Question for help: What are the reasons for poor absorption efficiency in a falling film absorber?
Thread Content
Our facility has four first-stage falling film absorbers, four second-stage falling film absorbers, two third-stage falling film absorbers, and two alkali solution absorbers. Yet the results are still not satisfactory – the chimney continues to emit smoke. I would be extremely grateful if any experienced professionals could advise me on what might be the problem, whether it lies in the design or the installation process
The absorbent used to absorb hydrogen chloride gas is water; the circulation pumps are all 2.2 KW in capacity, and the heights of the three-stage and alkaline solution absorption towers are approximately 20 meters
It was operated in forward flow; now I plan to switch to reverse flow. I’m not sure what the effects will be. Also, hydrogen chloride gas contains other substances – could smoking be related to these?
It is recommended that you analyze the composition of the absorption solution in each absorption tower, and use pH test strips to check for white smoke in the exhaust gas. Based on your description, I don’t even know what the situation with the water is.
During the previous installation, the tower was not calibrated; I suspect there might be a flow deviation. This time it has been calibrated to operate in reverse flow, let’s see how it works
It cannot be changed to reverse flow. Check the matching degree of the duct diameters, examine the temperature of the absorbent liquid tank, and analyze the composition of the gas; what’s key is to take into account the entire process flow. The degree of compatibility between the location where the fan is installed, the diameter of the chimney, and so on.
Thank you so much. Can we add each other as friends?
Can counter-current operation also be used in a falling film absorber?
The gas flow rate, components, and components of the absorbent solution were not analyzed