Department of Chemical Engineering University of San CarlosTechnological Center Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City

CHE 422L Chemical Engineering Laboratory 1

Leaching (Leaching of NaCl/Sand Mixture with Water as Solvent) A Final Laboratory Report submitted to Engr. May V. Tampus Instructor, CHE 422L

By Alivio, Aljon M.

February 14, 2013

1. Introduction Leaching is one of the oldest unit operations in chemical industries. It involves the removal of a soluble fraction (solute), in the form of a solution, from an insoluble, usually permeable, solid phase with which the solute is associated. The solute may be solid or liquid, and it may be incorporated within, chemically combined with, adsorbed upon, or bound mechanically in the pore structure of the insoluble material [Perry & Green, 2008]. Leaching is also known by many names including extraction, solid-liquid extraction, lixiviation, percolation, infusion, washing, and decantationsettling, due to its great breadth of application and its importance to some ancient processes. Industrial applications of leaching include: (1) removal of copper from ore using sulfuric acid, (2) extraction of sugar from sugar beets using hot water, (3) extraction of tannin from tree bark using water, and (4) recovery of proteins and other natural products from bacterial cells [Seader et al., 2011]. Effluents from a leaching stage are essentially solids-free liquid, called the overflow, and wet solids, the underflow. To reduce the concentration of solute in the liquid portion of the underflow, leaching is often accompanied by stages. The combined process produces a final overflow, referred to as extract, which contains some of the solvent and most of the solute; and a final underflow, the extracted or leached solids, which are wet with almost pure solvent [Seader et al., 2011]. There are many methods of operation in leaching. Leaching systems are distinguished by operating cycle (batch, continuous, or multibatch intermittent); by direction of streams (cocurrent, countercurrent, or hybrid flow); by staging (singlestage, multistage, or differential-stage); and by method of contacting (sprayed percolation, immersed percolation, or solids dispersion). In general, descriptors from all four categories must be assigned to stipulate a leaching system completely (e.g., the Bollman-type extractor is a continuous hybrid-flow multistage sprayed percolator). Whatever the mechanism and the method of operation, it is clear that the leaching process will be favored by increased surface per unit volume of solids to be leached and by decreased radial distances that must be traversed within the solids, both of which are favored by decreased particle size [Perry & Green, 2008].
2

In its elemental form, a leaching system consists of three components: inert, insoluble solids; a single nonadsorbed solute, which may be liquid or solid; and a single solvent. The major parameters that must be fixed or identified are the solvent to be used, the temperature, the terminal stream compositions and quantities, leaching cycle (batch or continuous), contact method, and specific extractor choice [Perry & Green, 2008]. In leaching, provided sufficient solvent is present to dissolve all the solute in the entering solid and there is no adsorption of solute by the solid, equilibrium is attained when the solute is completely dissolved and the concentration of the solution so formed is uniform. Such a condition may be obtained simply or with difficulty, depending on the structure of the solid. The concentration of the liquid retained by the solid leaving any stage is the same as that of the liquid overflow from the same stage [Mccabe et al., 1993]. To analyze equilibrium relations in leaching, two methods may be employed: algebraic computation and graphical method. Algebraic computation starts with calculation of the quantities and compositions of all the terminal streams, using a convenient quantity of one of the streams as the basis of calculation. Material balance and stream compositions are then computed for terminal ideal stage at either end of an extraction, using equilibrium and solution-retention data. Calculations are repeated for each successive ideal stage from one end of the system to the other until an ideal stage which corresponds to the desired conditions is obtained. Graphical Method is simply a diagrammatic representation of all the possible compositions in a leaching system, including equilibrium values, on which material balances across ideal stages can be evaluated in the graphical equivalent of the stage-by-stage algebraic computation. It normally is simpler than the hand calculation of the algebraic solution, and it is viewed by many as helpful because it permits visualization of the process variables and their effect on the operation. Most frequently employed diagrams are a right-triangular plot of mass fraction of solvent against mass fraction of solute and a plot suggestive of a Ponchon-Savarit diagram with inerts taking the place of enthalpy [Perry & Green, 2008].

2. Objectives of the Experiment Compare single-stage, crosscurrent, and countercurrent beaker-scale

extraction operations based on extraction efficiency data. Draw equivalent graphical solutions for multiple-stage extraction operations.

3. Methodology 3.1 Materials Sand Salt Distilled water

3.2 Equipment and Apparatus (10) 250-mL Beakers (12) 1-L Plastic Beakers (10) 250-mL Erlenmeyer Flasks (3) Stirrers (1) Thermometer (1) Stopwatch (1) Densitometer (1) Digital Balance

Figure 1. Beaker-scale Extraction Set-up 4

Figure 2. Liquid Densitometer

3.3 Procedures 3.3.1 Construction of Density-Concentration Plot for NaCl Solution Corresponding amounts of NaCl were first weighed to produce 0, 4, 8,12,16,20 and 25 percent by weight of NaCl solution. These were placed in separate 100-mL beakers. An equivalent amount of dry sand was then added to each beaker and was mixed properly with the salt solution. The beakers were allowed to sit still for 25 minutes. The densities of the clear liquors were then measured using the liquid densitometer. The temperature was also recorded. The density

concentration plot was made by plotting the densities of the solution against its respective percentage weight NaCl.

3.3.2 Preparation of the Fresh Feed The weights of twelve 1-L beakers were first taken and the beakers labelled from I-XII. An unknown amount of salt and sand were placed in each beaker. The weights of the beakers with the samples were also taken to determine the amounts of sample in each beaker. 150 mL of water was poured in each beaker and was mixed thoroughly for two minutes. Beaker XII was allowed to settle for 25 minutes and the liquor density of beaker XII was measured. This corresponds to the fresh feed liquor density. The composition of the fresh feed was then determined using the density-concentration plot. 3.3.3 Single-Stage Extraction Operation An amount of 150 mL water was added again to beaker I, 300 mL to beaker II and 600 mL to beaker III and was mixed well for 2 minutes. The beakers were allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An equal amount to that of the water added of the supernatant liquid from each beaker (i.e, 150 mL from beaker I) was decanted. The densities of the liquors in each beaker were determined. Using the densityconcentration plot, the densities were converted to weight percent salt and the single-stage extraction efficiencies were calculated. 3.3.4 Multistage Crosscurrent Extraction Operation 600-mL of water was prepared for each of beakers IV, V, and VI. Two 300mL portions were added in beaker IV, three 200-mL portions to beaker V, and four 150mL portions to beaker VI. The density and weight percent of NaCl of the clear liquors were then determined. 3.3.5 Steady-state Multistage Countercurrent Extraction Operation An amount of 600 ml of water was added to beaker VII and was mixed properly for 2 minutes. The beaker was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml of the supernatant liquid was decanted from the solution and labelled Decant-VII. Another 600 ml of water was added to beaker VII, was
6

mixed well for 2 minutes, and then allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml of the supernatant liquid from this solution was decanted and was labelled as Decant-VIII. Decant-VII was added into beaker VII, was mixed well for 2 minutes, and was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from this solution and was relabelled as Decant-VII. Another 600 ml of water was added to beaker VIII, mixed well for 2 minutes, and was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from this solution and was labelled as Decant-IX. Decant-VIII was added into beaker IX, mixed well, and was left for 25 minutes to settle. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from the supernatant liquid and was labelled as Decant-VIII. Another 600 ml of water was added into beaker IX, then mixed well for 2 minutes and was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from this solution and was labelled as Decant-X. Decant-IX was added into beaker X, was mixed well for 2 minutes, and was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from the supernatant liquid and was relabelled as Decant-IX. Another 600 ml of water was added into beaker X, was mixed well for 2 minutes, and was allowed to settle for 25 minutes. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from the solution and the remaining mixture was labelled as the raffinate. The density of the raffinate solution was measured and its weight percent composition was determined. Decant-X was added into beaker XI, was mixed well for 2 minutes and was left for 25 minutes to settle. An amount of 600 ml was decanted from this solution and was labelled as the extract. The density of the extract was measured and its weight percent composition was determined. Then, the salt extraction efficiency was calculated using two different formulas. 3.3.6 Determination of Densities Using Densitometer The balance was placed on a surface free from vibration, draft, radiators, and direct sunlight. The bar frame and metal platform were positioned on the balance while making sure that both rest evenly on the base of the balance. Afterwards, the thermometer was attached to the rim of the 55-mm diameter beaker using a retainer clip and the beaker was centered on the metal platform. Then, the disk
7

