Pioneer Papers in Convective Mass Transfer: The Two-Film Theory of Gas Absorption
Pioneer Papers in Convective Mass Transfer: The Two-Film Theory of Gas Absorption
Pioneer Papers in Convective Mass Transfer: The Two-Film Theory of Gas Absorption
(1920); Van Arsdel, Chem. & Met., vol. 23, general. From the work on humidification and
p. 1115 (1920), and vol. 28, p. 889 (1923)] dehumidification it was shown that the rate of
picture the potential as a difference between diffusion is controlled by two surface films, an
the concentration of solute in the gas (converted exterior gas film surrounding the liquid. and a
into concentration in the liquid by the solubility liquid film on the surface of the liquid. The
relations~p) and the concentration in the liquid. relative importance of these two films varied with
These two concepts may be expressed as follows : the experimental conditions, the liquid film
resistance being eliminated in. humidification
Driving potential = p. - pi = p (2) processes and amounting to 75 per cent of the
Driving potential = c, - cl = c (3) total for certain dehumidi~Gation runs. Further-
more, the effect of such variables as liquid and
where 1~~= the partial pressure of gas velocities on the resistances of the separate
solute exerted by the films differed to a considerable extent.
liquid, and In the article referred to, no attempt was made
co = the concentration of to point out the significance of the two-film
liquid which would be in theory in absorption problems. It is the purpose
equilibrium with the gas. of this paper to present this view of the absorp-
tion process and illustrate its application.
The two different formulations give the same Fig. 1 shows a liquid in contact with gas from
result for the specific case of absorption at which the solute is being absorbed. The gas and
constant temperature using a solute which liquid films at the boundary can be indicated as
obeys Henrys law-i.e., p = kc. Under these having a definite thickness, although actually no
conditions, Ap = kdc, and either expression such sharp demarcation exists. Conditions at the
would be permissible. outside of the gas film (1) are the same as in the
Consideration of the physical signi~GanGe of main body of gas, while those at the inside of the
these terms shows the cause of this divergence. liquid film (3) are the same as in the main body
In all cases (except where a slow chemical of liquid. The gas and liquid at the boundary
reaction is involved) the rate of absorption is between the two films (2) are in equilibrium.
controlled by the rate of diffusion through the Absorption occurs therefore through two fiims
surface iilms at the gas-liquid boundary. The in series. Diffusion through the gas film should
first concept pictures diffusion through a gas
film, actuated by a difference in the partial
pressure of the solute at the outside of the film
(in the main body of gas) and the inside of the
film (in eq~~brium with the liquid). The other
concept considers diffusion through a liquid film
on the surface of the main body of liquid with
diffusion controlled by a difference in concentra-
tion between the outside of the film (in equili-
brium with the gas) and the inside (the true
liquid Concentration). Actually, the choice
between these two theories has been made in
the past by selecting the one which gave most
consistent results in the experiments under
investigation at the time.
In 1922, Keats and the author published
experiments (Whitman and Keats, J. lnd. Eng.
Chem., vol. 14, p. 185) contrasting the processes
of humidification and dehumidification, and
comparing heat transfer with absorption in FIG. 1. Contact of gas and liquid phase.
PIONEER PAPERS IN CONVECTIVE MASS TRANSFER 431
Table 1
=- --- -c.-- p
dW
Run zi p, p3 AP Cl G AC &I KG
c-------mmHg------- f------g/l-
1 41.0 225 55 170 425 378 47 0.24 0.87
2 24.0 41 0.3 407 3: 204 164 0.59 0,146
3 24.1 41 0 41.0 9 359 0.59 om7
400 2.8
: 320 2.2
s 280 I.8
I
z 240 1.4
0)
; 200 I.0
:
g 160 0.6
G
8 120 0.2
> 0
80 -0.2
40 -0,6
0
-1.0
240 320 400 480 I80 220 260 300 340 380 420 460
g HCI/C g HCl/L
FIGS. 2 and 3.
FIG. 2. (At left)-Pressure-solubility relationship at 30 deg. C. FIG. 3
(At right)-Semi-log plot of Fig. 2. The crosses in Fig. 3 represent data by
Dolezalek, Z. ph. C/I., vol. 26, p. 334 (1898). and the circles are
data by Bates and Kirschman, J. Am. Chewz. Sot., vol. 41, 1897 (1919).
where treatment by the pressure potential alone It is now possible to check these figures in a
is permissible. general way by applying them to run 2.
These data can be treated from the two-film
k
concept as follows. From equations 4 and 5 2,$~=PL~~2Lz
k, . c2 - c3 c2 - 204
kc Pl - P2
(71 Referring again to Fig. 3 for corresponding
kD c2 - (3
values of pz and c2, the equation is satisfied by
and pz = 0.6 mm and c2 == 224 g/l.
Therefore,
K, _ Pl -- P2
4 Pl - P3
(*) dW
-=/&(c,-c3)=1.2x20=24g/h,
d8
By assuming that the value of K, from run 3
(where the liquid is so dilute that the back checking with the observed value in Table 1.
pressure pn is practically zero) equals k,, run 1 It is recognized that the data presented in this
can be used to calculate k,. illustration are insufficient to prove definitely the
PIONEER PAPERS IN CONVECTIVE MASS TRANSFER 333
truth of the two-film theory, and further work the relationship between concentration and
has been started along the same lines. It does, pressure is approximately a direct proportion.
however, show clearly that the methods formerly For the more complicated problems, the two-
proposed are entirely incapable of handling film theory seems fundamentally sound and the
cases of this nature, and that the concept of a preliminary experiments have afforded checks
single gas or liquid film is permissible only when as to its validity.