be adequate for measurement of pH in water whose conductivity is less than about 5 µS/cm.
1.6 Precision and bias data were obtained using buffer solutions only. It is the user’s responsibility to assure the validity of these test methods for untested types of water.
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 The pH meter and associated electrodes are standardized against two reference buffer solutions that closely bracket the anticipated sample pH. The sample measurement is made under strictly controlled conditions and prescribed techniques.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 The pH of water is a critical parameter affecting the solubility of trace minerals, the ability of the water to form scale or to cause metallic corrosion, and the suitability of the water to sustain living organisms. It is a defined scale, based on a system of buffer solutions with assigned values. In pure water at 25°C, pH 7.0 is the neutral point, but this varies with temperature and the ionic strength of the sample. Pure water in equilibrium with air has a pH of about 5.5, and most natural uncontaminated waters range between pH 6 and pH 9.
9.2 The reference electrode may be subject to interferences and should be chosen to conform to all requirements of Sections 10 and 12.
9.3 The true pH of an aqueous solution or extract is affected by the temperature. The electromotive force between the glass and the reference electrode is a function of temperature as well as pH. The temperature effect can be compensated
62
automatically in many instruments or can be manually compensated in most other instruments. The temperature compensation corrects for the effect of changes in electrode slope with temperature but does not correct for temperature effects on the chemical system being monitored.
63
III. ASTM D1126-96: Standard Test Method for Hardness in Water
1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers the determination of hardness in water by titration. This test method is applicable to waters that are clear in appearance and free of chemicals that will complex calcium or magnesium. The lower detection limit of this test method is approximately 2 to 5 mg/L as CaCO3; the upper limit can be extended to all concentrations by sample dilution. It is possible to differentiate between hardness due to calcium ions and that due to magnesium ions by this test method.
1.2 This test method was tested on reagent water only. It is the user’s responsibility to ensure the validity of the test method for waters of untested matrices.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 Calcium and magnesium ions in water are sequestered by the addition of disodium ethylenediamine tetraacetate. The end point of the reaction is detected by means of Chrome Black T 4, which has a red color in the presence of calcium and magnesium and a blue color when they are sequestered.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 Hardness salts in water, notably calcium and magnesium, are the primary cause of tube and pipe scaling, which frequently causes failures and loss of process efficiency due to clogging or loss of heat transfer, or both.
5.2 Hardness is caused by any polyvalent cations, but those other than Ca and Mg are seldom present in more than trace amounts. The term hardness was originally applied to water in which it was hard to wash; it referred to the soap-wasting properties of water. With most normal alkaline water, these soap-wasting properties are directly related to the calcium and magnesium content.
6. Interferences
6.1 The substances shown represent the highest concentrations that have been found not to interfere with this determination.
6.2 The test method is not suitable for highly colored waters, which obscure the color change of the indicator.
64
Appendix B. FULL EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND RESULTS
I. Moisture Content- Determination Test
A. Constant Weighing of Crucibles
Initial Masses in grams: Time 0
Crucible Number
Mass Cap Mass Container Total Mass
1 7.186 22.824 30.0072 10.064 31.627 41.6923 9.509 23.508 33.016
After 30 minutes of oven-drying: Time 30
Crucible Number Total Mass |Change in Mass|1 29.994 0.0132 41.683 0.0093 33.006 0.010
After 30 minutes of oven-drying: Time 60
Crucible Number Total Mass |Change in Mass|1 29.998 0.0042 41.685 0.0023 33.009 0.003
After 30 minutes of oven-drying: Time 90
Crucible Number Total Mass |Change in Mass|1 29.997 0.0012 41.686 0.0013 33.013 0.004
65
B. Moisture Content Determination Data
i. Wet Fiber
CrucibleInitial Mass
FiberFiber +
Crucible
After 2 hours of Drying
After Additional 30 minutes
1 0.987 30.984 30.362 30.361
ii. Dry Fiber
CrucibleInitial Mass
FiberFiber +