with the glass plummet was suspended from the frame and the balance was tared. The beaker was filled with the liquid to be determined so that the liquid is 10 mm above the glass plummet. The buoyancy displayed with a negative sign as well as the temperature of the liquid were then recorded. The density of the liquid was calculated as buoyancy over the volume of the glass plummet which is equal to 10m3. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Density-Concentration Plot for NaCl Solution A density-concentration plot for the NaCl solution (Figure 1) was established from the obtained densities of the prepared NaCl with different weight percent. This graph was used to determine the corresponding weight percent of the different solutions obtained in the experiment.

1.2000

1.1500
1.1000 1.0500 1.0000 0.9500 0.9000 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 wt% NaCl y = 0.0074x + 0.995 R = 0.9994

Density (g/mL)

Figure 3. Density-Concentration Plot for NaCl solution at 27oC

Figure 3 shows that density of salt solution is a linear function of the mass composition of NaCl. The regression equation which fits the data points is found
8

to be y= 0.008x + 0.9878 where y is the density of salt solution and x corresponds to percentage weight NaCl. The r2 value is also determined and is equal to 0.9994. The r2 value obtained is very close to 1 which signifies a good correlation between the density of NaCl solution and mass composition of NaCl.
Table 1. Composition of Fresh Feed

Density, (g/mL) Fresh Feed 1.0837

wt% NaCl 12.26

Mass NaCl (g) 19.96

Mass of water (g) 142.9

Mass of Sand (g) 149.87

Table 1 shows the overall composition of the fresh feed. The composition of the fresh feed is determined using the density-concentration plot for NaCl solution. The total mass of solution in the feed is 162.86 g. 4.2 Single-Stage Extraction Operation The simplest method of operation for leaching is the single-stage extraction. This is done by bringing all the material to be treated and all the solvent to be used into contact once and then separate the resulting solution from the undissolved mixture. The single-stage extraction method is usually used only in laboratories and rarely in industries; this is due to its low solute recovery and relatively dilute solutions produced. Table 2 shows the efficiencies of single-stage extraction operations with different amounts of solvent used.
Table 2. Efficiency of Single-Stage Extraction Operation

Volume of Solvent(mL) 150 300 600

Efficiency (%) 51.51 67.95 86.68

Table 2 shows that in a single-stage leaching operation, increasing the volume of the solvent would yield a higher degree of extraction (i.e. the extraction efficiency is greater). This is because the extracting agent or the water solvent can dissolve more of the salt in the sand/salt mixture. Since leaching is governed by mass transfer processes and from Ficks law, the molar flux is proportional to the concentration gradient; a greater concentration gradient would result to a greater rate of mass transfer. At higher volumes of solvent, a greater concentration gradient exists and solute particles would be dispersed throughout the solvent. In this case, the solute particles would be diluted due to the larger amount of solvent in its bulk region. This then, would consequently lead to a higher rate of mass transfer. 4.3 Multistage Extraction Operations Another method of operation in leaching is the multiple-stage extraction. In this operation, the material to be treated and the solvent to be used are contacted many times. Since leaching is limited by equilibrium, several subsequent stages for further extraction are used in order to recover residual solute from the raffinate stream. Multi-stage extraction can be of two types, the crosscurrent operation and the countercurrent operation. 4.3.1 Multistage Crosscurrent Extraction Operation In crosscurrent operation the total amount of solvent to be used is divided into portions. Fresh extracting solvent is generally fed into each stage and a corresponding extract is obtained. All extract streams are combined together to obtain the overall extract while the overall raffinate is obtained from the last stage. The recovery of the solute for this operation is higher compared to that of the single-stage operation but the resulting portions of extracted solutions are relatively dilute. This operation is usually used when the removal only of the solute from the material to be treated is desired and not the recovery of the solute. Table 3 shows the efficiencies of multistage crosscurrent extraction operation for different number of stages.
10

