BUBBLE COLUMN REACTOR

Assignment 5

Multiphase Reactor Engineering

CH3061

Group 2
Ioannis Patakos (6310028) – MSc Sustainable Energy Technology
Lesna Christwinarso (6136877) – MSc Sustainable Energy Technology
Thoriq Fauzan Ariandi (6290396) – MSc Sustainable Energy Technology
Abdul Aziiz Nugraha (6205135) – MSc Sustainable Energy Technology

Date of Submission: 18-03-2025

 Table of Contents
1. List of Symbols ...........................................................................................................................................3
2. Background ................................................................................................................................................4
3. Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................................4
4. Model Development ...................................................................................................................................5
4.1 Bubble Terminal Velocity .................................................................................................................5
4.2 Mass Transfer Coefficient 𝑘𝐿𝑎 Expression.......................................................................................5
4.3 Molar Balance Equation for CO2 and OH- in The Aqueous Phase ...................................................6
4.3.1 CO2 Mole Balance in Liquid Phase ......................................................................................7
4.3.2 OH- Mole Balance in Liquid Phase ......................................................................................7
4.4 Gas Hold-Up .....................................................................................................................................7
5. Results and Discussion ..............................................................................................................................8
5.1 Bubble Terminal Velocity (Point a) ..................................................................................................8
5.2 Molar Balance Equation for CO2 and OH- in The Aqueous Phase (Point b) ....................................8
5.3 Calculation of 𝑘𝐿𝑎 (Point c) ............................................................................................................9
5.4 Gas Hold-Up and Flow Regime (Point d) .........................................................................................9
5.5 Simulation Results (Point e) ............................................................................................................10
6. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................11
7. References ................................................................................................................................................12
Appendix ..........................................................................................................................................................13
A. APPENDIX 1 – Python Code .........................................................................................................13
B. APPENDIX 2 – Timesheet..............................................................................................................15

2
1. List of Symbols
All the symbols and expressions in this assignment are provided in the following table.
Table 1-1 List of Symbols
Symbol Description Unit
𝜌𝑙 Liquid Phase Density 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝜌𝑔 Gas Phase Density 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑉𝑏 Volume of The Gas Bubble 𝑚3
𝑔 Gravitational Acceleration 𝑚/𝑠 2
𝐴𝑏 Cross-sectional Area of The Gas Bubble 𝑚2
𝐶𝐷 Drag Coefficient −
𝐸𝑜 Eötvös Number −
𝑑𝑏 Bubble Diameter 𝑚
𝑛̇ 𝑎 Molar flow of species 𝑎 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑠
𝜎 Surface Tension 𝑁/𝑚
𝑢𝑔 Superficial Gas Velocity 𝑚/𝑠
𝐴𝑟 Cross-sectional Area of The Reactor 𝑚2
𝑄𝑔 Gas Volumetric Flowrate 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑘𝐿 𝑎 Mass Transfer Coefficient 𝑚/𝑠
𝑃 Pressure 𝑃𝑎
𝑃a Partial Pressure of species 𝑎 𝑃𝑎
𝑇 Temperature 𝐾
𝑅 The Ideal Gas Constant 𝐽/(𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾)
𝑀𝑔𝑎𝑠 The Gas Mixture Molar Mass 𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑀𝑊𝑎 Molecular Weight of Component 𝑎 𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝑢𝑡 Bubble Terminal Velocity 𝑚/𝑠
𝜀𝑏 Gas Hold-Up −
𝑉𝑔 Volume of the gas phase 𝑚3
𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 Volume of the liquid phase 𝑚3
𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 Total Volume 𝑚3
𝑉̇ Volumetric flow rate 𝑙/𝑠
𝐴𝑔 Cross-Sectional Area of The Gas Phase 𝑚2
𝐻 Height of The Reactor 𝑚
𝑄𝑏 Bubbles Volumetric Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝐿
𝐶𝑎 𝑖 Concentration of species 𝑎 at the liquid interface 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑚3
𝐿
𝐶𝑎 𝑏 Concentration of species 𝑎 on the liquid bulk 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑚3
𝐺
𝐶𝑎 𝑏 Concentration of species 𝑎 on the gas bulk 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑚3
𝐺
𝐶𝑎 𝑖 Concentration of species 𝑎 at the gas interface 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝑚3
𝐻𝐿 Henry’s Constant −
𝐹𝐵𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 Buoyancy Force 𝑁
𝐹𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 Gravitational Force 𝑁
𝐹𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 Drag Force 𝑁

3
2. Background
In this assignment, the chemical absorption of CO2 in NaOH solution is studied. The CO2 will react with the
hydroxide ions to produce carbonate ions. The reaction takes place in a bubble column with the liquid phase in
batch and the gas phase is the continuous phase. First, the bubble terminal velocity is calculated and the molar
balance equation for the CO2 and OH- in the aqueous phase is determined. Then, the flow regime inside the
reactor is discussed based on the calculation of the gas hold up. Finally, the concentration of CO2 and OH- is
plotted as a function over time.