Crucible
After 2 hours of Drying
After Additional 30 minutes
2 1.001 42.684 42.366 42.3583 1.002 34.008 33.688 33.686
C. Results
CrucibleInitial Mass
FiberMass Water Evaporated
Percent Moisture
1 (wet) 0.987 0.364 63.12 %2 (dry) 1.001 0.674 32.67 %3 (dry) 1.002 0.678 32.33 %
II. Isotherm Test
A. Standardization
Data:EDTA Concentration 0.05 mol/LConcentration CaCO3 Sol, C 100 mg/LVolume Sample CaCO3 Sol, V 50 mlMass CaCO3 in Sample, M= C*V 5.0 mg
66
Run No. Volume EDTA (VE) B (M/VE)
1 9.9 0.5052 9.3 0.5383 9.4 0.532
Average 0.525
B. Single Component Isotherm Experiment
Data:EDTA Concentration 0.05 mol/LMass CHF 1.0 gVolume Sample 50 mlVolume Solution 230 mlFactor B 0.525 mg Ca/ ml EDTA
Concentration, C
(mg CaCO3/ L)
Volume EDTA
Used (ml), VE
Initial Mass CaCO3 in Sample, M1 = Volume
Sample*C(before CHF was added)
Final Mass CaCO3 in Sample, M2= B*VE
(after CHF was added)
0 0.00 0.0 mg 0.000 mg10 0.00 0.5 mg 0.000 mg20 0.21 1.0 mg 0.110 mg30 0.40 1.5 mg 0.210 mg40 1.55 2.0 mg 0.814 mg50 2.60 2.5 mg 1.365 mg60 3.15 3.0 mg 1.653 mg70 4.05 3.5 mg 2.126 mg
ConcentrationAmount Absorbed,
AA50=M1-M2(per 50 ml sample)
Amount Absorbed, AA230=AA50*230/50(in 230 ml solution)
q (mg Ca/g CHF),q= AA230/1g CHF
0 0.000 mg 0.000 mg 0.00010 0.500 mg 2.300 mg 2.30020 0.890 mg 4.093 mg 4.09330 1.290 mg 5.934 mg 5.93440 1.186 mg 5.458 mg 5.45850 1.135 mg 5.223 mg 5.22360 1.347 mg 6.195 mg 6.19570 1.374 mg 6.322 mg 6.322
Results:C. Isotherm Determination
67
i. Freundlich Isotherm
Plot log q vs. log C
Concentration, C
q (mg Ca/g CHF)
log q log C
10 2.300 0.361727836 1.0000020 4.093 0.612039502 1.3010330 5.934 0.773365506 1.47712140 5.458 0.737009749 1.6020650 5.223 0.717886385 1.6989760 6.195 0.792019082 1.77815170 6.322 0.800836300 1.845098
Summary Output: By Linear Regression (Microsoft® Excel)
Regression StatisticsMultiple R 0.917764047R Square 0.842290846Adjusted R Square 0.810749016
CoefficientsIntercept -0.051722932Slope 0.481848012
68
ii. Langmuir Isotherm
Plot 1/q vs. 1/C
Concentration, C
q (mg Ca/g CHF) 1/q 1/ C
10 2.300 0.435 1/1020 4.093 0.244 1/2030 5.934 0.169 1/3040 5.458 0.183 1/4050 5.223 0.191 1/5060 6.195 0.161 1/6070 6.322 0.158 1/70
Summary Output: By Linear Regression (Microsoft® Excel)
Regression StatisticsMultiple R 0.9751666R Square 0.950949898Adjusted R Square 0.941139877 Standard Error 0.024015437
CoefficientsIntercept 0.102328644Slope 3.184257727
69
Comparing,
Regression coefficient, r2
→Langmuir 0.95 Freundlich 0.84
Therefore, Isotherm: Langmuir IsothermMaximum Capacity CHF: 9.772 g Ca2+/g CHFAdsorption Behavior:
III. Single Component Kinetic Experiment
Data:Experiment Proper
70
Concentration CaCO3 Solution, C 100 mg/LVolume CaCO3 Solution, V 1000 mLMass CHF 10 gInitial Mass CaCO3 in Solution, V*C 100 mgTitrationVolume Sample, vs 50 mLInitial Mass CaCO3 in Solution, vs*C 5 mgB 0.525 mg Ca/ ml EDTA
Time, minAve. Vol.
EDTA Used
Mass Ca2+ in 50-ml sample
Mass Adsorbance per
50-ml sample
Final Solution Conc. (C)
Total Amount Adsorbed
0 9.53 ml 5.00 0.00 mg 100.00 mg/L 0.00 mg10 7.69 ml 4.04 0.96 mg 80.71 mg/L 19.29 mg15 4.30 ml 2.26 2.74 mg 45.14 mg/L 54.86 mg20 3.73 ml 1.96 3.04 mg 39.19 mg/L 60.81 mg30 1.90 ml 1.00 4.00 mg 19.94 mg/L 80.06 mg
Using Linear Regression, plot Ln C/Co vs Time
Time Concentration C/Co Ln C/Co0.00 100.00 1.00 0.0010 80.71 0.81 0.2115 45.14 0.45 0.8020 39.19 0.39 0.9430 19.94 0.20 1.61
Summary Output: Using Microsoft® Excel
Regression StatisticsMultiple R 0.975878982R Square 0.952339787Adjusted R Square 0.93645305
71
Observations 5Coefficients
Intercept -0.122116861Slope 0.055590264a = e(-intercept) 1.129886134b = slope 0.055590264
Therefore,
72
Thus,Minimum Contact Time ≈ 30 minutes
IV. Breakthrough Test
A. Experimental Breakthrough Time Determination
Data:Average Conc. of CaCO3 Solution, C 27 mg/LAverage Volumetric Flow rate 2.76 mL/sBed Depth CHF 30.5 cmAverage Length CHF 1.0 cmApprox. Mass CHF for Given Depth, M 20 gBed Depth Sand 15 cmColumn Diameter, D 3.8 cmColumn Area, CA = πD2/4 11.33 cm2
Density CHF 1.4 g/cm3
Bulk Density CHF, M/(CA*BD) 0.06 g/cm3
Capacity CHF 9.772 g Ca/g CHFBreakthrough Concentration 4.0 mg Ca/LB 0.2625 mg Ca/ ml EDTA
Time (s)Volume Sample
(ml)Volume EDTA (ml)
Hardness, mg/L
C/Co
0 20 0.00 0.00 0.001 20 0.00 0.00 0.003 20 0.00 0.00 0.005 20 0.00 0.00 0.0010 20 0.00 0.00 0.0015 20 0.40 0.80 0.3920 20 0.65 1.30 0.6325 20 0.60 1.25 0.6130 20 0.40 0.85 0.4135 20 0.35 0.78 0.3840 20 0.35 1.17 0.5750 20 0.93 1.60 0.7855 20 1.60 2.00 0.9760 20 2.00 1.95 0.9565 20 2.00 1.95 0.9570 20 1.95 1.75 0.8575 20 1.95 1.90 0.92
73
80 20 1.90 1.75 0.8585 20 1.85 1.85 0.9090 20 1.85 0.00 0.00
Interpolating from times 10 min and 15 minutes, the breakthrough time at breakthrough concentration, Cb = 4 mg/L is:
tb = 11.90 minutes
B. Theoretical Breakthrough Time Determination
Summary Output: Calculated using Microsoft® Excel
Formula Value Units
1. No/εCapacity x Bulk
Density565.01 mg Ca/L
2. K Co K Co = b1 0.0556 1/min
3. Loading, vVol. Flow Rate x
Column Area0.1462 m/min
4. Depth, D CHF Bed Depth 0.305 m
74
5. Breakthrough Time, tb
12.24 minutes
1The kinetic parameter b of the kinetics experiment
V. Comparison Tests
A. Performance
Hard WaterCHF Cation Exchanger
Commercial Zeolite
1. Capacity, (mg Ca/g medium)
-- 9.772 851
2. Effluent pH 7.15 6.35 6.01
3. Apparnt Color (PCU)
60 85 900
1 Brown, et al. “Wastewater Treatment Using Low-Cost Adsorbents and Waste Materials”
Effluent pH: Representative Statistical Analysis
75
A B C D E F G H I
1
2 ANOVA: Null: There is no significant difference among the three.
3
4 Hard Water CHF Resin
5 8.1 7.38 7
6 8.05 7.43 6.99
7
8
9 SUMMARY
10 Groups Count Sum Average Variance
11 Hard Water 2 16.13 8.065 0.00045
12 CHF 2 14.81 7.405 0.00125
13 Resin 2 13.99 6.995 5E-05
14
15 ANOVA
16Source of Variation
SS df MS F P-value F crit
17 Bet Groups 1.165733333 2 0.58286666 999.2 5.8E-05 9.552094496
18 Within Groups 0.00175 3 0.0005833
19
20 Total 1.167483333 5
21
22
23 DECISION: Reject Ho. There is at least one inequality24
25 1. Compare Hard water and CHF
26
27 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
28
76
29 Hard Water CHF
30 Mean 8.065 7.405
31 Variance 0.00045 0.00125
32 Observations 2 2
33 Pooled Variance 0.00085
34
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
35 df 2
36 t Stat 22.63781324
37 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000972819
38t Critical one-tail
2.91998558
39 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001945638
40t Critical two-tail
4.30265273
41
42
43 DECISION: Reject Ho, there is significant difference: Hard water > CHF44
45 2. Compare Hard Water and Resin
46
47 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
48
49 Hard Water Resin
50 Mean 8.065 6.995
51 Variance 0.00045 5E-05
52 Observations 2 2
53Pooled Variance
0.00025
54
Hypothesized Mean Difference
0
55 df 2
56 t Stat 67.67274193
57P(T<=t) one-tail
0.000109144
58t Critical one-tail
2.91998558
59P(T<=t) two-tail
0.000218288
60t Critical two-tail
4.30265273
61
62
63 DECISION: Reject Ho, there is significant difference: Hard water > Resin64
65
66 3. Compare CHF and Resin
67
68 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
69
70 CHF Resin
77
71 Mean 7.405 6.995
72 Variance 0.00125 5E-05
73 Observations 2 2
74Pooled
Variance0.00065
75
Hypothesized Mean
Difference0
76 df 2
77 t Stat 16.08152308
78P(T<=t) one-
tail0.001922231
79t Critical one-tail
2.91998558
80P(T<=t) two-
tail0.003844462
81t Critical two-tail
4.30265273
82
83 DECISION: Reject Ho, there is significant difference: CHF > Resin84
B. Cost Comparison
Softening Capacity (mg Ca/g media)
Cost per kg (PhP)
Material Requirement
(kg)
Material Cost [M] (PhP)
78
CHF 9.77 26.5 516.55 13, 688.50
Synthetic Resin 85 281.18 59.37 16, 694.37
Total Annual Absorbent Material Cost Savings if CHF is employed 3, 005.87
Volume Req’t (cubic meter)
Theo. # of Exchangers
Actual # of Exchangers
Equipment Cost [E] (PhP)
Total Cost [M]+[E]
CHF 8.61 1.82 2 65, 534.00 79, 222.50
Synthetic Resin 0.07 0.02 1 32, 767.00 49, 461.37
Total Material + Equipment Costs Savings if CHF is employed -29, 761.13
Appendix C. CALCULATIONS, MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES
i. Wash Tank
Volume of Fibers
100 kg/hr CHF in 1 Batch operation
ρ = 1400 Kg/m3
VCHF = (100 kg) / (1400 kg/m3)
= 0.0715 m3
Volume of Water
200 gal/hr water in 1 Batch Operation
VWATER = 200 gal (1 m3/264.17 m3)
= 0.758 m3
Tank’s Capacity
Tank’s Capacity = VCHF + VWATER + Space Allowance
79
= 0.0715m3 + 0.758m3 + Space Allowance
= 1.00 m3
Diameter of the Tank
Assume height = 1.00 m
П/4D2h = 1.00 m
П/4D2 (1.00m) =1.00 m
D = 1.13 m
Tank Thickness
For the shell: t = (PR) / (SE -0.60 P)
Where P = 1 atm (14.7 psig)
R = diameter of tank= 0.565 m=22.244 in
S = for SA -240 Grade 316 steel @ T = 30˚ C=86˚ F
=18700 psig
E (joint efficiency) =1
t = (14.7 psig) (22.244 in)/ (18700 psig- 0.6* 14.7 psig)
= (326.99 in)/ (18691.18)
t = 0.0175 in (0.4443 mm)
Standard available thickness for stainless steel type 316: 0.45 mm
POWER REQUIREMENT: Washing Tank
Given:
Agitator Diameter (Da) = 0.80 D = 0.90 m = 2.95 ft
Speed (n): 45 rev/min = 0.75 rev/s
Density Water = 62.1342 lb/ft3
Viscosity of Brine (31˚ C) = 1.2 cP = 8.06364x10-4 lb/ft-s
g=32.17 ft/s2
gc=32.17 lbm-ft/lbf-s2
80
Solve NRe (Reynolds #)
NRe = Da2nρ/µ
= (2.95272 ft)2 (0.75/sec)(62.1342 lb/ft3)/(8.06364x10-4 lb/ft-s)
= 503,854.77
Unbaffled Tank: Fig. 9.13.Power Number Np versus NRE for three- blade propellers.
Np= 0.59
Solve NFr ( since it is unbaffled)
NFr = n2Da/g
= (0.75/sec)2(2.95272 ft)/(32.17 ft/sec2)
= 0.0516
Solve m, a=1.7 b=18.0
m = a (-log10NRe)/b
= (1.7-log 503854.77)/18.0
= -0.2224
Solve Corrected Value of Np
NP =NP from curve X Frm
= 0.59 *(0.0516 -.2224)
= 1.140
Solve Power Requirement for the Agitator to operate:
P =Npn3Da5ρ/gc
= (1.140)(0.75/sec)3(2.95272 ft)5(62.1342 lb/ft3)/(32.17 lbm-ft/lbf-sec2)
= (208.487 lbf-ft/sec)/(550)
P = 0.379 hp = 0.283 KW
A 0.50 hp motor power is recommended because it is commercially available.
Material Balance of 1st Washing
Basis: Producing 50 Kg of Bone Dry CHF per hour
½ hour per washing in batch operation
Spent Brine, B100 gal
2% NaCl (Salt Solution)
Density = 1,009 Kg/m3
Used Water, U 100 gal 30% Dust Particle (From Previous batch) Density of Water @ 31°C = 997.8 Kg/m3
Wet Fiber, F 64% Moisture (Wet Basis) 30% Dust present
Waste Water, W 70% Dust in raw fiber 30% Dust from previous batch
Raw Fiber, R 5% Dust Particle 32% Moisture (Wet Basis)
1st Washing1st Washing
81
For Spent Brine, B
B =100 gal for 1st washing
ρBrine (2%, 31 ˚C)= 1,009.844 kg/m3
B =100 gal (1m3/264.17 gal)* (1009.844 kg/m3)
82
= 382.27 kg Brine Solution
Mass NaCl =0.02 (382.27 Kg )= 7.6454 Kg NaCl
For Raw Fiber, R
5% Dust Particles Based on Karan-Carpet.com (Bone-Dry Basis)
R=50 Kg Bone-Dry/(1-0.05)=50/0.95= 52.632 Kg
XR,Dust = 0.05
Amount of Dust = 0.05 (52.632 Kg) =2.6316 Kg
R contains 32% moisture (wet basis)
(32/100) = Water in R/(R + Water in R)
R= 52.632 Kg (dry basis)
0.32= Water in R /( 52.632 Kg + Water in R)
16.84224 + 0.32 (water in R) = Water in R
Water in R = 16.84224 / (1-0.32)
Water in R = 24.768 Kg
New Value of R = 52.632 Kg + 24.768 Kg
R= 77.400 Kg
For Wet Fiber, F
F contains 64% moisture on wet basis including the dust particle (From
the FYPS Experiment)
F also contains 30% of the dust present in R (From the assumptions)
Dust in F = 0.30(2.6316 Kg) = 0.78948 Kg
Thus,
0.64 = Amount of water/ (50 Kg + 0.78948 Kg + Amount of water)
Amount of Water in F = 50.78948 Kg / (1-0.64)
Amount of Water in F = 141.082 Kg Water
For Used Water, U
U = 100 gal
* Contains 30% of the dust particle coming from the previous batch
Dust in U = 0.30 *(2.6316 Kg) = 0.78948 Kg
83
ρH2O (31 ˚C) = 997.8 Kg/m3
Amount (Volume of Water used) = 100 gal (1m3 /264.17 gal) (997.8 Kg/m3)
Amount of Water used= 377.71 Kg Water
Thus, total amount of Water used:
U= 377.71 Kg + 0.78948 Kg = 378.4995 Kg
To account for all the materials that goes into the tank:
B + U + R = 382.27 Kg + 378.4995 Kg + 77.40 Kg
= 838.1695 Kg of material that goes into the tank
The amount of water that goes inside the tank is:
B water + U water + R water = (382.27 -7.645) Kg + (377.71 Kg) + (24.768 Kg)
= 777.103 Kg Water
After agitation and just before draining the waste water, the concentration of NaCl in the
tank caused by the spent brine solution (accounting only the water and NaCl ):
= 7.645 Kg / (7.645 Kg NaCl + 777.103 Kg Water)
= 0.009742 or 0.9742%
Hence, the NaCl concentration of the water left on the fiber after draining the
wastewater for the 1st washing is 0.9742%.
So, Amount of NaCl in F is:
0.009742 = Amount NaCl in F / Amount of NaCl in F + Water in F
= Amount of NaCl in F / (Amount of NaCl in F + 141.082 Kg)
Amount of NaCl = 1.37442 Kg /( 1-0.009742)
= 1.3879 Kg NaCl
84
Hence, the total amount of F:
=0.78948 Kg Dust + 50 Kg Fiber + 141.082 Kg Water + 1.3879 Kg NaCl
=193.25938 Kg
OVER-ALL Material Balance:
B + U + R = F + W
382.27 Kg + 378.4995 Kg + 77.400 Kg = 193.25938 Kg + W
W= 644.91012 Kg
For Waste water, W
Amount of Fiber in W=0
Amount of dust in W = 0.70 (Dust in raw fiber ) + 0.30 ( Dust from
previous batch)
=0.70 (2.6316 Kg ) + 0.30 (2.6316 Kg )= 2.6316 Kg
Amount of salt in W = 7.645 Kg -1.3879 Kg NaCl
Amount of salt in W =6.2571 Kg
Summary:
Stream Water (kg) NaCl (kg) Fiber (kg) Dust (kg)Total IN
(kg)Total OUT
(kg)
B (IN) 374.625 7.645 -------- --------- 382.27 ---------
R (IN) 24.7684 ------- 50 2.6316 77.400 --------
U (IN) 377.71 ------- ------- 0.78948 378.4995 --------
F (0UT) 141.082 1.3879 50 0.78948 ------- 193.25938
W (OUT) 636.02142 6.2571 -------- 2.6316 ------- 644.91012
Total 777.1034 7.645 50 3.42108 838.1695 838.1695
Wet CHF, C 64% Moisture (Wet Basis) 50 Kg CHF 1.3879 Kg NaCl
Used Water,U 377.71 Kg Water 0.78948 Kg Dust
Wet Fiber,F 141.082 Kg Water 1.3879 Kg NaCl 50 Kg Fiber 0.78948 Kg Dust
2nd Washing2nd Washing
Softwater, S 100 gal softwater
85
Material Balance in 2nd Washing
For Wet Fiber, F: from material balance in 1st washing
F= 193.25938 Kg
Containing: 141.082 Kg H2O
1.3879 Kg NaCl
86
50 Kg fiber
0.78948 Kg Dust
For Used water, U: is used for the first washing of the next batch: (from material
balance in 1st Washing)
U= 378.4995 Kg containing 377.71 Kg H2O
0.78948 Kg Dust
Note: The amount of NaCl presents in wet fibers are assumed to attach on the fiber so the
Wet CHF will contain H2O, and the NaCl attached to the fiber.
