Distillation Lab 2B – CE20236

Sophia Eng
Results and Calculations

A calibration curve was plotted using the mol % of ethanol values given in Table 2 on the x axis, and
the refractive index data collected on the y axis. This is shown in Figure 1.

1.3800
Refractive Index

1.3700 y = 0.0007x + 1.3379

1.3600
1.3500
1.3400
1.3300
0 10 20 30 40 50
mol % of ethanol

Figure 1 – Graph of refractive index plotted against mol % of ethanol to produce a calibration curve

The mole fractions of the top and bottom products were found from the equation of the line of best
fit for the graph in Figure 1 and the average of the refractive index values taken. An example
calculation of the mol fraction of ethanol in the distillate when the refractive index is 1.3642 is
shown. An example calculation of the mol fraction of water is shown.
1.3642 − 1.3379
÷ 100 = 0.3757
0.0007
1.3642 − 1.3379
1− ÷ 100 = 0.6486
0.0007
The same was done to calculate the mol fractions in the bottom product. The rest of the mole
fraction values were calculated and are displayed in Table 2.
Table 1 – Table giving the liquid composition of each component in the distillate and bottoms product

Liquid mol Liquid mol Liquid mol fraction Liquid mol

fraction of fraction of water of ethanol in fraction of
Refractive ethanol in in distillate (xB d) bottoms product water in
Refractive Index distillate (xA d) (xA b) bottoms
Index Top Bottom product (xB b)
1.3642 1.3625 0.37571429 0.62428571 0.35142857 0.64857143
1.3641 1.3623 0.37428571 0.62571429 0.34857143 0.65142857
1.3642 1.3624 0.37571429 0.62428571 0.35 0.65
1.3638 1.3618 0.37 0.63 0.34142857 0.65857143
1.3636 1.3613 0.36714286 0.63285714 0.33428571 0.66571429

The vapor mol fraction was found using the liquid mol fraction data and the graph in Figure 2. The
ethanol vapour mol fraction for water was found using the following equation for a binary mixture.

𝑦𝐴 + 𝑦𝐵 = 1
An example calculation is shown for when the ethanol mol fraction in vapour is 0.2.

1 − 0.61 = 0.39
 The other mol fractions were calculated and are displayed in Table 3.
Table 2 – Vapour composition of each component in the distillate and bottoms product according to VLE data

Vapour mol fraction Vapour mol fraction of Vapour mol fraction of Vapour mol fraction of
of ethanol in water in distillate (yB ethanol in bottoms water in bottoms product
distillate (yA d) d) product (yA b) (yB b)
0.61 0.39 0.71 0.29
0.607 0.393 0.707 0.293
0.605 0.395 0.703 0.297
0.6 0.4 0.7 0.3
0.59 0.41 0.69 0.31

The theoretical number of plates was found first by finding the K values of ethanol and water from
the values in Tables 2 and 3, working out the relative volatilities of the distillate and bottoms
product, and finding the average relative volatility. These values, as well as liquid mol fraction values
from Table 2 were then substituted into the Fenske equation. An example of how this was done for a
heating value power of 0.6 is shown in the Appendix, Example Calculation 1. Ideal components were
assumed.
Table 3 – Boil-up rate, Mol fraction of top and bottom products, theoretical number of plates and column efficiencies and
their corresponding heating power

Heating Boil-up Mol fraction Mol frac of Theoretical Column

Power (kPa) rate RI of top bottoms product minimum number Efficiency
RI Top Bottom product of plates
0.6 0.463 1.3642 1.3625 0.37571429 0.64857143 -0.9147574 11.434468
0.7 0.641 1.3641 1.3623 0.37428571 0.65142857 -0.9091973 11.364966
0.8 0.713 1.3642 1.3624 0.37571429 0.65 -0.907851 11.348137
0.9 0.907 1.3638 1.3618 0.37 0.65857143 -0.8978525 11.223157
1 1.13 1.3636 1.3613 0.36714286 0.66571429 -0.8795626 10.994533

A log-log plot of pressure drops as a function of boil-up rate was also graphed, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 1 – log-log plot of pressure drops as a function of boil-up rate

Discussion

The calibration curve shown in Figure 1 aligns with theory, because as the mol% of ethanol
increases, the refractive index value should increase towards the 100% ethanol refractive index
value. However, the linear line of best fit is not the ideal way of finding the ethanol mol% values.
However, this was the most effective estimation to find the equation of the line and therefore the
mol% values. MATLAB could have potentially been used to find the equation of the curve. Because
of this error, all the calculations following are slightly inaccurate which may be a contributing reason
why the number of plates is negative which is not physically possible. Another reason why
impossible answers were produced for the minimum number of plates is because the data taken was
incorrect. According to Nowakowska, the refractive index of 96.33% ethanol at 25˚C is 1.36083
(Nowakowska, 1939). This is greater than the refractive index value for water, 1.333 (Editors of
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). As seen in Table 2, all the refractive index values taken during the
experiment are not possible because the values should be somewhere between the values 1.333
and 1.36083. It is not very likely for the distillation column to achieve a distillate with a 96.33%
purity of ethanol. Moreover, the mol fractions of ethanol that have been calculated are much lower
than 96.33% which can also be seen in Table 2.

The factors which affect the pressure drop are column diameter, the vapour static head, the column
pressure, liquid distributor placement and ‘vapour and liquid loads’ (Cai & Resetarits, 2011). Cai and
Resetarits go into detail especially about how the liquid distributor placement affects the vapour
velocity which affects the pressure drop. Vapour velocity is also known as the boil-up rate.
Theoretically and according to this literature, the higher the boil-up rate, the higher the pressure
drop will be. The results agree with this literature, as seen in Figure 3, the pressure drop increases at
an exponential rate when the boil up rate is also increased exponentially. The liquid mol fraction
values, and the relative volatility of ethanol and water are factors which affect the minimum number
of plates, which affects the efficiency of the column. The efficiencies of the column do not agree
with literature because the numbers of theoretical plates are not physically possible. The minimum
number of plates must be a positive number.

When comparing the liquid and vapour mol fraction values in Tables 2 and 3 to the VLE diagram
shown in Figure 2 in the Appendix, one can conclude that there is a mistake in the data. The values
of both liquid and vapour mol fractions are so close together that a McCabe Thiele diagram would be
impossible to draw, which explains why the minimum number of stages is an impossible number (-
0.9…) .

References
Anon., n.d. Density of Ethanol. [Online]
Available at: https://sciencestruck.com/density-of-ethanol
[Accessed 9 February 2022].

Cai, T. & Resetarits, M., 2011. Pressure Drop Measurements on Distillation Columns. Chinese Journal
of Chemical Engineering, 19(5).

Dortmund Data Bank, 1942. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium Data, s.l.: s.n.

Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019. refractive index, s.l.: s.n.

Engineering Toolbox, 2003. Water - Density, Specific Weight, and Thermal Expansion Coefficients.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html
[Accessed 9 February 2022].

Nowakowska, J., 1939. The Refractive Indices of Ethyl Alcohol and Water Mixtures, s.l.: s.n.
Appendix

Figure 2 – Vapour liquid equilibrium for ethanol and water (Dortmund Data Bank, 1942)

Example Calculation 1

Using the values from Tables 2 and 3, K values can be found using the following equation.
𝑦𝐴
𝐾𝐴 =
𝑥𝐴
This was carried out for both ethanol and water for the distillate and bottom product.
0.61
𝐾𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙,𝑑 = = 1.6235741
0.37571429
0.39
𝐾𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑑 = = 0.624714
0.62428571
0.71
𝐾𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙,𝑏 = = 0.624714
0.35142857
0.29
𝐾𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑏 = = 0.4471366
0.64857143
From these K values the alpha value was calculated for the distillate and the bottom product. Using
the following equation
𝐾𝐴
𝛼𝐴𝐵 =
𝐾𝐵
1.6235741
𝛼𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙,𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑑 = = 2.59890815
0.624714

0.624714
𝛼𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙,𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑏 = = 4.5183628
0.4471366
The average alpha value was then found using the following equation.

𝛼𝐴𝐵,𝑎𝑣𝑒 = √𝛼𝐴𝐵,𝑑 × 𝛼𝐴𝐵,𝑏

 𝛼𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑙,𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑎𝑣𝑒 = √2.59890815 × 4.5183628 = 3.4267783

Then the minimum number of plates was found by the Fenske equation. The values from Tables 2
and 4 were substituted into this equation.
𝑥 𝑥
(log (( 𝐴 ) ( 𝐵 ) ))
𝑥𝐵 𝑑 𝑥𝐴 𝑏
𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 1 =
log(𝛼𝐴𝐵,𝑎𝑣𝑒 )
0.37571429 0.64857143
(log (( ) ( ) ))
0.62428571 𝑑 0.35142857 𝑏
𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑛 = − 1 = −0.9147574
log(3.4267783)
From this value of plates, the efficiency of the column was found using the following equation.
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
𝐸= × 100
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
Hence the calculation carries on for an efficiency of -11.43.
0.9147574
𝐸= × 100 = 11.434468
8
This was carried out for each heating power value, and the results are shown in Table 4.