Sorbent Transport and Dispersion

  • L.-S. Fan
  • E. Abou-Zeida
  • S.-C. Liang
  • X. Luo


Three topics are covered in this chapter: powder characterization, powder dispersion, and modeling of powder attrition and dispersion. In the powder characterization section, powder surface properties, the results of powder transport under the influence of attraction forces, the effects of additives and temperature, and the powder mechanical properties are presented. Four sorbents are characterized—calcite, dolomite, hydrated lime and dolomitic hydrate. Calcite and dolomite have comparable median particle sizes and dolomite has a wider size distribution than the calcite. The dolomite hydrates are composed of fine particles. All the sorbents have similar morphology. It is found that the van der Waals force is dominant, compared to the electrostatic and gravitational forces, in powder agglomeration. Powder dispersion experiments show that the sorbents with the lower average van der Waals forces have greater dispersibility. Temperature has an effect on the dispersion of powders. The properties of hydrate can be modified by additives, such as lignosulfanate. SEM results show that the agglomerate size of the modified hydrate is smaller than that of the pure hydrate and the modified hydrates are less cohesive. Experimental results indicate more agglomeration and/or loss of fines at high temperatures for hydrates.

The second section compares three types of nozzles in terms of the local solid concentration and velocity at the entrance region. A particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique is developed to quantify these parameters. PIV is used to analyze the recorded agglomerate images. The uniqueness of this PIV system is its capability to measure the instantaneous characteristics of particle motions; e.g., velocity, solids concentration, and size distribution. It is found that powder dispersion is mainly due to the shear stress generated by high turbulence intensity inside the nozzles. From the experimental study on the agglomerate size distribution and the numerical simulation on the flow structures in different nozzles, the expansion nozzle with two booster jets has the optimum performance.

Attrition of sorbents can take place during handling, transport, and injection of sorbent powders, and attrition may be due to thermal, chemical, static mechanical and kinetic stresses. A stochastic model for sorbent attrition is developed. Variations of particle size distribution along with the mean and variance of the distribution during the attrition process are also presented. To simulate the powder dispersion in the nozzle, an integral model is developed. In this model, particle-particle interaction force and the hydrodynamic stress on the powder agglomerates are taken into account. The interparticle force is mainly van der Waals force. The flow structure in the nozzle is solved via computational fluid dynamics. The agglomerate size distribution is simulated by this model. Simulation results show that this model can reasonably fit the experimental data.