For Wet CHF, C:
Also contains 64% moisture on wet basis without the dust particle
Does not contain dust particle anymore
Has 50 Kg CHF and 1.72169 NaCl
So, 0.64= Amount H2O / (Amount H2O + 50 Kg + 1.3879 Kg)
Amount H2O = 51.3879 Kg / (1-.064)
Amount H2O = 142.7442 Kg of H2O
Thus, Total C = 142.7442 kg of water + 1.3879 Kg NaCl + 50 Kg Fiber
= 194.1321 Kg of Wet CHF,C
OVER-ALL Material Balance:
F + S = C + U
231.3584 Kg + S = (194.1321Kg + 378.4995 Kg)
S= 379.37222 Kg of Softwater
S = 379.37222 Kg ( 1m3/ 997.18 Kg) (264.18 gal /1m3)
S = 100.502 gallons
Summary:
Stream Water (kg) NaCl (kg) Fiber (kg) Dust (kg)Total IN
(kg)Total OUT
(kg)
S (IN) 379.37222 --------- ---------- ---------- 379.37222 --------
F (IN) 141.082 1.3879 50 0.78948 193.25938 --------
87
C (OUT) 142.7442 1.3879 50 ---------- --------- 194.1321
U (OUT) 377.71 ---------- ---------- 0.78948 --------- 378.4995
TOTAL 520.4542 1.3879 50 0.78948 572.6316 572.6316
Energy Balance:
∆ (H + ½ u2 +Zg) m = Q+W
Assumption:
No temperature rise during the 1st Washing operation
∆H = Q = 0 So, m (1/2 u2 +Zg )= W Let:
W = Power requirement of the agitator P = 0.379 hp = 0.283 kW (1000W/1kW) = 283 W = 283 J/s P = 24, 451.2 kJ/s
Thus, m [1/2(u2
2-u12) + 9.81 Z] = 24,451.2 KJ/s
where m = W + F W = 644.91012 Kg/hr F = 141.082 Kg/hr
644.91012+141.082 Kg/hr [1/2(u22-u1
2) + 9.81 Z] = 24,451.2 KJ/s 24 451.2 Kg/hr/785.99212 Kg/hr = /[1/2(u2-u2) + 9.81 Z]
[1/2(u22-u1
2) + 9.81 Z] = 31,108.70883 kJ/ kg
ii. CHF Dryer
88
Since it is assumed that no water was lost during the pelletizing operation, we can represent the two drying operations as one process,
I. Material Balance
Let
x = mass fraction of water (wet-basis) in all liquid and solid streams, defined as:
For the succeeding calculations, values of the data used are tabulated in Table 8.
Parameter Value
Raw Fiber Length1 6- 8 in
Diameter1 16 microns
Moisture Content3 32 %
Air Porosity2 23.5 %
Wet Fiber Moisture Content3 64 %
Dry CHF Moisture Content3 32 %
Flow rate 500 kg/day
Wet Fiber, WF Dry CHF, DC
Moist Air, MA
CHF DryerCHF Dryer
Feed Air, FA
89
Air Relative Humidity4 70.5%
Thermal Conductivities (J/s-m-oC) 0.02423 (0oC)
0.03185 (100oC)
Viscosities 0.0205 cP
Specific Heat 0.1046 kJ/kg-oC
Density 1.027 kg/m3
Water Heat of Vaporization 2317.11 kJ/kg (77oC)
Mean Heat Capacity 4.185 kJ/kg-oC
Source: Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 7th Ed., 1karan-carpets.com, 2dpo.uab.edu, 3FYPS Expt., 4ChE 510 Expt. “Psychometry”
i. Over-all Material Balance
(1)
ii. Water Balance
From the Relative Humidity Chart (See Appendix D)
Absolute Humidity, H = 21.3 g/m3
Volume of Feed Air
Vair = mass air (density) = FA (1.027)
Mass Water in the feed air
Mass fraction of water in feed air
From Figure 19.2, p. 621 McCabe, Smith and Harriott (2005)
Air is heated to 110 oC (230 oF) and leaves the dryer at 50 oC (122 oF)
90
The specific volume of air from the same chart,
V = 14. 5 ft3/lb dry air
= 0.8212 m3/kg DA
Mass of water in moist air
Thus,
(2)
iii. Fiber Balance
From (2)
iv. Air Balance
HB = 0.022
HA = 0.048
230 oF122 oF
91
(3)
From Over-all Mass Balance:
II. ENERGY BALANCE
Assumption:
1. The sum of potential and kinetic energies is much smaller than (or negligible compared to) the value of Q:
PE + KE << Q
Thus,
∆Ĥ = Q + W
(i) Find
For 10 hrs/day of operation,
Q
Moist Air, MA50oC
Wet Fiber, WF30 oC
CHF DryerCHF Dryer
Feed Air, FA30oC
Dry CHF, DCTDC
92
(ii) Find
(iii) Find
(iv) Find
(v) Find
(vi) Find work done by fan, W
Data: Centrifugal fan
93
Parameter Value
Efficiency 70 %
Pressure at Standard Cubic Feet rating
29.92 in. Hg
Temperature at Standard Cubic Feet rating
32 oF
Molecular Weight Air 28.42 g/mol
Velocity of discharged Air1 0.5 m/s (1.64 ft/s)
Feed Air: Temp. 1 30oC(86oF)
Feed Air: Pressure1 29.0 in Hg
Discharge Pressure1 30.1 in Hg
Discharge Temp1 30oC(86oF)
Mass Flow rate air, FA2 0.493 kg/s (1.087 lb/s)
Sources: Unit Operations… (McCabe, et. al.), 1Design, 2Material Balance
a. Find the average density of flowing air
The actual suction density is
The discharge density is
The average density is,
b. Calculating work required
The developed pressure is
94
The velocity head is
By Equation 8.2b, (McCabe, Smith and Harriott)
Power requirement,
(0.4 kJ/s)
(vii) Solving for Q
+
(viii) Therefore, total electrical input is
iii. Ion Exchanger
Material Balance
Assume: steady-state conditions: the amount of material adsorbed onto the media
95
M
VCC
M
Xe 0
Where: X/M = amount of Ca2+ removed/mass of CHF pellets C0 = initial hardness concentration Ce = hardness concentration after equilibrium has been reached V = volume of the solution to which the CHF pellets are exposed M = mass of the CHF pellets
Experimental Result for CHF:
Regression coefficient, r2
→Langmuir 0.95 Freundlich 0.84
Therefore, Isotherm: Langmuir IsothermMaximum Capacity CHF: 9.772 mg Ca2+/g CHFAdsorption Behavior:
Data: Design flow rate = 1000 gal/hCe = 4 mg/lCo = 200 mg/lCHF capacity = 9.772 mg Ca2+ / g CHF CHF bulk density = 60 kg/m3
CHF density = 1400 kg/m3
*** The gallons of water to be treated per day are multiplied by the difference in the initial concentration and the desired final concentration (Co-Ce) times the conversion factors of 1.006 x 10-6 L/mg and 3.76 kg/gal (density of water at 30°C) to obtain the amount of Ca2+ to be adsorbed per day (Tolar, 2006). Dividing by the experimental CHF capacity (X/M) in mg Ca2+ per g CHF pellets yields the CHF requirement in kg per day.
M = ((1000 gal/h) * 3.76 kg/gal * (24 h/day) * (200-4) mg/L* 1.006 x 10-6 L/mg) / (9.772 mg Ca2+ /g CHF) * (1g/1000mg)
M = 1822.218 kg/day
96
(This mass will be divided between the two ion exchange column, IE 1-A and 1-B, thus, each column will have a mass of about 930 kg/day)
Basis: 1835.744 kg/day (mass of CHF required operating at 24 h/day)
Volume CHF = m CHF / ρ CHF
= (1822.218 kg/day) / (368.4231929 kg/m3) 4.95 m3
Volume sand = VolumeCHF * Factor = 4.95 m3 (15.3/ 30.5) = 2.48 m3
Volume gravel = Volume Media * Factor = 4.95 m3 (7/ 30.5) = 1.14 m3
***Using Solver from Microsoft® Excel, the optimum diameter and length of the ion exchanger tank are:
OPTIMUM TANK DESIGN
Parameters Constraints
Volume (CHF), m3 4.94599185
Volume Sand 2.481104109 D1 2.306128 > 1.537418537
Volume Gravel 1.135145671 D1 4.612256 > 1.537418537
D 1.537419 > 0
L 4.612256 > 0
V 8.562242 = 8.5622416
Design Variables
D 1.537418537
L 4.612255612
Computed values
Area (side) = 2*pi*D/2*L 22.2769307
Area(bottom) = 2*pi*D^2/4 3.712821784
Total Area of the tank,m2 25.98975249
Volume Tank = 8.562241555
97
1 L/D = 1.5:1 to 3:1
***BV (CHF Bed Volume) = A * L = 4.95 m3 = (π D2/4 * L)Where: A = Area occupied by the pellets
L = bed depth L = 2.66 m
Thus, length of the sand is 50% of the CHF bed depth = 1.33 m
***Length of the nozzle from the CHF bed (space for swelling) = Length of the tank – length (sand, gravel, pellets) = 4.61 m – (2.66+ 1.33+0.07) = 0.55 m
***Pipe = assume 2 in Schedule 40 piped = 0.0508 m
Liquid flow rate (softening) = V (design flow rate) /A = (1000gal/hr) *(1 m3/264.17 gal)* (1 h/3600 s)/ (π*(0.0508)2/4)
= 0.519 m/sLiquid flow rate (regeneration) = (200gal/hr)*(1hr/3600s)* (1 m3/264.17 gal)/
(π*(0.0508)2/4) = 0.104 m/s
***This application employs a fixed-bed approach where the water flows through a stationary mass of CHF pellets. During the flow through the pellets, many of the Ca2+
and Mg2+ are expected to come in contact with active surface sites and thus retained on the surface of the adsorbing media. The design requires the determination of two significant design parameters: minimum contact time and life of the bed.
***from the experiment, the minimum contact time of the adsorbent and water is 30 minutes.
To calculate the service life, the single-component kinetics study data was regressed using time in minutes as the independent variable and Ce/C0 as the dependent variable. The equation being fitted was the following:
Ce/C0 = a exp (-bt) = a exp (-kC0t)
From the experiment: a = 1.1299b = kCo = 0.0556 /min
The linearized BDST model equation is as follows (Cooney 1999; McKay 1996):
98
1ln
1
10000
00
0
bb C
C
kCD
vC
Nt
The ‘1000’ is included in the above equation as the conversion factor between liters and cubic meters, i.e., 1000 L per cubic meter.
***To get the term N0/, the bulk density of CHF which is 60 kg/m3 is multiplied by the capacity of 9.772 mg Ca2+/g CHF to get a capacity (expressed as mg Ca2+/m3 CHF) of 5.65 x 105 mg Ca2+/m3 media. This is the N0/ term since it accounts for only the volume of the ion exchange media in the system.
D = 2.66 mCo = 200 mg/LCb = 4 mg/Lv = V/A = V/πd2/4 = 0.0631 m3/min/ (π*1.552/4) = 0.034 m/min
By substitution: tb = 151.47 minutes = 2.52 h
***Thickness of the column
For cylindrical shells,t = (P ri / S Ej-0.6 P) + CC
Where P = internal pressure
P = Patm + ρghpellets + ρghwater + ρghsand + ρghgravel = 101,325Pa + (368.423 kg/m3)*(9.81m/s2)*(2.66 m) + (995.612kg/
m3)*(9.81 m/ s2) * (4.61) + (1922 kg/ m3)*(9.81 m/ s2) * (1.33 m) + (2002 kg/ m3) * (9.81 m/ s2) * (0.07 m)
P = 137.45 kPa
S = maximum allowable working stress = 128,900 kPa (Table 12-10 for Stainless steel)
Ej = efficiency of joints expressed as a fraction = 1 (fully radiographed double-welded butt joints)Cc = allowance for corrosion
t = 0.820 mm
99
***The thickness of the plate should not be less than 2.5 mm for stainless steel plates and the corrosion allowance for plates used for the shell and other pressure parts of the pressure vessel should not be less than 1 mm (JICOSH Home Guidelines Construction CODE FOR PRESSURE VESSELS.htm).
