1

Air Emission Control

CHE 435
Section 7
Team 1
Team Leader: Avery Carlson
Experimental Engineer: Ahmad Hazamuddin
Analyst: Nina Bragg

ABSTRACT
In this experiment, the team analyzed a packed-bed absorption column with the goal of
determining the height of gas transfer units (HOG) within the column. The height of transfer units governs
the effectiveness of mass transfer, and the extent of control the column has over ammonia emission to the
atmosphere. The equipment operated using standard absorption techniques, i.e. liquid water flowed down
the packing, while a vapor mixture of air and ammonia flowed counter-current to the water in the
packing. Depending on the quality of mass transfer and the extent of vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE),
some ammonia would be absorbed into the water and exit the system. An ammonia analyzer was used to
measure concentrations of unabsorbed ammonia in the effluent air stream, and titration methods were
used to measure absorbed ammonia in the effluent water stream. Using a combination of the HTU-NTU
method, mass balance, and Henrys law equations, the team tested the effect of air flow rate on H OG. A
linear relationship was found to exist between the flow rate of inlet air and the height of the gas transfer
units. This conclusion was validated with the logic that as air flow rate increases, contact time between
water and ammonia decreases, and thus a higher HOG is needed for effective mass transfer to occur. Air
flow rate was found to be more significant than water flow rate.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Theory
Apparatus

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup

Procedures
Calibrations

Table 1: Water Calibration Data

Figure 2: Water Calibration Chart

Table 2: Range of Non-Flooding Combination of Air and Water Flow Rates

Figure 3: The relationship of Air Flow Rates and Pressure Drop

Table 3: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination

Figure 4: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination

Results

Figure 5: Comparison of HOG values for multiple air and water flow rates

Table 4: Analysis of error calculations for each air flow rate

Table 5: Analysis of error calculations for each water flow rate

Table 6: Error propagation for each water flow rate.

Table 7: Error propagation for each air flow rate.

Discussion
Conclusions and Recommendations
Notation
References
Appendix

Table A-1: Calculation for the amount of ammonia and the mole fraction of ammonia

Table A-2: Calculation of NOG and HOG

Table A-3: Error propagation of NOG for each water flow rate.

Table A-4: Error propagation of NOG for each air flow rate.

Table A-5: Error propagation of HOG for each water flow rate.

Table A-6: Error propagation of HOG for each air flow rate

Figure A-1: Comparison of NOG values for multiple air and water flow rates

Figure A-2: Graph of HOG at various water flow rates

1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
I
II
II
III
IV
IV
IV
V
V

INTRODUCTION
Researchers expanding knowledge of pollutants has led to air emission control becoming an
increasingly important function on the industrial scale. In todays society, industry understands the
detrimental effects pollutants, greenhouse gases, and other waste products can have to ecology, the
environment, and general public health. Absorption methods, such as packed-bed absorption, have been
particularly effective in reducing the amount of undesired chemicals that are released to the atmosphere.
In this study, the design team looked at one such type of emission control using absorption methodthe
process of absorbing ammonia into water.
Ammonia is a chemical that is commonplace in industrial processes. Industries ranging from
agricultural to pharmaceutical to plastics utilize ammonia to design products (1). However, the use of
ammonia has certain drawbacks, especially when unused ammonia is released to the atmosphere.
Ammonia pollution is destructive to water ecosystems, can toxify soil and groundwater, and poses a
health risk to humans (1). Absorption into water allows for easier disposal of excess ammonia through
means that are environmentally friendly, and is a relatively simple process to understand.
The objective of this experiment was to calculate the height of gas transfer units (H OG) within a
packed-bed absorption column as a function of the air flow rate entering the column. In order to complete
this task, the design team took measurements of the concentrations of ammonia entering and exiting the
column in order to understand the extent of mass transfer within the packing. The results of experiments
demonstrated a positive linear relationship between the HOG and the air flow rate entering the column, e.g
as air flow rate increased so did HOG. This is shown from the resulting data from the design of
experiments. For every trial, as air flow rate increased from two to four SCFM, H OG increased. At a water
flow rate of 400 cubic centimeters per minute, HOG increased from 4.85 inches to 6.71 inches. The next
two trials showed nearly the exact same data. As air flow rate increases from two to four SCFM, H OG
increased from 4.24 to 5.30 inches.
In the opposite manner, HOG is shown to not be heavily dependent on water flow rate. When the
water flow rate increases from 500-600 cc/min, the data varies little. H OG for both cases increases about
4.24 to 6.71 inches, which shows that water flow rate is not as significant a variable as air flow rate. This
is concurrent with results found in a University of Florida (2, pg. 21).

THEORY
The theory behind the calculation of HOG in packed-bed absorption columns is based off the
HTU-NTU method described in Separation Process Engineering by Philip Wankat. The fundamentals of
this method revolve around mass transfer between solute and solventin this case ammonia and water,
respectively. The underlying assumptions are that the molecules of water are not counter-diffusing into
the ammonia vapor, i.e. all water fed to the system ends up as liquid at the bottom of the column, and that
the system is isothermal (3).
A diagram of a general absorption column is shown in Figure 1. Pure water enters the column
through the top of the column, while an air-ammonia mixture is fed through the bottom. As the water
contacts the ammonia in the packing, mass transfer of ammonia occurs into the film of water, which falls
to the bottom of the column for removal. Some unabsorbed ammonia exits the column through the top.
The first step in the analysis is performing the mass balance of ammonia around the column. Mass is
conserved so the mass balance becomes (3, pg. 5):

L x B + V y A =L x A + V y B

[1]

where L = liquid flow rate of water [mol/min]

V = vapor flow rate of mixed air and ammonia [mol/min]
xB = mole fraction of ammonia in water feed stream [unitless]
xA = mole fraction of absorbed ammonia in liquid exit stream [unitless]
yA = mole fraction of mixed ammonia in air inlet stream [unitless]
yB = mole fraction of unabsorbed ammonia in exit air stream [unitless]
In this case, there is no ammonia entering with the pure water, therefore x B is equal to 0 (3, pg. 5). The
equation is simplified to:

V y A =Lx +V y B

[2]

For this system, the team assumedand later verifiedthat the amount of ammonia entering the
column in the inlet was dilute compared to the overall air flow rate. The team determined that it was
applicable for this dilute mass transfer problem to employ Henrys Law to estimate the equilibrium
between ammonia in the liquid and vapor (3, pg. 11). Henrys Law is described below:

y =Hx

[3]

where y* = the vapor phase mole fraction that is in equilibrium [unitless]

H = Henrys Law Constant
Using partial pressure data of ammonia in Perrys Chemical Handbook, the Henry constant can be found.
Calculating the number of gas transfer units, N OG, is the first step of the HTU-NTU method (4, pg. 686).
Taking the integral of the mole fractions in the inlet and outlet streams allows for this calculation:
yA

N OG=
yB

dy

y y

[4]

where NOG = number of gas transfer units within the column [unitless]
Essentially, this simplifies to the log mean difference between the inlet and outlet mole fractions, and the
mole fraction in equilibrium within the column or (4, pg. 686):

N OG=log (

y A y
)
y B y

[5]

The final step in the method is to relate NOG to HOG. According to Wankat, HOG is inversely proportional to
the found value of NOG (4, pg. 687). The equation is below:

H OG=

ZT
N OG

[6]

where HOG = height of the gas transfer units within the column [inches]
ZT = height of packing within the column [inches]

APPARATUS

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Figure 1 shows the equipment set up of the experiment. The equipment set up was composed of a
packed column absorber which was packed with approximately 5 L, 4.3 kg of ceramics Raschig rings.
Water was fed to the top of the column while air to the bottom. Ammonia gas was mixed with air before
entering the column. The flow rates of both water and air were controlled using rotameters. The set up
also came with an ammonia analyzer with infrared continuously reading the amount of ammonia in air.
The overhead product, which was the unabsorbed ammonia, was sent through water trap to filter the
water out before it was sent to the ammonia analyzer.

PROCEDURES
The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of ammonia was studied to be aware of safety issues
when handling aqueous ammonia. Goggles were worn while being in the lab. Calibration of water flow
rotameter was executed. The water flow rate was first set at a low value at 1 SCFM. The team allowed a
few minutes for a water seal to form at the bottom of the column. This was to ensure a consistent flow
rate of effluent water. The time needed to collect 1000 mL of water in a flask was taken. This experiment
was repeated with higher water flow rates over the same increment. These flow rates were then compared
to the flow rates set on the rotameter. The water flow rate was calibrated.
Next, the relationship of pressure drop and air flow rate was investigated. The water rotameter
was opened to form a water seal at the bottom of the column. It was adjusted accordingly after changing
the air flow rate to have the water seal at a constant height. This was to ensure that no air exits through the
bottom of the column. The air flow rate was set starting from a low value at and then increased over the

4
same increment which. The team allowed the column to achieve a steady state. The pressure drop across
the packed column measured by a computer software was recorded. The experiment was repeated and
data was taken for multiple air flow rates in a descending order.
The range of flow rates that causes flooding was also obtained. In this experiment, the water flow
rate was held constant and the air flow rate was increased by 0.5 SCFM until flooding occurs. Flooding
occurs when there is a big increase in pressure drop across the column after increasing the air flow rate.
The experiment was then continued by following the same procedure with four larger water flow rates.
The pressure drop of all combinations of water and air flow rates were recorded. This data was to be used
for the ammonia absorption experiment as a reference to avoid flooding.
Gloves were worn throughout the whole experiment when handling ammonia. Any water left in
the column was drained out of the column to assure that the initial water condition was not contaminated
by ammonia from a previous trial. The water rotameter was first opened at a flow rate of 400 cc/min. The
team allowed a few minutes to pass in order for a water seal to form at the bottom of the column at a
constant height of 8.5 cm. The rotameter of air flow rate was set at 4 SCFM and the ammonia rotameter
was kept constant at 78 mm throughout the experiment. 8-10 minutes were allowed for the system to
achieve equilibrium. The water seal was drained out and formed again to ensure the concentration of
ammonia in the water was at equilibrium and not contaminated by accumulation of ammonia. A sample of
50 mL effluent water was collected in a beaker for titration. These steps were repeated with increased air
flow rates of 5 and 6 SCFM. Then, the whole experiment was then repeated using higher water flow rates
at 500 and 600 cc/min. All combinations of water and air flow rates used in this experiment should not
cause flooding and this can be referred to the data obtained in the previous flooding experiment.
For titration, 0.5 M HCl was prepared in the burette. Three drops of methyl orange were added
into the beaker. Hydrochloric acid was added drop by drop into the beaker until the color of methyl
orange changes from yellow to red, which was the equivalence point. The mixture was stirred throughout
the process. The amount of HCl solution needed was recorded.

CALIBRATIONS
Table 1: Water Calibration Data
Rotameter Reading
Time Required to
Effluent Water flow
(cc/min)
Collect 1000ml (min)
Rate (cc/min)
275
0.58
0.00058
500
0.86
0.00086
725
0.87
0.00087
975
0.91
0.00091
1150
0.90
0.00090
1250
0.90
0.00090

Water Calibration
1
0.8

f(x) = 0x + 0.63
R = 0.59

0.6

Rotameter Reading (cc/min)

0.4
0.2
0
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Effluent Water Flow Rate (cc/min)

Figure 2: Water Calibration Chart

1400

6
Table 2: Range of Non-Flooding Combination of Air and Water Flow Rates
Air Flow Rate (SCFM) Pressure Drop (cm H2O)
1
2.08
2
2.69
3
3.44
4
5.05
5
10.92

Effect of Air Flow Rates on Pressure Drop

12
10
8

Presuure Drop (cm H2O)

6
4
2
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Air Flow Rates (SCFM)

Figure 3: The relationship of Air Flow Rates and Pressure Drop

7
Table 3: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination
H2O Flow Rate (cc/min) Maximum Air Flow Rate (SCFM)
2360
5
2760
5.5
3000
6
3340
5
3610
5

Non-Flooding Air & Water Flow Rates

6.2
6
5.8
5.6

Maximum Air Flow Rate (SCFM) 5.4

5.2
5
4.8
2250

2750

3250

3750

Water Flow Rate (cc/min)

Figure 4: Range of Non-Flooding Air and Water Flow Rates Combination

RESULTS
Results for the experiments are shown in Figure 5 and Figure A-1.

Figure 5: Comparison of HOG values for multiple air and water flow rates.
Linear trendlines fit the data for all three water flow rates used in this experiment. H OG as a function of
just water flow rate is shown in the Appendix (Figure A-2).

Error Analysis
Analysis of error was performed for HOG as a function of water flow rate and air flow rate. The tables
below show the results. An explanation for how the percent error values are calculated is included in the
Appendix.
Table 4: Analysis of error calculations for each air flow rate. Calculated values correspond to Figure 5.
Water
Air Flow
Flow
HOG,calc %
Rate
HOG,calc HOG,exp
Rate
HOG,exp
Error
(SCFM)
(cc/min)
4
6.285
6.268
0.0173
0.275
3
5.576
5.610
0.0348
0.625
400
2
4.866
4.849
0.0174
0.357
15.93
4
6.285
5.283
1.002
9
14.33
500
3
5.576
4.776
0.799
8
12.88
2
4.866
4.239
0.627
2
600
4
6.285
5.298
0.987
15.70

5.576

4.867

0.709

4.866

4.242

0.624

4
12.71
0
12.83
0

Table 5: Analysis of error calculations for each water flow rate. Values correspond to Figure A-2.
Water
HOG,cal
HOG,calc %
Flow Rate
HOG,exp
HOG,exp
Error
c
(cc/min)
400
5.228
5.576
0.348
6.650
12.99
500
4.218
4.766
0.548
8
19.81
600
4.008
4.802
0.794
7
As the water flow rate increases, the percent error increases.
Propagation of Error
Below are the tables for the calculated propagation of error. See Appendix for further details on how error
propagation was calculated.
Table 6: Error propagation for each water flow rate.
Water
(NOG
Flow Rate
(HOG)
)
(cc/min)
0.017
400
0.251
8
0.017
500
0.214
8
0.017
600
0.220
8
Table 7: Error propagation for each air flow rate.
Air Flow
(NOG
Rate
(HOG)
)
(SCFM)
0.002
4
0.184
02
0.002
3
0.166
07
0.002
2
0.146
29

DISCUSSION
The value for the water flow rate used in the calculations was the rotameter value. The trendline
for the calibration curve did not fit the data well (see Figure 2). Instead of the effluent water flow rate

