Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS ON FLOTATION
TREATMENT PROCESS OF OILY
WASTEWATER
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of
Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Chemical Engineering / Refining
Oil&Gas
By
Shahad Salim Mohammed
( B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering, 2009 )
2012
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to Allah for his mercy and blessing.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude and grateful admiration to my
supervisor Prof. Dr. Thamer J.Mohammed, for choosing the research and for
his continuous guidance, efforts and interest, which contributed to the
completion of the present work.
Also, I wish to express my respectful regard to the Chemical
Engineering Department, University of Technology, where this research was
conducted for providing financial and logistic facilities.
My respectful regard goes to the staff of Petroleum Research
and Development Center especially Mr. Zaidoon khalaf and Miss Nahla
namir for their assistance and help during the experimental work.
My deepest thanks are given to my family for their support
and encouragement throughout this endeavor.
Shahad
I
Abstract
Supervised by
Prof.Dr.Thamer J.Mohammed
In the North Oil Company (Kirkuk) which represents one of the important
companies in Iraq that consumes a large quantity of water, the oily wastewater
discharges from this company represent a great threat to the agricultural lands.
The aim of the present work is to select the efficient systems for treating oily
wastewater using different flotation techniques. Two flotation techniques were
carried out: Induced Air Flotation (IAF), and Modified Induced Air Flotation
(MIAF) with a coagulation processes.
The experimental work was carried out using flotation bubble column of
Perspex glass (10cm I.D, 150cm height). A liquid depth of 70cm was kept
constant throughout the study. Different two types of gas distributors namely
Perspex perforated plate of diameter of 0.002m was drilled with (70) holes and
the second one is a porous ceramic plate of 0.09m diameter with pore size
(120m). In order to achieve effective mixing and to modify the flotation
column (MIAF), stirrer was used with a rotational speed of (50-250) rpm. A
monometer was used to measure the local gas hold up; also a high speed camera
was used to measure the bubble rise velocity and bubble size.
V
The variables that affects the removal efficiency (R%) of oil from
wastewater is hydrodynamic characteristics, such as gas velocities (0.00636-
0.0636) m/sec, oil concentration (30-800) ppm, surfactant concentration(SLS,
Camper) and the addition of alum, pH (4.3-8.5), speed of stirrer (50-250) rpm,
have been studied.
The study has showed that the removal efficiency of oil, COD and BOD
were related to the additive dose of Alum and SLS. It was found that the flotation
rate increases when using alum and surfactant together, the fastest removal rate
was obtained when pH 4.3 and also, when a stirrer speed 200 rpm was used, the
removal efficiency was about 98%(residual oil <10 ppm) when the initial oil
concentration was 800 ppm.
The kinetics of flotation bubble column was studied and it was found that the
removal rate constant increases with increasing oil concentration and with dosage
of surfactant (SLS). The results showed that the order of the kinetics flotation
process changes between half to first order.
The interfacial area (a) obtained experimentally from the bubble
hydrodynamic parameters and the velocity gradient (G), have been proven to be
important parameters for controlling the flotation process efficiency.
The experimental results of the removal efficiency are represented in two and
three dimensional graphs. An empirical correlation for gas hold up using MIAF
has been developed as follows:
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473
Statistical analysis showed that the average absolute error and correlation
coefficient are 2% and 0.98 respectively. And general correlation for the removal
efficiency (R %) using dimensionless groups was found to be:
R% = 1.67 (CA/ l )145.7 (CS/L)161 (C/Co)0.0624(1/Re)1.48(1/We)1.54 (1/Fr)1.096
VI
The correlation obtained gave an average absolute error and correlation
coefficient 0.053%, 0.9999 respectively.
VII
Contents
Subject page
Acknowledgement I
Abstract V
Nomenclature X
Greek Symbols XII
List of Figures XIV
List of Tables XIX
Contents XV
Chapter one: Introduction
1.1 General 1
1.2. Oily Wastewater Treatment Technologies 2
1.2.1 Flotation 4
1.2.1.1 Flotation Column 4
1.3 Pollutants Effect 7
1.4 Case Study 8
1.5 The aim of the present work 8
2.3.2. Effect of pH 15
2.4. Geometrical Dimensions 17
2.4.1. Effect of Bubble Diameter and (H/d) Ratio on Removal efficiency 17
2.4.2. Effect of Sparger Type 18
2.5. The Effect of Surfactant and Additives on Removal Efficiency 20
XV
2.6. Hybrid Treatment (Coagulation Flocculation-Flotation) 23
2.7. Empirical Equations of Parameters 26
2.7.1. Bubble rise velocity 26
2.7.2. Bubble Size 29
2.7.3. Gas Hold up 30
2.7.4. Removal Efficiency 32
2.8 Summary: 34
Chapter three: Experimental work
3.1. Introduction 35
3.2. Characteristic and Preparation of Sample Wastewater 35
3.3. Materials 36
3.4. Experimental Set up 37
3.41. Flotation column 37
3.4.2. Gas Delivery 38
3.4.3. Experimental Procedure 38
3.5 Determination of Oil Concentration 42
3.5.1. Outline of the Method 42
3.5.2 Calibration 43
3.5.4 Procedure 43
3.6. Bubble Size and Rise Velocity Measurement 43
3.7. Sample wastewater treatment 45
Chapter four: Theoretical concepts
4.1. Determination of Rate Constant 46
4.2 Froth height equation 48
4.3 Dimensional Analyses 49
Chapter five: Results and discussion
Introduction 50
5.1 Hydrodynamic Characteristics 50
XVI
5.2 Effect of Various Factors on the Removal Efficacy of Oily Wastewater 61
5.2.1 Effect of pH 61
5.2.2 Effect of Initial Oil Concentration 62
5.2.3 Effect of Gas Velocities on the Removal Efficiency 63
5.2.4 Effect of Coagulant and Flocculant Agents 63
5.2.5 Effect of Sampling Zone 65
5.2.6. Effect of Mixing 66
5.3 Effect of Interfacial Area and Velocity Gradient on the
81
Removal Efficiency
5.4. The Best Conditions 84
5.5. Dimensionless Groups for Removal Efficiency 86
Chapter six: Conclusions and Recommendations for
future work
6.1. Conclusions 88
6.1.1 Separation of Oil 88
6.2. Recommendations for future work 89
References 90
Appendices
Appendix A: Calibration curve of rotameter 102
Appendix B: Calibration curve of mixer 103
Appendix C distributor design 104
Appendix D Sample of calculations 107
Appendix E Tables figures 110
XVII
Nomenclature
XI
Greek Symbols
Surface tension (N
m
)
g Volume fraction of gas or gas holdup (-)
vb Bubble rise velocity in Table (2.1) (m/s)
w Viscosity of water (Pa.s)
Density of liquid (kg/m3)
Pt Pressure difference along the column (atm)
XII
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1. General
range between (20-150m), and the emulsified oil mixture will have droplet
1.2.1 Flotation:
Flotation is an alternative as it has high efficiency as well as low
operating cost(Rubio et al,2002). Flotation separation is a process used in many
*Chapter one: Introduction 5
industries to separate one constituent from another (Arther, 2006). The use of
flotation has a great potential owing to high throughput and efficiency of modern
equipment (Zabel, 1992). The general process of flotation separation can be divided
into two types, dispersed and dissolved air flotation (Arther, 2006).
