Which defoamer has better performance?

I’m not sure if the original poster has resolved the above issues; if there are still problems, you can contact us: Shanghai Naiche Chemical Equipment Co., Ltd., Manager Cheng, 13816968264. We are a company that specializes in providing solutions for industrial fluid purification and separation, as well as for the treatment of industrial pollutants. The company has assembled a core team with many years of experience in technology development and application in the field of industrial separation. Through extensive and in-depth collaborations over the years with numerous renowned environmental chemistry companies around the world, and by leveraging advanced foreign technologies and proven expertise, it provides domestic industrial users, especially chemical enterprises, with the most cutting-edge fluid purification technologies and solutions for pollutants, as well as related equipment. Fiber bed demister, vane-type demister, sock-type demister

I’m not sure if the original poster has resolved the above issues; if there are still problems, you can contact us: Wuxi Tianlong Screen Co., Ltd., Manager Zhang: 051082358168 – a company specialized in the production and sale of wire mesh demisters

This post was last edited by luoli519 on 2016-5-27 at 14:41. For the demisting of air streams containing solid dust particles, high-efficiency kinetic gas-liquid separation vanes are the preferred choice; traditional fiber-based demisters that rely on mesh or filter elements for particle interception, such as screen demisters and filter element demisters, are least suitable for this purpose. The main reason is that solid particles such as dust can clog the fiber-based demisting internals, resulting in issues such as high operating pressure drops, short service life, and high operation and maintenance costs. Baffle and swirl plate demisters, although resistant to particle clogging, have low efficiency in removing foam and mist. This type of demister appeared abroad around the mid-20th century. It was developed to address the shortcomings of traditional interception-type demisters (such as mesh-type and filter-element-type fiber-based demisters), which often became clogged, had a short operational lifespan, and required frequent maintenance when dealing with air streams containing solid and liquid particles. Baffle plates, also known as Chevron plates, have a lower separation efficiency compared to screen separators. However, their advantages include resistance to clogging by solid particles, lower pressure drops, longer operational life, lower operating and maintenance costs, and no need to replace internal components. The swirl plate demister is based on the Chevron baffle; through simple modifications, it replaces the multiple momentum changes in the flow channels of the original baffle with a single large swirl, making its production and installation simpler and more convenient ； However, the separation efficiency did not improve substantially. Baffle and swirl plate demisters do not escape the control mechanism based on gravity separation; as a result, the airflow still flows vertically, with gravity acting downward to separate the gas phase. Furthermore, due to the lack of sufficiently accurate hydrodynamic separation technology models at that time, the separation techniques relied on basic empirical designs; there was a lack of adequate model data to guide the scaling up of fluid conditions, leading to continuous issues with such empirical scaling. Abroad, it is basically used only for rough separation in the flue gas lime-based desulfurization process of FGD power plants ； For applications requiring quantitative and efficient separation, baffle and swirl plate demisters are not recommended. The vane-type demister separator, which comes after the baffle plates and swirl plates, aims primarily to maintain the advantages of those plates while continuously narrowing the gap in separation efficiency compared to the barrier-type demisters. The main focus is on continuously improving the dynamics of its internal microfluidic channels, in order to achieve efficient and stable quantitative separation performance, a wider operating range, and reduced space requirements for installation. Currently, the fifth-generation technology at the highest technical level is the feather-leaf type high-efficiency gas-liquid demisting and defoaming separator. Its secondary microchannels and short-path structures force the airflow to flow horizontally; when separating and removing tiny droplets, the separated particles are quickly carried through these short-path channels, thereby separating them from the clean airflow and directing them into separate channels. This approach eliminates the reliance on gravity-based separation mechanisms in the separation process, and it no longer depends on Stokes’ laws and related formulas, which are based on gravity separation, to determine the size of particles that settle due to gravity within the airflow. For example, the liquid droplets of a certain size separated by the wire mesh demister fall back into the rising airflow. Whether these droplets can break free from the flow and settle in the liquid collection area at the bottom of the demister for final separation depends on Stokes’ law and related principles based on gravitational settling. Similarly, the liquid droplets of a certain size separated by the baffle plates and swirl plates fall back into the rising airflow. Whether these droplets of a specific size can break free from the airflow and reach the liquid collection area at the bottom of the demister also depends on Stokes’ law and related principles based on gravitational settling. Through decades of meticulous research abroad, sufficient and accurate fluid dynamics separation technology models have been developed for vane-type demisters. The separation calculation and design system platform is based on conditions that closely resemble those in actual operations, providing precise data guidance for scaling up fluid conditions; this approach overcomes the problem of empirical scaling that has long plagued screen-type, baffle-type, and swirl plate-type demisters. It is also worth mentioning that in traditional cellular barrier-type demisting separation, the size of the cells formed by the \"bridging\" of fiber filaments follows a high-degree Gaussian distribution. While small droplets are blocked and separated by the fine fibers as they pass through these small cells, larger droplets are able to pass through the larger-sized cells and escape ； Therefore, traditional screen-type demister separators are unable to achieve specified, efficient, and quantitative separation of liquid bubbles of a given size. The feather-leaf type high-efficiency gas-liquid demisting and defoaming separator has surpassed traditional mesh-type demisters in terms of quantitative separation efficiency and operational flexibility. Therefore, efficient vane-type demisters, such as high-efficiency air-liquid demisting and defogging separators with vanes, are fundamentally different from baffle demisters and swirl plate demisters. For more technical information on dynamically efficient separators such as the feather-leaf type high-efficiency gas-liquid demisting and defoaming separator, as well as the multi-factor swirl parent-child separator, please visit the HaiChuan Chemical Industry Forum using the direct link http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1354813-1-1.html for further details. I hope that by sharing my experience from years of using computational design platforms for efficient gas-liquid, gas-solid, gas-liquid-solid, gas-liquid-liquid, and liquid-liquid separation technologies and equipment, both domestically and internationally, this post can be helpful to the original poster.

Don’t you have a demister on your cyclone plate tower?

No, so the airflow speed is high, making it difficult to achieve proper control; the old equipment has some issues

There should be a demisting plate on top of the cyclone tower

There is no design; do you have blueprints or a website with details?