Table 3. Efficiency of Multistage Crosscurrent Extraction Operation

Number of Stages 2 3 4

Volume of Solvent per Stage (mL) 300 200 150

Efficiency (%) 88.03 92.05 96.73

As shown in Table 3, the efficiency of the extraction process increases with the number of stages. The amount of salt that can be extracted increases due to the addition of another stage which corresponds to introduction of a new driving force or concentration gradient for diffusion of salt into the extracting solvent. Since at each stage, the solute particles in the underflow would distribute uniformly with the overflow phase and would approach equilibrium, a uniform concentration exists between the two streams. The introduction of the fresh solvent into the next stage will disrupt the equilibrium and the diffusion of solute can occur again. The amount of solute in the underflow stream continues to decrease as it would achieve equilibrium once more with the fresh solvent at each succeeding stage. Thus, a higher amount of solute would be extracted as the number of stages is increased. 4.3.2 Steady-State Multistage Countercurrent Extraction Operation The drawback of diminishing concentration driving force observed in crosscurrent extraction can be eliminated using mulitstaged counter-current extraction operation. This refers to extraction in the form of a chain of counter-current cascades. In this operation, the solvent used is gradually enriched with the solute across the extraction process. The raffinate phase is collected from the 1st stage while the extract phase is collected from the nth stage. Using this scheme the concentration driving force is maintained more or less uniform in all the stages comprising the cascade. Because of this, the recovery of the solute for this operation is high and the product solution is concentrated with the solute. Table 4 shows the efficiency of multistage countercurrent extraction operation based on the experimental extract and raffinate concentrations.
11

Table 4. Efficiency of Multistage Countercurrent Extraction Operation

Efficiency (%) Based on Extract Based on Raffinate 94.06 96.80

The beaker-scale extraction operation done in the experiment simulates a two stage countercurrent extraction operation. These results to extraction efficiency of 96.80% based on the raffinate concentration and 94.06% based on the extract concentration. This high extraction efficiency results from an enrichment of the water solvent with salt as it crosses from the first equilibrium stage to the second equilibrium stage. The values in Table 4 are expected to be equal since the efficiency of the overall operation is the same. However, the experimental results showed unequal values of efficiencies. This inconsistency may be a result of insufficient contact time between the solvent and the feed which prevented equilibrium to occur or errors in performing the experiment. Possible errors may occur during decantation of the solution in which some solid particles are included. 4.4 Comparison of Efficiencies for Different Extraction Operations
Table 5. Efficiencies of Different Extraction Operations

Extraction Operation Single-Stage

Volume of Solution (mL) 150 300 600 300 300 200 200 200 150 150 150 150 Raffinate Extract

Efficiency (%) 45.81 64.73 91.22 87.9 95.14

Multistage Cross-current

98.72 89.73 96.58

12

Multi-stage Countercurrent

98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 % Efficiency 90.00 88.00 86.00 84.00 82.00 80.00 Single Stage 2 Stage Crosscurrent 2 Stage Countercurrent

Figure 4. Comparison of efficiencies of different extraction operations

Figure 4 shows that multi-stage extraction operation is the most efficient among the three different extraction operations. This comparison is based on the same amount of volume of the extracting solvent used in the leaching process which is 600mL. A single stage extraction operation has the smallest efficiency because contact between the solvent and feed occurs only once which means that the solvent can dissolve only a limited amount of salt until it reaches equilibrium or becomes saturated. On the one hand, a multistage cross-current operation increases the extraction efficiency by adding another stage for dissolution of salt into the solvent. For the multi-stage countercurrent operation, efficiency is enhanced because of the continuous contact of the feed and the solvent at each stage. The introduction of an equilibrium stage drives the solute particles to diffuse into the solvent. Analogous to heat flow, mass transfer in the countercurrent configuration would result to a less varying concentration gradient, and hence a greater amount of mass is recovered. 4.5 Graphical Solution of Multistage Extraction Operations Theoretically, the composition of the resultant solution leaving (extract) is the same composition as the solution adhering to the solids leaving (raffinate), but this condition is not always fulfilled. Instead, a different salt-extraction efficiency
13

of the solute compositions of the raffinate and the extract are obtained in the experiment, as seen from the results. This is the reason why two graphs are established for the countercurrent operation. One is based on the results of the experimentally obtained solute composition of the raffinate and the other is based on the extract.
Table 6. Graphical Determination of Efficiency for Multistage Crosscurrent Extraction