3. Assumptions
The main steps of the process are:

CO2(g) → CO2(aq) (1)

NaOH ⇌ Na+ −
(aq) + OH(aq) (2)

CO2(aq) + OH − ⇌ HCO−
3 (3)

HCO− − 2−
3 + OH ⇌ CO3 + H2 O (4)

1. Sodium ions (Na+) are neglected as they do not participate in the reactions. Thus, they do not influence the
absorption of CO2 from the gas to the liquid phase or the reaction kinetics.
2. The formation of CO3-2 (Eq. 4) is ignored, assuming that only HCO3− forms. This simplifies the reaction
mechanism and mass balance equations, as OH- participates in only one reaction. This assumption only
holds at pH > 10 as observed by Michelson et al., 2023.
3. Only the forward reaction is considered for equation (3), further simplifying the reaction kinetics and mass
balance equations.
4. The liquid phase is assumed to be ideally mixed, meaning the concentration is uniform throughout the
reactor. As a result, there are no concentration gradients along reactor position that could impact reaction
rates.
5. The reduction in bubble volume due to CO2 absorption and the consumption of CO2 in the gas phase are
ignored. Therefore, the liquid volume and total reactor volume remain constant, and the concentration of
CO2 in the gas phase does not change over time. Consequently, the gas hold-up remains constant.
6. The bubbles are assumed to behave as fluid particles, which is used to calculate the gas terminal velocity.
7. The solubility of CO2 in the liquid phase follows Henry’s law.
8. The mass transfer resistance in the gas phase is assumed to be negligible compared to the liquid phase
resistance. This assumption is based on the findings of Michelson et al., 2023, in which for poorly soluble
gas such as CO2, the mass transfer is limited in the liquid phase. Thus, the CO2 concentration in the gas-
liquid interphase is the same as in the gas bulk phase.
9. The bubbles rise with their terminal velocity, assuming that each bubble is independent of the others. This
assumption helps to the calculation of the gas hold-up, and its validity is assessed based on the flow regime.
10. The Process condition is at standard condition in atmospheric pressure and 298.15 K.
11. The gases inside the bubbles behave as ideal gases, which simplifies the calculation of the CO2
concentration in the gas phase.

4
4. Model Development
4.1 Bubble Terminal Velocity
The force balance applied on a gas phase (bubble) in a liquid is illustrated in
Figure 4-1. The figure demonstrates that the rising velocity of a single bubble
is governed by the interaction between buoyancy and drag forces. As these
forces reach equilibrium, the bubble achieves a nearly constant rising velocity,
i.e. the bubble terminal velocity, after approaching a steady state. The force
balance applied on the bubble can be expressed as follows.
𝐹𝐵𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝐹𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 + 𝐹𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 (1)
Where, the buoyancy force; 𝐹𝐵𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 , is the upward force applied by the
liquid into the gas bubble, while the downward force is primarily affected by
the gas bubble gravitational force; 𝐹𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 , and gas bubble drag force, 𝐹𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 .

The buoyant force can be described from the following Archimedes’ law.
𝐹𝐵𝑢𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝜌𝑙 𝑉𝑏 𝑔 (2)
Figure 4-1 Force Balance Meanwhile, the gravitational force applied by the gas bubble is expressed as.
on A Bubble in a Liquid
Phase 𝐹𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝜌𝑔 𝑉𝑏 𝑔 (3)
Lastly, the drag force of the gas bubble is given by.
1
𝐹𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 2 𝐶𝐷 𝜌𝑙 𝐴𝑏 𝑢𝑡2 (4)
The instruction outlined the equation for calculating the drag coefficient; 𝐶𝐷 , which included the Eötvös
number as follows.
2
𝐶𝐷 = √𝐸𝑜 (5)
3

2 (𝜌𝑙 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏2

𝐶𝐷 = 3 √ 𝜎
(6)