10
continually increasing with increasing rotameter flow rate, the effluent water flow rate started to decrease
after around 900 cc/min. The increasing pressure from an increased water flow rate should have made the
effluent flow rate larger. Since this was not the case for the calibration data, it was decided to use the
value from the rotameter instead of the calibrated value for the N OG and HOG calculations.
In the second experiment of calibration, it can be concluded that changing air flow rate has a
significant effect on the pressure drop. The pressure drop increases exponentially with the air flow rates.
The value of pressure drop escalated significantly from 5.05 cm H 2O to 10.92 cm H2O when increasing
the air flow rate from 4 SCFM to 5 SCFM, as shown in Figure 3, indicating flooding occurred. This data
proves that increasing air flow rates above 4 SCFM would cause flooding.
Figure 4 revealed the range of allowable air and water flow rates that limit the occurrence of
flooding. The air flow rates indicated in the chart are the maximum air flow rate for respective water flow
rates before flooding. The maximum air flow rate before flooding is 6 SCFM whereas the larger flow
rates of water max out at 5 SCFM. Any larger or smaller water flow rates than 3000 cc/min would require
smaller air flow rates than 5 SCFM to avoid flooding.
As the air flow rate increases, the number of gas-phase transfer units (N OG) decreases (see Figure
A-1). This is consistent at all water flow rates. This occurs because there is less contact time between the
water and ammonia at higher air flow rates. The opposite trend is shown in Figure 5 for the height of a
gas-phase transfer unit (HOG). As the air flow rate becomes larger, the height of a gas-phase transfer unit
increases as well. This indicates that the separation occurs more efficiently at smaller air flow rates and
higher air flow rates induce resistance to mass transfer. If there is a smaller number of transfer units, then
the transfer unit has to be larger in order for the desired absorption to occur. There is an inverse
relationship between the height of a gas-phase transfer unit and the number of gas phase transfer units.
This is shown in the results and by Equation 6. It is observed that the air flow rate has more of an impact
on NOG and HOG than the water flow rate.
A significant difference of HOG can be observed when changing the water flow rate from 400 to
500 cc/min compared to that when increasing it from 500 to 600 cc/min. This concludes increasing the
water flow rate above 500 cc/min does not result in a significant decrease to H OG. However, at the air flow
rate of 3 SCFM, HOG increases by a small amount when increasing the water flow rate from 500 to 600
cc/min. This might be the result of few errors during the experiment. The rotameter readings kept
fluctuating that needed to be adjusted accordingly most of the time. Moreover, since titration is part of
this process, the amount of HCl added to achieve the equivalence point might have exceeded the actual
amount required.
The error analysis calculations show a wide range of percent error. This large fluctuation of error
could be due to fluctuations in the ammonia rotameter or the water rotameter. The ammonia and water
flowrate are assumed to be constant for each trial. Fluctuations in flow rates would change the amount of
ammonia coming out of the bottom and top of the absorber, and in turn, affect the error associated with
the team's calculation method.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The height of a gas-phase transfer unit in a packed-bed absorber is affected by the air flow rate
and the water flow rate.
1. As the water flow rate increases, the height of a gas-phase transfer unit decreases.
2. As the air flow rate increases, the height of a gas-phase transfer unit increases.
3. At water flow rates of 500 cc/min and 600 cc/min the values for H OG varied little.
4. NOG and HOG have an inverse relationship. When NOG decreases, HOG increases.
It is recommended that the knobs on the rotameters either be tightened or changed. The location
of the level-indicator piece fluctuated from the set value during the experiment. This occurred most often

11
with the ammonia rotameter. The flow rate used for calculations may not be the real flow rate of ammonia
being mixed with air, therefore making the team's calculations not as accurate. It is also recommended
that a more dilute acid be used for the titrations. Adding one drop of acid when the sample was near
equivalence brought the sample past its equivalence point and by the looks of the indicator into the acidic
range. If a more dilute acid was used there would be less moles going into the sample at any one point in
time, making the titration more accurate.

NOTATION

cc/min = Cubic centimeters per min

H = Henrys Law Constant
HOG = height of the gas transfer units within the column [inches]
L = liquid flow rate of water [mol/min]
NOG = number of gas transfer units within the column [unitless]
SCFM = Standard cubic feet per min
V = vapor flow rate of mixed air and ammonia [mol/min]
xB = mole fraction of ammonia in water feed stream [unitless]
xA = mole fraction of absorbed ammonia in liquid exit stream [unitless]
yA = mole fraction of mixed ammonia in air inlet stream [unitless]
yB = mole fraction of unabsorbed ammonia in exit air stream [unitless]
y* = the vapor phase mole fraction that is in equilibrium [unitless]
ZT = height of packing within the column [inches]

REFERENCES
[1] Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (n.d.). Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory. [Online].
Available: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=1.
[2] McCabe, W.L., Smith, J.C., & Harriott, P. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 7th ed. McGrawHill, New York, 2005.
[3] Wankat, P.C. Separation Process Engineering, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Massachusetts, 2012.
[4] Crisalle, O.D. University of Florida. (2013). Ammonia Gas Absorption. [PDF]. Retrieved from
http://www.che.ufl.edu/unit-ops-lab/experiments/GA/GA-NH3/GA-NH3-Manual.pdf.
[5] Barton, S.C., & Odian, M. Columbia University. (n.d.). Packed Bed Fluid Dynamics and Ammonia
Absorption. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/itc/seas/E3810-lab/pbd.html.
[6] Nagy, Gabriella. Fundamentals Laboratory Booklet: CHE 34800, Purdue University, 2015.