In dissolved air flotation technique the bubbles are formed by nucleation on
the particles. In this technique a substantial portion of the clarified effluent must be
recycled, compressed to 4 up to 5atm and saturated with air. In dispersed air
flotation air bubble are generated either by electrolysis or by forcing air
through, porous glass, single orifice or other suitable sparger. In this type of
flotation the gas flow rate may be an important operating variable. Dispersed air
has the advantage of eliminating the need for recycling (Radoev et al, 1989).
That include:
Higher height to diameter ratio.
Wash water sprinkle at the same point below the over flow lip.
Feed addition point located at an intermediate location along the
column height.
Bubble generation system at the bottom of column.
No mechanism of agitation (Caixeta et al, 2000)
Oily wastewater
gases
Oily wastewater
To fire system and human use tank (slop tank)
Oily wastewater
Oily wastewater
water tank To different users
Wastewater
blow down
Cooling tower Water flows down from action process
for industrial treatment unit and flows down from boiler
water Water flows down from cooling tower
to reduce total dissolved solid contents
Literature survey
2.1. Introduction
Most of the research studies on the separation of oil from wastewater
have addressed the effect of oil concentration, type and concentration of
destabilizing agent for oil-water emulsion technique to be employed. In this
chapter the hydrodynamic characteristics of flotation column that affect the oil
removal efficiency was classified and the previous studies are shown for each
one, these studies were published in different international journals, text books
and websites, and papers published locally in resent years.
2.3.2. Effect of pH
Chapter two: Literature survey 15
One of the most important factors to study and to show it's effect on
removal efficiency of oily wastewater. The value of pH is varied depending on
some factors like the addition of surfactant and coagulant. Most natural
particles in water and emulsifier are surfactants which have either anionic or
non ionic polar group (Reynolds &Richards, 1996). Sulfonated of fatty acids
and protein is common anionic emulsifier. Protein contains amino group (-NH2)
and carboxylic group (COOH) that their dissociation depend on the pH of the
solution. The destabilization or demulsification can be achieved with reducing
electric factor or destroys electrical double layer. By pH adjustment, pH control
can enhance the efficiency of coagulation by inorganic salt (Aneak& wirach,
2009), such as at low pH, Fe ion is surrounded with water molecule [Fe
(H2O)+3] then was difficult to contact with collide, but at the optimum pH or
high dosage, the Fe ion can form complex to be Fe(OH)3 that is in the solid
form (Recep,2005).
Ying hung et al, 2002: studied the effect of pH on unburned carbon
removal efficiency in flotation column. They found that the removal efficiency
increases with increasing pH value in the range below the optimum pH value
where the optimum value of the contact angle decreases and the flotation
efficiency also decreases. Thamer&Eman, 2007, studied the effect of coagulant
(alum, CaO, clay) on pH value and as a result on removal efficiency in
dissolver air flotation of oily wastewater treatment. It was found that the
increase in coagulant (alum &clay) decreases the pH value (6.7) and increases
the removal efficiency, but increasing CaO, increases pH value (8.5) and
decreased the removal efficiency. Ahmed, 2004, studied the separation of
emulsified kerosene in water (concentration 250-750 ppm) in a bubble column
15.6cm diameter and 120cm height and the effect of pH was studied in range
(2.5-9)on removal efficiency. It was found that the fastest removal efficiency
was obtained when pH about 4. Ziyadanagullaril, 2005, studied the effect of
pH on flotation efficiency in the flotation of oxidized copper ore, at the range of
pH (6-11). It was found that the flotation efficiency increases with the increase
Chapter two: Literature survey 16
in pH until reaching the optimum value of pH (8.7) where the efficiency of
copper is 100%. Welz et al, 2007, investigated the flotation of oil from
wastewater in a laboratory scale mechanically agitated flotation cell and
explores the effect of pH on flotation performance. They found that an increase
in pH decrease the removal efficiency. Bao-yu gao&Qin-yan yue, 2007,
studied the effect of pH on oil removal efficiency in a laboratory experiments.
They showed that the removal efficiency decreases with the increase in pH at
the optimum pH range of (6-8). Turtureanu et al, 2008, studied the effect of pH
on removal efficiency in nickel removal from aqueous solution by flotation in a
laboratory scale, range of pH (8-12). The results showed that the increase in pH
increase removal efficiency, but a good separation >=98% is obtained at pH
values>=10. Ghazy et al, 2008, studied the effect of pH on copper and lead
removal efficiency by flotation by using (H2SO4, HCl, and HNO3) as
adjustment. It was found that the maximum flotation efficiencies of Cu+2 Pb+2
ions were attained on the presence of HNO3 and found that the removal
increases until the optimum value of (5-6) and after that decreases with
increasing pH. Aneak& Wirach, 2009, studied the effect of pH by acid
adjustment (HCl & H2SO4) and using coagulant (FeCl3) aid in combination with
pH control on greases and oil removal in wastewater from biodiesel process.