Combining all the equations given above will result in the following expression.
4 𝑑 3 4 𝑑 3 1 2 (𝜌𝑙 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏2 𝑑 2
𝜌𝑙 3 𝜋 ( 2𝑏 ) 𝑔 = [𝜌𝑔 3 𝜋 ( 2𝑏 ) 𝑔] − [2 (3 √ 𝜎
) 𝜌𝑙 𝜋 ( 2𝑏 ) 𝑢𝑡2 ] (7)

Rearranging equation (7) to give the expression for the bubble terminal velocity, 𝑣𝑡 .
1 (𝜌𝑙 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏2 4 𝑑
(3 √ 𝜎
) 𝜌𝑙 𝜋𝑢𝑡2 = (𝜌𝑙 − 𝜌𝑔 ) 3 𝜋 ( 2𝑏 ) 𝑔 (8)

2(𝜌𝑙 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏

𝑢𝑡 = √ 2
(9)
(𝜌 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏
𝜌𝑙 √ 𝑙
𝜎

4.2 Mass Transfer Coefficient (𝒌𝑳 𝒂) Expression

The equation to determine the mass transfer coefficient; 𝑘𝐿 𝑎, is described in the instruction as a function of
superficial gas velocity and expressed as follows.
𝑘𝐿 𝑎 = 0.467 ∙ u0.82
g (10)
Superficial gas velocity inlet to the bubble column reactor can be derived from the volumetric flow and reactor
cross-sectional area. Thus, the expression to calculate the gas velocity can be written as.

5
 𝑄𝑔
𝑢𝑔 = 𝐴𝑟
(11)

Combining equation (10) to (11), the mass transfer coefficient can be further derived as follows.
𝑄 0.82
𝑘𝐿 𝑎 = 0.467 ∙ ( 𝐴𝑔) (12)
𝑟
Therefore, based on the equation (12), mass transfer coefficient will be obtainable with the given volumetric
flowrate and cross-sectional area of the reactor.
4.3 Molar Balance Equation for CO2 and OH- in The Aqueous Phase

Figure 4-2 Schematic Diagram of Bubble Reactor

CO2 mass transfer takes place from the phase with a higher concentration, which is the gas phase, into one with
relatively lower concentration, which is the liquid phase, followed by a subsequent reaction that consumes CO2
and OH- in the liquid phase as illustrated in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3 illustrates the simplification of mass transfer
𝐺 𝐺
resistance in accordance to the 8th assumption in Section 3 (Michelson et al., 2023), in which 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 = 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑖 2 .

Figure 4-3 Schematic Diagram of Bubble Reactor

6
 4.3.1 CO2 Mole Balance in Liquid Phase
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 − 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ± 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Molar inflow of CO2 into the liquid phase is attributed to the interphase mass transfer, while its consumption can be
regarded to the second order of the forward reaction in Eq. 3. The reaction presents exclusively in the liquid phase;
thus, it is evaluated at 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 . While adapting the findings of Michelson et al., 2023, the interphase mass transfer is
evaluated at the total volume of the reactor.

𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝑑 𝐿
𝑘𝐿 𝑎(𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑖 2 − 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 )𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 0 − 𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 =
𝑑𝑡
(𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 ) (13)
𝑏 𝐿
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑂
𝑘𝐿 𝑎(𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑖 2 − 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 )𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑
𝑑𝑡
2
(14)
𝐿𝑏
𝐿 𝐿 𝑉𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿 𝐿 𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑂
𝑘𝐿 𝑎(𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑖 2 − 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 ) − 𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− =
2
(15)
𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑡

i L
By neglecting the gas phase mass transfer resistance according to Michelson et al., 2023, CCO 2
can be assumed
to be saturated with gas phase concentration of CO2 following Henry’s Law, thus:
𝐺
𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏
2
𝐻𝐿 = 𝐿𝑖
(16)
𝐶𝐶𝑂
2

The concentration of CO2 in the gas phase, under ideal gas law, can be calculated as:
𝑃𝐶𝑂2 𝑉̇ = 𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2 𝑅𝑇 (17)

𝑃𝐶𝑂2 𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2
𝑅𝑇
= 𝑉̇
(18)

𝑛̇ 𝐶𝑂2 𝑃 𝐺
𝑛̇ 𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑅𝑇
= 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 (19)

𝐺
By assuming CO2 in excess conditions, 𝐶𝐶𝑂2
can be assumed to be constant throughout time.

4.3.2 OH- Mole Balance in Liquid Phase

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 − 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ± 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

OH- presents exclusively in the liquid phase and its consumption can be regarded as the second order of the forward
reaction in Eq. 3.

𝐿 𝐿 𝑑 𝐿
0 − 0 − 𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 =
𝑑𝑡
𝑏
(𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝐶𝑂𝐻 − ) (20)

𝑏 𝐿
𝐿 𝐿 𝑑𝐶𝑂𝐻 −
−𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 𝑉𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑
𝑑𝑡
(21)
𝐿𝑏
𝐿 𝐿 𝑑𝐶𝑂𝐻 −
−𝑘1 𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑏2 𝐶𝑂𝐻
𝑏
− =
𝑑𝑡
(22)
4.4 Gas Hold-Up
The gas hold-up can be calculated as the ratio of the volume of the gas phase to the total volume of the reactor.
Since the volume is the ratio of the cross-sectional area to the height of the reactor, and given that the reactor
7
height remains constant under the reaction conditions and the constant gas flow rate, the gas hold-up can be
determined as:
𝑉𝑔 𝐴𝑔 𝐻 𝐴𝑔
𝜀𝑏 = 𝑉 = 𝐴𝑟 𝐻
= 𝐴𝑟
(23)
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

The total gas volumetric flow rate in the reactor is equal to the volumetric flow rate of the bubbles, given that
the volume and composition of the bubbles remain constant. It should be noted that bubbles rise at their terminal
velocity under the assumption of a bubbly flow regime, meaning there is no interaction between bubbles, which
implies a low gas fraction in the column, a constant bubble size, and a steady liquid phase.
Since the volumetric flow rate is the product of the cross-sectional area and the velocity:
𝐴𝑔 𝑢𝑔
𝑄𝑔 = 𝑄𝑏 → 𝑢𝑔 𝐴𝑟 = 𝑢𝑡 𝐴𝑔 → 𝐴𝑟
= 𝑢𝑡
(24)

Combing Equations (23) and (24):

𝑢𝑔
𝜀𝑏 = 𝑢𝑡
(25)

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Bubble Terminal Velocity (Point a)
As stated in the instructions, the process is conducted in a bubble column reactor with a batch liquid phase,
while the gas phase; comprising of 30 mol% CO₂ and 70 mol% N₂, is continuously fed into the reactor. The
process is assumed to operate under standard conditions; therefore, the gas bubble density can be approximated
using the ideal gas law, as follows.
𝑃𝑀𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝜌𝑔 =
𝑅𝑇
𝑃[(%𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶𝑂2 ∙ 𝑀𝑊𝐶𝑂2 ) + (%𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑁2 ∙ 𝑀𝑊𝑁2 )]
𝜌𝑔 =
𝑅𝑇
101325 𝑃𝑎 [(0.3 ∙ 44.01 𝑘𝑔/𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙) + (0.7 ∙ 28.014 𝑘𝑔/𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙)]
𝜌𝑔 =
8,314.46 𝐽/(𝑘𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐾) ∙ 298.15 𝐾
𝜌𝑔 = 1.34 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Additionally, the liquid phase density; 𝜌𝑙 , is assumed to be equal to the density of water. Thus, by incorporating
the given parameters from the instruction and the calculated variables into the equation (9), the bubble terminal
velocity; 𝑣𝑡 , can be determined below.
2(𝜌𝑙 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏
𝑢𝑡 = √ 2
(9)
(𝜌 −𝜌𝑔 )𝑔𝑑𝑏
𝜌𝑙 √ 𝑙
𝜎

2 ∙ (1000 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 − 1.34 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ) ∙ 9.81 𝑚/𝑠2 ∙ 0.01 𝑚 𝑚

𝑢𝑡 = = 0.231
√ (1000 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 − 1.34 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ) ∙ 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 2 ∙ (0.01 𝑚)2 𝑠
1000 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 √
0.073 𝑁/𝑚

5.2 Molar Balance Equation for CO2 and OH- in The Aqueous Phase (Point b)
The molar balance equation has been derived in detail in the Section 4.3. The expression of each molar balance
can be referred to equation (15) and (22).

