How effective are the trays in the synthesis tower?
Thread Content
I wonder which company’s tray stacks are being used by everyone, and how is their performance? Which one has better performance? This post was last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-4-1 20:18.]
Our factory uses trays manufactured by Far East. For trays used in urine treatment towers, they generally don’t need to be replaced every few years; therefore, it’s simply impossible to compare which ones are better or worse.
According to available information, some factories have adopted the UTI thermal cycling method from the United States by installing a heat-exchanging internal component within the urea tower in order to improve the conversion rate of urea. It is unknown what the actual effects of this approach are Please have someone who is aware of the situation explain it.
Ours are 18 pieces, made in India; it’s passable. It is recommended to use those made in Europe. :) This post was last edited by Fan Zhou Wu Hu on 2009-3-30 00:34 ]
The ideal reaction in a synthesis tower is one in which the process materials flow in a piston-like manner, but it seems that few current tray designs achieve this ideal condition! This post was last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-3-30 12:41.]
Several plants use trays from different patent holders, but there are few reports of a significant increase in conversion rates; in some cases, the conversion rate even decreases after the trays are replaced.
To be honest, we used a dome-shaped tray, and the CO2 conversion rate in the urine tower did increase (by about 1–2%).
Tray trays can be roughly divided into those from abroad and those from China. Among those from abroad are Cassani’s U-shaped high-efficiency tray trays and Stamicarbon’s siphon-type tray trays; as for those from China, there are those developed by Zhejiang University of Technology and Yuandong (the specific structural details are not known). In cases where the CO2 stripping method has been successfully implemented, the conversion rate increases by roughly 1-2% ； Ammonia stripping has been less successful; in some cases there was no change, while in others the efficiency decreased before returning to its original level. It is likely that the total pressure drop across the tower was not properly controlled, and changing the tray design resulted in a shorter residence time, or perhaps ammonia stripping is not sensitive to the type of trays used. This post was last edited by cthlj2007 on 2009-4-4 00:41]
We used the Ningbo Far East dome-shaped tray, and the CO2 conversion rate in the urine tower indeed increased, reaching 67%.