Recommended plate thickness: 3 mm
Regeneration Process
Data: V = 100 gal/h softwater Brine concentration, cb = 0.10 ρ H20 (35°C) = 995.612kg/ m3= 3.763 kg/gal
Retention time of the brine solution for the two exchangers, t= 40 minutes***for every breakthrough period of 4.26 days, a 10% brine solution is passed to the exchangers for 40 minutes
MNaCl = (V * ρ H20) * cb * t= (100 gal/h*3.763 kg/gal)*(10kg NaCl/90 kg H20) = 41.81 kg/h * (40 minutes/0.105 days) * (1 h/60min)= 265.46 kg/day
***after reaching the breakthrough time, 265.46 kg of NaCl is added with 100 gal of softwater to make a 10% NaCl solution as a regenerant.
Energy Balance
IE-
1A
IE-
2A
4.6 m
Centrifugal pumpCapacity: 1 hp
ή = 0.65
99
Given Parameters:
Liquid water₣ = 1000gal/hr (water softening) = 1.0515x10-3 m3/sd = 0.051 m
ε = 0.000046 (Figure 12-1 for commercial steel)L = 10m (assumed sum of the length of the pipes in which the water flows)ή = 0.65
(From the Appendices of McCabe)υH2O (35°C) = 0.8012ρH2O (35°C) = 995.612kg/ m3
v.p. = 0.8162 lb/in2
(Table 12-1 by Peters and Timmerhaus)90° elbows std. radius, Le/D = 32Gate valves, Le/D = 7α = 1 (for turbulent flow)kc = 0.05
For non compressible liquids, the Mechanical Energy Balance would be:
Wo = g Δz + Δ (V2/2α) + Δ (pv) + ΣF (Eq. 12-12)
Where: z = vertical distance above an arbitrarily chosen datum planeg = local gravitational accelerationp = absolute pressurev = specific volume of the fluidV = average fluid velocityα = correction factor to account for the use of average
velocityWo = mechanical workF = mechanical loss due to friction
For friction factor, f
Average velocity in the pipe = Water flow rate/Area = ₣/ (πd2/4)
Solving for Reynold’s number and relative roughness, Re = D V ρ / υ
From Fig. 12-1, estimated f = 0.1The total Le for fittings and valves is,
Le = 2(7) (D) + 3(32) (D)Friction due to flow through pipe and all fittings is, Fp = (2 f V 2 (L + Le))/D Friction due to contraction and enlargement (from Table 12-1) is, Fc, e = Fe + Fc Where: Fe = (V1-V2)2/2α
100
Fc = KcV22
Using Excel,
Data:
Liquid water
Flow rate, cu.m/s 1.05E-03 υH2O, Pa.s 8.01E-04
d,m 0.051 ρH2O, kg/m3 995.612
ε 0.000046 v.p., lb/in2 0.8162
ή 0.65 h,m 10
Le/D, elbows 32 velocity,m/s 0.514729
Le/D,valves 7 Re 3.26E+04
α 1 E/D 0.000902
kc 0.05 f 0.1
L 10 Le = 5.61
Fp,f 83.75424
F,e 0.132473
F,c 0.013247
Fc,e 0.145721
ΣF 83.89997
Pt = 405.6
P, hp = 0.541653
Appendix D. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS
101
Soft Water
I. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
Manufacturer’s Name: Pacific Soft Water and CHF Pellets Manufacturing, Inc.
Synonyms: Dihydrogen Monoxide; H20
II. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
NONE when compound is in the pure state.
III. PHYSICAL DATA
Boiling point (760 mm Hg): 100oC (212oF)
Melting point: 0oC (32oF)
Specific gravity (H2O = 1):1
Vapor pressure - 100oC (212oF) 760 mm Hg
- 0oC (32oF) 17.5 mm Hg
Solubility in water (% by wt.): 100%
% Volatiles by volume: 100%
Evap. rate (Butyl acetate = 1): Not available
Appearance and Odor: Light brown- colored liquid; No odor
IV. FIRE & EXPLOSION DATA
Flash Point: Not applicable
Auto-ignition Temperature: Not applicable
Flammable limits in air (% by Vol.): Not applicable
Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazard: Rapid temperature rise of liquid can result in explosive vaporization, particularly if in a sealed container.
V. HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
InhalationAcute over exposure: Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal.Chronic overexposure: Chronic inhalation overexposure not encountered.
Skin ContactAcute overexposure: Prolonged but constant contact with liquid may cause a mild dermatitis.Chronic overexposure: Mild to severe dermatitis.
IngestionAcute overexposure: Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea.Chronic overexposure: No effects noted.
Emergency and First Aid ProceduresEyes: NoneSkin: None
102
Inhalation: Remove to fresh air; Provide artificial respiration; Provide oxygen.Ingestion: None
VI. REATIVITY DATA
Conditions contributing to instability: Exposure to direct current electricity.
Incompatibility: Strong acids and bases can cause rapid heating. Reaction with sodium metal can result in explosion.
Hazardous decomposition products: Hydrogen - Explosive gas Oxygen - Supports rapid combustion
Conditions contributing to hazardous polymerization: None
VII. SPILL or LEAK PROCEDURES
Steps to be taken if material is released or spilled:
Small quantities can be mopped or wiped up with rags.
Large quantities should be directed to collecting basin or drain with dikes or swabs.
Waste disposal method:
Process contaminated material through treatment plant prior to discharge into environment. Discharge permit may be required.
VIII. SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
Ventilation requirements:
Remove hot vapor from environment using local exhaust systems.
Specific personal protective equipment:
Respiratory: None required.
Eyes: Goggles or full face splash shield when dealing with hot liquid.
Hands: Use insulating gloves when extensive exposure to solid state or high temperature liquid state is contemplated.
Other clothing and equipment: Use heat protective garment when exposed to large quantities of heated vapor.
IX. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
Precautionary statements:
Compound readily exists in all three phases at atmospheric pressure. Phase changes occur over a narrow (100oC/212oF) temperature range.