8
 5.3 Calculation of 𝒌𝑳 𝒂 (Point c)
The superficial gas velocity represents the velocity that the gas would have if it were flowing through the
reactor as a single phase, ignoring the presence of the liquid phase. Therefore, the superficial gas velocity is
given by.
𝑄𝑔
𝑢𝑔 = 𝐴𝑟
(11)
𝜋𝐷 2 𝜋12
The cross-sectional area of the reactor is given by: 𝐴𝑟 = 4
= 4
= 0.785 𝑚2.
Given the gas volumetric flow rate of 𝑄𝑔 = 100 𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛 or 0.0017 𝑚3 /𝑠, thereby the superficial gas velocity is
calculated as follows.
0.0017 𝑚3 /𝑠 𝑚
𝑢𝑔 = 2
= 0.0022
0.785 𝑚 𝑠

Finally, from the calculated superficial velocity, the mass transfer coefficient can be determined using the
equation (12) in the operation below.
𝑘𝐿 𝑎 = 0.467 ∙ u0.82
g (10)
𝑚 0.82 𝑚
𝑘𝐿 𝑎 = 0.467 ∙ (0.0022 ) = 0.003
𝑠 𝑠
5.4 Gas Hold-Up and Flow Regime (Point d)
𝑢𝑔 0.0022
Using Equation (25), the gas hold-up is: 𝜀𝑏 = = = 0.0095 (0.95%).
𝑢𝑡 0.231

The gas superficial velocity is 0.0022 m/s. Therefore, the flow regime falls within the homogeneous (bubbly)
flow region, as illustrated in Figure 5-1. This flow regime occurs at low superficial gas velocities and is
characterized by an almost uniform bubble size distribution, with minimal bubble interactions and negligible
coalescence (Wongsaroj et al., 2023; Mahmoudi & Hlawitschka, 2021). Given these characteristics, the bubbles
rise with their terminal velocity, as each bubble can be considered independent of the others. Consequently, the
assumption that bubbles rise with their terminal velocity for the calculation of the gas hold-up is valid.

The absence of coalescence results in a higher number of small bubbles, leading to a greater specific surface
area, which is beneficial for mass transfer of CO2 from the gas phase to the liquid phase and enhances the
reaction rate. Additionally, the bubbles contribute to mixing of the liquid phase without causing significant
turbulence, ensuring a uniform composition throughout the reactor. Moreover, uniform bubbles result in
consistent mass transfer and reaction rates throughout the reactor, minimizing concentration gradients, which
is crucial for accurately modeling the reactor and predicting its performance.
If the flow regime needs to be changed, it can be achieved by increasing the superficial gas velocity through a
higher volumetric gas inflow rate, as illustrated in Figure 5-1. At higher superficial gas velocities, the flow
regime transitions from homogeneous (bubbly) flow to the transition region and then to either the slug flow or
churn-turbulent flow regions. As the superficial gas velocity increases in the transition region, bubble
coalescence and interactions between bubbles become significant, meaning that bubbles can no longer be
assumed to be independent of one another.
The slug flow regime is not observed in industrial reactors due to their large diameters (Mahmoudi &
Hlawitschka, 2021). Slug flow typically characterized by large bubbles covering the entire diameter of the
reactor (Mahmoudi & Hlawitschka, 2021). However, in the reactor examined, the diameter is too large for slug
flow to be observed.

9
In the churn-turbulent flow regime, bubble coalescence occurs, leading to the formation of larger bubbles and
a wider bubble size distribution (Wongsaroj et al., 2023; Mahmoudi & Hlawitschka, 2021). Consequently, the
gas hold-up increases, and the specific surface area and residence time of the bubbles decreases, which limits
mass transfer and reaction rates, and the turbulence and mixing in the liquid phase increases due to the presence
of larger bubbles. At this stage, the assumption that bubbles rise with their terminal velocity is no longer valid.
Also, it should be noted that, in this case, better mixing is achieved due to the turbulent flow.

Figure 5-1 Flow Regime Map (Mahmoudi & Hlawitschka, 2021)

5.5 Simulation Results (Point e)

The concentration profiles of CO2 and OH⁻ as a function of time over the first 10 seconds after introducing
bubbles into the bubble column are presented in Figure 5-2a and Figure 5-2b, respectively. The initial
concentration of CO2 was calculated using Henry’s constant (0.83) and assuming that it behaves as an ideal
gas:
𝑔 𝑃𝐶𝑂
𝐶𝐶𝑂 2
𝐿 𝑅𝑇
𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑖 2 = 𝐻𝐿
2
= 𝐻𝐿
(26)

Additionally, based on the stoichiometry of reaction (2), the initial concentration of OH⁻ is equal to the initial
concentration of NaOH (0.04 mol/L).