Particle Image Velocimetry Hamaker Constant Powder Dispersion Hydrated Lime Interparticle Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    London, F., Z. Physik, 63, 245 (1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamaker, H. C, “The London-van der Waals Attraction Between Spherical Particles,” Physica IV, No. 10, 1058 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lifshitz, E. M, “The Theory of Molecular Attractive Force Between Solids,” J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 32, 1657 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prieve, D. C. and W. B. Russel, “Simplified Predictions of Hamaker Constants from Lifshitz Theory,” J. Colloid Interface Sci., 125(1), 1 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parsegian, V. A. and G. H. Weiss, “Spectroscopic Parameters for Computation of van der Waals Forces,” J. Colloid and Interface Sci., 81, 285 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hough, D. B. and R. W Lee, “The Calculation of Hamaker Constants from Lifshitz Theory with Applications to Wetting Phenomena,” Adv. Colloid Interface Sci., 14, 3 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cross, J., EctrostaticsÑPrinciples, Problems and Applications, Adam Hilger, Bristol, England (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailey, A. G., “Electrostatic Phenomena During Powder Handling,” Powder Technology, 37, 71 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jozewicz, W. and D. A., Kirchgessner, “Activation and Reactivity of Novel Calcium-Based Sorbents for Dry SO2 Control in Boilers,” Powder Technology. 58, 221 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirchgessner, D. A. and J. M. Lorrain, “Lignosulfonate-Modified Calcium Hydroxide for Sulfur Dioxide Control,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 26, 2397 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosen, M. J., Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tadros, M. E. and I. Meyes, “Linear Growth Rates of Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate Crystals in the Presence of Additives,” J. of Colloid and Interf. Sci., 72, 245 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarig, S., “Crystal Habit Modification by Water Soluble Polymers,” J. of Cryst. Growth, 24, 338 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, B. R. and A. E. Alexander, “The Effect of Additives on the Process of Crystallization: II. Further Studies on Calcium Sulfate (I),” J. of Colloid and Interf. Sci., 34(1), 81 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soo, S. L., “Dynamics of Charged Suspension in International Reviews,” Aerosol Physics and Chemistry, edited by Hidy, G. M. and Brock, J., 2, 61 (1971)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowell, J., A. C. Rose-Innes, “Contact Electrification,” Advances in Physics, 29(6), 947 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medley, J. A., Nature, 171, 1077 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw, P. E., Proc. R. Soc, 94, 16 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carr, R. L., “Evaluating Low Properties of Solids,” Chemical Engineering, 163, January 18, 1965Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jozewicz, W. and B. K. Gullett, “The Effect of Storage Conditions on Handling and SO2 Reactivity of Ca(OH)2-Based Sorbents,” ZKG International, 5, 242 (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenike, A. W., Storage and Flow of Solids, University of Utah, Engineering Experiment Station, Salt Lake City, Bulletin No. 123 (1964)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johanson, J. R. and A. W. Jenike, Stress and Velocity Fields in Gravity Flow of Bulk Solids, University of Utah, Engineering Experiment Station, Salt Lake City, Bulletin No.1. 116 (1962)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geldart, D., N. Harnby and A. C. Wong, “Fluidization of Cohesive Powders,” Powder Technology, 37, 25 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rastogi, S., S. V. Dhodapkar, F. Cabrejos, J. Baker, M. Weintraub and G. E. Klinzing, “Survey of Characterization Techniques of Dry Ultrafine Coals and Their Relationships to Transport, Handling and Storage,” Powder Technology, 74, 47 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    EFCE, Standard Shear Testing Technique for Particulate Solids Using the Jenike Shear Cell, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, England (1989)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thomas, D. G., “Turbulent Disruption of Floes in Small Particle size Suspension” AIChE J., 10, 517 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bagster, D. F. and D. Tomi, “The Stresses within a Sphere in Simple Flow Fields,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 29, 1733–1741 (1974)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masuda, H., S. Fushiro and K. Inoya, “Experimental study on the dispersion of fine particles in air,” J. Assoc. Powder Tech. Japan, 14, 3–10 (1977)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kousaka, Y., K. Okuyama, A. Shimizu and T. Yosia, “Mechanism of dispersion of aggregate particles in air” J. Chem. Eng. Japan, 12, 152–158 (1979)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patakankar, S. V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY (1980)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chraibi, M. A. and G. Flamant, Powder Technology, 59, 97 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wei, J., W. Lee and R. F. Krambech, Chem. Eng. Sci. 32, 1211 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Valentas, K. J., O. Bilous and N. R. Amundson, “Analysis of Breakage in Dispersed Phase Systems,” Ind. and Eng. Chem. Fund., 5, 271 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Coulaloglou, C. A. and L. L. Tavlarides, “Description of Interaction Processes in Agitated Liquid-Liquid Dispersions,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 32, 1289 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ramkrishna, D., “The Status of Population Balances,” Rev. Chem. Eng., 3, 49 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tsouris, C. and L. L. Tavlarides, “Breakage and Coalescence Models for Drops in Turbulent Dispersions,” AIChE J., 40, 395 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang, Y, H. Arastoopour and M. H. Hariri, “Agglomeration of Polyolefin Particles in a Fluidized Bed With a Central Jet, Part II-Theory,” Powder Technology, 74, 239 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 39.
    Sommerfeld, Martin, “Particle Dispersion in Turbulent Flow: The Effect of Particle Size Distribution,” Part. Part. Syst. Charact., 7, 209 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 40.
    Picart, A., A. Berlemont and G. Gouesbet, “Modelling and Predicting Turbulence Fields and The Dispersion of Discrete Particles Transported by Turbulent Flows,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 12,2, 237 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 41.
    Hinze, J. O., “Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of Splitting in Dispersion Processes,” AIChE J., 1, 289 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 42.
    Shaw, P. E., “Experiments on Tribo-Electricity I-The Tribo-Electric Series,” Proc. R. Soc, 94, 16 (1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 43.
    Lowell, J. and A. C. Rose-Innes, “Contact Electrification,” Adv. in Physics, 29, 947 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 44.
    Kittaka, B., Masui and Y Murata, “A Method for Measuring the Charging Tendency of Powder in Pneumatic Conveyance through Metal Pipes,” J. of Electrostatics, 6, 181 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 45.
    Nifuku, M., T. Ishikawa and T. Sasaki, “Static Electrification Phenomena in Pneumatic Transportation of Coal,” J. of Electrostatics, 23, 45 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 46.
    Gajewski, A., “Measuring the Charging Tendency of Polystyrene Particles in Pneumatic Conveyance,” J. of Electrostatics, 23, 55 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 47.
    Soo, S. L. Fluid Dynamics of Multiphase Systems, Science Press, Beijing, China (1990)Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    Cole, B. N., M. R. Baum and F. R. Mobbs, “An Investigation of Electrostatic Charging Effects in High-Speed Gas-Solids Pipe Flows,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., 184, Pt 3C, 77 (1970)Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Masuda, H., T. Komatsu and K. Iinoys, “The Static Electrification of Particles in Gas-Solids Pipe,” AIChE J., 22, 558 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 50.
    Cheng, L. and S. L. Soo, “Charging of Dust Particles by Impact,” J. Appl. Phys. 41, 585 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • L.-S. Fan
    • 1
  • E. Abou-Zeida
    • 1
  • S.-C. Liang
    • 1
  • X. Luo
    • 1
  1. 1.The Department of Chemical EngineeringThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations