2. Table of Contents
Nomenclature Page
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Experimental Procedure 3 - 4
Tabulated Data 4 - 16
Sample Calculation 16 - 17
Discussion and Conclusion 18
Plots and Table 19 - 23
3. Abstract
The objective of this experiment is to study the hazards of a small scale exothermic reaction for
the safe scale-up of the same exothermic reaction in a continuous stirred tank reactor, and how
reaction conditions of an exothermic reaction changes depending on the size of the reactor
volume.
We carried out a batch operation of an exothermic reaction which was studied to allow us to
design a continuous stirred tank reactor operation of the same exothermic reaction. Systems
studied were mainly reaction kinetics.
We expected our results to show a sharp contrast in reaction behavior in different sized flasks
because different size to volume ratios of flasks used affected the temperature gradients and
concentration gradients of solutions within the flask which in turn affected the values of the heat
transfer coefficient and temperature values. Higher values of heat transfer coefficient were
expected for the 1000ml sized flask than to the 150ml flask.
The major problems encountered during our experiment was the use of an ineffective stir bar
and an ice bath whose temperature was not constant. However, the stir bar was later replaced
with a stirring rod and this produced much better results of temperature versus time. In the
continuous stirred tank reactor, the ice bath will be replaced by a cooling jacket of containing
flowing water at 250
C.
1.
4. Introduction
An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases heat to the surroundings. The
energy needed to initiate the exothermic reaction is less than the energy released from the
reaction.
Controlling an exothermic reaction is important as without cooling or sufficient heat removal
some exothermic reactions can lead to explosions. If heat is not removed from the system when
an exothermic reaction is going on, the build up of heat in the system and an increase in
temperature will further increase the rate of reaction as the reaction proceeds. Thus, leading to an
increase in generation of heat and eventually a thermal runaway will occur.
In this experiment a batch operation of the exothermic iodide-catalyzed decomposition reaction
of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen was carried out.
H2O2 (l) + KI (l) → H2O (l) + O2 (g) ∆Ho
= - 98 kJ/mol
Rate = - d[H2O2]/dt = k0 exp (-Ea / R.T )[H2O2][ I -
] (Clark et al., 2018)
Difference between heat generated and heat removed from the system is, C.m.(dT/dt ) =
-V.∆Ho.
(rate) + U.A. (Ti – T), where C is the specific heat in J/kg.K, m is the mass of the
solution in kg, V is the reaction volume in L, U is the overall heat transfer coefficient in W/m2
K,
A is the area available for heat transfer in m2
, Ti is the temperature of the ice bath, and T is the
reaction temperature.
Solving the last two equations simultaneously provides information for T and [H2O2] in the
reactor as a function of time. This will vary in the different sized beakers. However, before this
can be done the heat transfer coefficient has to be solved for each beaker using the equation (Ti -
To) / (Ti – T) = exp(U.A.t/C.m). Here To is the initial temperature of a known mass of water.
2.
5. Experimental
On the first day, an iodide-catalyzed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide reaction was carried
out. In a 1000ml beaker containing a stirring magnet, 150 mL of H2O2 solution and 50mL of
0.1M of KI were added. Before addition of the two solutions to the beaker, initial temperatures
of both KI and H2O2 were recorded. After addition of the two solutions in the beaker,
temperature was recorded every ten seconds using a stopwatch and a thermocouple. However,
after several minutes temperature of the solution started to increase at an alarming rate.
To decrease the chances of a thermal runaway from occurring again, the experiment was
repeated with a diluted solution of H2O2 and with an ice bath. Before this could be done, several
runs of titration were carried out to find the actual percentage of H2O2 in its solution. From
titration, the solution was found to contain approximately 40% of H2O2, a higher amount than
what was thought to be known. This solution of H2O2 was then diluted to a solution containing
25% H2O2.
Repetition of the experiment with a newly prepared diluted solution was then carried out twice
in two different sized beakers and volumes of solutions. In a 1000ml beaker containing a stirring
magnet, 150mL of 25% H2O2 solution and 50ml of 0.1M of KI solution were added. In a 150ml
beaker containing a stirring magnet, 30ml of 25% H2O2 solution and 15 ml of 0.1M KI solution
were added. In addition, each beaker was added in an ice bath and before mixing of the two
solutions the initial temperatures of both solutions and the ice bath were recorded. The level of
the water in the ice bath was also adjusted to match the total volume of solution in the respective
beaker. Once the solutions were added, temperature was recorded every ten seconds using a
stopwatch and a thermocouple.
This experiment was repeated once more in both the 1000ml beaker and the 150ml beaker,
using the same volumes of solutions that were used previously in their respective beakers.
However, this time, a stirring rod was used instead of a stirring magnet, to allow better mixing of
the solution in the beaker, and temperature was recorded every ten seconds with a LabView
program. A total of four runs of the peroxide decomposition reaction was carried out and graphs
of temperature versus time for each run was plotted.
Values of heat transfer coefficients of the 1000 ml and a 150ml beaker also needed to be
known. In a 1000ml flask containing a stirring magnet 150ml of cold water and 50ml of hot
water was added. In a 150ml flask containing a stirring magnet, 30 ml of cold water and 15 ml of
hot water was added. Each beaker was placed in an ice bath. Initial temperatures of the cold
water, hot water, and the ice bath were recorded. Once mixing of the different temperatures of
water began, temperatures were recorded every ten seconds using a thermocouple and a
stopwatch. A graph of ln (Ti-T0)/(Ti-T) versus time was plotted for both the 1000ml beaker and
the 150ml beaker. The total volumes of water in each beaker was equal to the total volume of
solution that was added to their respective beaker. This was to ensure that the heat transfer area
was the same. The heat transfer coefficient of the beaker was found by multiplying the slope of
the graph with (C.m/A) with C being the heat capacity of water 4185.5 J/kg..K, m is the total
3.
6. mass of water in the beaker in kg, and A is the heat transfer area in m2
.
Flask Size (mL) Volume of 25% Peroxide
Solution / Volume of Cold
Water (mL)
Volume of 0.1M KI/ Volume
of Hot Water (mL)
150 30 15
1000 150 50
Tabulated Data
Peroxide Decomposition in 150mL Beaker
Elapsed
Time (s) T (o
C)
Elapsed
Time (s) T (o
C)
Elapsed
Time (s) T (o
C)
Elapsed
Time (s) T (o
C)
10 7.7 500 13.8 990 15.2 1480 14.3
20 9.3 510 13.9 1000 15.2 1490 14.2
30 9 520 13.8 1010 15.7 1500 14.2
40 8.9 530 13.9 1020 15.3 1510 14.2
50 9.6 540 14 1030 15.2 1520 14.1
60 9.1 550 14.1 1040 15.3 1530 14
70 9.2 560 14.5 1050 15.3 1540 14
80 9.2 570 14.4 1060 15.3 1550 14
90 9.2 580 14.6 1070 15.3 1560 14
100 9.3 590 14.3 1080 15.3 1570 14
110 9.4 600 14.3 1090 15.3 1580 13.9
120 9.5 610 14.2 1100 15.3 1590 13.9
130 9.6 620 14.6 1110 15.3 1600 13.8
140 9.8 630 14.6 1120 15.3 1610 13.8
150 9.9 640 14.6 1130 15.3 1620 13.8
160 10 650 14.9 1140 15.2 1630 13.7
170 10.2 660 14.8 1150 15.2 1640 13.7
180 10.3 670 15 1160 15.1 1650 13.7
190 10.4 680 14.5 1170 15.1 1660 13.7
200 10.6 690 14.6 1180 15 1670 13.7
210 10.7 700 14.9 1190 15.1 1680 13.6
220 10.8 710 14.5 1200 15 1690 13.5
230 11 720 14.5 1210 15 1700 13.5
240 11 730 14.9 1220 15.2 1710 13.4
250 11 740 15 1230 15 1720 13.4
260 11.2 750 14.5 1240 15 1730 13.4
270 11.3 760 15 1250 15 1740 13.6
280 11.4 770 15 1260 15 1750 13.5
290 11.4 780 15.3 1270 15 1760 13.5
300 11.5 790 15.7 1280 14.5 1770 14.1
18. 1220 20.9 2.2 7.9 3.280702 1.188057
1230 20.9 2.2 7.7 3.4 1.223775
1250 20.9 2.2 7.8 3.339286 1.205757
1260 20.9 2.2 7.6 3.462963 1.242125
1270 20.9 2.2 7.7 3.4 1.223775
1290 20.9 2.2 7.6 3.462963 1.242125
1300 20.9 2.2 7.5 3.528302 1.260817
Sample Calculations
Dilution of 40% H202 in Solution to 25% H202 Solution
40% H2O2 solution = (40 g H2O2/100mL water) * (1 mol/34.0147g) = 0.011759 mol/mL
= 11. 759 mol/L
25% H2O2 solution = (25 g H2O2/100mL water) * (1 mol/34.0147g) = 0.007398 mol/mL
= 7.3498 mol/L
M1V1= M2V2
Volume of H2O2 needed in a 250ml Erlenmeyer flask= V1= M1V2/M1= ((7.3498 mol/L) *(0.250
L))/(11.759mol/L) = 0.156L = 156 mL
156 mL of H2O2 was added to a 250ml Erlenmeyer flask which was then filled up with distilled
water.
Calculation of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient of 150ml Flask
Area of flask,A = (pi)*(D2
)/4 +(pi)*(D)*(H)
Slope of graph= 0.0022 s-1
U= slope*C*m/A = 59.24 W/m2
K
Design of CSTR
Volume of the liquid in the tank = 500 ml
Inlet concentration of H2O2 = 6.5 mol/L
Exit concentration of H2O2 = 4.0 mol/L
Inlet concentration of KI = 0.033 mol/L
Temperature of reaction = 35o
C
Area of heat transfer, A = 0.1 m2
16.
19. Overall heat transfer coefficient, U = 280 W/m2
.K
Reaction rate constant, k0 = 3.08 x 10^8 L/mol.s
Heat of reaction, ∆Ho
= -98000 J/mol
Activation Energy, Ea = 56000 J/mol
Assuming a volumetric flow rate in for each solutions to be 5 mL/s
Residence time = Volume of liquid in tank/ Total volumetric flow rate entering = (500 mL) / (10
mL/s) = 50 s
Flow rate of H2O2 in = ( 6.5 ml/L )/ ( 5mL/s) = 1.3 mol/s
Flow rate of KI in = ( 0.033mol/L)/ (5 mL/s) = 0.0066 mol/s
Cperoxide.out = Cperoxide.in*(1-X) 4.0 mol/L = 6.4 mol/L (1-X)
Solving for X gives a fractional conversion of 0.3846
Cwater.out = Cperoxide.in * X = 6.4 mol/L * 0.3846 = 2.4614 mol/L
CKI.in = CKI.out = 0.033 mol/L
Coxygen.out = 0 mol/L
Total concentration out = 4 mol/L + 2.3614 mol/L + 0.033mol/L = 6.4971 mol/L
Flow rate of solution out = 6.4971 mol/L * Total volumetric flow rate entering = 64.971 L/s
Rate = k0 exp ( -Ea/RT) [H2O2] [I-] = (3.03 * 10^8 L/mol.s) (exp ( -(5600J/mol)/ (8.314
J/K.mol)*(308.15K))) [6.5 mol/L]*[0.033mol/L] = 7.30 * 10^6 mol/L.s
Heat generated = - V∆Ho
* rate = -(0.500L)*(-9800J/mol)*(7.30 *10^6mol/L.s)= 3.578^10 J/s
Heat removed = U * A (Ti-T) = ( 280 W/m2. K)*(0.1m^2)*(298K-308.15K) = -284.2 J/s
Heat removed – Heat Generated = - 3.587*10^10 J/s
C*m* dT/dt = -3.587*10^10 J/s
dT/dt ~ -0.022 K/s
Mass flow rate of water in cooling jacket = (-3.587*10^10 J/s) / (C * dT/dt) = (-3.587*10^10 J/s)
/ (4185.5J/kg..K)(- 0.022 K/s) = 3.9*10^8 kg/s
17.
20. Discussion and Conclusion
The graphs of temperature versus time for the decomposition experiments show a parabola
shaped curve. This is because at the beginning of the experiment, temperature rises due to the
increasing amount of heat that is released from the exothermic reaction, but as the reaction
proceeds, reactant component is used up (not including the catalyst) causing the rate of the
reaction to decrease and less heat to be released.
In the 1000ml flask, higher temperatures were achieved. This is because stirring is more
ineffective in a larger size flask due to the lower size to volume ratio. In addition, not having
proper mixing causes the temperature to not be uniform in the flask and heat to not be evenly
distributed in the flask. Thus, the plots for the decomposition of the decomposition of the
peroxide solution show fluctuating values of temperature and a trendline that does not match the
actual graph very well. Experiments in which temperatures were recorded by a LabView
program and included a stirring rod in the experimental setup, resulted in a smooth parabolic
graph. The use of a stirring rod also caused temperature rise to be lower. Proper stirring aids heat
transfer.
Lastly, the heat transfer coefficient values calculated was lower for the 1000ml flask. This met
our expectation. Values of the heat transfer coefficient depends on the mixing, thickness of the
flask and the flask’s size to volume ratio. The 1000mL flask had more ineffective mixing of
contents, thicker walls, and lower size to volume ratio.
In conclusion, it is shown from our results that the chance of a thermal runaway from occurring
is larger in bigger sized flasks. This is further proven by the last graph that plots the temperature
profiles predicted for different sized flasks. The presence of an ice bath or a cooling jacket,
proper mixing, and careful monitoring of temperature of the solution can help prevent thermal
runaway from occurring.
In designing the CSTR, the CSTR needs to be open for oxygen to escape to the atmosphere to
prevent pressure build up, as shown below. The water flowing through the cooling jacket will be
at a temperature higher than the temperature of the ice bath used in the batch reactors. This is
done to speed up the reaction and to obtain a higher conversion factor of the peroxide solution.
18.
24. Hot and Cold Water in 1000mL Beaker
Temperature Profiles Predicted for Different Sized Flasks (solved by MatLab)
22.
25. Table 1
Flask Size (mL) Heat Transfer Coefficient, U (W/m2.K)
150 59.24
1000 36.55
Reference
Clark, W., Lei, M., Kirichenko, E., Dickerson, K. and Prytko, R. (2018). [online] Journals.fcla.edu. Available
at: http://journals.fcla.edu/cee/article/viewFile/90552/86822
23.