They concluded that pH should be low to enhance oil removal efficiency, and
the use of coagulant (FeCl3) in combination with pH adjustment may be more
practical and the oil removal efficiency 97% at the pH (4-7) and the efficiency
could be enhance by using cationic polymer as coagulant aid. Yinchen et al,
2010: studied the effect of pH on removal efficiency in separation of butyl
acetate from oil/water type emulsion solution by solvent sublation, by
cylindrical glass column 200cm in length with inner diameter of 5cm was used
for sublation. They concluded that increasing pH, decreases the removal
efficiency and the removal efficiency is in its largest value when the solution is
nearly in natural.
Chapter two: Literature survey 17
2.4. Geometrical Dimensions
Figure (2.2):Average gas holdup data in the air-water system (Camarasa, 1999)
They found that bubble characteristics in water with porous plate and multi-
orifice nozzle were comparable, where as the trend was different in non-
coalescing solution on the other hand the single- orifice nozzle is completely
different compared with the two other distributor.
Mustafa 2004,studied the effect of distributor type on gas hold up, by
using two types of distributor (porous, perforated) in a QVF glass bubble
column with 0.1m inside diameter and 2m height. The results showed that the
porous plate gives higher gas hold up than the remaining perforated plate. Jung
and Woo, 2004, showed that the bubble properties in the column flotation
system are deeply affected by the bubble-generator type, frother dosage, and
superficial gas velocity. This study is to determine the bubble-generator type,
which effectively produces micro-bubbles to affect the flotation efficiency.
Characteristics for two types of bubble generators like the in-line mixer and
sparger are examined by bubble properties such as bubble diameter, holdup and
Chapter two: Literature survey 20
bubble velocity. Micro bubbles generated from an in-line mixer result in the
increase of the bubble rising velocity and gas holdup. Bubbles produced at the
in-line mixer were more effective for operating the flotation system than that of
the sparger. It means that the in-line mixer bubble generator is more effective
than a sparger in designing or operating the column flotation system. Puget
2005, studied the treatment of oily waste coming from air compressor by using
flotation column, the column is constituted by a consolidated porous medium
composed of sand and araldite with the aim to develop a new form of use for
the porous medium to decrease the operating costs of the process and turned the
experimental unit very versatile, compact and efficient. The porous medium is
used as a disperser of air bubbles and in the end the batch it used as a filter
medium. Benhoosh et al, 2009, studied the effect of sparger type in different
gas velocity in cylindrical slurry bubble column made of glass with inside
diameter of 0.15m and a height of 2.8m, two types of sparger were used,
namely a porous plate and a perforated plate with the same porosity. They
found that the porous plate with smaller pore diameters generate smaller gas
bubbles compared with perforated plate therefore the gas hold up in system
equipped with porous plate at high superficial gas velocity is approximately
40% higher than system equipped with perforated plate.
g L G d b
2
U 1 3
br
18 G
L
r
... for db < 0.05 cm ........... (2.1)
g L G
U 1.41 1 G
br
L for 0.05 < db < 2 cm (2.2)
At higher Re number bubbles lose their separate identity and a region which
Zuber et al. (1967), described as the churn turbulent bubbly regime is
encountered. They recommended the following correlation:
1/ 4
g
U br 1.41
2
...... (2.3)
l
Chapter two: Literature survey 27
The magnitude of the wall effects depends on the ratio of the bubble
diameter to the column diameter, db/DC. When the column diameter is large
enough, the bubbles are free from wall effects. The Davies-Taylor relationship
is found applicable, provided the ratio db/DC < 0.125. For values of db/DC
exceeding 0.125, Collins, 1967, introduced a scale correction factor, SF, into
the Davies-Taylor relationship:
g db
U br 0.71 g d b ..... (2.4)
2
d b 0.125
SF=1 for .. (2.6)
DC
SF 1.13 exp d b for 0.125 d b 0.6 .....(2.7)
DC
DC
SF 0.496 DC for
d b 0.6
....(2.8)
db DC
Bhatia (1969), attempted to extend Mendelson's wave analogy further to
describe the rise velocity of a swarm of bubbles they obtained the following
correlation:
U U
gs t
tanh 0.25 1/ G 1 / 3 .. (2.9)
In the column flotation, drift flux theory states that the hindered bubble rise
velocity (Ubr) is defined by:
Jg Jl
U br
g 1 g .. (2.10)
Where Jg is the superficial gas velocity, Jl is the superficial liquid velocity, and
g is the fractional air holdup.
Chapter two: Literature survey 28
Koide (1979) employed the electroesistivity probe to measure bubble rise
velocity locally and calculated the average bubble rise velocity. The bubble rise
velocity in the central area of the column was approximately (60-150) cm/sec.
The following equation was used:
U br
U br ..... (2.11)
Nb
Finch &Dobby 1990, provide a prediction for the rise velocity of bubbles in
flotation column for bubble size db<= 2mm (Re<=500)
Ubr=Jg/g (2.12)
Where Jg is the superficial gas velocity and g is the fractional air holdup.
The knowledge of terminal rise velocity of a single bubble is used in
conjunction with the interaction of neighboring bubbles to provide a better
assessment of the mean bubble rise velocity in the swarm as follow (Ruzicka et
al., 2003):
U gs U t F
G
... ..... (2.13)
Akita and Yoshida (1974), showed that the gas bubble diameter is only
slightly depends on the gas velocity in case the gas is sparged by single orifice,
or perforated or sintered plates. They determine the bubble size distribution in
bubble column using photographic technique, the gas sparged through
perforated plates and single orifices and various liquids (water, aqueous and
pure glycol, methanol, and carbon tetrachloride) were used and they proposed
the following correlation:
Table (2.1): Empirical correlations for gas hold up ((Behnoosh et al, 2009)
Author Correlation
Kumar et al, 2 3
g 0.728U 0.485U 0.0975U
1976 14
2
U Vg l g
Chapter two: Literature survey 31
0.578 0..131
Vg l l4 g
g 0.672 f
3
l
Hikita et al, 0.062 0.107
g g
1980
l l
f 1 for pure liquids and non electrolyte solutions,
for ionic solutions f is a functionof ionic strength
2 0.05
Hikita& 0.072 3 0.001
g 0.505V 0.47
l
g
kikukaw,1974
Reil y et al
g 0.009 296Vg0.44 l or sl 0.98 l0.16 g0.19
,1987
1
g
Hugmark et al
2 0.35 V g l
w w 1 3
,1967
V g in ms1 , l in gcm1 , in dyn cm 1
The bed expansion technique is the most common procedure for measuring
the overall average value of gas holdup of the bubble column, where no foam is
present. The gas holdup ( g ) is measured by visually recording the dispersion
height Hf above the gas distributor, Ruzicka et al. (2001).
Chapter two: Literature survey 32
The following relation determines the average gas holdup as a function of
the superficial gas velocity Ug
g H f H .... (2.19)
H f
Where Ho is the initial height of the liquid in the column, and H f is the
expanded height of the liquid after aeration of the column with constant
superficial gas velocity at steady state.
The manometric method is used for the measuring of the pressure drop
across the bubble column. A glass manometers filled with mercury is connected
to the bubble column. The value of gas holdup g for each gas velocity is
estimated using experimental value of pressure drop obtained, Saxena (1989).
The equation mainly used is:
g p . (2.20)
1
( l g ) gZ
Ca ,C are the oil concentrations in the feed and clarified effluent streams
respectively
Where (COD)U&(COD)L are the Chemical Oxygen Demand in the under flow
&feed flow respectively. Painmanakul et al, 2010, analyzed the amount of oily
wastewater in term of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) according to the
procedures described in standard methods as a function of operation time
obtained in flotation column (standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 1998). Therefore the removal efficiency at different operation
times can be calculated by:
R%= (COD)o-(COD)t/(COD)o .(2.23)
2.8 Summary
3.1. Introduction
This chapter contains the experimental runs to measure the efficiency of oil
removal from oily wastewater from the North Oil Company at different
parameters, such as different oil concentration, different flow rates, different
additive in different concentration (alum, sodium laurel sulfate, camper) and
different pH, by using flotation column fitted at the bottom with porous
distributor (120 m) to generate bubbles. Also some experiments were carried
out by using perforated plate with hole diameter (2mm) to compare with porous
distributor.
Density(Kg/m^3) 829
Viscosity(Kg/m.sec) 0.0023
API 35.3
Surface tension(N/m) 0.0285
1) Air (9)monometer
compressor
(2) filter )10)&(11)Pressure taps
(3) needle valve (12)&(13)&(14)sampling
valves
(4)Rota meter (15)stirrer
(5)pressure gage (16)motors
(6)check valve (17) camera
)7)drain valve (18)PC
(8)distributor (19) Flotation column
Chapter three: Experimental Work 41
(a) (b)
Figure (3.3): The pore size of the distributor where (a) 50 time zoom and (b)
100 time zoom
3.5.2 Calibration
0.3 gm of the crude oil was dissolved in 500 ml of carbon tetra chloride that
called (stock solution). Different concentrations were obtained by dilution with
CCl4. Absorbance of those samples are measured by UV spectrophotometer at
285m. The Figure (3.4) shows the concentration against absorbance show
linear relationship for the range of concentration studied (10 to 600 ppm).
6
5.4
4.8
4.2
Absorbance
3.6
3
2.4
1.8
1.2
0.6
0
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560
Concentration(mg./lit.)
20 cm
20 cm
20 cm
10 cm
Chapter Four
Theoretical concepts
dC
kC n (4.1)
dt
Where C is the concentration of oils, t is the flotation time, n is the order of the
process, and k is the flotation rate constant.
Chapter four: Theoretical concept 47
Three approaches may be used to calculate this constant, namely first order
equation (n=1), second order equation (n=2), and non-integral-order equation.
Investigation of the flotation kinetics is an important task, which contributes
to determine process feasibility and to establish design equations for equipment
operation and scale-up purposes. Santos, 1996, proposed different approaches
for flotation kinetics investigation. The simplest one utilizes a reaction model to
represent flotation kinetics, as indicated below.
C(t) is the concentration of particles inside the flotation tank, V(t) the tank
volume and k the flotation kinetic constant.
The column was regulated to operate in batch mode. It is of fundamental
importance to evaluate the variation of oil concentration as a function of time to
understand oil removal mechanism by the air bubbles. Based on the exposed,
the differential methodology was used (concentration dependence parameter
and column physical parameter) (Fogler, 2002), in which the concentration data
vary as a function of contact time. As the extraction column operates in an
isothermal way, at a constant volume, and assuming that the law of oil speed
extraction is
- r = * C, and from the combination of the molar balance with the extraction
speed, Equation (4.1) was obtained:
- (dc/dt) = k*C
Where: k is the column physical parameter and is the concentration
dependence parameter. Applying the logarithm in both sides of Equation (4.1),
Equation (4.3), is obtained
Chapter four: Theoretical concept 48
-ln (dc/dt) =ln k+ ln C (4.3)
Using the experimental data of concentration versus time and applying a linear
fit, the concentration dependence parameter () and the column physical
parameter () can be obtained.
hf H Fr 1 (4.4)
Takahashi and Miyahara (1973) showed that froth height above perforated
plate under stagnant liquid flow on the assumption of spherical capped bubble
as follows:
86
h f H 1 Fr . (4.5)
5
Therefore the constants C1 and the powers of the dimensions groups in Eq.4.9
were calculated and shown in chapter 5, section 5.5.
Introduction
The results will be presented in five sections. The first will deal with the
effect of hydrodynamic characteristics (bubble diameter, bubble rise velocity, gas
hold up), the second section deals with the effect of various factors on the
removal efficiency (pH, initial oil concentration, gas velocities, additives,
sampling zone, and mixer), the third section deals with the effect of interfacial
area and velocity gradient on the removal efficiency, the fourth section deals with
the best condition for finding the best removal efficiency and the last one deals
with dimensionless groups for removal efficiency and finding an equation for the
removal efficiency.
The effect of hole diameter (2 mm for perforated plate and 120 m for porous
sparger) of the gas distributor on the bubble diameters were shown in Fig. 5.2. It
can be seen that the bubble diameter increased with increasing hole diameter
since the increase in hole diameter resulted in an increase in bubble rise velocity
for a given gas flow rate. These results show that the flotation column operates
within the bubbly flow regime; the present experimental results were projected
on the homogeneous bubbly flow regime map of Shah et al, 1982.
The effect of addition of surfactant on bubble diameters was shown in Figs.
5.3. to 5.7., respectively for different concentration of oily wastewater.
Examining Fig. 5.3., it can be seen that, bubble diameters decreased with
increasing the concentration of sodium laurel sulfate (SLS), while bubbles
diameters slightly decreased with the addition of camper. These phenomena can
be explained by the addition of surfactant to the wastewater which hinders
bubbles coalescence by accumulating at the gas-liquid interface and orienting
their hydrophilic group into the liquid film surrounding the gas bubble and this
creating repulsive electric force when two bubbles come close to each other
(Keital and Onken, 1982). The experimental results show that, when adding
alum not affected because alum has no effect on the surface tension and has no
effect on the bubble size. The size of the bubble was measured when adding alum
found to be in range of (3-3.5) mm at Co=800 ppm.
10
9
8
Bubble Diameter (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
2 Wastewater
1 Pure water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.1): Effect of gas velocity on bubble diameter, H=70 cm and Co= 30 ppm.
Perforated sparger
Chapter five: Results and discussion 54
Bubble Size(mm)
4
1 porous
perforated
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity(m/sec)
Figure(5.2): Effect of hole diameter on the bubble size at different gas velocities,
H=70 cm, and Co=30 ppm
2.5
Bubble Diameter (mm)
1.5
1
SLS
0.5
Camper
0
1 4 7 10 13
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
2.5
2
Bubble Diameter (mm)
1.5
0.5 SLS
Camper
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
2.5
Bubble Diameter (mm)
1.5
1
SLS
0.5 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
2.5
Bubble Diameter (mm)
2
1.5
1
SLS
0.5 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
3.5
3
Bubble Diameter (mm)
2.5
1.5
1
SLS
0.5
Camper
0
0 50 100 150 200
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
0.18
30
Bubble Rise Velocity (m/sec)
25
20
15
10
5 perforated
porous
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Vlocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.9): Effect of hole diameter on the bubble rise velocity at different gas
velocities, H=70 cm, and Co=30 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 58
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1
Ub (m/sec) Experimental
0.05 Ub (m/sec) Eqn.2.4
Puer water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.10): Comparison between the experimental and theoretical bubble rise
velocity, H=70cm, Co= 30 ppm.
0.35
0.3
0.25
Gas Hold Up
0.2
0.15
0.1
Porous distributor
0.05 Perforated plate
Puer water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.11): Effect of hole size at different gas velocities on gas hold-up, H=70 cm,
and Co=30 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 59
0.16
0.14
0.12
Gas Hold Up
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04 SLS
0.02 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
Figure (5.12): Effect of the surfactant concentration on the gas hold-up, H=70cm,
Q=0.0113 m3/min, and Co=800 ppm
70
60
Froth Height (cm)
50
40
30
20
Eqn. (4.4 )
10
Eqn. (4.6 )
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.13): Froth height calculated by Equations (4.4) and (4.6), H=70 cm, and
Co=30 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 60
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold up
0.15
0.1
0.05 local
average
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure(5.14): Effect of gas velocity on the local gas hold up, H=70cm, Co=30ppm
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold up
0.15
0.1
0.05 local
average
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m /sec)
Figure (5.15): Effect of gas velocity on the local gas hold up, H=70cm, air-water
system.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 61
5.2 Effect of Various Factors on the Removal Efficiency of Oily
Wastewater
The effect of various factors on the removal efficiency of emulsified oil
such as pH, initial oil concentration, gas velocity, adding coagulants and
flocculants agents, and the effect of the mixing by stirrer on the removal
efficiency and another parameters. The experimental value are tabulated in
Tables E.8 to E.18 in Appendix E.
5.2.1 Effect of pH
The effect of pH on the removal efficiency of emulsified oil by flotation
column is shown in Fig. 5.16. Plotting the removal efficiency (R %) versus time
at various pH values, obtained by adding an adjustment to the mixture. From
this figure it can be seen that (R%) increases suddenly at the beginning of the
run then the ratio began to increase slowly with time and it was found that the
highest removal is achieved when the pH of the emulsion was about 4.3. This
result is in agreement with the results given by Aneak& Wirach, (2009), they
concluded that oil removal efficiency 97% at the pH (4-7).
It was found that the fastest removal of oil occurred at the highest initial
concentration.
An empirical correlation from the experimental results was found by
computer programming as shown in Eqn.5.1, for initial oil concentration (100-
800), with R2=0.98, to make comparison between the experiment and predicted
results as shown in Fig. 5.22,
R% =0.053Co +33.9 . (5.1)
Coagulant Alum with concentration ranged from 80 to 560 ppm was used
alone in the experiment and used in combination with surfactant to show the
effect on the removal efficiency.
Figure 5.27 shows the effect of adding alum to the removal efficiency of
emulsion. This figure shows that R% increased with increasing concentration of
alum, also from Fig. 5.28, it can be noticed that the removal is higher when
adding alum and surfactant together as compared with adding alum alone.
Fig 5.29. Shows the effect of adding alum on COD (Chemical oxygen
demand), it can be noticed that COD decreases slowly without alum compared
with adding alum and also obtaining a good clarification.
Fig. 5.30 shows the effect of adding alum on BOD (Biological oxygen
demand), from the results obtained it can be seen that BOD decreases when
increasing alum dose.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 66
5.2.5 Effect of Sampling Zone
Figs.5.31. and 5.32. show the effect of the sample zone where the sample
was taken at the distance 10 cm from the bottom of column flotation and the
second 25 cm and the third 50 cm through height column flotation. It can be
noticed that at the distance 10 cm, the best removal efficiency was obtained,
compared with 25 and 50 cm. and Fig.5.33 shows the comparison in removal
efficiency at the same sampling zone with and without additive to see the
difference results in each run. In this zone the bubble was very small; therefore
the contact between oil and bubble was good and as a result the removal
efficiency was high.
The comparison between the observed and the predicated results is shown in
Fig. 5.38, where the average error was 2%, and the correlation coefficient was
0.98.
Figure.5.39 shows a comparison between the removal of oil in the Jar-test
and in the flotation column in the same initial oil concentration equal to 800
ppm and the same dose of additive 24 SLS+80 alum and at 50 rpm, the results
shows that the removal efficiency in the flotation column is higher than the Jar-
test and that is in agreement with Puget&Massrani, 2000.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 68
100
90
80
R%
70
60 pH=7.2
pH=8.5
50
pH=4.3
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.16): Effect of pH on the oil removal, Q=0.0113 m3/min, H=70 cm and
Co=800 ppm
95
90
85
80
R%
75
70 pH =7.2
pH =8.5
65
pH =4.3
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Alum Dose (ppm)
Figure (5.17): Effect of adding Alum dose on the oil removal efficiency, H=70 cm,
at different pH, and Co=800 ppm , t=1500 s .
Chapter five: Results and discussion 69
-1.2
pH=7.2
-1
pH=8.5
-0.8 pH=4.3
Log(C/Co)
Log.
-0.6 (pH=7.2)
Log.
-0.4 (pH=8.5)
Log.
(pH=4.3)
-0.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
Time(sec)
80
75
70
65
60
R%
55
50
45
40
35
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Oil Concentration (ppm)
Figure (5.19): Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, t=1500 sec.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 70
80
70
60
50
R%
40
Co =100 ppm
30
Co= 200 ppm
20 Co= 400 ppm
Co= 600 ppm
10
Co= 800 ppm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.20) (a): Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, as function of time.
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Figure (5.20) b: Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency in a 3D
plot, pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, as function of time.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 71
-0.7
-0.6
Co =100 ppm
-0.5
Co =200 ppm
Log(C/Co)
-0.4
Co=400 ppm
Co=800 ppm
-0.2
Log. (Co
-0.1 =200 ppm)
Log. (Co
0 500 1000 1500 2000
=100 ppm)
0 Log. (Co=400
ppm)
Time (sec) Log. (Co=800
ppm)
Log. (Co
=600 ppm)
80
75
70
65
Observed Values
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
30 40 50 60 70 80
Predicted Values
75
70
65
60 Ug=0.006363 m/sec
R%
Ug=0.017 m/sec
55
Ug=0.033 m/sec
50 Ug=0.044 m/sec
Ug=0.053 m/sec
45
Ug=0.06363 m/sec
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.23): Effect of Gas Velocity on the oil removal, H=70 cm and Co=30 ppm,
pH=7.2.
72
71
70
69
R%
68
67
66
65
64
1.3 2 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8
Figure( 5.24)(a): Effect of bubble size on the removal efficiency, Co=30 ppm , at
different gas velocities (0.00636-0.0636), pH=7.2 .
Chapter five: Results and discussion 73
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Figure( 5.24)(b): Effect of bubble size on the removal efficiency, Co=30 ppm , at
different gas velocities (0.00636-0.0636) 3Dplot, pH=7.2 .
80
75
70
R%
65
60
SLS=Zeor
55
SLS= 1.5 ppm
50
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.25): Effect of adding surfactant on the oil removal efficiency, H =70 cm, and
Co=30 ppm, pH=7.2.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 74
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7 5 sls
-0.6 10 sls
Log(C/Co)
-0.5 48 sls
-0.4 72 sls
96 sls
-0.3
Log. (5
-0.2 sls)
Log. (10
-0.1 sls)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Log. (48
0 sls)
Log. (72
Tim e(sec) sls)
Log. (96
sls)
95
90
85
80
R%
75
70
65
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure(5.27): Effect of alum dose on oil removal efficiency, Co= 800 ppm, pH =7.2
Chapter five: Results and discussion 75
100
95
90
85
R%
80
75 80 Alum+24 SLS
240 Alum +24 SLS
70
80 Alum+64 SLS
65
240 Alum+64 SLS
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.28): Effect of adding alum and SLS together, H=70 cm, pH=7.2 and Co=800
ppm
2000
1800
1600
1400
COD (ppm)
1200
1000
800
600
400 Alum =Zero
200 Alum= 560 ppm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.29): Effect of Alum dose on Chemical oxygen demand, Co=800 ppm
, pH= 7.2.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 76
700
Alum =Zero
600
Alum =560 ppm
500
BOD (ppm)
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.30): Effect of Alum dose on Biological oxygen demand, Co=800 ppm
, pH= 7.2.
80
70
60
50
R%
40
30
X=10 cm
20
X=25 cm
10 X=50 cm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.31): Effect of the sample zone on the removal efficiency, Co=800 ppm,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 77
100
90
80
R%
70
60
X=10 cm
X=25 cm
50
X=50 cm
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.32): Effect of the sample zone on the removal efficiency, Co=800 ppm,
pH=7.2, and with 64 sls+240 alum, Q= 0.0113 m3/min.
96
91
86
81
R%
76
71
66
w ithout additive
61 w ith additive
56
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
Gas Hold Up
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed Of The Stirrer (rpm)
Figure (5.34): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the gas hold-up, H=70 cm, Co=800
ppm
0.3
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold Up
0.15
0.1
Figure (5.35): The comparison in gas hold up values, H=70 cm, Co=800 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 79
100
92.5
R%
85 50 rpm
100 rpm
150 rpm
77.5
200 rpm
250 rpm
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.36): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the removal efficiency, pH=7.2,
Q=0.0113 m^3/min, Co=800 ppm , 64 sls+240 alum .
2.4
2.2
Bubble Diameter (mm)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed Stirrer (rpm)
Figure (5.37): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the bubble size, H=70 cm, Co=800 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 80
95
90
85
R%
80
75
70 Jar -test
Flotation column
65
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.39): A comparison between flotation column and the Jar-test, Co=800 ppm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 81
160
140
120
100
a (1/m)
80
60
40 IAF
20 MIAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.40): Interfacial area versus gas velocity for the IAF and MIAF processes,
Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 83
350
300
250
G (1/sec)
200
150
100
IAF
50
MIAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.41): Velocity gradient versus gas velocity for the IAF and MIAF processes,
Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
0.7
0.6
0.5
a/G (sec/m)
0.4
0.3
0.2
MIAF
0.1
IAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.42): Ratio of interfacial area to velocity gradient versus gas velocity for the
IAF and MIAF processes, Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
Chapter five: Results and discussion 84
80
78
76
74
72
R%
70
68
66
64 IAF
62 MIAF
60
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
a/G (sec/m)
Figure (5.43): Treatment efficiency versus ratio of interfacial area to velocity gradient for
the IAF and MIAF processes.
160
Final Oil Concentration(ppm) MIAF
140
64 SLS+240 alum
120 pH=4.2
100 standared
80
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time(sec)
Figure (5.44): Effect of the best condition on oil removal, Co=800ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec.
900
MIAF
800
pH=4.2
700 64SLS+240 alum
600 standared
COD (ppm)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
350
MIAF
300 pH=4.2
150
100
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
The coefficient of the equation C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and C7 are found by
using statistical programming. Values of the coefficient, correlation coefficient,
average absolute error, and variance are listed in Table5.4.
A comparison between the observed and predicted removal efficiency is
shown in Fig. 5.46.
Chapter five: Results and discussion 87
Table (5.4): Constants and statistical analysis results of equation 5.2 for removal efficiency
0.03
Flowmeter reading(m^3/min.)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
y = 0.9022x + 0.0004
0.005 R2 = 0.9964
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Reading scale(m^3/min.)
350
300
250
Speed(rpm)
200
150
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Gage Control
300
250
200
G (1/sec)
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed (r.p.m.)
This procedure was developed by Ruff et al. (1978) to ensure the flow
through all the openings of perforated plates for fluid dispersion. If all the
perforations of a perforated plate for dispersing a gas or liquid in a liquid
phase are occupied by the disperse, weeping, backflow etc. can occur, which
are usually undesirable. In bubble column Reactors plates are frequently
used with perforations of diameters 1 to 5mm. Ruff (1978) has investigated
perforated plates with perforation of diameters 0.3 to 1mm in the gassing of
liquids to find what minimum gas velocity in the perforations is necessary to
ensure complete flow through the openings of the sieve plates. He found that
at small perforation diameters a constant Weber number must be maintained,
while, at large perforation diameters a Froude number must be maintained in
order to ensure flow through openings or prevent weeping. The effect of the
fractional free area of the perforations varied over the range from 0.1 to 5%.
We=2 and Fr=0.37 give the minimum velocity of the disperse required in the
perforations, and significant weeping is to be prevented in the case of large
perforations.
Step 1:
Calculation of the diameter do according to eqn. (C-1):
Appendix c Distributor design 401
1/ 2 5/8
g
do 2.32 w (C-1)
g g w g
5/8
(0.0728
1/ 2
1.16
d o 2.32
1.16 * 9.81 (993.8 1.16
do=0.0027 m
do=2.7 mm.
The perforation diameter selected lies below this value of d o and so criterion
We= constant must be used.
Step 2:
We have:
g doU o 2
We 2 . (C-2)
w
2 w
Uo
2
g do
2 * (0.0728)
Uo
2
1.16 * 1.0 * 10 3
U o 11.1m/sec
d cU g
N .. (C.3)
d oU o
N 70
Appendix c Distributor design 401
(0.001) 2 70
= =0.007 =0.7%
(0.1) 2
Where sl is the slurry density, and g s, g B are the gas hold up above A and B
respectively (the product L (1- g ) is the equivalent height of the slurry without
gas). Therefore, the pressure difference between A and B, the pressure
difference is:
P = sl L g (1- g ) (D.3)
given by
g = 1- (P /sl L g) . (D.4)
Note that g is measured locally over distance L and that gas holdup in other
parts of the column is not a factor. By repeating the measure at intervals along a
Appendix Sample ofCalculations 701
D
g =1-(w/sl)(1-h/L) (D.5)
Fig. D.1. Measuring gas holdup by pressure difference: (a) general; (b) using
manometers.
(86.1-70)/70=0.23
distence 0.25
Ub 0.206m / sec
time 1.2
Appendix Sample ofCalculations 770
D
Where Fb =flow rate /Vb = 4000 sec-1, therefore the value of (a)
equal to 40.4 m-1 for IAF.