12

APPENDIX
Sample Calculations
The following is a sample calculation for how to determine the height of a gas-phase transfer unit.

g
3
28320 cm
cm
( Flow Rate )air =4 SCFM

=4.79 mol/min
SCFM
g
29.966
mol
0.001225

g
3
cm
cm
( Flow Rate ) water=400

=22.22 mol/min
min
g
18
mol
1

g
cm 3
( Flow Rate )ammonia =1555 SCCM
=0.0667 mol/min
g
17.031
mol
0.00073

0.0667
y A=

mol
mol
0.0667
+22.22
min
min
yB=

=0.01372

129
=0.000129
1,000,000

moles of acid=moles of ammonia=0.5

moles of water=50 mL

x=

mol
min

mol
1L

8.5 mL=0.00425 moles

L
1000 mL

1g
1 mol

=2.7753 moles
mL 18.016 g

0.00425 moles
=0.001531
0.00425 moles+2.7753 moles

y =0.009558 0.001531=1.4637 105

yA

N OG=
yB

0.01372

dy
dy
0.013721.4637 105
=
=ln
=4.7863

y y 0.000129 y1.4637 105

0.0001291.4637 105

30

=6.2679
4.7868
Z
H OG= T =
N OG

Calculation Tables

Trial
1

Trial
2

Trial
3

Table A-1: Calculation for the amount of ammonia and the mole fraction of ammonia.
Water
Air
Ammoni
Amoun
Amou
Mole
Mole
Flow
Flow
a Flow
t of
nt of
Fraction
Fraction
Rate
Rate
Rate
NH3
H2O
of NH3
of NH3
(mol/min (mol/mi (mol/min
(mol)
(mol)
(Bottom)
(Top)
)
n)
)
22.2
4.79
0.0667
0.00425
2.78
0.00153
0.000129
22.2
3.59
0.0667
0.00475
2.78
0.00171
0.000103
0.000073
22.2
2.40
0.0667
0.00505
2.78
0.00182
0
0.000061
27.8
4.79
0.0667
0.00410
2.78
0.00148
0
0.000048
27.8
3.59
0.0667
0.00405
2.78
0.00146
0
0.000038
27.8
2.40
0.0667
0.00440
2.78
0.00159
0
0.000059
33.3
4.79
0.0667
0.00330
2.78
0.00119
0
0.000050
33.3
3.59
0.0667
0.00340
2.78
0.00123
0
0.000035
33.3
2.40
0.0667
0.00350
2.78
0.00126
0
Table A-2: Calculation of NOG and HOG.
yA

Trial
1

0.0137
0.0182

yB

y*

yA-y*

yB-y*

0.00012
9
0.00010
3

0.001
53
0.001
71

1.46E05
1.64E05

0.013
7
0.018
2

0.00011
4
0.00008
66

NOG

HOG
(in)

4.79

6.27

5.35

5.61

3
0.0271
0.0137
Trial
2

0.0182
0.0271
0.0137

Trial
3

0.0182
0.0271

0.00007
30
0.00006
10
0.00004
80
0.00003
80
0.00005
90
0.00005
00
0.00003
50

0.001
82
0.001
48
0.001
46
0.001
59
0.001
19
0.001
23
0.001
26

1.74E05
1.41E05
1.39E05
1.52E05
1.14E05
1.17E05
1.21E05

0.027
1
0.013
7
0.018
2
0.027
1
0.013
7
0.018
2
0.027
1

0.00005
56
0.00004
69
0.00003
41
0.00002
28
0.00004
76
0.00003
83
0.00002
29

6.19

4.85

5.68

5.28

6.28

4.78

7.08

4.24

5.66

5.30

6.16

4.87

7.07

4.24

Error Analysis
After the data was plotted, a trendline was fitted to the data for each air and water flow rate. H OG was
calculated using the trendline equations for a given flow rate. The experimental value for H OG was
subtracted from the calculated value to find the difference between the two. This difference was divided
by the calculated HOG value and multiplied by 100 percent in order to find the percent error.