Number of Stages 2 3 4

Volume of solvent per Stage (mL) 300 200 150

Calculated Efficiency (%) 88.03 92.05 96.73

Graphical Efficiency (%) 88.89 93.58 97.77

% Difference 0.97 1.66 1.08

The efficiencies determined through graphical method results to a higher value as compared to the calculated efficiencies. Efficiencies obtained from the graph are the ideal extraction efficiency for the crosscurrent extraction operations depending on the number of stages. It is also noted that the graphical efficiency is reduced compared to the calculated efficiency in an operation where four stages are used. This inconsistency may have been attributed to the errors during the leaching process such as failure to have equal settling time and errors in decantation. Also, the determination of the exact coordinates of the raffinate points in the plot are quite difficult thus, errors on reading the points also contribute to the inconsistencies.

Table 7. Graphical Determination of Efficiency for Multistage Counter-current Extraction

Calculated Efficiency (%) Raffinate Extract 94.06 96.80

Graphical Efficiency (%) 96.93 94.90

% Difference

3.05 1.96

14

It can be observed in Table 7 that the graphical efficiencies are different from that of the calculated efficiencies. Ideally, both efficiencies should have been equal. It should be that the amount of solute in the raffinate when added to the amount of solute of the extract will result to a value same as the amount of solute in the feed stream. However, this is not achieved experimentally due to errors while conducting the leaching process. Settling time of the solid particles may be deemed to one of the sources of error since particles not fully settled would affect the density of the solution. Also, error in adding and transferring of decanted solution may have affected the efficiency of the process.

Table 8. Stage Efficiencies of Multi-Stage Counter-Current Operations

No. of Stages Based on the Experimental Result of the Extract Based on the Experimental Result of the Raffinate 1.92 2.15

Stage Efficiency (%) 96.0 92.5

Table 8 shows that the over-all stage efficiencies of a 2-stage countercurrent operation at different basis of experimental results differ from each other. For the one that was based on the experimental extract, the stage efficiency is 96%. On the other hand, the stage-efficiency obtained based on the experimental raffinate was relatively lower with a stage efficiency of only 92.5 %. This suggests that more errors are done in obtaining the raffinate concentration i.e. less accurate process. The possible reasons for the discrepancies in the calculated and graphical efficiencies are (1) solute may be incompletely dissolved because of inadequate contact and (2) imperfect liquid-solid mechanical separation.

15

1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000

XA4

XA3

XA2

XA1

xS, yS

0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000

YA4 YA3 YA2

YA1

YA0

0.0000 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 0.0800 0.0900 0.1000 0.1100 0.1200 0.1300 0.1400 0.1500 xA, yA

Figure 5. Graphical Solution for Multistage Crosscurrent

16

1.4000 1.3000 1.2000 1.1000 1.0000 0.9000 xS, yS 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 -0.0200 -0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 0.0800 0.0900 0.1000 0.1100 0.1200 0.1300 0.1400 0.1500 xA, yA

XA2

XA1

YA2

YA1

YA0

Figure 6. Graphical Solution for Multistage Countercurrent Based on Extract

17

1.4000 1.3000 1.2000 1.1000 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000

XA2

XA1

xS, yS

0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000

YA2

YA1

YA0

0.0000 -0.0200 -0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 0.0800 0.0900 0.1000 0.1100 0.1200 0.1300 0.1400 0.1500 xA, yA

Figure 7. Graphical Solution for Multistage Countercurrent Based on Raffinate

18

5. Conclusion In a single-stage beaker-scale extraction operation, the extraction efficiency increases with increasing amount of solvent. For a multistage beaker-scale extraction operation, the extraction efficiency increases with increasing number of stages. In general, single-stage operation has lower extraction efficiency compared to multistage operation; and multistage countercurrent has greater extraction efficiency compared to multistage crosscurrent. The corresponding graphical efficiencies of the different multistage operations differ from that of the calculated efficiencies. The discrepancies are due to errors while conducting the leaching process. Sources of errors include the unequal settling time of the solid particles, incomplete dissolution of the solute because of inadequate contact and imperfect liquid-solid mechanical separation.

6. References Foust, AS et al. (1980) Principles of Unit Operations, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. Geankoplis CJ (2003) Principles of Transport Processes and Separation Processes, 4th Edition, Pearson Education Inc., Singapore. McCabe WL, Smith JC, and Harriott P (1993) Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Seader JD, Henley EJ, and Roper K (2011) Separation Process Principles Chemical and Biochemical Operations, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. Green DW and Perry RH (2008) Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., USA

19

7. Appendices

7.1 Tables and Sample Calculations

Table 9. Data for Construction of Density - Concentration Plot for NaCl Solution Theoretical Mass Mass Water Actual Buoyanc Density Temperature wt% NaCl NaCl (g) (g) wt% NaCl y (g) (g/mL) (oC) 0 4 8 12 16 20 25 0.0000 4.0018 8.0000 12.0000 16.0000 20.0000 25.0000 100.06 96 92.05 88.03 84.04 80.01 75.04 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 15.99 20.00 24.99 9.971 10.251 10.536 10.823 11.128 11.441 11.833 0.9971 1.0251 1.0536 1.0823 1.1128 1.1441 1.1833 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0

Table 10. Preparation of the Fresh Feed

Beaker Mass of Beaker (g) Mass of Beaker + Sand-salt Mixture (g) Mass of sand-salt mixture (g) 169.73 169.88 169.84 169.82 169.77 169.84 169.84 169.91 169.94 169.85 169.77 169.76 Mass of sand (g)

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

97.51 267.24 96.28 266.16 96.29 266.13 96.44 266.26 97.94 267.71 96.42 266.26 96.50 266.34 97.30 267.21 97.10 267.04 96.65 266.50 96.44 266.21 98.18 267.94 Average Mass of Sand (g)

149.77 149.92 149.88 149.86 149.81 149.88 149.88 149.95 149.98 149.89 149.81 149.80 149.87

20

Table 11. Data for Single - Stage Extraction

Beaker I II III Amount of Water Added (g) 149.56 299.12 598.25 Buoyancy (g) -10.426 -10.271 -10.158 Density (g/mL) 1.0426 1.0271 1.0158 wt% NaCl 6.43 4.34 2.81 Temperat ure (oC) 25 25 25 Mass of NaCl (g) 10.28 13.56 17.30 Efficiency (%) 51.51 67.95 86.68

Table 12. Data for Multistage Crosscurrent

IV 299.12 299.12 -10.268 -10.051 1.027 1.005 4.30 1.36 13.43 4.14 17.57 88.03 Beaker V 199.42 199.42 199.42 -10.349 -10.123 -10.032 1.035 1.012 1.003 5.39 2.34 1.11 11.37 4.77 2.23 18.37 92.05 VI 149.56 149.56 149.56 149.56 -10.414 -10.191 -10.082 -10.026 1.041 1.019 1.008 1.003 6.27 3.26 1.78 1.03 10.01 5.03 2.72 1.55 19.31 96.73

Portion 1 Portion 2 Portion 3 Portion 4 Portion 1 Portion 2 Buoyancy (g) Portion 3 Portion 4 Portion 1 Portion 2 Density (g/mL) Portion 3 Portion 4 Portion 1 Portion 2 % wt NaCl Portion 3 Portion 4 Portion 1 Portion 2 Mass of NaCl (g) Portion 3 Portion 4 Total Mass (g) Efficiency (%) Amount of Water Added (g)

21

Calculations For the calculation of density of salt solution [g/mL] where G[g] is the buoyancy reading from densitometer and Vplummet =10 mL

Using the results of linear regression to determine %wt NaCl, y= 0.008x + 0.9878 where y is [g/mL] and x is the wt% NaCl

For mass of solution,

[g] where [g/mL] and [mL]

For mass fraction of salt in fresh feed or extract,

For mass of salt in feed or extract,

For calculation of extraction efficiency,

where mAE is mass of salt in extract and mAF is the mass of salt in feed

22