Feeding reactant into side to keep concentration high

  • Thread starter Thread starter gfd43tg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Concentration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the optimization of selectivity in a chemical reaction involving two competing reactions, focusing on the implications of feeding reactants into a side stream of a plug flow reactor (PFR). Participants explore the effects of concentration on reaction rates and the potential benefits or drawbacks of introducing reactants at different points in the reactor system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a system with two competing reactions and expresses confusion about the benefits of side feeding reactants into a PFR, questioning how this could keep concentrations high.
  • Another participant explains that when streams are mixed, the overall concentration becomes a weighted average, suggesting that the individual concentrations of the streams do not remain intact after mixing.
  • A participant uses an analogy of red dye in water to illustrate their understanding of concentration, questioning the logic behind the mixing explanation.
  • Further clarification is provided, indicating that reactions do not occur until the streams enter the reactor, and suggesting that pre-treatment of the side stream could be necessary for effective reaction.
  • Participants discuss the potential advantages of introducing a high concentration stream into the reactor, despite the shorter residence time of that stream, and consider the need for numerical analysis to evaluate its effectiveness.
  • There is a suggestion that modeling could help clarify the implications of the side feeding strategy on reaction rates and concentrations within the reactor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the implications of side feeding reactants, with some confusion about the mixing process and its effects on concentration. There is no consensus on the best approach, and multiple viewpoints on the effectiveness of side feeding remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the assumptions underlying the reaction process, such as the timing of reactions and the effects of residence time, are not fully addressed in the initial explanation. This highlights potential limitations in the discussion.

gfd43tg
Gold Member
Messages
949
Reaction score
48
Hello, I am studying the maximizing of selectivity of a particular product with two competing reactions

##A \xrightarrow {k_{D}} D##, ##r_{D} = k_{D}C_{A}^{\alpha_{1}}##
##A \xrightarrow {k_{U}} U##, ##r_{U} = k_{U}C_{A}^{\alpha_{2}}##

where D is the desirable species, and U is the undesirable species. The selectivity is ##S_{DU} = \frac {k_{D}}{K_{U}}C_{A}^{a}##, where ##a = \alpha_{1} - \alpha_{2}##. In this case, ##a > 0##, so to maximize selectivity, I wish to run at a high concentration.

Now I was reading a section about feeding into the side. I am confused about their explanation for why it is not beneficial to feed through the side. It seems like injecting high concentration into the reacting mixture will keep the concentration higher throughout the PFR. How is stream 2 diluted, as it is just be separated from stream 1 and fed into the side. Just separating a stream won't dilute it.
 

Attachments

  • sidefeed.jpg
    sidefeed.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 530
  • sidefeed2.jpg
    sidefeed2.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 528
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
When streams 1 and 2 are intimately mixed at the cross section where stream 2 is introduced, the concentration of the new overall stream will be a weighted average of the concentrations of streams 1 and 2. Streams 1 and 2 do not maintain their individual integritiesbeyond the location at which stream 2 is introduced.

Chet
 
That is confusing me. Isn't stream 2 just being siphoned off a stream 1? I mean, it's like saying having red dye mixed in a cup of water. If I take half the water and pour it into a new cup, they both have the same concentration of red dye, no?
 
Maylis said:
That is confusing me. Isn't stream 2 just being siphoned off a stream 1? I mean, it's like saying having red dye mixed in a cup of water. If I take half the water and pour it into a new cup, they both have the same concentration of red dye, no?
I think I'm beginning to get the idea of what you are saying. The way they are describing this system is that reaction can not take place until a stream "officially" enters the reactor. Before streams 1 and 2 enter the reactor, no reaction is occurring. They failed to mention that in their underlying assumptions.

But, once a fluid parcel is "officially" inside the reactor, the reaction can proceed according to the prescribed rate law. How something like this could be done in practice would be to introduce catalyst just before the stream enters the reactor, or heat the stream up to reaction temperature just before it enters. More typically, the residence time in the inlet piping to the reactor is much shorter than the residence time in the reactor, so that the amount of reaction taking place in the inlet piping (including the distribution manifold for stream 2 is negligible.

Chet
 
Last edited:
I see, somehow I totally missed what they were trying to say. Would the concept of siphoning off reactant and feeding it alongside the reactor be helpful though? The stream that enters down the reactor will have a smaller residence time, but due to its higher concentration, it makes the reaction throughout the reactor faster. I guess it would require further numerical analysis to determine if it would be worth pursuing.
 
Maylis said:
I see, somehow I totally missed what they were trying to say. Would the concept of siphoning off reactant and feeding it alongside the reactor be helpful though? The stream that enters down the reactor will have a smaller residence time, but due to its higher concentration, it makes the reaction throughout the reactor faster. I guess it would require further numerical analysis to determine if it would be worth pursuing.
I don't exactly follow. But, if it seemed complicated to reason through, I would just do what you suggested and try some modelling calculations.

Chet
 
What I mean is this. Suppose the reaction rate increases with a higher concentration of the reactant.

If you siphon off reactant and put a parcel of fluid halfway through the PFR, the center will have a higher concentration of reactant than it would otherwise have without a side feed.

However, since the reactant was inserted halfway into the reactor, that particular parcel of fluid will have spent less time in the reactor since it was introduced halfway through.
 
Maylis said:
What I mean is this. Suppose the reaction rate increases with a higher concentration of the reactant.

If you siphon off reactant and put a parcel of fluid halfway through the PFR, the center will have a higher concentration of reactant than it would otherwise have without a side feed.

However, since the reactant was inserted halfway into the reactor, that particular parcel of fluid will have spent less time in the reactor since it was introduced halfway through.
What I would do with this situation would be to do some modeling to help me understand what's involved. I could specify the problem that I would start with, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of this learning experience.

Chet
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
40K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K