%Error=

|theoreticalexperimental|
theoretical

100 [ A 1]

Error Propagation
The error propagation for NOG and HOG are calculated. To determine the values for error propagation, the
following equation was used (6, p. 11)
n

( y )= a 2i 2( xi )[ A 2]
2

i=1

In order to find NOG, three variables were used: yA, yB, and x. It was assumed that the value for H
remained constant throughout the experiment. The detailed equations used to find the error values for N OG
and HOG are shown below.
yA

N OG=
yB

N OG=ln

dy
[ A 3]
yHx
y AHx
[A 4]
y BHx

d N OG
1
=
[ A 5]
d yA
y A Hx
d N OG
1
=
[A6]
d y B Hx y B

H ( yB y A )
d N OG
=
[ A 7]
dx
( y A Hx ) ( Hx y B )
2 ( N OG ) =

d N OG 2
d N OG 2
d N OG 2
1
( y A)+
( y B)+
( x) [ A 8 ]
N 1 d y A
d yB
dx

H OG=

ZT
[ A 9]
N OG

d H OG Z T
=
[ A 10 ]
d N OG N 2OG

d H OG 2
1
( N OG ) [ A 11]
N 1 d N OG

2 ( H OG ) =

In the above equations N represents the number of samples; in this experiment there were a total of nine
samples. Below are detailed tables of the intermediate steps of the error propagation calculations.
Table A-3: Error propagation of NOG for each water flow rate.
Water Flow
Rate
(cc/min)
400
500
600

Avg yA

(yA)

dNOG/dyA

Avg yB

(yB)

dNOG/dyB

0.0197
0.0197
0.0197

0.00679
0.00679
0.00679

54.958
54.953
54.945

0.000102
0.0000490
0.0000480

2.802E-05
1.153E-05
1.212E-05

-12756.337
-31489.532
-30229.887

Table A-3 continued

Water Flow
Rate (cc/min)
400
500
600

Avg x

(x)

dNOG/dx

2(NOG)

(NOG)

0.00169
0.00151
0.00123

0.000146
6.821E-05
3.603E-05

121.401
300.456
288.416

0.000319
0.000318
0.000318

0.0178
0.0178
0.0178

Table A-4: Error propagation of NOG for each air flow rate.
Air Flow
Rate
(SCFM)
4
3
2

Avg yA

(yA)

dNOG/dyA

Avg yB

(yB)

dNOG/dyB

0.0137
0.0182
0.0271

0
0
4.249E-18

72.948
54.950
36.959

0.0000830
0.0000670
4.87E-05

3.985E-05
3.119E-05
2.113E-05

-17022.773
-22341.666
-35111.317

5
Table A-4 continued
Air Flow Rate
(SCFM)
4
3
2

Avg x

(x)

dNOG/dx

2(NOG)

(NOG)

0.00140
0.00147
0.00156

0.000184
0.000243
0.000280

162.009
213.019
335.245

4.065E-06
4.293E-06
5.255E-06

0.00202
0.00207
0.00229

Table A-5: Error propagation of HOG for each water flow rate.
Water Flow
Rate (SCFM)
400
500
600

Avg NOG

(NOG)

dHOG/dNOG

2(HOG)

(HOG)

5.440
6.345
6.300

0.705
0.702
0.715

-1.014
-0.745
-0.756

0.0630
0.0458
0.0483

0.251
0.214
0.220

Table A-6: Error propagation of HOG for each air flow rate.
Air Flow Rate
(SCFM)
4
3
2

Avg NOG

(NOG)

dHOG/dNOG

2(HOG)

(HOG)

5.376
5.931
6.779

0.510
0.509
0.512

-1.038
-0.853
-0.653

0.0338
0.0276
0.0214

0.184
0.166
0.146

Plots Not Included in the Results Section

Figure A-1: Comparison of NOG values for multiple air and water flow rates.

Figure A-2: Graph of HOG at various water flow rates.

A polynomial trendline provided the best fit for HOG as a function of water flow rate.