From the graphs, it is observed that the concentrations of both CO2 and OH- decrease with time as they are
consumed by reaction (3), which proceeds irreversibly in the forward direction. It should also be noted that the
mass transfer of CO2 from the gas phase to the liquid phase acts as a limiting factor for the process, as the
dissolved CO2 is consumed more rapidly than new CO2 can transfer from the gas to the liquid phase. After 10
seconds, the CO2 concentration has significantly decreased, and the reaction remains dominant compared to
mass transfer. Similarly, the concentration of OH- is significantly reduced after 10 seconds due to its
consumption by reaction (3).

In both diagrams, the slope clearly indicates that the consumption rate decreases over time, as lower reactant
concentrations result in lower reaction rates. According to the stoichiometry of reaction (3), the moles of CO 2
and OH⁻ consumed should be equal. Although this is fundamentally valid, the minor difference between the
initial and final concentrations stems from the continuous mass transfer of CO2 from the gas phase into the
10
liquid phase. The mass transfer rate increases as the dissolved CO2 concentration decreases, driven by the
increasing concentration gradient between the gas and liquid phases.

a b

Figure 5-2 a) CO2 concentration as a function of time, b) OH- concentration as a function of time

6. Conclusions
The bubble terminal velocity was calculated by force balance method with the drag force calculated from the
Eotvos number, yielding bubble terminal velocity 𝑣𝑡 to be 0.231 m/s. To simulate the reaction, molar balance
equations for the CO2 and OH- were developed. The mass transfer coefficient was calculated using the formula
given in the assignment, yielding 𝑘𝐿 𝑎 to be 0.003 m/s. The gas hold-up was calculated to be 0.95%. With
superficial velocity of 0.0022 m/s, the flow regime inside the reactor falls within the homogenous (bubbly)
flow region. From the simulation, it is observed that the concentration of CO2 and OH- decrease with time,
indicating that they are consumed by the reaction to produce carbonate. The consumption rate also decreases
over time as reactant concentrations decrease. It can also be noted that the mass transfer of CO2 from the gas
phase to the liquid phase acts as the limiting factor.

11
7. References
Mahmoudi, S., & Hlawitschka, M. W. (2022). Effect of solid particles on the slurry bubble columns
behavior – A review. ChemBioEng Reviews, 9(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cben.202100032

Michelson, J., Päivi Mäki-Arvela, Rajala, P., Hallapuro, M., Schmid, D., Oskar Karlström, Johan Wärnå,
& Dmitry Yu Murzin. (2023). Modeling of a bubble column for CO 2 removal by absorption with
NaOH. Chemical Engineering Communications, 211(4), 3–4.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00986445.2023.2261105

Wongsaroj, W., Pulsawat, J., Shoji, N., Thong-Un, N., Treenusorn, W., & Kikura, H. (2023).
Classification of flow regimes in bubble column using the integration of ultrasound and KNN
algorithm. 14th International Symposium on Ultrasonic Doppler Methods for Fluid Mechanics
and Fluid Engineering, Kobe, Japan.

12
Appendix
A. APPENDIX 1 – Python Code

13
14
B. APPENDIX 2 – Timesheet

Start Total
Date End Time Name Activity
Time Time
13/03/2024 12:45 13:15 00:30 All Group Meeting.
13/03/2024 06:00 06:30 00:30 Lesna Contructing mass balance.
13/03/2024 14:00 15:00 01:00 Lesna Literature study in interphase mass transfer
13/03/2024 15:45 16:45 01:00 Lesna Finalising mass balance.
Constructing the derivation for bubble
15/03/2024 08:00 09:30 01:30 Aziiz
terminal velocity.
15/03/2024 12:00 15:00 03:00 Aziiz Writing the report for question a and c.
17/03/2024 22:00 00:00 02:00 Thoriq Check report and write introduction.
17/03/2025 09:00 12:00 03:00 Ioannis Gas hold-up calculation, flow regime.
17/03/2025 20:00 00:00 04:00 Ioannis Python code.
Write conclusion, checking formula and
18/03/2024 13:00 14:30 01:30 Thoriq
symbol list.
18/03/2025 10:00 12:00 02:00 Ioannis Comments on the simulation results.
Tidying up the report and adding
18/03/2025 18:00 18:30 00:30 Aziiz
appendices.

15