10.2.5.

Contact Power Theory

A more general theory for estimating collection efciency is the contact power theory based on a series of experimental observations made by Lapple and Kamack (1955). The fundamental assumption of the theory is: When compared at the same p ower consumption, all scrubbers give substantially the same degree of collection of a given dispersed dust, regardless of the mechanism involved and regardless of whether the pressure drop is obtained by high gas ow rates or high water ow rates (Lapple and Kamack, 1955). In other words, collection efciency is a function of how much power the scrubber uses, not of how the scrubber is designed an assumption with a number of implications in the evaluation and selection of wet collectors. Once we know the amount of power needed to attain certain collection efciency, the claims about specially located nozzles, bafes, etc. can be evaluated more objectively. For example, the choice between two different scrubbers with the same power requirements may depend primarily on ease of maintenance (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-16; USEPA-84/03, p. 9-13). Semrau (1960, 1963) developed the contact power theory from the work of Lapple and Kamack (1955). This theory is empirical in approach and relates the total pressure loss (PT) of the system to the collection efciency. The total pressure loss is expressed in terms of the power expended in injecting the liquid into the scrubber, plus the power needed to move the process gas through the system (USEPA-84/03, p. 9-13): PT = PG+ PL PG =0.157p PL =0.583p t (Q L /Q G ) ) where PT = total contacting power (total pressure loss), kilowatt hours per 100 m3 (horsepower per 1000 acfm) PG = power input from gas stream, kilowatt hours per 100 m3 (horsepower per 1000 acfm) PL = contacting power from liquid injection, kilowatt hours per 100 m3 (horsepower per 1000 acfm)
Note: The total pressure loss PT should not be confused with penetration Pt.

The power expended in moving the gas through the system PG is expressed in terms of the scrubber pressure drop: PG =2.724 104 P, kWh/1000 m 3 (metric units) or PG 0.1575p, hp/1000 acfm (British/US customary units) where p = pressure drop, kilopascals (inches H2O) The power expended in the liquid stream PL is expressed as (10.17)

PL =0.28p (Q /Q ), kWh/1000 m3 (metric units) or PG = 0.583p L (Q L /Q G ), hp/1000 acfm (British/US customary units) where pL = liquid inlet pressure, 100 kPa (pounds per square inch) QL = liquid feed rate, cubic meters per hour (gallons per minute) QG = gas ow rate, cubic meters per hour (cubic feet per minute) The constants given in the expressions for PG and PL incorporate conversion factors to put the terms on a consistent basis. The total power can therefore be expressed as: PT = PG+ PL = 2.724 10 4 p + 0.28p L (Q L /QG ), kWh/1000 m3 (metric units) or PT =0.1575p + 0.583p L (Q L /Q G ), hp/1000 acfm (British/US customary units)

Correlate this with scrubber efciency by using the following equations: = 1 exp[f (system)](10.20) where f (system) is dened as:
T

f (system) = N t= (P )(10.21)

and where Nt = number of transfer units PT = total contacting power and = empirical constants determined from experiment and dependent on characteristics of the particles The efciency then becomes: = 1 exp[ (PT ) ] (10.22)
Note: The values of and (used in metric or British units) can be found in USEPA-84/03, p. 9-15.

Scrubber efciency is also expressed as the number of transfer units (USEPA-81/10, p. 9-17): N t = (P )= ln[l/(l )] (10.23)

where Nt = number of transfer units = fractional collection efciency and = characteristic parameters for the type of particulates collected Unlike the cut power and Johnstone theories, the contact power theory cannot predict efciency from a given particle size distribution. The contact power theory gives a relationship that is independent of the size of the scrubber. With this observation, a small pilot scrubber could rst be used to determine the pressure drop needed for the required collection efciency. The full-scale scrubber design could then be scaled up from the pilot information. Consider the following example: Example 10.4 Problem: Stack test results for a wet scrubber used to control particulate emissions from a foundry cupola reveal that the particulate emissions must be reduced by 85% to meet emission standards. If a 100-acfm pilot unit is operated with a water ow rate of 0.5 gal/min at a water pressure of 80 psi, what pressure drop (p) would be needed across a 10,000-acfm scrubber unit (USEPA84/03,p. 9-15; USEPA-81/10, p. 9-18)? Solution:
Step 1. From the table in USEPA-84/03, p. 9-15, read the and parameters for foundry cupola dust:

= 1.35 = 0.621
Step 2. Calculate the number of transfer units Nt using Equation 10.20:

= 1 exp(N t ) N t =ln[l/(l )] = ln[l/(l 0.85)] = 1.896

Step 3. Calculate the total contacting power PT using Equation 10.21:

Nt = (PT ) 1.896 =1.35 (PT )0.621 1.404 =(PT )0.621 ln 1.404 =0.621(ln PT )

0.3393 =0.621(ln PT ) 0.5464 =ln PT PT =1.73 hp/1000acfm

Step 4. Calculate the pressure drop p using Equation 10.19:

PT =0.1575p + 0.583p L (Q L /Q G ) 1.73 =0.1575p + 0.583(80)(0.5/100 p =9.5 in. H 2O