Compound is known as "the universal solvent" and does dissolve, at least to some extent, most common materials.
Compound will conduct electricity when dissolved ionic solutes are present.
Other handling and storage requirements:
A high pressure containment vessel should be used for the vapor at high temperatures.
Do not allow filled, closed containers to solidify as compound expands upon freezing.
103
CHF Pellets
I. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
Manufacturer’s Name: Pacific Soft Water and CHF Pellets Manufacturing, Inc.
II. HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
NONE when compound is in the pure state.
III. PHYSICAL DATA AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
Physical Data
Diameter 16 micron
Length 1- 2 cm
Density 1.4 g/cc
Breaking Elongation 30%
Moisture 32%
Swelling in Water 5%
Chemical Composition
Water Soluble 5.25%
Pectin and Related Compounds 3.00%
Hemi-cellulose 0.25%
Lignin 45.84%
Cellulose 43.44%
Ash 2.22%
IV. FIRE & EXPLOSION DATA
Flash Point: Not available
Auto-ignition Temperature: Not available
Flammable limits in air (% by Vol.): Not available
Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazard: Not available
V. HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
InhalationIf a person breathes in large amounts, move the exposed person to fresh air.
Skin ContactNo effects noted.
IngestionIf large amounts were swallowed, give water to drink and get medical advice.
Eye Contact In case of eye contact, immediately flush with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.
104
VI. REATIVITY DATA
Conditions contributing to instability: Not available
Incompatibility: Strong acids and bases can cause oxidation
Conditions contributing to hazardous polymerization: Not available
VII. SPILL or LEAK PROCEDURES
Steps to be taken if material is released or spilled:
Small quantities can be sweep or brushed.
Large quantities should be directed to collecting bin.
Waste disposal method:
Whatever cannot be saved for recovery or recycling should be managed in an appropriate and approved waste disposal facility. Processing, use or contamination of this product may change the waste management options. Dispose of container and unused contents in accordance with government requirements.
VIII. SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
Specific personal protective equipment:
Respiratory: Mask
Eyes: Goggles.
Hands: Gloves.
105
Appendix D. HAZARDS AND OPERABILTY (HAZOP) STUDY
Hazards and operability studies (HAZOPS) are employed by engineers, safety personnel,
and operators for a variety of reasons. These reasons vary from identifying potential
safety hazard to evaluating potential operational problems to characterizing potential
consequences to the surrounding communities in the event of a release of a hazardous
material. The small-scale plant for the processing of CHF and the production of soft
water is currently in the detailed design of the project. The HAZOP study, therefore, aims
to identify deviations from the design intent in the parts of the process and make an
assessment to whether such deviations and their consequences can have a negative effect
upon the safe and efficient operation of the plant.
The study considers the identification of the potential releases of hazardous materials
from the process and discusses the likelihood and severity of such releases. It gives
emphasis on the total operability of the process and shows critical analyses of the three
types equipment designed by the group, namely: the ion exchanger, the wash tank and the
CHF dryer.
The HAZOP Study Approach
The study has been conducted using a combination of two hazard evaluation procedures,
the cause-consequence analysis and the hazard and operability study. These procedures
are described in detail in “Hazard And Operability Studies (HAZOPS)” by Mike Lihou
and in the notes for the “Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedure” prepared for the
Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as obtained
from the web site of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In the HAZOP study, techniques revolve around the effective use of keywords, the
combination of the “Primary Keywords” and the “Secondary Keywords”. Accordingly,
the primary keywords “focus attention upon a particular aspect of the design intent or an
106
associated process condition or parameter, while the secondary keywords “when
combined with the primary keyword, suggest possible deviations” (Lihou,
lihoutech.com). Typical primary keywords generally used in HAZOP studies are
parameters such as the Flow, Pressure, Temperature, and Composition, and operational
words such as Isolate, Drain, Purge and Inspect. These keywords are dependent upon the
plant being studied. On the other hand, the secondary keywords generally used follows a
standard set and this is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Set of Secondary Keywords Used in HAZOP Studies
Word Meaning
NoThe design intent does not occur (e.g. Flow/No), or the operational
aspect is not achievable (Isolate/No)
LessA quantitative decrease in the design intent occurs (e.g.
Pressure/Less)
MoreA quantitative increase in the design intent occurs (e.g.
Temperature/More)
Reverse The opposite of the design intent occurs (e.g. Flow/Reverse)
Also
The design intent is completely fulfilled, but in addition some
other related activity occurs (e.g. Flow/Also indicating
contamination in a product stream, or Level/Also meaning
material in a tank or vessel which should not be there)
Other (than)
The activity occurs, but not in the way intended (e.g. Flow/Other
could indicate a leak or product flowing where it should not, or
Composition/Other might suggest unexpected proportions in a
feedstock)
FluctuationThe design intention is achieved only part of the time (e.g. an air-
lock in a pipeline might result in Flow/Fluctuation)
Early
Usually used when studying sequential operations, this would
indicate that a step is started at the wrong time or done out of
sequence
Late As for Early
As well as/ Part of Qualitative increase, e.g. extra-activity occurs
Source: www.lihoutech.com; www.chemeng.mcmaster.ca
107
For the study’s purpose, primary keywords with selected, applicable secondary keywords
are also tabulated. These combinations as shown in Table 2 are used all through out the
study and it is assumed that they are the only relevant combinations for this HAZOP
study of the small-scale plant.
Table 2. Selected Primary Keywords with Applicable Guide Words
Keyword Guide Words
Flow No, more, less, reverse
Temperature Higher, lower
Pressure Higher, lower
Level None, higher, lower
Composition None, more, less, as well as, other than
Action Early, late, longer, shorter
Source: www.chemeng.mcmaster.ca
Results
The results of the HAZOP analysis are shown on the action sheets that follow. The node
that was considered in the study are the dry CHF streams (for the CHF dryer), the feed
hard water (for the ion exchanger), and the feed spent brine (for the wash tank). From
these tables, we can conclude that the operability of the process is mainly dependent on
the parameters such as the temperature and stream flows. That is why, after the
identification of the design intent deviations, appropriate actions were also listed.