1.

0 INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVE

1.1 Introduction

Due to the growth of industrial activities this causing rise in air pollution issue,
particulate emission controls have been developed to counter this issue. One of the
available controls is spray chamber, this chamber could be wet or dry. This technology
works by removal of pollutants by three mechanisms; (i) inertial impaction, (ii)
interception and (iii) Brownian diffusion. Besides being called spray chamber, this
technology is also known as spray-tower wet scrubber.

Source: (Bashir, Momoh-Jimoh, Sani, Md. R. Khan, & Iskandar M. Nor, 2012)

Figure 1.1: Process Flow in Spray Chamber System

 Spray chamber consist of empty chamber of cylindrical or rectangular shapes
in which the gas stream is to be contacted with liquid droplets from the spray nozzles.
An appropriate combination of liquid pressure and flow rate will generate the required
contacting power. This system, as per illustrated in Figure 1.1, works in which water
droplets are introduced at the top of chamber through atomizing nozzles and drop
freely counter-currently through the rising dust particle-gas (Bashir et al., 2012). Dust
particles are then removed from gas stream and collected in a container at the bottom
of the chamber (EPA, 2016). Usually, a mist eliminator is situated at the top of chamber
to eliminate both excess clean water droplets and dirty droplets which are exceptionally
small and thus carried upward by gas flow.

Physical absorption depends on properties of the gas stream and liquid solvent.
Absorption is enhanced by greater contacting surface; the main study in this
experimental. Greater contacting surface means greater collection efficiency of spray
chamber (EPA, 2016). Smaller nozzle size offers higher contacting surface compared
to larger nozzle size (N.Klein & R.Kruger, 2011). Other factors that could enhance
absorption are higher liquid-gas ratios and higher concentration in the gas stream.
Nozzles break liquid into droplets, forming the spray pattern. It is a crucial factor in
determining the amount of spray applied in particular area, the consistency of
application and the coverage to be achieved (N.Klein & R.Kruger, 2011). Thus, size of
spray nozzle is vital as it affects the efficiency of spray chamber.

1.2 Objective

1.2.1 To determine the effect of droplet size upon efficiency of the spray
chamber, by using different unit.
2.0 METHOD

1. Sieve about 1kg of sand into an empty container.

2.Calibrate the weighing balance and carefully weigh the sand and record it as the
initial weight of feed.
 3.Next, the weighted sand was then properly poured into the feeder.

4.Switch on the power supply and valve V5 was opened to clean up the vessel
before the experiment was conducted. Then, the chamber was filled with water until
the marked level on the chamber by closing the bottom valve.
5.As the water is filled, the bottom valve was opened and valve V1 was opened producing a
small water droplet to be sprayed into the chamber. Next, the sand also was let to flow into
the chamber to test the mechanism of air pollution control using spray chamber.

6.Sand which were deposited at the bottom of the chamber was then collected and
dried in the oven at temperature of 100°C.
 7. After drying, the sand collected was weighted again in order to determine the
sand’s weight after the experiment.

8. Make sure to weight the empty container in order to obtain the exact weight of the
sand after the experiment was conducted. Repeat step 4 to 8 by using valve V2.
3.0 DATA AND RESULTS

Table 1: Result sample 1 where Nozzle size - 520µm (Nozzle 1, N1)

Set Pressure, PT1 (Bar) 2

Air blower speed (Hz) 20

Weight of sample loaded (g) 1000g

Weight of sample collected (g) 926g

Collection efficiency, η (%) 92.6%

Table 2: Result 2 where Nozzle size - 290µm (Nozzle 2 N2)

Set Pressure, PT1 (Bar) 2

Air blower speed (Hz) 20

Weight of sample loaded (g) 1000g

Weight of sample collected (g) 965g

Collection efficiency, η (%) 96.5%

The spray chamber experiment was conducted in the different size of nozzle in order
to determine the effect of the droplet size toward the efficiency of spray chamber. As stated in
the Table 2 and Table 3, the size nozzle was 520µm for the valve 1, NOZZLE 1 while for the
NOZZLE 2, valve 2 was 290µm. The weight of sample loaded was same for both experiment
which is 1000g. Therefore, both of them was same in pressure and the air blower speed which
is 2 Bar and 20Hz respectively. The different between NOZZLE 1 and NOZZLE 2 was the
collection of the efficiency. It was stated that the efficiency of the NOZZLE 2 was more effective
compare the NOZZLE 1, where 96.5% for NOZZLE 2 and 92.6% for NOZZLE 1. It is because
both of them were different in weight of sample collected. In addition, the surface area of
droplet at NOZZLE 2 was higher compare to NOZZLE 1. Thus, the collection of samples was
more efficiency for NOZZLE 2 compare to the NOZZLE 1.
4.0 DISCUSSION

This experiment is conducted to determine the effect of droplet size upon separation
efficiency of the spray chamber unit by using different size of nozzle. There are two sizes of
nozzle that was used in this experiment which are Nozzle 1 with the droplet size of 290 µm
and the droplet size for Nozzle 2 is 520 µm. 1000 g of sieved fine sand was used as a sample
for the experiment. The experiment was started by doing the cleaning of the vessel to make
sure that there is no leftover sand from the previous experiment around the vessel wall. The
vessel was filled with water before feeding the sample into the vessel. For the first experiment,
Nozzle 1 has been used as a variable by opened the V1. After all sample was finished, the
vessel was cleaned before being proceed with second experiment which is by using Nozzle
2. After both experiments was finished, the collected samples were dried in the oven and the
final weight of both samples were measured and recorded.

Spray chamber is an equipment that consists of several parts such as spray nozzles,
separation chamber, water recirculation system, air blower, feed container, outlet dust filter
and differential pressure transmitter. The empty cylindrical chamber or known as vessel in the
spray chamber is the place where the gas stream will be contacted with liquid droplets that
was generated by the spray nozzles (D. Mussatti & P.Hemmer, 2002). By using gravitational
concept, the slurry from the spray chamber will fell to the bottom of the vessel and settled
down in the base of the vessel. Spray chamber is one of the equipment that requires low
energy and power to perform and control the particulate matter. The particulate matters were
removed by using concept of particle mechanism which are impaction, interception and
Brownian motion onto the liquid droplets (Rao & Rao, 1993). The operating mechanism of the
spray chamber is dirty gas or pollutants will be introduced and been in contact with the liquid
droplets that were generated by the spray nozzles. The size of the droplets that generated by
the spray nozzles can be controlled to maximize the liquid-particle contact and to increase the
collection efficiency of the equipment (EPA, 1998). Usually, the scrubbing liquid that will be
used to remove the particulate matter is water. Water will be sprayed through the spray nozzle
which located at the top of the vessel and the particulate matter will be introduced into the
vessel. The particulate matter will flow upwards, encountering the droplets formed by the spray
nozzle and settle down to the bottom of the vessel (Perry, 1984).
 Figure 4.1 Spray Chamber

From the results in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, it can be said that the efficiency of Nozzle
2 which is 96.5% is higher compare to Nozzle 1 which is 92.6%. The nozzle size for Nozzle 2
was 290 µm which is smaller compare to Nozzle 1 with the nozzle size of 520 µm.
Theoretically, the smaller the nozzle size, the higher the efficiency of the spray chamber. From
the results of the experiment, it can be said that the experiment is a success and the objective
of the experiment has been achieved as the result was followed the theory. Smaller nozzle
size tends to have a larger surface are to volume ratio compare to larger nozzle size. With the
large surface area, it able to capture more particles per volume of liquid injected. Besides, the
smaller nozzle size also will have the higher velocity of the sprayed water and this also helps
to increase the collection efficiency (Spellman,2008).

During the experiment, there are a few problems and errors were occurred which may
affect the effectiveness of the equipment. One of the problems is the fine sand was stuck at
the feeder and it needed additional external force to help it enter the vessel. Then, the
equipment is quite old, and less maintenance has been performed to the equipment which
make it less effective.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This was experiment was to determine the effect of size nozzle toward the efficiency
of the spray chamber. As mention in the previous section, the small surface of the nozzle size
was more efficiency to the spray chamber in the process of the collection. In this case, the
different nozzle was used to determine the efficiency of the spray chamber. After done the
experiment, it showed that nozzle 2 with the small size which is 290 µm was effective compare
to the nozzle 2, with the nozzle size was 520 µm. The percentage of the efficiency for the
nozzle 2 was 96.5% while nozzle 1 was 92.6%. Thus, indirectly the nozzle 2 was more
efficiency compare to the nozzle 1. This is because the surface area of the droplet that
produced from the nozzle 2 was high compare to the nozzle 1. Thus, the sample collection
was more effective for the nozzle 2 compare to the nozzle 1. Therefore, the different for weight
collection showed that nozzle 2 was more effective compare to the nozzle 1. The objective
was proved by done of this experiment.

Some of error might be occurred while running the experiment such as the water
droplet was not covered on the hole area due to the efficient of spray. Thus, this case will be
affecting the results in way to determine the objective of the experiment. The recommendation
for this experiment was by changing the spray to the new one. It because in order to make
sure the water droplet was covered on the hole area of chamber. Thus, the collection will be
more effective. Next, regularly cleaned the nozzle in order to avoid the plugging in it. Besides,
the air blower and the pressure need to undergo the inspection in order to obtain the efficiency
of the process.
6.0 APPENDIX

Calculation Details:

Efficiency of spray chamber were calculated using the formula below:

Actual weight of tray =1106g

Weight of sample 1 (Nozzle size - 520µm (Nozzle 1, N1))

= 2032g-1106g

= 926g

Weigh of sample 2 (Nozzle size - 290µm (Nozzle 2, N2))

= 2003g-1038g

= 965g

Efficiency,

i. NOZZLE N1 (520 µm droplet size):

926g
Efficiency, η = 1000𝑔 × 100%

= 92.6 %

ii. NOZZLE N2 (290 µm droplet size):

965𝑔
Efficiency, η = × 100%
1000𝑔

= 96.5%