For MIAF at the same flow rate Vb 4*10-8 m3, Sb 0.000013 m2,
Fb 11461 sec-1, Ub 0.26 m/sec therefore the value of (a) 65.3 m-1
Now for finding (G) value for both IAF and MIAF where:
G = P/ ( *V)0.5
P = 3904* flow rate * log (3904+10.33)/10.33
P= 0.48 m3/sec
V (liquid volume in column) =0.0055 m3
(G) = 99 sec-1
Appendix E Tables Figures111
Ub Ub
Ug db g
(m/s) (m/s) glocal
(m/s) (mm) (-)
Experiment Theoretical (-)
0.00636 1.4 0.147 0.083 0.056 0.02
0.017 2.1 0.159 0.101 0.085 0.028
0.033 2.4 0.166 0.108 0.14 0.055
0.044 2.8 0.175 0.12 0.18 0.085
0.053
3.4 0.1888 0.13 0.22 0.11
0.06363
4.3 0.206 0.15 0.25 0.14
Ub Ub
db g
Co CS (m/s) (m/s) glocal
(mm) (-)
Experiment Theoretical (-)
100 1.5 2 0.1624 0.11 0.086 0.08
100 3.5 1.88 0.151 0.106 0.1 0.086
100 5 1.72 0.1457 0.099 0.11 0.087
100 8 0.144 0.093 0.087
1.55 0.12
100 12 1.34 0.129 0.084 0.15 0.088
200 3 0.15 0.106 0.085 0.072
2.2
200 7 0.146 0.099 0.12 0.086
1.87
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Ub Ub
db g
Coil Ccamper (m/s) (m/s) glocal
(mm) (-)
Experiment Theoretical (-)
100 1.5 2.45 0.0144 0.098 0.087 0.086
100 3.5 2.2 0.14 0.096 0.11 0.088
0.092 0.09
100 5 0.135 0.12
2
0.087 0.13 0.099
100 8 0.131
1.78
100 12 1.45 0.124 0.081 0.2 0.1
200 3 0.15 0.104 0.089 0.086
2.31
200 7 0.145 0.096 0.11 0.089
2
200 10 0.1411 0.09 0.12 0.09
1.88
200 16 0.1354 0.085 0.12 0.09
1.73
200 24 0.1282 0.082 0.19 0.1
1.56
400 12 2.8 0.168 0.12 0.055 0.03
400 32 2.5 0.16 0.11 0.057 0.029
400 48 2.3 0.1544 0.106 0.062 0.042
400 64 0.1513 0.101 0.077 0.06
2.1
400 80 1.99 0.1485 0.098 0.086 0.056
600 18 2.8 0.168 0.12 0.055 0.03
600 48 2.5 0.161 0.11 0.057 0.029
600 72 0.1547 0.106 0.062 0.042
2.3
600 96 2 0.1508 0.101 0.077 0.056
600 120 1.98 0.148 0.098 0.086 0.056
800 24 2.9 0.165 0.119 0.06 0.05
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Ug do db Ub g
glocal
(m/s) (mm) (mm) (m/s) (-)
(-)
0.044
0.00636 0.12 1.4 14.7
0.056
0.053
0.017 0.12 2.1 15.9
0.085
0.09
0.033 0.12 2.4 16.6
0.14
0.1
0.044 0.12 2.8 17.5
0.18
0.11
0.053 0.12 3.4 18.88
0.22
0.15
0.0636 0.12 4.3 20.6
0.25
0.029
0.006363 2 1.7 15.2
0.05
0.057
0.017 2 3 17.75
0.07
0.061
0.033 2 3.5 18.8
0.1
0.11
0.044 2 4.2 20.66
0.14
0.14
0.053 2 5.25 23
0.19
0.153
0.0636 2 9.4 25.7
0.23
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Ug hf(m) hf(m)
(m/s) Eq.(4.4) Eq.(4.6)
0.006363
2.32 3.34
0.017
6.79 9
0.033
13.7 20.6
0.044
20.7 30.6
0.053
35.6 51.3
0.0636
45.78 64.3
Ug g g local
(m/s) (-) (-)
0.006363
0.029 0.05
0.017
0.057 0.07
0.033
0.11 0.11
0.044
0.15 0.15
0.053
0.2 0.2
0.0636
0.23 0.23
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Speed
g
stirrer db(mm) Ub(m/sec)
(-)
(rpm)
50 0.149
0.11 2.2
100 0.146
0.12 2.17
150 0.144
0.14 1.97
200 0.14
0.15 1.81
250 0.141
0.16 1.85
R (%)
Time
(sec) 50 100 150 200 250
(rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm)
300 85 80 83 88 82
600 88 86.5 88 92.11 84
900 93 90 91.2 93.8 92
1200 93.86 92.4 92.8 96 92.8
1500 94 94.86 95 98.8 95.7
1800 94 94.8 95.34 98.6 95.9
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Time R (%)
(sec) 80alum+24sls 240alum+24sls 80alum+64sls 240alum+64sls
300 75 85 81 84
600 86 90 87 91
900 89 92 91 92
1200 90 92.34 91.99 92.6
1500 92.5 93 94 95
1800 92.33 93.23 94 95.22
Time R (%)
(sec) 100(ppm) 200(ppm) 400(ppm) 600(ppm) 800(ppm)
300 31 33 37 51 62
600 31.8 34.4 41 62 68
900 33 36.8 44 66 71
1200 36.5 38 49 67.5 74.5
1500
42 44 52.8 69 75
1800
42.5 44.7 52.9 69.3 76
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
Gas a (m-1)
velocity MIAF
(m/sec) IAF
0.00636 40.4 65.3
0.017 71.9 88.7
0.033 108.5 134.8
0.044 109.7 140
0.053 111.8 141
0.0636 112 143
Gas G(sec-1)
velocity MIAF
(m/sec) IAF
0.00636 99 99
0.017 165.34 165.34
0.033 222 222
0.044 247 247
0.053 286.7 286.7
0.0636 288 288
Appendix E Tables Figures111
a/G a/G
R%, R%
(sec/m),IAF (sec/m),MIAF
0.408
64 0.66 73
0.43
67.4 0.54 74.4
0.488
68.3 0.6 75
0.44
69 0.56 76.3
0.38
69.8 0.49 76.7
0.38
71 0.49 78.4
Appendix E Tables Figures111
Time R (%)
(sec) Flotation column Jar test
300 75 69
600 79.3 73.4
900 88 75
1200 91 79.33
1500 92.9 80.5
1800 92.87 80.4
Time R (%)
(sec) Without additive With additive
300 62 72
600 65 81
900 68 87
1200 71 92
1500 72.5 93.9
1800 73.3 93.8
Appendix E Tables Figures111
( )G ( )a
. .
:
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473
%2 1.80 .
( )dimensionless:
R% = 1.67 (CA/ l )145.7 (CS/L)161 (C/Co)0.0624(1/Re)1.48(1/We)1.54 (1/Fr)1.096
%1.15. .1.8888
2012